How do you calculate the LOS when a squad is not in the same 8*8m grid?

[popllt]

When running, one soldier run ahead, the other are far behind him. Now, not all the soldiers of the squad are in the same 8*8m grid. It seems that the LOS extend from a inaccurate grid.

pic:

[Flanker15]

I believe the problem is that the squads aren't supposed to split out that much, which is being fixed I think.

[popllt]

Another issue is that the terrain effect in LOS calculation is not so accurate.

According the "v1.05 NEW FEATURES": When placing a Target order, the LOS line turns yellow if it's generally clear, but not perfectly so. This means either *some* soldiers in the spotting unit may not have a clear LOS or *some* of the target zone may not be visible.

But it seems that this new feature doesn't work correctly.

For example, A squad with 3 men was in a hill terrain. I was sure that one soldier was at the reverse slop without having a clear LOS to enemy units, which I signed with red circle. If the new feature work correctly, the LOF extended from the squad to the enemy units must be yellow, but not be blue.

pic:

[ January 19, 2008, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: popllt ]

[Battlefront.com]

LOS is determined depending on which Action Spot the soldier is in because a Team can be spread out between more than one Action Spot. However, I think Flanker15 is correct to say what is shown in the first screenshot is the result of a bug that has since been fixed.

The LOS line color change is not black and white, especially with the Traditional LOS system. The Enhanced LOS system for v1.06 should make it even more accurate.

Steve

[popllt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

LOS is determined depending on which Action Spot the soldier is in because a Team can be spread out between more than one Action Spot. However, I think Flanker15 is correct to say what is shown in the first screenshot is the result of a bug that has since been fixed.

The LOS line color change is not black and white, especially with the Traditional LOS system. The Enhanced LOS system for v1.06 should make it even more accurate.

Steve

Thanks Flanker15 and Steve:)

I am curious to know how do you calculate the individual's LOS when you have got a LOS MAP basing on 8*8m Action Spot? Is the calculation for the individual's LOS still based on Action Spot?And what is the area of individual Action Spot?

popllt

[Battlefront.com]

Each Action Spot is 8m x 8m, correct. A soldier always uses the LOS information of the Action Spot he is in, regardless of where other soldiers of his unit are. So if a Team is spread out in three Action Spots, the Team has three different LOS points. The LOS is generalized for the entire 8x8 Action Spot, but LOF is specific to the soldier's actual position within the Action Spot.

Remember that a Squad consists of multiple Teams (usually 2), so it always occupies at least two Action Spots.

Steve

[popllt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Each Action Spot is 8m x 8m, correct. A soldier always uses the LOS information of the Action Spot he is in, regardless of where other soldiers of his unit are. So if a Team is spread out in three Action Spots, the Team has three different LOS points.

Thanks Steve.

This sound good! I think I nearly get it. But how do you solve the situation at which none of the soldiers in the Action Spot actually have clear LOS to enemy units, while the Action Spot they are in has LOS? Should they spot the enemy units? For example, a squad has only one soldier left. How do you calculate one soldier's LOS? Also base on 8*8m grid?

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The LOS is generalized for the entire 8x8 Action Spot, but LOF is specific to the soldier's actual position within the Action Spot.

Steve

As you have said, LOF is specific to the soldier's actual position within the Action Spot.

So even a individual soldier's actual position has a small Action Spot by which you calculate the individual soldier's LOF. what is the acreage? 2*2m or 1*1m?

popllt:)

[ January 20, 2008, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: popllt ]

[Battlefront.com]

popllt,

This sound good! I think I nearly get it. But how do you solve the situation at which none of the soldiers in the Action Spot actually have clear LOS to enemy units, while the Action Spot they are in has LOS?

There is no difference because the LOS is from Action Spot to Action Spot. This is necessary to make LOS practical on home computers. However, this doesn't mean the unit actually spots the enemy in the other Action Spot, it just means he has a chance to. And then if he actually doesn't have LOF then he can't fire.

How do you calculate one soldier's LOS? Also base on 8*8m grid?

I think you mean LOF? LOF is calculated from the exact position of the soldier on the map. Action Spots do not factor into the equation.

Spotting is calculated by the number of "eyeballs" available, which in turn means soldiers that aren't in some way inhibited (panicked, seriously wounded, etc.).

So even a individual soldier's actual position has a small Action Spot by which you calculate the individual soldier's LOF. what is the acreage? 2*2m or 1*1m?

Nope, it is calculated based on the actual point on the map. There is no smaller grid. The reason is a computer can handle trace a line between two specific locations very easily. What it can't do well is "radiate" to thousands of points at the same time. Since LOF is specifically "soldier at x1,y1 wants to shoot at soldier at x2,y2" the calculation is very easy to do exactly. But LOS is more like "a soldier at x1,y1 wants to know what he can see within the confines of a huge map". It's a totally different thing

Steve

[Zwollo2003]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

LOS is determined depending on which Action Spot the soldier is in because a Team can be spread out between more than one Action Spot.

