Fuerte Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 I noticed this in CMBO and now in CMBB. My tanks are able to see enemy tanks through my own tanks, and even fire through my own tanks like they were not there. Not very realistic? I saw in the CMII thread a request for dynamic LOS, maybe this is the same thing, except that not only LOS but also firing should be checked properly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 That is an old one, where have you been? :eek: Anyway, welcome back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Its kinda funny...as soon as you blow up a vehicle and it's burning, no more LOS trough it. Wouldn't that offer itself as a quick fix? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 No it woild not. As stated a few hundred times, the LOS checks are computer intensive. to track the shell of every unit, would require a super computer. Shell flight was not tracked due to the major hit the processor would take. The reason the burning vehicle stops the LOS is smoke. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 transparent smoke from all vehicles? with a boolian to say whether to render it? but i suppose that would make tanks seem as tall as the smoke plume to the AI, which would be more difficult to detect for the average player but would also doubtless result in a "fix the 40m tall tanks or sumfink" thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardcampa Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by rune: No it woild not. As stated a few hundred times, the LOS checks are computer intensive. to track the shell of every unit, would require a super computer. Shell flight was not tracked due to the major hit the processor would take. The reason the burning vehicle stops the LOS is smoke. Rune Eh? Shells not tracked? Of-course shells are tracked in CMBB/CMBO. Collision checking of vehicle models though, that may not be done. Beats me why though as collision checking on polygon levels are done in many FPS games with lots of objects. But CM still owns. [ February 14, 2003, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: hardcampa ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Wrong. The flight path of the shell is NOT tracked. Terrain is checked, but the actual flight track is not followed due to the hit the processor would take. This has been stated several times on the board. Yes, invisible smoke would block the entire height, and personally, I'd rather have the unit fire then be block sue to this invisible smoke. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardcampa Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by rune: Wrong. The flight path of the shell is NOT tracked. Terrain is checked, but the actual flight track is not followed due to the hit the processor would take. This has been stated several times on the board. Yes, invisible smoke would block the entire height, and personally, I'd rather have the unit fire then be block sue to this invisible smoke. Rune I stand corrected if that's the case Still don't see why that would take so much cpu power though as it would be like shooting a ball from the gun towards the target and do the math on that. There must be some other projectile calculations involved that are hard which I fail to see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 I'm not talking about tracking every shell, but that smoke thing could be used to block LOS trough other vehicles. Once LOS is blocked we dont have the problem of firing trough them either. Of course, it could really be a problem when tanks become 40 meters tall. But it would put so much more emphasis on combat formations and tactics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Pilot Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Isn’t there a big difference in processing power required for calculating LOS on stationary objects as compared to moving objects? Currently, a smoking vehicle never moves, so you can treat it like any other object that blocks LOS. Putting “transparent, LOS-blocking smoke” on a moving vehicle will require the processor to constantly calculate how that moving object affects LOS. Is that the problem? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mies Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Isn't the position of friendly vehicles just as relative as a patch of woods with only a couple of trees and 12 men squads where you only see 3. When I fire through my own vehicles I just imagine that it flies just past it. The whole thing is abstracted, am I right? Mies 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by rune: Wrong. The flight path of the shell is NOT tracked. Terrain is checked, but the actual flight track is not followed due to the hit the processor would take. This has been stated several times on the board. Yes, invisible smoke would block the entire height, and personally, I'd rather have the unit fire then be block sue to this invisible smoke. Rune Rune in correct THere was a GREAT thread in which Steve Posted about "Method #1 and Method #2" I cannot find the thread now. But what Rune said is correct. can anyone find that old thread in the CMBO archives about Method #1 trajectory calculation vs Method #2 calculations? Thanks -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 got it: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008989.html 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 "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).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Thanks for reposting that Tom. Reward, a evil Rune scenario will be heading your way. You may begin screaming... Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuerte Posted February 15, 2003 Author Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Ace Pilot: Isn’t there a big difference in processing power required for calculating LOS on stationary objects as compared to moving objects? Currently, a smoking vehicle never moves, so you can treat it like any other object that blocks LOS. Putting “transparent, LOS-blocking smoke” on a moving vehicle will require the processor to constantly calculate how that moving object affects LOS. Is that the problem? Currently the turn calculation takes under 10 seconds on a 1 GHz CPU (of course depends on the scenario), this seems very quick to me, and I wouldn't mind a 20 second calculation if it did this dynamic LOS. Or 30 second. Should do the building LOS correctly as well. But this affects the plotting response as well, it jumps even now, it would be much worse I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Fuerte: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ace Pilot: Isn’t there a big difference in processing power required for calculating LOS on stationary objects as compared to moving objects? Currently, a smoking vehicle never moves, so you can treat it like any other object that blocks LOS. Putting “transparent, LOS-blocking smoke” on a moving vehicle will require the processor to constantly calculate how that moving object affects LOS. Is that the problem? Currently the turn calculation takes under 10 seconds on a 1 GHz CPU (of course depends on the scenario), this seems very quick to me, and I wouldn't mind a 20 second calculation if it did this dynamic LOS. Or 30 second. Should do the building LOS correctly as well. But this affects the plotting response as well, it jumps even now, it would be much worse I guess. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.