hakstooy

i know, i know...i'm quite the party pooper

i thought it made sense that hull down would be binary. thanks for the clarification steve...only why you gotta be teasing us with those cm3 tidbits...dastardly. panzer, i wonder why your test had 3/4 of the shots hitting the turret? is that a fluke percentage because of the low number of shots? is the turret just that much larger of a target? or is something else entirely causing the difference?

yeah nevermind, it is really refreshing to know that the people making the game actually care about it. so much so, in fact, that they state they will never be perfectly content with it, but continue to improve. not much out there today with that king of commitment. makes me wanna cry... and as long as they continue to make products of such quality, i'll continue recommending them to as many people as i can.

actually, thinking about it, i've had plenty instances where i had something targeting a vehicle as it tried to retreat behind cover. as soon as the center of it went behind the target was lost, even though the front half was still out in the open. in other cases its just the end situation of this. where you can obviously see part of a vehicle (or building) but not the particular part that the game needs to "lock-on." is this a shortcoming? yeah, but i don't really care, this game is badass enough, and as long as its the same way for my opponent, then it doesn't matter that much. what tantalizes me is that if these games BO and BB are this good, whats a whole new engine gonna be like?

well, you're right, it would be nice to know. and it would be nice if this is a bug that could be fixed. it does seem that this was a simplification though. it makes it easier on the programmers and gamers alike. if i'm fighting some battle i don't want to have micro-move some tank on a hill to try and keep nothing but his gun showing. if the game tells me hull-down, then i'm gonna know he's better off than if he were in the open. it just seems to make sense to me that they took the "average" hull down position and made it the across the board hull down. i imagine that hull down doesn't mean 100% hull under the hill cause many of the real world situations (unless dug-in) weren't like that. the commander had to estimate when he was in position to fire yet still being behind cover, then tell his driver to stop. it makes sense to me.

i don't think this is a bug, it sounds like there are limitations to the game engine, and its definition of hull-down is one of them. the game can't reasonably calculate every cubic inch of space and its relation to every other. if the code only has one definition of hull-down that it sees as mostly turret and a wee-spot of upper hull, then whatcha goona do ya know? and if this bothers you, then does the fact that the code only has 10 faces on a vehicle to calculate armor thickness and angle? one could argue that their shot hit the thin armor on the bottom of tiger as it crested that hill or on that higher angled plate on the right bottom quadrant of the t-34 turret (example i made up) i mean, c'mon now, there has to be generalizations. [ March 06, 2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: hakstooy ]

but to actually add to this thread... that does seem to happen, i can only guess that since there are limitations to how detailed the physical relationships can be calculated, that there is an estimation for exposure when in hull-down and so what you see when zooming down, may not be what the computer "sees".

ya gotta give it to ol' GW, he may be the most quotable prez we've had in a while...only thats not such a good thing

Steve, I think your reference to people claiming your previous post (other thread) as indication that this is a bug includes me. I tried to recant, but I had definitly put words into your mouth. Now I am gathering that you were referring to the hull-down, shooting straight into the ground issue, which isn't whats happening here. I misinterpreted, and I'll try to keep my zeal in check. Sorry for calling you out Eric when it was I who didn't look close enough. Best intentions, even with worst attention.

Heh, yeah I guess he would Neutral. Perhaps I am simply wrong in interpreting what he said, although it seems completely straightforward to me. Am I wrong here? [ March 05, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: hakstooy ]

Eric, read his post again. Even though i said this in my last post, I will say it again. when Steve says "Er...not correct..." he is referring to when someone said that the walking problem was identified by him as a bug. This is what he is referring to as "something I don't think we have ever seen before." NOT the shooting repeatedly at the same spot, which is what he acknowledges is a bug. The difference is: shooting at the same spot always short vs. walking each shot incrementally towards the target To me these seem somewhat different. As they obviously did to Steve since thats what he said. There really is no need to include snide comments, especially when you obviously didn't carefully read the referred posts.

Hey everyone, I'm going to refer to the thread in which Steve says that this is a bug, and that apparently 1.02 is related to it. go HERE , where nevermind linked on the 2nd freakin post on this thread. The thread this links to has a post by Steve in which he clearly states that this as a BUG. The topic of this thread relates to a walking in the shots gradually up a berm, which Steve said he was unaware of. This simple plodding away at the same spot he acknowledged was a known problem. I'd like to think that this should end the debate, but I doubt it will. Schoerner, you are right about not necessarily being able to shoot at what is shooting at you, but that is NOT the case in these situations. The gun is not entirely below the rise, the barrel is above it (thats how you can see it). Thus, it is very much hittable, and while very difficult to knock out, i'd think the odds of blast damage at least freaking out the crew are pretty good in 700 shots. Not to mention a building where 75% of it is clearly visible. [ March 05, 2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: hakstooy ]

sorry, i was referring to the post in the thread referred to by nevermind on page 1. the thread that steve responded in.

it seems pretty obvious from all the entries here that whats happening is the tank targeting the base of AT guns and buildings. how can anyone be arguing that this is a bug? you can ignore trajectory and crew experience if what you have is a AFV being programmed to shoot only at the portion of a gun that is obscured by cover. it seems to me that steve acknowledged that this is indeed a bug, but that the "walking" illustrated in the initial pictures was new to him. what i don't get is that if the guns are programmed to have a height for their own fire, why can't this height be used to create a target which is larger than a point? you can argue all you want about "using cover" which is indeed a good tactic, but not entirely whats happening here. this is an example of a flaw in programming that COMPLETELY eliminates the possibility for a kill, instead of merely reducing it.

yeah strontium, where can i get those mods for your terrain, those pics look gorgeous!