Oddball_E8 Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Last night i was playing a qb as the german defenders... i had a Jpanther hidden behind a building looking down a road... The Jpanther was firing at a HT when all of a sudden a Sherman storms out infront of my Jpanther just as it fired at the HT... teh shot went straight through the sherm and hit the HT... wouldnt that shot have f***ed up that sherm? or at least hit it... I know that tanks dont block LOS but this is ridiccolus... shooting through enemy tanks like they werent there? not very realistic... dont get me wrong... this is THE coolest and most realistic game ever made... its just that ... well i guess ive been spoiled with realism in this game, so i get annoyed when things like this happen. and, yes, i was using realistic scale... this sherm was about 3 m from my barrel and blocked the entire view... (not los) something that can be changed in a patch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 That's strange, as I've seen the exact opposite, shots that miss my target but smash others targets that get in the way or are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I can send you a PBEM movie demonstrating this very thing if you want to review it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted August 17, 2000 Author Share Posted August 17, 2000 That would be nice... just to prove myself wrong... (cos i really dont want to be right on this one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: That's strange, as I've seen the exact opposite, shots that miss my target but smash others targets that get in the way or are in the wrong place at the wrong time. I can send you a PBEM movie demonstrating this very thing if you want to review it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Elijah, what you are describing is not the same as what Oddball described. In your case, a shot missed its target, and CM decided where it would land, and if there is something there, the shot will hit it. In Oddballs case, the shot did not (necessarily) miss, it just occupied the same space as another object on its way to the spot it was going to hit. IIRC, CM does *not* consider objects as LOS blocks, shot blocks, etc. As far as the game engine is concerned, that Sherman did not exist when it came to the shot passing through it. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted August 17, 2000 Author Share Posted August 17, 2000 Damn! thats SO annoying!!! well anyway... i can always find consolidation in the fact that my Jpanther was completely brewed and noone survived... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oddball_E8: Damn! thats SO annoying!!! well anyway... i can always find consolidation in the fact that my Jpanther was completely brewed and noone survived... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't bitch. You could have missed the HT... Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Remember, the graphics are and abstraction of what the true battle (fought with deadly 1's and 0's deep in the heart of your CPU) looks like. That's why the shell looks like it traveled thru the tank. Now if you had missed, then maybe it's possible that the game engine would have decided the shell hit the Sherman. I know I've seen it where I'm shooting at a target near a building, and the miss hits the building, destroying it. The important thing is once it's determined a hit, it's a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: [bIIRC, CM does *not* consider objects as LOS blocks, shot blocks, etc. As far as the game engine is concerned, that Sherman did not exist when it came to the shot passing through it. Jeff Heidman <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, I think I have to disagree. Try this test. Move an infantry unit behind a knocked out armored vehicle. I think you'll find you can't see through it, so in this case, it does block LOS. Now, could it be that "live" vehicles don't block LOS, but dead ones do? I don't know, but I do know dead ones do. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 It is possible that your tank size is set to +3 not realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Juardis - BTS has stated that only knocked-out vehicles which are flaming block LOS. Vehicles that are abandoned or otherwise knocked-out don't. I don't remember the thread in which I saw this, but I'll try to find it, and I'll post a link if I do. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 What I hate about tank guns is that they break so easily. It seems like the guns on my Stugs break just at the sound of a .50 cal. That leaves me with an expensive battlefield taxi if the commander is dead. ------------------ Ow, my leg! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 This is the way it works: ONLY smoking and burning KO'd vehicles block LOS they don't really block line of fire, but they block Line of Sight so they provide some cover. ALL other vehicles that are not smoking and burning, Live or dead DO NOT provide any LOS or LOF Block. For that matter Pillboxes and Bunkers are treated as vehicles and also do not provide any LOS or LOF block. This is not news. Mike says: " Remember, the graphics are and abstraction of what the true battle (fought with deadly 1's and 0's deep in the heart of your CPU) looks like. That's why the shell looks like it traveled thru the tank. Now if you had missed, then maybe it's possible that the game engine would have decided the shell hit the Sherman. I know I've seen it where I'm shooting at a target near a building, and the miss hits the building, destroying it. The important thing is once it's determined a hit, it's a hit." This is also not correct. Read Steve's answer here: 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 means that the result of firing the round is determined/calculated using a straight line when there was LOS to the target, any vehicles that interceded this LOS have NO effect. SO you can shoot right through your own tanks and right through your enemies tanks. In a Column of live tanks NONE block LOS so you can target (from the front or the rear ) ANY one of them, and shoot right through the rest as though they did not exist. This is not a case of " Remember, the graphics are and abstraction of what the true battle (fought with deadly 1's and 0's deep in the heart of your CPU) looks like. That's why the shell looks like it traveled thru the tank." Its a case of the result of the shot being determined by Method 2 (see above) with a direct LOF being assumed by Method 2 at the time the shot was fired. These threads will help clear up any other confusion you have.... