Bridge Crossing Issues Revisited

[Nidan1]

I am currently playing the "Huzzah" scenario in PBEM WEGO mode.

Trying to get units, both vehicles and infantry to cross over the bridges on the map has been an exercise in frustration to say the least.

I did a search and found that this has been a known problem with various arcane solutions back to 2011. Do not see anywhere that a fix was proposed or attempted. The problem is still there, at least in my game it is.

Does anyone predict a horror show for the Market Garden Mod, which in the immortal silver screen words of Dirk Bogard (Gen. Boy Browning) is "all a question of bridges"?

[The Steppenwulf]

A recent solution for the bridge pathing problem was suggested and it might be worth checking out. Go into options and switch the ATI left click compatibility to "off".

The "on" mode was a solution to a graphic card issue in CM:SF and is now redundant.

[A Canadian Cat]

In addition the basic tips for bridges are:

- to cross set a way point on the shore at one end of the bridge and the second one at the other end of the bridge

- to go part way: don't

[Nidan1]

As I said before...Market Garden will mostly be about bridges.

If we have to do all this weird stuff to cross a bridge, how much fun is that mod going to be?

I shut off the ATI left click thingie, thanks for that tip, lets see if it makes things more user friendly.

[womble]

"Wierd stuff"? Being careful where you put your waypoints is "wierd" now?

[Pak40]

"Wierd stuff"? Being careful where you put your waypoints is "wierd" now?

He's from NY, they usually go under rivers to get to Manhattan.

[Nidan1]

Yes if you have to constantly change your map orientation, height and angle to get one halftrack across what amounts to a 50m long bridge, I consider that to be weird stuff.

It has nothing to do with "being careful where you put your waypoints" The waypoints do not behave in a normal fashion when traversing bridges. Dont take my word for it go look at some of the older posts in the Technical Support Forum. Even better load up the "huzzah" scenario and try it yourself.

Jeez man, learn to spell will ya, by God, you blokes invented the language.

[A Canadian Cat]

Well what came out recently was that only some of us with the AMD cards were experiencing the goofy way point behaviour because of that setting that @Schrullenhaft told you about here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1463852&postcount=14 (which was there to work around a bug in early AMD Open GL implementation).

I personally keep forgetting to try since I have no battles going on with bridges right now (at least running the newest patches anyway). I would love to either remember to try it out or have some one such as your self try it out and report if it works or not.

[Nidan1]

Well what came out recently was that only some of us with the AMD cards were experiencing the goofy way point behaviour because of that setting that @Schrullenhaft told you about here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1463852&postcount=14 (which was there to work around a bug in early AMD Open GL implementation).

I personally keep forgetting to try since I have no battles going on with bridges right now (at least running the newest patches anyway). I would love to either remember to try it out or have some one such as your self try it out and report if it works or not.

I dont have an AMD card, mine is an ATI Radeon card, is there a difference?. I turned off the ATI left click option as suggested, but that made no difference.

I have a halftrack right now in a game, sitting IN a bridge, and I cant get it to move for the last couple of turns. Not sure whether or not it can be seen by my opponent but its a sitting duck.

Some suggestions have worked, like changing your view aspect to a higher angle or an overhead view. The overhead view seems to work the best, but what to RT players do?, and you lose your terrain perspective from way overhead. Its just a pain in the butt.

[Nidan1]

"Wierd stuff"? Being careful where you put your waypoints is "wierd" now?

So womble, you were involved in the discussion about bridge issues back in 2011. Why are you making light of the problem now? You seem to have quite a bit of knowledge about the way bridges are created in the software based on your old posts, and you offered some ways to overcome the problem, which you called "hinky" and "glitchy" wouldn't "weird" fall into that category as well?

I'm not trying to be difficult, all I'm saying is that if this bridge crossing problem is still out there, what has BFC done to address this in a new MOD that totally focuses on bridges?

Don't you see how players might find that difficult, especially in RT mode?

[A Canadian Cat]

I dont have an AMD card, mine is an ATI Radeon card, is there a difference?. I turned off the ATI left click option as suggested, but that made no difference.

Yeah that is the card - I probably miss spoke (wrote). Bummer it did not fix things. This is something that needs following up. The last time this came up here I mistakenly thought that BFC had recognized the problem and was going to fix it. We need to make sure the right people get involved and the problem is properly reported and acknowledged.

I have a halftrack right now in a game, sitting IN a bridge, and I cant get it to move for the last couple of turns. Not sure whether or not it can be seen by my opponent but its a sitting duck.

In my experience if they get stuck they are going to stay stuck.

[womble]

So womble, you were involved in the discussion about bridge issues back in 2011. Why are you making light of the problem now? You seem to have quite a bit of knowledge about the way bridges are created in the software based on your old posts, and you offered some ways to overcome the problem, which you called "hinky" and "glitchy" wouldn't "weird" fall into that category as well?

