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

[The Tanklord]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

One exciting aspect seems to be, that it's not just programming spaghetti-code with dry algorithms and calling subroutines, but it's about modelling the real world into classes and objects (you create indeed the object "tank", or "soldier"). Then you give the objects attributes and capabilities, they send messages, do something and receive messages from other objects.

And if you need a more specified object, they can inherit their capabilities.

...

I really dont see anything that will persuade someone who rather diggs trenches .

The "dry" algorithms are mostly the same and still needs to be implemented. And if we are talking c++ OOP with some problems of its own. Memory leaks, null pointer dereferencing, deleting objects more than once etc. I'm not saying its bad or anything, just don't really see how it is a "solution" for the "rather dig trenches" crowd. (assuming they would want to program if it were more gratifying than digging trenches)

[Redwolf]

You people will love this - I hate object-oriented programming, too

[thewood]

Is that any thing like FORTRAN

[Battlefront.com]

Janster,

Wow, Elmfudd. I think he proved a point, and that you just basically got your ass handed to you.

Haha talk about bitter child.

Do you REALLY want to be here, or would you rather be uninvited to this Forum? I've warned you several times before... if you are just here to be a troll, you have no business being here. I don't know if you really are a 12 year old, but you are certainly postingly like a badly behaved one. If I see you do another "drive by slam" like this again, you're out of here. Get it?

Steve

[Zepheris]

well as it is the problem does show up even with move or slow even... i noticed this from mission1 of the campaign, where my abrams do the circle dance of death while showing the T-72s it's ass so it can get knocked out...

hopefully 1.03 helps in regard of this and with the unit response TacAI, if i get those 2 i think i can finally enjoy the game.

[Battlefront.com]

We definitely nabbed the major cause of the "overshoot" problem. However, it is entirely possible that there is some other reason for the behavior that we haven't yet identified. This is the problem with having such a complex environment. There can be overlapping problems that appear as a single bug but really are several. We also have the opposite, too, where lots of apparently differnet bugs are because of a single problem. Which is why so many people are saying that programming is a lot of fun

Steve

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

GaJ,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If not, this is what pisses me off about BFC. So slow to acknowledge supportive efforts.

I think the correct response I'm looking for here is "Dude, chill out!". When was this thread started? Less than 12 hours from the time I am typing this and 6 hours before my first response.

Steve </font>

[dischord]

***ATTN! Thread summary follows:

A)There's a path following bug in patch 1.02, at any speed setting.

Developer acknowledges the bug and mentions an improvement in movement for patch 1.03.

C)5.5 pages of whinging

--Today's summary brought to you by "DISCHORD", giving you your life back, one post at a time.

--Look for more thread summaries in pages 5 or 6 of long meandering threads

[wunwinglow]

Just wondering, what happens if you only have one end point to the move? Presumably if the ground is flat, the vehicle will follow a straight line to the endpoint, ignoring the road? Or will it follow the road because that is the smoothest ride? If there were walls or buildings intervening, so it HAD to follow the road, what would it do? It would be very handy to have a 'follow the roadway' command, and maybe 'a follow that other vehicle at 2/4/8 second interval' command as well.....

Tim

[Battlefront.com]

GreenAsJade,

Even more ironic in this case, now it emerges you are fixing it, so it must have been worthwhile.

Ah... no. We ALREADY fixed it before Redwolf even started this thread. That's why my first two responses were brief. I didn't even read the whole thing until later just to make sure I didn't miss. We didn't, so pardon me for not stroking Redwolf's ego for your benefit.

So I'll say again... what the heck is your problem? Dog run over by the milkman or somefink?

Steve

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

I'm sorry, but that doesn't address the issue.

It's not THE issue...it's YOUR issue. The issue for most people is the bug being fixed. Surely time is better spent on that.

[easytarget]

you know what i like about the quote feature, everyone around here uses it to pick some piece of what someone wrote and then respond to it, usually missing or ignoring the general point of the post they are responding to

it's nothing more than the forum equivalent of a straw man

[GreenAsJade]

Yes, it was the issue *I* was raising, and it was THE issue that was being responded to in the post I quoted.

