BTS - LOS error?

[Pak40]

Hi Steve,Charles and others,

I was playing one of your operations the other day when one of my Tiger tanks shot a round through another Tiger to knock out a British tank. Just so people wouldn't say I was full of bull, I captured a sequence of shots and posted them here:

http://www.members.home.net/jroland2/cmsnafu.htm

please check it out

Anyone else experience this?

[Maastrictian]

This is an acknowledged "feature." Its too hard to keep track of dynamic LOS, so dead (unmoving) vehicles block LOS but live ones do not. Only a minor problem IMO.

--Chris

[Supertanker]

Another thing BTS has told us is that the graphics really are just representational, and the true LOS is calculated within the game engine. You may see some LOS lines that look blocked, but the math shows to be clear. Also, guessing based on those shots, it looks like you have unit scale set to +2. That LOS like is pretty close to center on the other Tiger, so this may not make much difference, but have you tried reducing the scale to Realistic and checking again?

[aka_tom_w]

Live vehicles do not block LOS or LOF.

ONLY KO'd vehicles that are smoking will block LOS and LOF and provide cover.

I think its a bigger issue than most people here admit, too be sure they know about it, they programed it that way and it is a DEAD issue.

-tom w

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

ONLY KO'd vehicles that are smoking will block LOS and LOF and provide cover.

I think its a bigger issue than most people here admit<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, hope it's fixed in later CM's. Although normally not a

big problem, it becomes one when you place a big tank in front

of a convoy, and your opponent decides to rather fire through

it and kill the small ones following behind.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Pak40]

Thanks for the update guys. For some reason I hadn't seen anything about this in the discussion board.

I can't believe that dynamic LOS is too hard to keep track. Heck, they could at least abstract it and have only vehicles check dynamic LOS. It's not so important with troops, but vehicles it is.

[aka_tom_w]

Here it is..

The MotherLoad with comments by BTS .....

Read the posts closely about Method 1 vs Method 2.

This game was abstracted from ideas and tank battle simulations like in the old Avalon Hill game Tobruk.

Due to CPU limitations we are told that live AFV's cannot block LOS, this is not news.

Here are the relevant threads:

All new players to this game should read them:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004083.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004048.html

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

Thanks for the update guys. For some reason I hadn't seen anything about this in the discussion board.

I can't believe that dynamic LOS is too hard to keep track. Heck, they could at least abstract it and have only vehicles check dynamic LOS. It's not so important with troops, but vehicles it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[aka_tom_w]

The official answer from Steve:

"Big Time

Software

Moderator

posted 04-29-2000 02:17 PM

I see what Lt. Bull is asking. Easily cleared up (I hope )...

There are two ways, in theory, that we could simulate a round leaving a

gun, its eventual path, and where it lands:

1. Use a whole bunch of variables (like weapon accuracy, guner

training, suppression, etc) to determine a trajectory to the target. The

trajectory would then be "traced" and wherever the shell hit damage

would be done. If the hit whacked a vehicle then CM would go through

all the armor pentration stuff to figure out what the impact did.

2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the

shooter can, in theory, get a round from the gun to the target or it

can't. A whole bunch of constant and situationally unique variables (like

LOS quality, weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to

determine the chance of the target being hit. If it is a hit then various

equations determine where and HOW (angles) the shell strikes its

target. Then damage is calculated based on the physics for the

particular situation (HE blast near infantry, AP shot hitting sloped

armor, etc). If the round is a miss there are equations to determine

how badly the shooter missed based on several variables (i.e. a bad

unit will miss by a LOT greater margin than a good one). Then the shell

trajectory is calculated to the predetermined location (either the hit or

miss one). Colateral damage is calculated based on the detonation of

the round where it hits. Terrain is checked along a "miss" vector to see

if it strikes something along the way. Hits don't need to check because

they have already been calculated to be hits based on a clear line of

fire.

WOOOOO!! That took a little longer to explain than I thought

OK, now what are the real world difference between the two...

Method 1 -> as real as you can get! Unfortunately, it is also a CPU

cruncher from Hell. If we had one or two vehicles shooting in more

sterile conditions it wouldn't be a problem. But when you have letterally

dozens of shots being made on a somewhat average turn, this

becomes a HUGE problem.

Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method

1, but only spews out a realistic number of calculations on the CPU to

crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally strike

something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave

will explain a bit more. Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few

and far inbetween.

So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same

results, with the exception of variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well,

the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious to play

and Method 2 works just fine.

(tom w opines: I interpret this to mean that Steve is saying that CM was designed to use Method 2 to save time to process or "crunch" the result of the round being fired, hence it does not, and cannot account for live or dead vehicles which are not smoking and burning in between the shooter and the target. It should also be noted that Pillboxes and bunkers are treated as vehicles and do not offer any form of cover and do not block LOS or LOF).

When you get CM take a dozen vehicles for each side, plop them on

opposite sides of a level battlefield and see how slow the turns

calculate. Now do that until one side is wiped out and you will notice

how much faster each turn becomes with the elimination of each

vehicle. Then remember that this is using Method 2 in sterile conditions

with no blocking terrain or vehicles (especially not ones in motion!!) to

bog down the LOS calculations.

Steve

P.S. Grazing fire for MGs is in fact simulated. Charles found that the

math to simulate just this one feature wasn't too horrible for the CPU

to deal with.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited

04-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-15-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

This is Iggi's post Steve previously refered to:

The Answer to Can vehicles Block LOS is here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002266.html

Its old but it is still relevant.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-15-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Hehe, the old LOS debate. Tom, since you have done all the research on it (and since I know it is one of your favourite/only gripes), would you be interested in distilling it into a FAQ paragraph with the links and all that, and email it to Jason? Would be great if we could get this FAQ thing off the ground.

------------------

Andreas

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Hehe, the old LOS debate. Tom, since you have done all the research on it (and since I know it is one of your favourite/only gripes), would you be interested in distilling it into a FAQ paragraph with the links and all that, and email it to Jason? Would be great if we could get this FAQ thing off the ground.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure

I thought that question was one that was already covered in the FAQ, but if it is not

I will pull all this info together above.

I'm not really sure how to actually write a synopsis as it is a big issue.

But as you say, all the info to answer the question is the notes above.

-tom w