[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

Originally posted by W1ll1am:

iLikeThisGame,

another way to tackle LOS tables is to store for each spot, for several directions (or pizza slices) from that spot the distance to which LOS extends in the best case.

With this, you establish whether's a likely LOS/LOF for a pair of units u1 and u2 as follows:

- los(spot(u1), dir(u2, u1)) >= dist(u1, u2) && los(spot(u2), dir(u1, u2)) >= dist(u1, u2)

If this expression returns false, you're done. Otherwise, you perform a LOS check (and take into account all dynamics such as vehicles, smoke, vegetation, posture, etc.). Total: 50x50x2 table lookups (worst-case).

The downside of such an approach (and the downside of LOS tables in general) is that it is expensive to repair these tables when obstacles (buildings, etc.) are removed.

William

ref: http://www.cgf-ai.com/slides_gdc2005.html slide 38

just a note

to make that link work the comma needs to be removed

web page in link above, its from a slide show from a video gamers conference..

[ October 08, 2007, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[My Only Somewhat Major Issue With CMSF]

The idea of more flexibility with respect to time has not gone unnoticed.

I think in this thread both Huntarr and Rune have said its being discussed.

I would suggest you could now interpret that as

Heard

Understood

AND

Acknowleged

HUA!

So I will say it again, the issue has gone up the chain of command all the way to the TOP, so therefore I would suggest an appropriate solution and response is being formulated.

(so maybe just give it some time, because what ever they decide will have to be tested to see if some beta tester or beta scenario designer (more importantly ) can break it, abuse it, or find some gamey exploit )

[All the same fundamental flaws in all their glory.]

Programers have a saying, a Creed if you will..

I think it goes something like this...

"The LAST bug will not be fixed until the LAST user is dead"

so for now CM:SF is a work in progress

the Marines Module willl improve CM:SF (probably with a new pay to play game release and a small patch to update CM:SF for free with new "marine module" fixes and updates, BUT NOT new Marine module centric units (you pay for those).

so if the core game engine is patched or upated the patch will be free, IF new units are added to the game you will pay to update the units you have available in both games (CM:SF and the Marines module)

I hope that helps

[ October 07, 2007, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Demo 1.04]

I think you can figure that there is work and testing underway for a v1.04 demo release

ETA? No idea

(within the next 30 days, probably would not get me in trouble if I made a guess like that in a public forum like this)

(I hope)

[1.04:why as much graphic loss?]

higher FPS was the goal in v1.04 for sure, sometimes you have to give something away to get something better...

(Graphics look a little worse but FPS is up)

[American infantrymen are to difficult to kill.]

18 US soldiers in Afghanistan fought for over an hour against 150 Taliban and killed over 60 and had one KIA,

Is there an AAR on the web somewhere to read about the engagement?

It sound utterly unbelieveable..

(NOT saying its not true, I am sure it is true, I would just like to read more details about the encounter/ambush).

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

I suck at math

but, this sounds good to me:

"Closing off a typical tic-tac-toe grid equals 36 independent square-corners" but only "16 shared corner points." 16+9-center equals 25 LOS checks versus 9 of the present center-point action spots. In this model, this equates to 5x the LOS checks (four corners, one center) for the price of less than 3x the "LOS computing power." Bottom-line, I have no idea if this is easily programmable but I assume that such a map-grid LOS table-check would resolve a huge number of LOS issues presently observed.... "

I like the suggestion

[Auto Vehicle Facing and Order Response Issues]

I hope this is on the priority list for v1 .05

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

Bertram

is this your explanation of current system of "Action spots"?

THe 8x8 tiles used for spotting and is this action spot map at least a part of the cause of some of the other issues we are seeing?

In the action spot is not the LOS *spotting) generalized and abstracted to a single point in the dead center of each 8x8 tile like the printed center dot in the middle of the hex in Panzer Leader/Panzerblitz map board?

IF that is the case I am wondering if that is not causeing at least some the problems we are seeing?

