Madmatt Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Guys, back in March I had Charles and the rest of the team look at some of the sample files sent in and Charles, in a very unlike Charles fashion, replied with this lengthy description of what is going on. It was meant to have been posted to the forum but just overlooked. >>> Judging from the scenarios included, the "really inaccurate artillery bug" is NOT a bug. In these scenarios the FO is aiming artillery at a spot in his LOS - but only barely. The trouble is that he's aiming his line of sight down the tiniest sliver of a visible "arc" that you could imagine: thick woods block all sight immediately to either side of this "sliver". It's as though he's looking down a very long, thin corridor. In other words, he can see the exact spot he's targeting, but he can't see 5m to the left of it (blocked by trees) or 5m to the right (also blocked by trees). Problem: he therefore has no way to see where the spotting rounds land. THAT is why the artillery fire doesn't hit precisely where he wants it. But that's not all. What about this description of "way off", "inaccurate" artillery? The shells - fired "blind" after not having any correction since the FO could not see the spotting rounds - fell a mere 150m to the right. Folks, back in WW2, "blind" artillery that fell only 150m off target would be described as "pinpoint", the artillery commander would get the Congressional Medal of Honor, and the Russians would send out spies to steal this incredible war-winning accuracy technology. 150m from the aim point is NOT EVEN CLOSE to "way off" or "fix or do somefink", especially when the rounds were not corrected by the spotter since he couldn't see more than a tiny sliver of the area he's aiming at. If anything, CM is far too generous with artillery accuracy. If we really wanted to be hardass realistic here, I would make the artillery LESS accurate. >>>> Okay, so thats what Charles has to say about that... To put it another way, the key here is for the FO to be able to observe the spotting round. If he doesn't than we would have to assume he is trying to correct by either sound or smoke/dust plume etc... and that accounts for the continued inaccuracy of the corrections the player orders the following turns. Now, what we did also discuss is that there is a lack of feedback to the player about all this *under the hood* stuff. With the new engine we will be able to fix all that, but the current engine has some design limitations that this issue unfortunately shows off. Madmatt [ April 22, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Originally posted by wwb_99: Could be that once broken by an external factor, the targeting always stays broken. Since the presence of drift of barrages is modelled in the game to be the norm (albeit a random one) I'd expect pretty much the only way to get rid of this particular bug would be to do away with the certainty of the occurance of the drift. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Madmatt, I think there is a misunderstanding about the problem here. The problem is not that the artilly can initially fall off-target. That is documented behaviour. The problem is that adjusting it after it begins falling off-target does not fix it. The new spotting rounds during the adjustment should reinvoke the game mechanism, but apparently don't. Once it starts falling off-target, it stays that way no matter what. It is the adjustment that is broken, not the initial off-target. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted April 22, 2003 Share Posted April 22, 2003 Whoa, that's way cool. I wouldn't have imagined that FO LOS was modeled that well, and the two times I've had arty land off target were in fact times where the target point was barely in LOS or the FO lost LOS due to a building collapse. It also explains pretty well why some people have experienced it regularly while others never have, because it's strongly affected by your style of artillery usage. I'm assuming the actual sequence of events modeled looks like this: 1) Spotter calls for fire 2) When fire comes in, LOS from the FO to "drifted" impact (which may or may not be the actual landing site of the spotting round, as displayed) is measured. If no LOS, the fire is seriously off target and won't be corrected. Is that correct? I'm assuming so, because it's got to be easier than computing the effective aperture of the FO's field of view. [ April 22, 2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: demoss ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: Madmatt, I think there is a misunderstanding about the problem here. The problem is not that the artilly can initially fall off-target. That is documented behaviour. The problem is that adjusting it after it begins falling off-target does not fix it. The new spotting rounds during the adjustment should reinvoke the game mechanism, but apparently don't. Once it starts falling off-target, it stays that way no matter what. It is the adjustment that is broken, not the initial off-target. Well, it would depend on where the rounds that are originally off target are hitting. Is that location within LOS? if not, then any correction from that spot, which is not under observation, is going to be hard to accomplish since the FO cant see the actual splashes. Madmatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by Madmatt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf: Madmatt, I think there is a misunderstanding about the problem here. The problem is not that the artilly can initially fall off-target. That is documented behaviour. The problem is that adjusting it after it begins falling off-target does not fix it. The new spotting rounds during the adjustment should reinvoke the game mechanism, but apparently don't. Once it starts falling off-target, it stays that way no matter what. It is the adjustment that is broken, not the initial off-target. Well, it would depend on where the rounds that are originally off target are hitting. Is that location within LOS? if not, then any correction from that spot, which is not under observation, is going to be hard to accomplish since the FO cant see the actual splashes. Madmatt </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Redwolf, Id suggest sending Matt one or two samples from 1.03, so we can see just what is being discussed here. Dan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted April 23, 2003 Author Share Posted April 23, 2003 Redwolf, from my discussions with Matt I understand it like this: Your FO targets a location, if that location is barly visible for you FO the following *can* happen: The SPOTTING round lands where your FO cant see it, this *can* lead to the barrage not landing on target. The LOS to the target does not have to be broken for this to happen, you can have LOS to target all the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 I don't have samples from 1.03c but it doesn't appear to have changed in the patches. Panzer76, that