Steve

OK, but when I want to give a targeting command, there is only one targeting line and it extends from one Action Spot, right? Regardless of how many Action Spots the unit occupies. And, unless I am much mistaken about the way the targetting works in CMSF (and I don't think I am, as all my observations support this ) the targetting line extends from Action Spot which the game considers the center of the unit. And it is the LOS/LOF traced from that place, which decides whether I am allowed to give the targetting order at all or whether I receive the "out of LOS" or "reverse slope" message.

So even if my soldiers placed in Action Spot X theoretically could see the target and fire at it, I can't order them to because my targetting line extends from Action Spot Y which does not have the LOS/LOF/whatever to the target. This is less of a problem if the soldiers in Action Spot X have spotted the target already as they can engage it on their own, but it is a problem if I want to Area Fire (which, given the spotting works in CMSF, has to be used a lot). The "spread bug" makes that particular problem much worse (obviously, if a squad is spread over half a map its "center mass" is going to be in a completely random place) but even if the bug is eliminated, the problem does not go away and comes up each time when some of the soldiers in a squad have LOS/LOF, while the "center mass" does not.

Solution? I don't know if there is one, but I think it would be much better if the targetting line was drawn not from the center of the unit, but from the foremost soldiers (farthest advanced in the direction of movement/facing). Most of the time this is the place closest to the enemy and closest to the point that the player wants the unit to be, and to fire from.

Zwolo

[LongLeftFlank]

Which would seem to me to be as it should, as the "orders" you're giving would come from the squad leader who is assumed to be in spot Y. In my experience, the other squaddies tend to make rejoining the leader in his 8x8 their first priority, even if there are other things I'd rather they do (like not getting gunned down in the open en route). But I accept the AI nightmare involved in programming this any other way. I'd just like to see the entire squad be quicker to "bug out" to a safer action spot when they come under heavy fire rather than trying to reconsolidate in the hot zone first. But let's see what 1.06 bringeth.

[Zwollo2003]

Originally posted by LongLeftFlank:

Which would seem to me to be as it should, as the "orders" you're giving would come from the squad leader who is assumed to be in spot Y.

I don't think this is the case, though. The leader does not have to be assumed to be in a spot, he can be traced exactly as he is one of identifiable soldiers in a squad. However, the targetting line seems to come out from wherever the blue/red floating icon is located rather than the leader's location.

Actually, if the rule was "targeting line starts from the leader's location" in great many cases it would have the same effect as the rule I was advocating in the other post - "targetting line starts from the location of the foremost soldier" - as the leader is very often the first soldier to move.

Zwolo

[popllt]

Originally posted by Zwollo2003:

So even if my soldiers placed in Action Spot X theoretically could see the target and fire at it, I can't order them to because my targetting line extends from Action Spot Y which does not have the LOS/LOF/whatever to the target.

Maybe the "v1.05 NEW FEATURES" can help:

When placing a Target order, the LOS line turns yellow if it's generally clear, but not perfectly so. This means either *some* soldiers in the spotting unit may not have a clear LOS or *some* of the target zone may not be visible.

popllt

[popllt]

Steve,

There is no difference because the LOS is from Action Spot to Action Spot. This is necessary to make LOS practical on home computers. However, this doesn't mean the unit actually spots the enemy in the other Action Spot, it just means he has a chance to. And then if he actually doesn't have LOF then he can't fire.

Thanks for your patience. But I still have a little doubt. See the picture below please. As what you have said, the soldiers could use the LOS information of the Action Spot he is in, so theoretically the soldier in the Action Spot "A" could spot the soldier in the Action Spot "B" because Action Spot "A" has LOS with Action Spot "B" in this picture. But actually the soldiers in the both Action Spot can not spot each other. This is accurate but inconsistent with what you have said above. Could you explain this to me? Thanks!

popllt

pic:

[ January 23, 2008, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: popllt ]

[Battlefront.com]

Zwolo2003,

OK, but when I want to give a targeting command, there is only one targeting line and it extends from one Action Spot, right? Regardless of how many Action Spots the unit occupies.

Correct. This is a user interface convention because it can get visually messy having all sorts of lines drawn from multiple points. Better to boil it down. Version 1.05 introduced a new feature which was to add different colors to the line to represent "partial blockage", be it from within a single Action Spot or from multiple Action Spots.

And, unless I am much mistaken about the way the targetting works in CMSF (and I don't think I am, as all my observations support this ) the targetting line extends from Action Spot which the game considers the center of the unit. And it is the LOS/LOF traced from that place, which decides whether I am allowed to give the targetting order at all or whether I receive the "out of LOS" or "reverse slope" message.

