c3k Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Gents (and BF.C), I think I've stumbled onto the source of several different "undocumented features" and causes of player complaint. The end of a Target Line floats about 1.5 meters in the air. Why is this a problem? There a several reasons. First, let's start with the basics. We all assume that if A=B, then obviously, B=A. This is not necessarily true. (Someone else can start a thread about the 11 dimensions and the direction of time.) So, disregard the seemingly obvious that LOS is recipricol. If I can see him, he may NOT be able to see me. Case in point: I complained about seemingly incredible headshots at 170 meters against fleeting targets, showing only their heads. Now, if the LOS (used interchangably with LOF, target point, etc.) ends at 1.5 meters OVER the target, then the crest line used as cover does NOT provide that cover. It LOOKS like the target, behind a crest line, prone, is covered. If, instead, the game projects the target as being 1.5 meters in the air ABOVE the unit base icons, then the targets are VERY VISIBLE AND PRONE TO FIRE. Now, it looks like the START point of the LOS floats in the air and the END point "snaps" to an action spot, anchored on the ground. Is this really how it works? I SEE my men firing from ground level, when prone, but the Target Line (LOS) starts 1.5 meters over their heads. WHICH REPRESENTATION IS CORRECT? If the Target Line for outgoing fire STARTS 1.5 meters in the air, does INCOMING fire END 1.5 meters in the air? If so, this answers many of the oddities caused by terrain and fire interactions. It also provides a reason for what seems like unrealistic accuracy. Instead of the incredible headshot, the game may be representing a more realistic shot versus an exposed torso in sight for tens of seconds. BF.C? Anyone? 1.06, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 To add to the above, I have a solution (if I've described the issue correctly). The 1.5 meter hovering target line is a good approximation for the aimpoint of most standing, kneeling, crouching, sitting soldiers. Kneeling may be more accurately represented at 1 meter; standing could be done at 1.75 meters. Etc. 1.5 meters is a good compromise. However, PRONE men, whether targets or shooters are FAR from 1.5 meters. In game, this makes a difference. My solution: for PRONE men, adjust the 1.5 meter "compromise" height to something closer to the ground. .1 meter? Can this be done? I have no clue. If it can be done, how hard is it? I have even less of a clue. BF.C? Anyone? 1.06, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 Bump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 28, 2007 Author Share Posted December 28, 2007 Is it poor form to always self-bump? 1.06, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Here's a bump for ya...merry xmas (late) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Card Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Originally posted by c3k: Is it poor form to always self-bump?Self-bumping is fine when practiced in moderation. When you start growing hair on your palms, you'll know your sad little self-bumping habit has gone too far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 I heard it also makes you blind 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share Posted January 15, 2008 I hereby claim THIS thread was the first public mention of the shortfall of the CMx1 LOS and the the need for what is now termed "Enhanced LOS". I seek public credit for this. After the accolades pour in, I will seek some sort of wreath to be appended to my name on all forum posts. BF.C, you may send me free copies of all your games. It is enough that I serve. Regards, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Hehe... good one. Man, for all the times this was bumped I never saw it. Funny how that happens sometimes. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 Steve, Yeah, kind of funny. My post above yours is obviously tongue-in-cheek, but I tried to make a point with it. Couple that with your post, above, about missing it and I have to bring up another point: The many calls to create a bug/problem forum would have enabled my initial post to be brought to your attention sooner. Okay, that assumes several things. First, any bug forum would have to be heavily moderated to assure the signal to noise ratio stays high. That would take the commitment of several individuals. The next assumption would be that my original post, above, would've resulted in someone at BF.C recognizing the issue I raised and how it interacted with the game. Again, that would take time away from performing other actions. Regardless, I do think that you, BF.C, would be well served by creating a separate forum for bugs. The amount of customer support you have is ridiculous. Use it. Oh, how's the wreath thing and free games box coming along? Regards, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Honestly, I saw it but didn't agree with the change in LOS height only for prone soldiers. Also, I guessed (incorrectly) that such a change was out of scope for the near future, so I decided it was best to let the thread die a quiet death. And I'm busy as hell. I shouldn't even be posting this, but I'm getting pulled out of my demo code for a useless meeting about: "why can't we include everything we want in the demo?? Wah!". They can wait a minute or two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 The effort to keep signal to noise ratio for some sort of public bug reporting system is just too much to even contemplate. As I've said every time this gets brought up, we are generally aware of more bugs than you guys are, so the benefit to us (and by extension the game development process) is very low. It's easy to point to a single example and say "see, you would have noticed this if there was a formal system" without taking into consideration that the very same issue might have gone unnoticed because the signal:noise ratio being highly unfavorable. So, as I've said before... there will be no formal bug reporting system for the public. It's just not worth the effort in practice, though I do admit that in theory it sounds attractive. Steve 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.