makes sense. I was wondering about that since the only other way to temporarily break LOS would be smoke that appears after targetting and disappears before the barrage. So it is the normal spread of spotting rounds and they happen to fall bejond LOS although the target is still visible. But anyway, I think the bigger issue here is not the initial off-target barrage, but the fact that adjusting it does not change it, it continues to fall to the same off-target location, according to the reports. The game should not offer or accept the adjustment command if it doesn't do anything with the adjustment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou2000 Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 A little real world reading on the subject of WW2 arty. The section about the observer and national doctine is worth a look... WW2 Artillery Wont help in the game though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAsta_KFC Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: But anyway, I think the bigger issue here is not the initial off-target barrage, but the fact that adjusting it does not change it, it continues to fall to the same off-target location, according to the reports. Yup, that's exactly what I think it is. I've had similiar experiences with trying to readjust arty, so I decided to do a field test. I set up a medium map, small hills, had an arty spotter aiming at town which was out of LOS. The rounds landed about 200m to the right, off the map. So I tried readjusting and the arty landed on the same spot OFF THE MAP. I readjusted 5 times just to make sure, each time the initial off target barrage landed in the same spot. So wondering if the initial 'inaccuracy' was fixed, I adjusted targeting 200m to the left, and lo and behold, the arty fell on my ORIGINAL intended position, more or less. BTS, please fix this, I see great potential for gameyness here, and also extreme unrealism. Will do further tests later... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAsta_KFC Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 So to clarify, this seems to be the chain of events. 1. Initial targeting is off-target. 2. Continual readjustment on same location yields no change in rounds falling. 3. 'Moving the targeting stick' around the map gives the same angle and distance of inaccuracy, rather than a whole new set of calculations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Saunders Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by MAsta_KFC: ....had an arty spotter aiming at town which was out of LOS. The rounds landed about 200m to the right, off the map. So I tried readjusting and the arty landed on the same spot OFF THE MAP..... ...I adjusted targeting 200m to the left, and lo and behold, the arty fell on my ORIGINAL intended position, more or less....Thats just strange. Especially out of LOS. Seems to me that adjusting anywhere out of LOS would give a whole new countdown and fire mission...unaffected by the previous fire order. But then, the problem that has been complained about is IN LOS fire missions....and I think Redwolf is correct in his observations. -Sarge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by MAsta_KFC: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf: But anyway, I think the bigger issue here is not the initial off-target barrage, but the fact that adjusting it does not change it, it continues to fall to the same off-target location, according to the reports. Yup, that's exactly what I think it is. I've had similiar experiences with trying to readjust arty, so I decided to do a field test. I set up a medium map, small hills, had an arty spotter aiming at town which was out of LOS. The rounds landed about 200m to the right, off the map. So I tried readjusting and the arty landed on the same spot OFF THE MAP. I readjusted 5 times just to make sure, each time the initial off target barrage landed in the same spot. So wondering if the initial 'inaccuracy' was fixed, I adjusted targeting 200m to the left, and lo and behold, the arty fell on my ORIGINAL intended position, more or less. BTS, please fix this, I see great potential for gameyness here, and also extreme unrealism. Will do further tests later... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted April 23, 2003 Share Posted April 23, 2003 Originally posted by Madmatt: Guys, back in March I had Charles and the rest of the team look at some of the sample files sent in and Charles, in a very unlike Charles fashion, replied with this lengthy description of what is going on. It was meant to have been posted to the forum but just overlooked. >>> Judging from the scenarios included, the "really inaccurate artillery bug" is NOT a bug. In these scenarios the FO is aiming artillery at a spot in his LOS - but only barely. The trouble is that he's aiming his line of sight down the tiniest sliver of a visible "arc" that you could imagine: thick woods block all sight immediately to either side of this "sliver". It's as though he's looking down a very long, thin corridor. In other words, he can see the exact spot he's targeting, but he can't see 5m to the left of it (blocked by trees) or 5m to the right (also blocked by trees). Problem: he therefore has no way to see where the spotting rounds land. THAT is why the artillery fire doesn't hit precisely where he wants it. But that's not all. What about this description of "way off", "inaccurate" artillery? The shells - fired "blind" after not having any correction since the FO could not see the spotting rounds - fell a mere 150m to the right. Folks, back in WW2, "blind" artillery that fell only 150m off target would be described as "pinpoint", the artillery commander would get the Congressional Medal of Honor, and the Russians would send out spies to steal this incredible war-winning accuracy technology. 150m from the aim point is NOT EVEN CLOSE to "way off" or "fix or do somefink", especially when the rounds were not corrected by the spotter since he couldn't see more than a tiny sliver of the area he's aiming at. If anything, CM is far too generous with artillery accuracy. If we really wanted to be hardass realistic here, I would make the artillery LESS accurate. >>>> Okay, so thats what Charles has to say about that... To put it another way, the key here is for the FO to be able to observe the spotting round. If he doesn't than we would have to assume he is trying to correct by either sound or smoke/dust plume etc... and that accounts for the continued inaccuracy of the corrections the player orders the following turns. Now, what we did also discuss is that there is a lack of feedback to the player about all this *under the hood* stuff. With the new engine we will be able to fix all that, but the current engine has some design limitations that this issue unfortunately shows off. Madmatt Wow! Never thought Arty-spotting is that well implemented! CM is always good for positive surprises. 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.