The bridge behaviour is glitchy. "Ctrl-click (beyond the bridge), reverse viewpoint, place waypoint carefully" is hardly "wierd". Yes it took some fiddling to find a method to get around the hinky 3d volume of the bridge model, but it's a pretty simple solution to a problem that's essentially pretty easy to conceptualise.

I'm not trying to be difficult, all I'm saying is that if this bridge crossing problem is still out there, what has BFC done to address this in a new MOD that totally focuses on bridges?

I agree with that, and I've said the same thing in a post recently.

Don't you see how players might find that difficult, especially in RT mode?

I care not one jot for RT mode. And I don't see how it's difficult in WeGo.

[Michael Emrys]

Yes if you have to constantly change your map orientation, height and angle to get one halftrack across what amounts to a 50m long bridge, I consider that to be weird stuff.

But I do that frequently anyway, so doing it to cross a bridge is nothing special.

On the other hand, people from NY come with their own packages of weirdness, so YMMV.

Michael

[lordhedgwich]

The bridge behaviour is glitchy. "Ctrl-click (beyond the bridge), reverse viewpoint, place waypoint carefully" is hardly "wierd". Yes it took some fiddling to find a method to get around the hinky 3d volume of the bridge model, but it's a pretty simple solution to a problem that's essentially pretty easy to conceptualise.

I agree with that, and I've said the same thing in a post recently.

I care not one jot for RT mode. And I don't see how it's difficult in WeGo.

I personally feel like RT mode is more fun than WeGo. I can pause the game and still give orders in RT and if i make a mistake i can cancel them instantly instead of just watching a bad waypoint play out. Maybe thats fun for some ppl:p

[Nidan1]

But I do that frequently anyway, so doing it to cross a bridge is nothing special.

On the other hand, people from NY come with their own packages of weirdness, so YMMV.

Michael

For me flying over the map as if in a helicopter ruins the immersion factor.

Perhaps if you immersed yourself more, people would not complain about your "aura".

[Nidan1]

I care not one jot for RT mode. And I don't see how it's difficult in WeGo.

Try enjoying a game where one careless click causes your unit to become "part of the terrain", immovable and helpless in the face of enemy fire. To me thats not fun, regardless of what mode you play.

[Oddball_E8]

I always switch to view 8 and scroll back down with the mouse to place waypoints on and around bridges.

I've never had any problems doing it that way.

[womble]

Try enjoying a game where one careless click causes your unit to become "part of the terrain", immovable and helpless in the face of enemy fire. To me thats not fun, regardless of what mode you play.

One careless click that you don't notice, or don't bother correcting, in WeGo. You know you have to be careful round bridges, so why would you rush ahead to hit that red button? Me, I don't play that game you suggest, though I can see (but don't care) how easy it would be to do so in RT where it's more time-critical that you correct your orders if you haven't paused. The biggest issue is RT HvH. Any other mode, you've got the option of taking (and why wouldn't you?) all the time you need to perform the straightforward, reliable action sequence required to place waypoints that will traverse a bridge without issues.

Note that I'm not absolutely defending the status quo. It would be better if you could place a waypoint on a bridge and not have the vehicle stick, and better if you could place a waypoint at the far end of a bridge, looking along the bridge from the near end. It's also going to be important that bridges allow units to move under them in MG, with the potential for long approach ramps on the large bridges. But it doesn't require any wierdness to use them as-is (no more wierdness than placing a waypoint on the far side of a house), and we nearly didn't get bridges at all, AIUI, because they were proving a bear to code. I would certainly rather have the imperfection we currently have than no bridges at all.

[YankeeDog]

On the other hand, people from NY come with their own packages of weirdness, so YMMV.

Michael

OK... Youse guys wanna know how to get across a bridge NY-style, here ya go:

First, Ya gotta be meshugge ta wanna drive yer tank into The City in the first place. I dunno why the B&T crowd always wants to drive in. The subway, LIRR or PATH (for those of you poor SOBs on the wrong side of the Hudson), will get you there twice as fast, for just a few bucks. I mean, sure, some of those outer borough subway stops are a little verkakte, but it still beats the crap out of sitting in traffic on the LIE.

And whaddaya gonna do with yer tank one you got it here? Dis is a walking town. You just gonna sit in traffic with all the tour buses and taxis and look pretty? Dis is New Yawk; we don't care if you've got a King Tiger with the Porsche turret, we're not impressed. Trust me, we've seen it all before.

And yer not gonna find street parking so yer gonna have to find a garage that takes oversize vehicles, and they charge you an arm anna leg.

But anyway, explosives are strictly verboten in the Lincoln, Holland, Brooklyn/Battery and QMT tunnels. So if you just hafta to get your tank onto Manhattan, unless you wanna unload all the ammo, yer gonna have to take a bridge. Best way depends on which bridge yer taking. From NJ, take GWB lower level, stay right to get off onto Broadway as soon ya can so youse don't get stuck in traffic backin up from the Cross-Bronx. From Westchester, get on local streets and take the Broadway Bridge into Inwood, or as long as there ain't no Yanks game letting out, you can keep going down and take the Third Avenue Bridge. From Queens and Long Island, Queensboro Bridge lower level is usually best. From Brooklyn, I usually take the Brooklyn Bridge -- if you hit the bridge from the local ramps offa Jay Street, it's usually not that bad.

