LOS, LOF, units, and you!

[Scipio]

That all sounds nice, I hope CM2x will directly support multicore 4800mhz 64-bit CPUs, so I have at least one game that makes full use of this stuff - as soon as I have killed and robbed enough grannies to purchase it...

[dangerousdave]

This is a very interesting discussion about LOF/LOS, and I think I even understood some of it. But what really got my attention was that we are going to get both motorcycles AND the Maus???!!!

[dalem]

Hmm. A mouse on a motorcycle? I hope he can bring me the aspirin I need.

-dale

[dumrox]

sorry for the ot, but I keep thinking of this book:

[dumrox]

ack, my first ever double post, and a triple post to boot!

[dumrox]

see above

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

One of the most important shortcuts is establishing a "LOS map" of the entire battlefield which is, basically, a precomputed LOS check. Units don't scan the terrain map directly, they scan the LOS map. So it doesn't matter what is on the terrain map, it matters what is in the LOS map. Since the LOS map is precomputed, it can't possibly know about things that move around dynamically since that would require constant recomputing the LOS map data.

Questions:

</font>

• How long does it take to pre-compute that LOS map. I am asking because this process can take hours in other games!</font>
• Out of curiosity: smoke and dust are obviously dynamic objects, also. How do they fit into this scheme.</font>

Best regards,

Thomm

[Metto]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Guys... please... do us a big favor... don't try to get into Charles' jar and second guess how to code something like this.

Steve

Sorry, I had understood some things wrong. No intention to be a whiner or similar.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

will squads and MGs still be firing thru friendly units like they were air?

will there be grazing fire?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

When it comes to armour, clearly two changes will help a lot to reduce the ease of there use from CMX1.

Relative Spotting will mean that all your armour in an open field will not automatically spot any/all previously “spotted” enemy unit. Plus, in a second or third CMX2, CoPlay, live team play, will add confusion if it means we end up with different players controlling the armour and infantry units in game.

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

will there be grazing fire?

Steve already answered this. He said that Charles came up with a way to "simulate" it in CMBB and will likely do so again; I got the impression that true grazing fire would be "simulated" only (meaning, I guess, multiple attacks along certain trajectories).

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

will there be grazing fire?

Steve already answered this. He said that Charles came up with a way to "simulate" it in CMBB and will likely do so again; I got the impression that true grazing fire would be "simulated" only (meaning, I guess, multiple attacks along certain trajectories). </font>

[pamak1970]

Another thing that links the above post and previous ones ,has to do with LOF block.

Will infantry units also "block" LOF,or it is only vehicles that do so?

If infantry units do block LOF, then grazing fire can not be simulated .

On the other hand if infantry units do not block LOF then we can still shoot from behind through our friendly formations.

Unless of course there is the case where friendly infantry units do block friendly LOF but not enemy LOF

[Battlefront.com]

Remember in CMBB/AK what happens when a MG opens up on a Squad with a Squad on either side? The other Squads might hit the dirt. This is simulating grazing fire's suppression effect. And man oh man did the gamey players who used to use SMG units and the FAST order hate that

The problem with simulating true Grazing Fire is that the system would have to do LOF in a fan and do collision detecting along every point. Massive computations needed for that, especially in open terrain with a MG that can reach out hundreds of meters.

The most important aspect of a MG is suppression, not casualties. So the better we can simulate the suppressive effect of grazing fire, the more realistic MGs will be EVEN IF we can't really simulate it to the nth degree. As a reminder of what I mean, boot up CMBO and try to rush a MG over open terrain with a platoon of infantry and then try the same thing in CMBB/AK. Noticably better treatment of the MG in CMBB/AK.

Steve

[pamak1970]

The problem with simulating true Grazing Fire is that the system would have to do LOF in a fan and do collision detecting along every point. Massive computations needed for that, especially in open terrain with a MG that can reach out hundreds of meters.

I am not trying to be smart ass here since i do not know about programming.

I am just wondering why it is needed collision computations.

Since grazing fire will be against dismounted infantry moving really slow, and since the time of flight of a burst will be really short (grazing fire range up to maximum 500 meters), i would not have any problem to see just an initial calculation, ignoring any collision calculations.

