Jump to content

A pretty simple LOS/LOF debug scenario


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

Adam I think I have the way to target upper floors of the building to the right. Aim directly in between the 2 "untouchable" buildings and you will get a yellow target line. Just did it on mine and it worked.

I think I know why it wont aim at the one to the left. The one to the right you can see a sliver of the side of the building and that is where the target path needs to hit in order to get to the center of the building (Action Spot). The building to the left you can't see the side of it at all so there is no spot to aim at.

I Don't know a damn thing about code but maybe they can find a work around

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... now here is an example of how difficult it is to ID bugs like this. The problem Adam1 documented has been in CM:SF since the LOS system was implemented a couple of years ago, yet this is the first time we've seen it documented. Go figure that it is spotted hours after the release of v1.05 :D Once documented Charles could see the problem and what the fix needs to be. Heck, it was so obvious to him that he didn't even need to load up the scenario Adam1 provided. Helps that he knows how the code works tongue.gif

A fix for this will be a hack, but Charles doesn't think it will be difficult to code around. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!

Steve

P.S. Charles says that if you could offset buildings like that in CMx1 games (which you can't because the terrain was too primitive) the same problem would have occurred. So one could say that this bug is about 10 years old :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Adam1:

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

yet this is the first time we've seen it documented. Go figure that it is spotted hours after the release of v1.05 :D

Just fyi, I reported this scenario's los problems earlier in an AAR thread.

This is why a better bug reporting system might be useful. Hell, I did beta test for you guys for a number of years... </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with people reporting LOS/LOF bugs, up until this point, is that there were some more generalized bugs. So this one just found was probably mistaken for something else and not followed up. Having more testers doesn't help the fact that we only have one Charles :D

We'll never have a general public reporting system. I've said dozens of times I'd rather shove groceries in bags than have to deal with that sort of thing. You guys have no idea how difficult it is to manage testing a product, or you do and haven't made this suggestion ;) The good thing about having them reported here on the Forum is that they get a chance to be "vetted". For every one issue like this one, there are probably 1000 that are either repeats or not really bugs. We can't slave ourselves to a system that makes a haystack just so we can find a needle every so often. The vetting process allows us to wait for the needles to surface on their own.

BTW, this is how the testing team works for the most part. Someone notices something odd, a couple other people chime in, the problem gets refined or explained, then a report is made in our bug tracking system that is (usually) vetted. Other reports are made straight away because they are more obviously bugs. And the testers read the stuff going on here and transport the "cream" over to the testing area, so in large part what goes on here is incorporated into testing already.

Obviously the system we have set up is imperfect. However, all testing systems are imperfect so I'm OK with that. After more than 15 years of doing this I have a pretty good sense of how to improve or make the testing process worse. Things the way they are now are pretty good so I don't see a reason to change to something that will likely be worse.

Steve

[ December 15, 2007, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...