And always listen to 1010 WINS for traffic. I switch back and forth between 1010 WINS Traffic On the Ones, and 880 WCBS Traffic on the Eights, just in case one of them gets the report on an accident out first.

And get Ez-Pass, if you don't already have it. The cash lines at the toll boths take forever. But remember, the Ez-Pass reader probably won't work through tank armor, so you'll have to open the hatch and hold your Ez-Pass out as you pass through the toll booth. No biggie unless you're under sniper fire.

[Nidan1]

Does it depend on whether you are playing RT or WEGO?

That could make a difference especially during the Mayoral race.

[Nidan1]

and we nearly didn't get bridges at all, AIUI, because they were proving a bear to code. I would certainly rather have the imperfection we currently have than no bridges at all.

That's a telling statement. If BFC realized all the troubles they would have coding bridges into the landscape, and realized that a fix would be too difficult. Why then would they create a new Mod for the game that centers around bridges and at least enter this argument to at least reassure the loyal customers of this franchise that the bridge waypoint issues would not be a major downer in any mode of play.

To me, crossing a bridge should require the same amount of attention as crossing a field of grass. Considering the tactical implications of course, I'm talking about the actual game mechanics involved.

[womble]

That's a telling statement. If BFC realized all the troubles they would have coding bridges into the landscape, and realized that a fix would be too difficult...

...back before CMBN came out. As Steve keeps pointing out, there has to be a "cutoff" point for any release, or the money runs out and there's no release.

Why then would they create a new Mod for the game that centers around bridges and [i'm assuming there's a "not" missing here] at least enter this argument to at least reassure the loyal customers of this franchise that the bridge waypoint issues would not be a major downer in any mode of play[?]

Well, they often don't bother commenting on stuff, because they want to spend their time actually fixing things and making sure we have as much as possible by the time the "cutoff" point for the release is reached. Perhaps it's because a fair while back Steve mentioned that they'd cracked the problem, and he thinks that's enough info to keep those who care happy.

To me, crossing a bridge should require the same amount of attention as crossing a field of grass. Considering the tactical implications of course, I'm talking about the actual game mechanics involved.

That's a pretty demanding parameter. At the moment they take about the same amount of attention as exiting a building from the far side; that seems reasonable to me.

[YankeeDog]

To me, crossing a bridge should require the same amount of attention as crossing a field of grass. Considering the tactical implications of course, I'm talking about the actual game mechanics involved.

Well, I'm not sure I would go that far. I mean, think about it in real life: Even if you're not worried about getting shot at, deciding how and where you're get across a piece of complex terrain like a bridge takes more thought than just walking across a plain open field. You need to think about where the access ramp(s) are, whether to walk up the middle or stick to the sidewalk, and occasionally depending on what the bridge actually spans, you might even decide to forego walking on the span and cross under the bridge, parallel to the span.

So it's a more complex pathing situation than a plain, open field. There are more options and I would expect gameplay to resemble RL in this regard. No matter how refined the game engine gets, ordering a unit to cross a bridge will probably always be more complicated than ordering a unit to cross an open field, at least somewhat. Hard to see how it could be otherwise.

But I do agree with your essential point -- from a gameplay perspective, it's not a good thing when getting a unit to cross a bridge in a reasonable and intelligent way is counterintuitive, unpredictible, and/or requires undue micromanagement. IME, the CMx2 engine has gotten better in this area over time, but there is still certainly room for improvement.

[slysniper]

That's a telling statement. If BFC realized all the troubles they would have coding bridges into the landscape, and realized that a fix would be too difficult. Why then would they create a new Mod for the game that centers around bridges and at least enter this argument to at least reassure the loyal customers of this franchise that the bridge waypoint issues would not be a major downer in any mode of play.

To me, crossing a bridge should require the same amount of attention as crossing a field of grass. Considering the tactical implications of course, I'm talking about the actual game mechanics involved.

settle down.

Why not spend a little time and use the search tool.

Steve mentioned in a thread somewhere that bridges and how they work have been modified for this upcoming mod.

As I recall, there was some mention as to having multi lane ability also for some bridges.

So we will just have to wait and see what changes have been made.

But no matter what, you will have to learn to play with what is given.

[A Canadian Cat]

OK... Youse guys wanna know how to get across a bridge NY-style, here ya go:

First, Ya gotta be meshugge ta wanna drive yer tank into The City in the first place. I dunno why the B&T crowd always wants to drive in. The subway, LIRR or PATH (for those of you poor SOBs on the wrong side of the Hudson), will get you there twice as fast, for just a few bucks.

<snip>

Dis is a walking town. You just gonna sit in traffic with all the tour buses and taxis and look pretty? Dis is New Yawk; we don't care if you've got a King Tiger with the Porsche turret, we're not impressed. Trust me, we've seen it all before.

<snip>

LOL Brilliant