If a dismounted infantry unit for example just before the start of fire is eligible to receive grazing fire, then i think that 90% of the time this will remain the same until the burst reaches the target.

Am i right?

[ September 07, 2005, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: pamak1970 ]

[pamak1970]

An additional note is that according to my understanding from what i have read until so far is that since we are already in the LOF determination phase, that means that the shooter has already established the intital position of the targets (during the LOS phase).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As a reminder of what I mean, boot up CMBO and try to rush a MG over open terrain with a platoon of infantry and then try the same thing in CMBB/AK. Noticably better treatment of the MG in CMBB/AK.

Steve

JasonC actually did a model of this IIRC using both CMBO and CMBB and the results were astonishing.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As a reminder of what I mean, boot up CMBO and try to rush a MG over open terrain with a platoon of infantry and then try the same thing in CMBB/AK. Noticably better treatment of the MG in CMBB/AK.

Steve

JasonC actually did a model of this IIRC using both CMBO and CMBB and the results were astonishing. </font>

[pamak1970]

Since i do not want to simply whine ,i have to say that the concept of relative spotting and the concept of blocking LOF -even with the limitations expressed in previous posts" are the two most important things for me

I can not comment on C&C since there are not many details revealed yet.

[tar]

I am just wondering why it is needed collision computations.

Because if you don't do collision computations, you won't know if the bullets would be blocked by terrain. It is collisions with terrain or other cover that would need to be calculated.

[pamak1970]

Originally posted by tar:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I am just wondering why it is needed collision computations.

Because if you don't do collision computations, you won't know if the bullets would be blocked by terrain. It is collisions with terrain or other cover that would need to be calculated. </font>

[Thomm]

Originally posted by pamak1970:

There is just an initial check and after the departure of the bullet, it is certain that it will strike the target, even if a moving LOF obstacle ,meets the bullet on the way.

This is going to be rare and the designers feel that this "anomaly" is not going to be present often and players will hardly notice it.

I hope they will not treat guided missiles (with flying times of several seconds) the same way :eek:

Best regards,

Thomm

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i'd like better LOF modelling mostly to have friendly fire for infantry, which itself would force more realistic tactics (formations, firing sectors, fire plans...). i really dislike the ability to fire thru friendly infantry. it would be great if there were even some penalties for doing so.

i agree that CMBB MG fire suppression model is super when compared to CMBO. i'd still like MG fire to suppress even more, especially when a HMG, with tripod and all, is in a good grazing fire position and enemy is massing infantry on relatively open terrain. i don't want MG fire to cause more casualties, i want it to suppress more (in some situations).

it sounds great that MG fire supression model is improven in CMx2. i don't really care how it is done as long as it works.

it would be absolutely fantastic if CMx2 would include elements that force player to think about formations and firing sectors.

EDIT: i don't want to sound like i was whining. CMx2 sounds extremely good!

[RSColonel_131st]

Another small point of LOF/LOS and vehicles.

I understand that a continous LOS check for a moving vehicle would be processing-overkill.

But would it be perhabs possible to add disabled vehicles into the pre-computed LOS map on the fly?

That way soldiers could at least enjoy real LOS cover hide behind wrecks.

[Battlefront.com]

The reason why a fan of LOS checks is requires is because a LOS check is only valid between two points and only for a very small slice of time. So it is not possible to simulate grazing fire without doing a crudload of LOS and LOF checks within a very short space of time. There can be no assumptions. You have to check if the unit is still within LOF when you go to shoot at it. Which basically amounts to the way we have it in CMBB/AK... rapid target switching and "collateral" effects.

Not sure about making disabled (i.e. never going to move again) vehicles into the LOS map. Possibly.

MGs will be able to suppress more in CMx2. The main reason is that in CMx1 Morale and Suppression are one in the same thing. This presented a lot of problems for us in terms of getting more refined behavior out of the TacAI. If we suppressed too much the unit panicked when, we felt, it really shouldn't. Now that the two factors are separated, we can suppress the heck out of a unit without it affecting its morale at all (if we want). This opens up tons of possibilities that were simply not possible with CMx1.

As I have said for many years now... most of the complaints about CMx1's TacAI can be linked to the issues with Suppression/Morale being one factor. All the design decisions we made in CMx1, that is probably the one I regret the most. It seemed like a workable idea when we first started

Steve