Here is how bad the movement code actually is, and it's not just "pathfinding"

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Out of interest, and given the absence of a "follow this road" command, what would a real fast-moving AFV have done?

Probably slowed up enough to make the corner without careening off the road, then hit the gas again, no?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

Redwolf please don't take offense. I am simply trying to give you another train of thought. With it's speed being max and it's turn being the worst. She is not going to maneuver like a F1 racer. I have said repeatedly that the TacAI and pathing and LOS are the biggest killers of this version right now, but we also have to make sure we aren't gaming our own results looking for bugs. I have been guilty of it already.

That's not the point. The point is that some people always find the next excuse, and then the next.

You see when I discussed this at armchairgeneral it went roughly like this:

</font>

• Redwolf: "Boah, that overshoot/waypoint-ignoring business really got worse in CM:SF"</font>
• Poster1: "That's just because you produce traffic jams"</font>
• Redwolf: "Nope, here's an example without other vehicles"</font>
• Poster2: "No, it didn't, it just driving around terrain obstacles"</font>
• Redwolf: "Nope, here's an example without other vehicles and no terrain".</font>
• Poster3: "Redwolf, did you test with 1.02. It is gone in 1.02".</font>
• Redwolf: "Uh? I used 1.01 but the 1.02 changelog doesn't mention anything about fixed movements. Are you sure I'm not wasting my time re-testing?"</font>
• Poster3: "Trust me, it's gone in 1.02"
  [...later...]</font>
• Redwolf: "Nope, now I wasted my time testing and there's no change in 1.02"</font>
• Poster4: "It's because you used fast movement"</font>
• Redwolf ... thinks really hard whether he fires up his Windoze box again because he knows that whatever he disproves, somebody will come up with some justification</font>

All the whole time the world outside the tunnel vision whatever-happens-to-be-in CM fans thinks we are all nuts, or at least the drivers in our vehicles are.

[ August 24, 2007, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ]

[Huntarr]

Well it seems BFC has already had the presence of mind to make sure you understand that going from FAST to SLOW is not possible. You have to take it in steps, like FAST to MOVE or QUICK to SLOW. It seems only 2 steps in either direction of speed. Just my oberservation.

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

You people look for every excuse to justify whatever behavior happens to be in the game.

Yes, it's "fast" orders.

No, the result is nowhere close to what a real fast-moving AFV would do. Which part of turning straight back to your own lines do you find realistic?

Within the limitations of the game engine, namely no curved movement orders, it is necessary to find a smoother model to handle this. Of course the resulting movement with this turns in the path won't actually be fast. But what we see here is the worst model imaginable.

The causes for the TacAI to kick-in are pretty much the same as in the old CMs. For making tight turns, you gotta use the slower commands. Simple as that.

I agree about the TacAI though, it should be better, no doubt about that.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

Well it seems BFC has already had the presence of mind to make sure you understand that going from FAST to SLOW is not possible. You have to take it in steps, like FAST to MOVE or QUICK to SLOW. It seems only 2 steps in either direction of speed. Just my oberservation.

Uh? Never heard of this and it is not how the game works. Sorry man but this is nonsense.

Sure, if I draw a bazillion slow-mode waypoints around the corner it probably gets the corner better. But then you'd also have to guess how fast the vehicle is to slow down early enough in the path. That's like trying to fly a jet plane without sitting inside and way outside of what a CM player should be loaded with.

[Bradley Dick]

Fast move does affect the movement. In effect, you were asking your vehicle to haul ass and then change directions on a dime. Try using gradual changes in direction.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwolf:

You people look for every excuse to justify whatever behavior happens to be in the game.

Yes, it's "fast" orders.

No, the result is nowhere close to what a real fast-moving AFV would do. Which part of turning straight back to your own lines do you find realistic?

Within the limitations of the game engine, namely no curved movement orders, it is necessary to find a smoother model to handle this. Of course the resulting movement with this turns in the path won't actually be fast. But what we see here is the worst model imaginable.