Nope, you're incorrect The LOS is traced from each Action Spot that soldiers of that unit occupy. The target line is, if you will, an abstracted representation of that. Meaning, the line itself doesn't trace anything. It's just showing you what the game has calculated. We could have no line or a line that came from a random spot on the map. No difference to the way the game works.

LongLeftFlank,

Which would seem to me to be as it should, as the "orders" you're giving would come from the squad leader who is assumed to be in spot Y. In my experience, the other squaddies tend to make rejoining the leader in his 8x8 their first priority, even if there are other things I'd rather they do (like not getting gunned down in the open en route). But I accept the AI nightmare involved in programming this any other way.

What you said is correct in concept, but not correct in the details. The Team is ordered to a specific Action Spot either directly if it is a Team to start with or indirectly if it is a Squad (with a Squad one Team goes to where you explicitly indicate, the other/s go to spots adjacent depending on conditions). All members of that Team go to that designated Action Spot before moving on. They are duty bound to stick together Where the Team Leader is doesn't have any bearing on anything in terms of where the Team tries to move. The Leader can say something like "you turds get into that house! I'm having a smoke and I'll be along in a minute" and get the Team there without him being the first on the scene.

I'd just like to see the entire squad be quicker to "bug out" to a safer action spot when they come under heavy fire rather than trying to reconsolidate in the hot zone first. But let's see what 1.06 bringeth.

It will bringeth more tweaks, but we'll be working on this sort of TacAI stuff for a few more years. Getting virtual pixel soldiers, be they individual or in groups, is a tricky and time consuming thing to do.

Popllt,

Could you explain this to me?

Sure... there is no LOS checks between friendly Teams, so in your example Team A and Team B are from the same side. But further from that, you don't have the grid accurately defined in your screenshot. Remember, a grid (by definition) means that all squares are lined up perfectly with each other. You have two that are obviously offset.

If you want to make a scenario with a visible grid, do this. Make one square Dirt and the next Red Dirt. Keep going like that until you have a pattern that looks like a Chess/Checkers board. That gives you a very accurate representation of the underlying grid. One note is that buildings are their own Action Spots that override the underlying grid equal to the footprint of that building. Meaning, a building can overlap several Action Spots and have different effects on each of those Action Spots, but the building itself is its own Action Spot (one per floor and some special considerations for balconies).

Steve

[MirabelleBenou]

For the grid, there is now a mod which do that.

You can download it at cmmods.com

Date Entered/Updated : 21/01/2008

CM:SF Version Number: 1.05

Type: Map

Title: Gridded Ground

Author : mikewhl

Preview screenshot :

[i had to delete this because it prompts people for a login when viewing this thread - Steve, the Battlefront one]

EDIT : wwwooopps, sorry Steve I think I was logged on cmmods when copy-past the link, so I didn't see he ask for a login.

[ January 25, 2008, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: MirabelleBenou ]

[c3k]

Ummm, I am curious about an answer to Popllt's question. And please, Steve, let's not get pedantic about how he drew a friggin' square, or the fact that the teams are on the same side. I applaud his ability to modify an ingame picture and congratulate him on taking the time to illustrate his question.

How does the game work when two action spots have LOS to each other, but the units INSIDE the action spots do not? Are they spotted? Known? Etc.

Thanks,

Ken

[Darkmath]

I think they are indeed spotted but do not have LOF to each other.

And "how he drew a friggin square" does matter, as an arbitrary square would possibly not correspond to the engine's action spot square.

So even with an offset fixed, each square drawn could overlap several action spots (or action spot square are variable so I don't "get it" )

[c3k]

Yeah, I admit I understand the action spot theory. I have no clue how it really works.

Kind of like black holes. The theory is cool, but what happens when you get near one, or start looking at interactions?

As long as my guys shoot at guys they see and vice versa, and DON'T shoot at guys they cannot see and vice versa, I'm happy.

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

Ummm, I am curious about an answer to Popllt's question. And please, Steve, let's not get pedantic about how he drew a friggin' square, or the fact that the teams are on the same side. I applaud his ability to modify an ingame picture and congratulate him on taking the time to illustrate his question.

Right... but what he illustrated isn't even remotely relevant because it doesn't show anything to do with what he was asking about. His question was already answered above, but I'll reanswer it again. Wait, I don't need to since Darkmath already did

think they are indeed spotted but do not have LOF to each other.

Correct. This is why it is critically important to keep in mind that LOS, LOF, and Spotting are not the same thing:

LOS - determines the theoretical ability for two units in two specific Action Spots to see each other. LOS is theoretically two way.

Spotting - determines the actual ability for units in two specific Action Spots to see each other. For example, two units in two Action Spots have LOS capability, but it's night and only one of the units has sufficient night vision equipment. This means that one unit can spot the other, but not vice versa even though there is theoretical two way LOS between both.