Sure, it's great that the bug is being fixed.

How many BFC posts did it take to acknowledge it?

I reckon time would have been better spent on one line saying "thanks for the PR, we're working on this problem"... then working on it, or others.

What did you take away from all those words about how bugs can be easier or harder than we think? Were they better use of time?

GaJ

[ August 26, 2007, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

How many BFC posts did it take to acknowledge it?

I don't really care. It's only a game. I have far more important things to get excited about - like trying to get my daughter to clear out all the soft toys she has cloaked my monitor with.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

GaJ, I get the feeling you think BFC need to explain themselves to you. This is not the case.

[Battlefront.com]

GaJ,

I'm not here to stroke people's egos and make them feel all special inside. I'm here to find out what the problems are and to get them fixed as quickly as Humanly possible. I'm sorry if that isn't good enough for you. Though why you care so bleeding much is beyond me.

Steve

[Letsbe Ave.]

Hm, Signal-to-Noise is rather worse these days.

Lots of 'sick-and-tired' people...

Reminds me of:

http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/main.html

"I certainly am not. And I'm sick-and-tired of being told that I am."

[GreenAsJade]

Funny how one person's common courtesy is another person's ego stroking?

Why do I care? Because I like the games you make and want it to do well. It's painful to think how much more productive it might be with a more courteous approach.

But given the apparent lack of like-minded people, well... I'll drop it for another year or so

------------------

Is there anyone home?

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We definitely nabbed the major cause of the "overshoot" problem.

Good news, thanks.

Has testing with this correction improved how vehicle move around in urban areas?

Could you tell us if Infantry is supposed to re-group or form up when comming to each waypoint or is it an issue that is going to be addressed somehow or another?

[Hensworth]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

But given the apparent lack of like-minded people, well... I'll drop it for another year or so

The like minded people will know it's pointless to comment.

However, if I had to give out experience points to BFC, I'd add them to the big 'software development' pile and expect no miracles in terms of 'diplomacy'.

[Huntarr]

I totally blame CMSF's pathfinding for this! :mad: (oh and RT, never would happen in WEGO)

Charles no more nutrients for your jar!

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

It's painful to think how much more productive it might be with a more courteous approach.

But given the apparent lack of like-minded people, well... I'll drop it for another year or so

One man’s meat is another man’s poison.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002747

[Battlefront.com]

GaJ,

But given the apparent lack of like-minded people, well... I'll drop it for another year or so

I've marked it in my calendar

Dirtweasel,

Has testing with this correction improved how vehicle move around in urban areas?

Yes, though I think mostly because of a different bug that was fixed. This affected both infantry and vehicles, but was a LOT more noticalbe for vehicles. It had something to do with the pathing thinking some terrain was impassible due to some incorrect overlaps in coded footprints.

Could you tell us if Infantry is supposed to re-group or form up when comming to each waypoint or is it an issue that is going to be addressed somehow or another?

Unfortunately, I don't think this will change much in the near future. I WANT it to change to some degree, but the coding required to get an overall better behavior isn't quick or easy. Meaning, the way it works now is deliberate and preferable to simply removing the current behavior.

Having said that, you guys should find that you need less waypoints than you did in v1.02 and earlier. What I mean by this is that the best work around for several bugs now fixed was to use more waypoints. Now with many problems resolved you will find that you don't need as many waypoints to get units to do what you expect them to. This is particularly important for foot units because you don't have the "regroup" issue as often.

Steve

[Becket]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

It's painful to think how much more productive it might be with a more courteous approach.

Indeed. When I read the original post from Redwolf, the first thought I had was that the thread would have been so much more productive - and less flamey overall - if it hadn't been inspired by a Sisyphean desire to win an internet argument and score some e-cred.

[thewood]

e_cred? Why is this the first I've heard of it. Do I have some? Can I get some? Do I have to complain to get some or is being a sycophant enough?