The causes for the TacAI to kick-in are pretty much the same as in the old CMs. For making tight turns, you gotta use the slower commands. Simple as that.

</font>

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Huntarr:

Well it seems BFC has already had the presence of mind to make sure you understand that going from FAST to SLOW is not possible. You have to take it in steps, like FAST to MOVE or QUICK to SLOW. It seems only 2 steps in either direction of speed. Just my oberservation.

Uh? Never heard of this and it is not how the game works. Sorry man but this is nonsense.

Sure, if I draw a bazillion slow-mode waypoints around the corner it probably gets the corner better. But then you'd also have to guess how fast the vehicle is to slow down early enough in the path. That's like trying to fly a jet plane without sitting inside and way outside of what a CM player should be loaded with. </font>

[flamingknives]

Perhaps there needs to be something in the code that measures change in direction and adds in waypoints for slowing down.

Redwolf, if you don't like people questioning your methodology, never become an engineer or a scientist.

[Bradley Dick]

Also, I can find you some pictures of what a Bradley would do if it was moving at full speed and attempted those turns you plotted. Let's just say that they can get sideways, completely sideways, like flipped-over-on-the-side-sideways.

[thewood]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Thank you for permission

I would hope that my comments are taken in the sprit of an active forum member encouraging constructive dialogue and discourse, but if you really want to look to me for permission as to what you should and should not do, I have to problem with that.

Voluntary subservience works for me. </font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Bradley Dick:

Also, I can find you some pictures of what a Bradley would do if it was moving at full speed and attempted those turns you plotted. Let's just say that they can get sideways, completely sideways, like flipped-over-on-the-side-sideways.

No. It would slow down before the turns, do the turn, then re-accelerate.

Which it does right now in CM:SF, BTW. It slows down just fine and to suitable levels. Except it does that after it already decided to ignore the player's path.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Bradley Dick:

Also, I can find you some pictures of what a Bradley would do if it was moving at full speed and attempted those turns you plotted. Let's just say that they can get sideways, completely sideways, like flipped-over-on-the-side-sideways.

So I, as player, have to know the maneuverability and cornering abilities of all of my AFVs, and ploy my waypoint orders accordingly?

I had assumed that FAST move for vehicles meant "get from A to B, as reasonably quickly as terrain and conditions allow", not "drive flat-out, pedal to the floor no matter how tight the turn," and that the AI could make sure that the vehicle would slow enough so didn't flip over on a tight turn, or oversteer and end up skidding out ass-end to the enemy.

I dunno. . . maybe I'm expecting too much of the AI. But I'd really rather not be concerned with such minutae while playing.

[Redwolf]

Look, guys.

The CM:SF TacAI driver is actually slowing down as if he'd would want to make that turn. In my screenshots do you think it went full speed around the corners? No, it crawled, like it should.

However, it decided to slow down to speed levels that are manageable for the turns after it has already deleted my waypoints and invoked the bad pathfinding.

Just shortcut the thing and slow down on the player's plotted path before invoking the pathfinding. Done.

[Bradley Dick]

This is where I would continue arguing, should I felt like doing so.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Huntarr:

Redwolf please don't take offense. I am simply trying to give you another train of thought. With it's speed being max and it's turn being the worst. She is not going to maneuver like a F1 racer. I have said repeatedly that the TacAI and pathing and LOS are the biggest killers of this version right now, but we also have to make sure we aren't gaming our own results looking for bugs. I have been guilty of it already.

That's not the point. The point is that some people always find the next excuse, and then the next.