LOF - determines the actual ability for an "entity" within a specific Action Spot to engage an "entity" within another Action Spot that is both theoretically and actually available to shoot at. By entity I mean either a single Soldier or a vehicle's weapon system/s. It can be the case that a Soldier has the actual ability to see and shoot at something in another Action Spot, but at that moment can't because LOF is blocked. The soldier 0.5m away, in the same Action Spot, may have no problem popping shots off at the very same enemy target. That's because LOF is determined based on individual locations, not on the Action Spot as a whole. LOF, therefore, is also two way BUT only between those two specific points within the respective Action Spots.

And "how he drew a friggin square" does matter, as an arbitrary square would possibly not correspond to the engine's action spot square.

So even with an offset fixed, each square drawn could overlap several action spots (or action spot square are variable so I don't "get it" )

Well put Darkmath

c3k,

As long as my guys shoot at guys they see and vice versa, and DON'T shoot at guys they cannot see and vice versa, I'm happy.

That's the way the system works now. The Enhanced LOS system makes outlier and complex situations less likely to have inconsistent visual information, however even in v1.05 LOS/LOF is a two way street provided there is no external factor interfering with one side's ability to shoot (like night, smoke, etc which is overcome by one side's equipment and not the other's).

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

Thanks for the answer. I'm sure its tough seeing the same questions again and again. For what it's worth, your answer makes the total action spot, LOS, LOF world absolutely clear to me. Finally. Thanks.

(For Darkmath - no offense intended, but if you're not part of the design team or don't quote them I do not regard details about in-engine issues to be anything other than "feelings" or "I heard that..." or "in my experience". All are liable to misinterpretations. But I do thank you for attempting to answer.)

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

No problemo!

The primary difficulty for seasoned wargamers, I think, is that for most games LOS/LOF/Spotting are all kinda mushed together. It is also natural to think of LOS and LOF as being the same thing, but even in real life they aren't. For example, there might be a moderate sized crack in the wall I'm hiding behind so I can see the enemy but I can't shoot him from my current position. So even in real life it is possible to have LOS but not LOF. However, in practical terms you can't have LOF without LOS in real life and you certainly can't have it in the game.

Steve

[W1ll1am]

Steve,

Just curious: does the TacAI engage threats with area/blast-effect weapons (frags, 40mmHE, AT4, RPG, ...) in situations where it doesn't have an actual (straight-line) LOF to the threats themselves but has a LOF & LOS to the building/trench/rooftop shielding the threats?

William

[vincere]

W1ll1am

Just curious: does the TacAI engage threats with area/blast-effect weapons (frags, 40mmHE, AT4, RPG, ...) in situations where it doesn't have an actual (straight-line) LOF to the threats themselves but has a LOF & LOS to the building/trench/rooftop shielding the threats?

are you some kind of bas*ard?

Seriously, though, good question...Steve?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

.. .However, in practical terms you can't have LOF without LOS in real life and you certainly can't have it in the game.

Steve

Sure you can. This is, in fact, exactly what happens when a target has so-called concealment or "soft cover" -- anything that stops visible light, but not bullets. If a soldier runs across an open field and hides behind a bush, anyone who sees him dive behind the bush knows he's there, and can fire on him (LOF), even though they can't see him (LOS). A lot of small arms fire in modern combat is on targets that a soldier can't actually see, but has pretty good educated guess as to location.

There are numerous other examples. I've read a number of accounts in WWII combat where one AFV would fire on, and sometimes take out another AFV that tried to take refuge behind a house or haystack. And of course there are the oft-cited examples of US Abrams taking out Iraqi tanks *through* sand berms with APFSDS. AP rounds especially penetrate many materials a lot more easily than visible light does.

I'm not saying the CM doesn't take these situations into account; there's obviously a fair amount of abstraction in regards to LOS, LOF, and cover/concealment from terrain like bushes, light buildings, etc. Player-ordered area fire is one way the engine accounts for these kinds of situations.

But when modeling modern combat, I do think it's important to keep this kind of thing in mind. aimed fire shouldn't just suddenly stop because an enemy unit moves behind a terrain feature that offers concealment (breaking LOS), but not bullet-stopping cover (breaking LOF). From what I've read, if a soldier can guess an enemy's position to within a few meters, and the intervening terrain won't stop a bullet, then it's worth sending lead downrange.

For example, if an MG team is firing on an enemy team, and the enemy team moves into an isolated light building, ideally the MG team should probably keep putting rounds through the building, in the hopes of supressing the enemy at least for a little while, especially if it's a high-priority target. It's not difficult to think of other examples. Smoke screens is another obvious one.

But I'm sure you guys are probably much deeper into these issues than I am, and will continue to be for years to come. . .

Cheers,

YD

[C'Rogers]

Sure you can.

I have a feeling Steve's reply will start off with 'that is what I get for trying to give quick simple answers'.