[A question about spotting of CMSF]

Originally posted by Chelco:

You know? One cool thing I experienced a few days ago is how info on enemy contacts is transmitted via the communication links. I had a dismounted US Cav. commander on top of a hill and his platoon waiting at the hill's base. The Cav. commander spotted all type of units, but the rest of the platoon was out of sight so when I clicked any of the troopers, no enemy icons appeared. Silly me, the commander didn't have a radio so I moved a CFV closer to him and a few seconds after the commander mounted the CFV (remember it's equipped with good comms) all the other units became aware of the enemy contacts. Extremely cool.

That is COOL!

And I have never seen it, but I have never tried to test for it or look for it either...

But I will be looking for that behaviour now!

Thanks

[Direct attack Javalin]

Which scenario and can you repeat the slow motion trick.

Can you summon it to fly flat low and slow on demand? (set up the circumstances so it can be replicated?)

[My personal Praise topic]

I think this thread should be re-named:

"My Personal Attack Thread"

So where did all the praise go?

[My personal Praise topic]

how about this...

The more time Steve and the beta testers spend dealing with this "stuff" the less time they have to work on v1.05.

Oh you say....

Are they actually working on v1.05 already? :confused:

Well what do you think?

I think that might be a higher priority and a more effective use of their time. :eek:

[Macintosh - Fusion & Bootcamp]

Can anyone here tell me how to take a screen grab (print screen) in Windows XP using the Mac keyboard on my laptop?

Thanks

[Macintosh - Fusion & Bootcamp]

" I can get it with an nVidia 8600M."

That would be a good choice.

I am running CMSF on a MacBook Pro with the nVidia card and it runs great! (2 gigs of RAM)

[My Only Somewhat Major Issue With CMSF]

rest assured, its an issue.

Some folks who design scenarios (and other folks who play them) feel that the hard limit of 2 hrs MAX time needs to be expanded to allow more flexibility in the design and playing of the scenario.

(at this time there is a 2 hr. hard limit on the longest scenario time)

[A question about spotting of CMSF]

There are three Fog of War levels the impact spotting (and the answer to your question)

Basic

Veteran

Elite

Which level of FOW are you referring to?

[All the same fundamental flaws in all their glory.]

"It's also interesting to note that only 'important' bugs end up in the database - a clear sign that the current system isn't as efficient or as useful as it could be."

Clearly, you MUST admit it must be the developer's choice to determine and establish which bugs are "important" in the data base. Remember there is only one brain in a Jar, its not like they have a huge vault somewhere full of brains in jars. (the bugs are fixed by just one person, the old fashioned way ONE AT A TIME.)

[Er... correction... one small thing]

two year old thread might be interesting to re-read

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

this may be worth looking at one more time now

[Why is the demo still version 1.2?]

in the next few days....

(!)

think about it

[All the same fundamental flaws in all their glory.]

Every developer can do things the way that works best for them, but personally I'd quit and work at my local grocery store before I went the route of having to manage a bug database that was open to the public. We've got one internally for beta testing and that's enough to manage. Important bugs mentioned here are topics of conversation amongst testers and they do get entered into the bug database if they warrant inclusion.

This may be one of the most enlightening nuggets of wisdom Steve has offered. Everyone reading should know it is absolutely, completely true.

"and they do get entered into the bug database if they warrant inclusion"

So what does that mean, it means the bug needs to be able to be replicated and it needs to be deemed an actual bug meaning the behaviour in the example is not what was meant or intended to happen in the game by the designer/developer.

You if can let them know which scenario it happened in and under which SPECIFIC circumstances, then they can test it and replicated and note for fixing.

[ October 03, 2007, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[POLL do you think 104 is MUCH better then 101]

yes

[IMACS in bootcamp need dual core fix]

bump

[Perfect turret down [bug report]]

Originally posted by thewood:

I don't dare comment with any intelligence on your specific scenario, but in tank v tank battles, you can always find situations where a tank can fire on another tanks that can't fire back. I would think that could be a real problem hiding behind a wreck and part of the tank sticking out.

just two cents.

...this was a known bug sometime ago, but it should not show up in V1.04

I thought it was fixed

[ October 03, 2007, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]