You see when I discussed this at armchairgeneral it went roughly like this:

</font>

• Redwolf: "Boah, that overshoot/waypoint-ignoring business really got worse in CM:SF"</font>
• Poster1: "That's just because you produce traffic jams"</font>
• Redwolf: "Nope, here's an example without other vehicles"</font>
• Poster2: "No, it didn't, it just driving around terrain obstacles"</font>
• Redwolf: "Nope, here's an example without other vehicles and no terrain".</font>
• Poster3: "Redwolf, did you test with 1.02. It is gone in 1.02".</font>
• Redwolf: "Uh? I used 1.01 but the 1.02 changelog doesn't mention anything about fixed movements. Are you sure I'm not wasting my time re-testing"</font>
• Poster3: "Trust me, it's gone in 1.02"</font>
• Redwolf: "Nope, now I wasted my time testing and there's no change in 1.02"</font>
• Poster4: "It's because you used fast movement"</font>
• Redwolf ... thinks really hard whether he fires up his Windoze box again because he knows that whatever he disproves, somebody will come up with some justification</font>

All the whole time the world outside the tunnel vision whatever-happens-to-be-in CM fans thinks we are all nuts, or at least the drivers in our vehicles. </font>

[J Ruddy]

It can only be attributable to human error.

[Taki]

You people look for every excuse to justify whatever behavior happens to be in the game.

Thats the same feeling i get when i read through these Forums here.

Fix it BFC. Any Statement Steve? Fixed in 1.03?

[The DesertFox]

Without any doubt, this resembles my own experiences so far. There are big problems in this game including pathfinding and AI which are of urgent need to be fixed ASAP before any further potential really can come to light.

I hope the BTS guys manage to get these quirks ironed out, if not CM:FS will fade away into nirvana.

[sandy]

I never use fast - quick, hunt or move only

I get this sort of bad movement rubbish all the time.

For God's sake people, stop making excuses for an unfinished disappointment.

Who would have preordered knowing what we know now?

[The DesertFox]

Originally posted by sandy:

Who would have preordered knowing what we know now?

Nobody ?

Good lesson not to buy the cat in the bag again, as the telling goes.

This release in its present state of missing functionality definitively has done more harm than good to BTSs reputation. :shakes head:

[thewood]

Haven't you heard, Its BFC, not BTS. Some legal mumbo jumbo.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Is it still forbidden to say that if you want precision movement, go SLOW? QUICK and FAST are just bad ideas, especially during the more radical manoeuvres. A Bradley (capable of 65kph) is always going to have trouble going full throttle on a path as laid out for it by Redwolf. Ofcourse, the AI is singularly ill equipped to compensate for this, I agree. This exacerbates the resulting difficulties in CMSF out of proportion with what you'd expect to see in reality. MOVE seems a bit more problematic to me, as it sometimes does do the erratic behaviour too, on movements/speed where you wouldn't really expect it to.

So... to clarify. The path finding needs serious improvements (and will be getting some of them in 1.03) But stomping your feet in anger because your units follows silly orders in a silly way is perhaps not the best use of your time.

[The DesertFox]

Originally posted by thewood:

Haven't you heard, Its BFC, not BTS. Some legal mumbo jumbo.

I don´t care as far as they produce quality. They can call themselves whatever they want.

[thewood]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

Is it still forbidden to say that if you want precision movement, go SLOW? QUICK and FAST are just bad ideas, especially during the more radical manoeuvres. A Bradley (capable of 65kph) is always going to have trouble going full throttle on a path as laid out for it by Redwolf. Ofcourse, the AI is singularly ill equipped to compensate for this, I agree. This exacerbates the resulting difficulties in CMSF out of proportion with what you'd expect to see in reality. MOVE seems a bit more problematic to me, as it sometimes does do the erratic behaviour too, on movements/speed where you wouldn't really expect it to.

So... to clarify. The path finding needs serious improvements (and will be getting some of them in 1.03) But stomping your feet in anger because your units follows silly orders in a silly way is perhaps not the best use of your time.

The problem is few people attack what Redwolf is saying rationally. I have to do the same thing Redwolf did...I have to use extreme examples to make my point because of the defenders refuse to see it unless you clobber them over the head. A reasoned reponse like yours at least acknowledges there is an issue.

Sorry Redwolf, I didn't mean to speak for you, but I did.