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008989.html 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 Any questions? -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-17-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weasel Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikeydz: Remember, the graphics are and abstraction of what the true battle (fought with deadly 1's and 0's deep in the heart of your CPU) looks like. That's why the shell looks like it traveled thru the tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I should preface this by saying that I love this game, and (as a code-jockey) deeply respect the fine work that BTA has done. With that out of the way, I am getting very tired of this excuse. "The game is perfect in every way in it's underlying model. The graphics you see merely represent that model, and are sometimes inaccurate. Therefore, anything weird you see is simply an error in representation, but the result is infallibly right!". In a word, BS. As a human who does not have access to the underlying world of mathematical purity, the graphics are my only window into the game. Therefore, thay had bloody well better be accurate. Things like the fact that tanks can shoot through the corners of buildings (as well as driving half-way into buildings); that on several occasions, looking from the locked unit view at level one over a unit's shoulder, I can clearly see an enemy unit, yet it is officially "out of LOS"; the clearly demonstrated ability of artillery to ignore intermediate terrain; and so forth: these things are bugs, dammit. If you want, you can call them limitations. But they have the same effect: I, as a human, can very, very carefully try to ensure that my tank is hidden behind that building or that my PIAT team is safe from that gun by examining the only tool available to me, the graphics, and be wrong. Because the graphics are wrong. And that's a bug. Now, the game is so fundamentally right, and these problems occur relatively rarely enough that I am more than happy to play the game and accept the occasional loss to one of these situations as a "**** happens". But this excuse of "the underlying game is perfect, and the representational graphics really don't matter" drives me utterly bat****. PS: Mikeydz, sorry to dump this on you: you are by no means the only one with this idea, just the one who posted at the wrong moment. Please don't take it personally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 Nevermind, I won't look it up. Thanks, Tom ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by weasel: I should preface this by saying that I love this game, and (as a code-jockey) deeply respect the fine work that BTA has done. But this excuse of "the underlying game is perfect, and the representational graphics really don't matter" drives me utterly bat****. PS: Mikeydz, sorry to dump this on you: you are by no means the only one with this idea, just the one who posted at the wrong moment. Please don't take it personally! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, I suggest to you that Mikeydz does not have the correct interpretation there. It is the Result of the Method 2 way of determining the outcome of the shot. (Not Method 1 which would accout for this kind of event) Read waht Steve has to say about Method 1 vs. Method 2, there is no need to dump on Mikeydz as this issue here is not in my opinion one of the "underlying game engine vs. missed grafic representation issue" it is a decision that Steve and Charles made that means the game runs faster and does not check LOS and LOF for moving vehicles that drive into the LOF between the shooter and the target. Simple and easy and fast for the CPU but not totally realistic. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 OK, as a veteran member of this board, I can explain this whole thing. First of all, when you hit "GO!" the computer calculates the turn. So what happened here is that the computer calculated the JgPanther shooting at the Halftrack, NOT a shot at the Sherman that suddenly appeared. Think of it in terms of computational chronology. The shot at the Halftrack was computed before the Sherman rolled in front of the JgPanther. The results of the shot were calculated only to affect the Halftrack and not the Sherman. Whether the shot hit or missed the halftrack is inmaterial. Now, had the shot not gone off before the Sherman rolled in the Line of Fire and the tac-AI had enough time to change targets, then the shot would have been calculated for the Sherman. Secondly, again, what you see on the screen is a mere represention of what is actually inside the game engine. Whether it be on "realistic" scale or not makes not difference. You can notice this in how units will track LOS to another target through a building when the screen clearly shows that LOS should be blocked by the building. Try this, during the movie, select a tank that is targeting something moving and the target moves behind a house or something, that target line remains for a distance through the house. You see, within the game engine that house isn't exactly where you see it on screen. So it's the same with units. The units aren't exactly where you see them. ------------------ Be sure and check out my texture mods on CMHQ. Dave "Ol' Blood & Maximus Butticus" Molinarolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weasel Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Try this, during the movie, select a tank that is targeting something moving and the target moves behind a house or something, that target line remains for a distance through the house. You see, within the game engine that house isn't exactly where you see it on screen. So it's the same with units. The units aren't exactly where you see them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which means I cannot know where that unit is in relation to that building, even with realistic unit sizes. And that is a bug, not something that should be trotted out as the universal explanation for all unusual occurrences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted August 17, 2000 Share Posted August 17, 2000 An excellent example of why being a "veteran" does not mean you are always correct. Sorry, Maximus, but I think you missed on this one. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatAWilson Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 Remember that visually troops and vehicles are a lot larger than they really are, so unless you have all of the graphics set to actual size then seeing something visually "hit" or "pass through" a target is meaningless. The actual tank is sitting somewhere inside of that big tank graphic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 what is it about extreme close range? It seems as germans, I've been able to do well when really close range, the allies get of a whole bunch of shots but they ricochet.. is there physics going on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted August 18, 2000 Author Share Posted August 18, 2000 Uuuuh... thanx guys... i guess... didnt make me feel better tho... but i sure got more than i asked for when i put this post up... I guess i should have searched (why didnt anyone flame me about that?) but i was just too lazy... I precisely understand what steve explained, so I should have just read that thread... but it was fun getting this huge response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 Well, folks can call things "BS" and "bug" all they want without reading what we have had to say, knowing anything about programming, or for that matter knowing much about anything else. When people don't know what the heck they are talking about we ignore 'em Simple fact is that CM is as realistic a simulation as today's hardware can make it. If you don't like that answer, I suggest that you go and program a monster wargame like this on your own and prove us wrong. Until then, assume we know more than you do. Anybody that is REALLY interested in this should reread the posts on this subject, especially the one Tom quoted above. There are probably a dozen other posts by us waiting for the Search feature of this BBS to bring them up. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 Well *I* think that everybody should go out right now and buy a dual-processor G4 so that Charles can write a hyper-realistic game program and we can all dwell in wargamer's paradise forever. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>- Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 What is annoying is people who think we live in a Star Trek universe. Computers only have so much horsepower man. And you start tossing lots of crazy varibles in there, it still has to be programed by a human. Its like asking for a jet car that can break the speed of sound in 1900. You gonna have to wait a little longer for humans to invent Nanotechnology, buddy. BTW I so happy I have a game that does such a great job of WW2 tatical combat. But is still a simulation. Even the US army with a 278 billion dollar budget does not have simulations that are perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted August 18, 2000 Share Posted August 18, 2000 This is not a new issue. But all new players should understand it. I completely understand (now ) exactly how and why it works. In my honest opinion I would also prefer "Method 1 -> as real as you can get! Unfortunately, it is also a CPU cruncher from Hell." BUT to be honest I have play tested VERY large scenario's on a G4 500 mHz (CM as it is currently programmed with Method 2 ) and these HUGE scenarios still take 3-5 minutes to to determine the AI move and then "crunch" (the blue line going across) the turn. I'm quite sure that the much more desirable "reality" of method 1 "as real as you can get" would take MUCH much longer and the waiting would begin to get insufferable. Really, like maybe hours for a home CPU to crunch the turn (I'm Guessing now) This game works VERY well and it is being constantly revisited and patched and tweaked and some really important problems have already been fixed. I can state catagorically that I have never received BETTER VALUE for my video game dollar than the $80.00 (CDN) that I send to Steve and Charles for this delightful game that now has me totally addicted. And after all that, the fact that Dead NON-burning, non smoking vehicles that don't move any longer (KO'd or abandoned) DON"T and can't block LOS and don't provide any cover IS still my biggest pet peeve in this game because they are no longer a dynamic varibles, but they are still vehicles and like bunkers and pillboxes (which don't and can't move) they don't offer any LOS block or ANY cover. Again, I have suggested that maybe these non-smoking dead, non moving vehicles could (the minute they are dead or abandoned) start to generate nearly transparent smoke and FAKE an LOS block. I'm still thinking there should be some programing "work around" or kludge that that would turn a non-smoking dead, non moving vehicle into something that provides cover and blocks LOS the same way that smoking ones do but without the smoke? Can't you just fake the presence of more smoke somehow? Still asking questions about this one. -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." G. S. Patton <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-18-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts