Is this right?

[cool breeze]

thanks for bringing it up. but as paper tiger said crawling troops are LOS checked from the level of the ground so I wouldnt expect that to change anything. thats why I said standing.

But thanks for testing it too!

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[cool breeze]

Thanks Adam for being thorough. It seems clear to me that you care a lot about this game and want it to succeed as much as possible.

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry for coming in late!

Remember that Spotting, LOS, and LOF are *not* the same things. When having a discussion about this stuff you guys have to watch out and not mush things together. The reason is each is simulated different, so they are not interchangeable.

Spotting is somewhat abstracted because nobody, and I mean nobody, has the sort of computing power necessary to have each polygon of each model being checked to see if someone else can see it from every possible angle at any given milisecond of the game. An individual entity (Human, vehicle, etc.) is more or less spotable depending on various factors such as terrain, stance, quality of the spotting unit, what the other unit is doing, etc. All kinds of stuff.

LOS is the primary factor in whether something is spotted or not. If you can not draw LOS from a friendly unit to an enemy unit then you can not spot it (beyond a possible "?" marker, that is). But if you do have LOS to the enemy that doesn't guarantee you will see it. That's where those other factors, mentioned above, come into play.

LOF is different. LOF is very literal. A shot travels from the graphical end of weapon firing it, traces an exact path (according to ballistics modeling) that intersects with polygons along the way. Whatever it intersects is what it hits.

Stance is very important to all three of these things, though not in the same ways. Most games have a single height with "modifiers" to increase/decrease exposure in certain equations. CMx1 was like this. CMx2 (as of last year) has what we call Enhanced LOS which simulates 6 different heights; 3 for soldiers, 3 for vehicles, 1 for aircraft. One of the vehicle heights is the same as the tallest soldiers, which from the game's standpoint means it's 1 height instead of 2 different ones. Also, aircraft height is variable while the others are not, so that one is unique. Before this feature, Enhanced LOS, the LOS in CM:SF was identical to CMx1.

While to a layperson this might seem to be the same as what CMx2 does, it absolutely isn't. The sort of system found in CMx1 was extremely inflexible and at times illogical because it is a much larger abstraction than what is in CMx2. The proof is on this Forum. Look at how many problems people reported with the original CM:SF depiction of Spotting and LOS. Lots and lots of complaints that CMx1 never had even though the underlying systems were identical. To solve this we jumped in and did Enhanced LOS, which was always the plan BUT we thought we had to wait for computers to get more powerful. Thankfully we were wrong about that

An entity's height is always a specific point above the underlying ground depending on which of the 6 heights it is at. Vehicle heights are assigned per vehicle and never change due to circumstances. Soldiers, however, have three stances (prone, kneeling, standing) depending on what they actually are doing graphically. But it is just that... the soldier is either prone, kneeling, or standing. It isn't ever "mostly prone, but a little bit sitting up" or "hunched over so not quite kneeling or standing". As computers get more powerful we might include more heights, but it's unlikely since the existing system works well and we'd rather use the computer's resources for other things.

That's a basic explanation of what's going on.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

I also don't see men doing the "pop up and look" routine, either. Looks like Thomm found *two* bugs with the spotting system.

There are no bugs at all, actually. The system is doing what it is doing perfectly correctly. The problems that are occasionally seen have to do with the fact that we can't do Spotting or LOS to individual polygons. That and there is no practical way for the TacAI to know that it is "silhouetting" itself. I'll detail the first situation first, the second second. I'm logical that way

When you, with your camera view, see a guy's head but can't draw LOS to it that means you can't shoot at it with direct fire. Period. In fact, the only reason you're seeing that head at all is because either another unit spotted it from a different angle or you spotted it under a different circumstance and the information is still being shown to you. In other words your unit assumes the thing it spotted is still there even though you can't see it that particular second. You wouldn't be able to see it otherwise.

The second situation is that soldier up on the crest of a hill doesn't known he's on the crest of the hill because in order to do that the TacAI for that soldier would have to understand what a hill is and that it has a crest AND that this information is somehow relevant to a particular position. Being on the crest of a lower hill in view of a higher hill, for example, is very different than the other way around. This is a natural thing to want, but it is an unreasonable thing to expect of us. We'll likely never have TacAI which understands this because it's just too damned hard to program, calculate, and do correctly for all situations (urban terrain is a nightmare when you think about this stuff).

Now, having said this we have changed the TacAI's behavior to blocked LOS in situations like crests of hills. When LOS is blocked at a lower level it tries one level higher. If LOS is established then it understands that a lower stance offers greater protection but a higher stance offers offensive capabilities with reduced protection.

Using the crest of a hill as an example, if the unit is Prone behind the crest of a hill and can't draw LOS beyond it's Action Spot it tries from Kneeling. If it can draw LOS from that position then it keeps some Kneeling as lookouts and rest Prone by default. This is very realistic, BTW, since by default it basically mimics a unit's desire to remain as concealed as possible without being blind. It also inadvertently keeps a unit from silhouetting itself. In other words, it isn't specifically trying to avoid it but in effect does (to some extent).

Now, when you order your unit to Hide the TacAI knows that everybody should go Prone. This has the downside of nobody being able to see squat, but you get full protection. If you instead issue a Target Command the unit cycles its men to Kneeling to engage in combat, switching to Prone depending on various conditions (like incoming fire) on an individual basis.

We did extensive testing with this new behavior and various other alternatives. One alternative was everybody defaulting to a stance which can draw LOS instead of a mix. Oh boy... that sucked Nobody liked it and if given a choice between that and v1.11 behavior people would have taken v1.11 for sure. So after a bunch of testing and tweaking we finally arrived at the behavior you will see in v1.20. It's not perfect, but it's pretty darned good at overcoming most of the problems people have with soldiers being behind cover that can also be fired from at higher stances.

Steve

[SlapHappy]

That's some nice, detailed info about the way the system works. I've never had any issues myself with spotting or such as a function WYSIWYG. However, I have had some frustration with action spots and ACHIEVING a desirable LOF position barring the ability to individually tweak soldiers positions. Part of this I blame on TACAI limitations.

For instance, with building maneuvering, I've noticed that either on top of them or inside them troops in buildings will tend to gravitate to a position where they can bring the most individual firepower to bear on spotted enemies - especially those which are firing on them.

However, with terrain action spots, there is only one available end position achievable with your squad position. And if that leaves 3/4 of your squad out of LOS/LOF then tough noogies - They aren't going to renegotiate their position like they do in buildings.

Unfortunately I think this sort of falls under the part of your above comments where you state that squads don't understand what the top edge of a hill is. But even with that being the case, couldn't the AI simply say to a soldier element: move towards the coordinate direction where fire is originating and stop when enemy is spotted?

Of course, that leads to the question of how far can/should they travel if that is indeed unachievable.

Simulating reality really sucks..........

[SlapHappy]

In nutshell, I guess, the difference between what you are talking about is re-stancing, while I am referring to repositioning...which doesn't necessarily force you to give up the preferred stance (prone).

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

SlapHappy,

Unfortunately I think this sort of falls under the part of your above comments where you state that squads don't understand what the top edge of a hill is.

Yup.

But even with that being the case, couldn't the AI simply say to a soldier element: move towards the coordinate direction where fire is originating and stop when enemy is spotted?

Yes, it can. Version 1.20 does, in fact, improve this behavior to some extent. And the some extent is...

Of course, that leads to the question of how far can/should they travel if that is indeed unachievable.

... influenced by this In real life soldiers are autonomous. They think for themselves within the situation they find themselves in. If this means suddenly breaking from cover and running 15m to the left to get into a better firing position, that may be what he does. But if the Squad he belongs is about to pull out and go 30m to the right, he probably wouldn't. Think of how this works in the game.

You, the commander of the Squad (and everything else, obviously) are getting ready to pull out when all of a sudden one of your Soldiers breaks cover and does a useless flanking move. Now you have to deal with something that, realistically speaking, should not have happened (i.e. the Squad Leader would have not instructed the Soldier to pull that stunt).

Therefore, even if we could program the TacAI to do all sorts of wonderfully creative individual things, and have them be reasonably coordinated at the lowest level, there is the problem that the player would need MORE micromanagement controls to make sure the TacAI was doing these sorts of things within appropriate tactical constraints.

Which is why I agree completely with this last comment

Simulating reality really sucks..........

Couldn't have put it better myself This is why so few wargames have ever attempted to simulate individual soldiers on the scale of CM. Heavy reliance on abstractions, like CMx1, are hard enough to pull off. Still, with all of its flaws/limitations, the overall realism of CMx2's infantry is head and shoulders above CMx1 (which was above any other game). Better still, it will continue to be improved over time.

Adam,

On the LOF side is there anything wrong with how exposed the troops are when they're behind a crest? (Kneeling or whatever)

Not that I'm aware of. The amount of exposure is proportional to the amount of the soldier which is above the cover in relation to the shooter's position. If a polygon is intersected by the terrain then it's a miss. If the shot instead hits a polygon of a soldier then it's a hit. Shots with the ability to strike twice (something with fragmentation or enough KE to ricochet) of course can hit the terrain and possibly also strike an exposed soldier polygon.

As I said in my previous posts, the limitation is that an individual soldier can't position himself behind the crest (or any cover for that matter) in a way that is optimal for a particular situation. So it is possible for a soldier to be more exposed to a particular shooter's position than he MIGHT be in real life. For example, if a soldier is advancing along the crest of a hill and knows the enemy is in the valley, he'd move in a way that would be sure to not be seen from the enemy's position. When establishing a fighting position he'd creep upwards an inch at a time until he could get a shot off at the enemy's position, but not an inch further.

This is the sort of TacAI logic which makes sense to have but is impractical for us to create or, most likely, have the average PC to deal with on top of everything else.

Steve

[dan/california]

A combination of the slow and hunt command might go a long way towards helping with this problem.

[-Pv-]

I agree with the last. I've often wished I had a "slow hunt."

-Pv-

[Pandur]

Therefore, even if we could program the TacAI to do all sorts of wonderfully creative individual things,...

nice one!

by the looks of it, when many others want the tac AI to do something on their own, i, unlike most others are opposed to it and want a command to do it myself.

i would just hate it if my man would start moving about by themselfs on "this scale". like a fireteam moving away some action spots.

it was hard enough for me to take the "quickfixed" selfpreservation behaviour and vehicle rotating in the early versions. and i still think up to today that i could do it better myself then the tac AI

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Paper Tiger]

The soldier spotting height is not drawn from their midrift.

If the soldiers are lying prone on level 21 terrain then their LOS is drawn from level 21.

If they are kneeling in the same terrain it is drawn from level 22,

standing, level 23.

I expect that a vehicle crew spotting from a tank's turret would be terrain +3 or level 24 in the above example.

In effect, that is where their head is with respect to the terrain level.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[c3k]

Paper Tiger,

Are you sure that's how LOS works? If my man (yes, MY man ) is on a slope, prone in a ditch, or tilting the frame of reference, prone on a plain with a crest ahead of him followed by a downslope, his head and midriff are at different heights. The LOS seems to be drawn from the midriff; the terrain blocks LOS, therefore no LOF check. Yet, his head is visible to the enemy, so LOS checks positive, thereby followed by LOF.... followed by suppressed, dead, or wounded men.

In short, the midriff vs. head height is the issue.

This all presupposes that I am correct in stating that the LOS is drawn from the man's center of mass/midriff, NOT from the head.

If the man is standing, the height for LOS purposes is a STANDING height, but the map location used is directly beneath the center of mass. For a standing individual, that will be between the feet. The head is also located between the feet, albeit at a different elevation. Hence, for many circumstances, using the center of mass (or midriff) to locate the start of the LOS will work quite well. It fails in the cases where the individual's center of mass and head do not occupy the same ground location. Prone is the obvious condition; leaning around a corner is another.

This is exacerbated in the conditions I mentioned above, where the prone individual exposes a part of the body to spot/fire.

(Oh, MANY thanks for your scenarios!!!)

Regards,

Ken

[Rustman]

The soldier spotting height is not drawn from their midrift.

If the soldiers are lying prone on level 21 terrain then their LOS is drawn from level 21.

If they are kneeling in the same terrain it is drawn from level 22,

standing, level 23.

I expect that a vehicle crew spotting from a tank's turret would be terrain +3 or level 24 in the above example.

In effect, that is where their head is with respect to the terrain level.

The question isn't the changes in vertical positioning of the POV that calculates LOS, but the horizontal positioning when in the prone. While kneeling or standing, the intersection of the horizontal "altitude" plane used to calculate LOS intersects with the soldier model at more or less one point....whether that point is the head, chest, belt, rifle, whatever..it doesn't really matter...it's one point and so functions more or less correctly. The problem is with the prone positioning. When prone the plane used to calcutate LOS bisects the soldier model along the coronal plane putting the head, torso, waist, and feet all on the same altitude, and thus, eligable to project the LOS for that position, each of which drastically alters what the model is capable of "seeing". The question is, what part of the model actually "sees"? It is obviously not the head, as shown by the screen shots. I know that the original question on here was about exposure and not LOS, but the two issues are intristincly linked. To simplify the issue with the screenshot of soldiers on the hill into two questions, can those prone soldiers be shot? By the rules of bullet intersects model as I understand it, yes they can. Can they shoot back? No, they can't because their LOS is interuppted by the terrain, which is particularly odd since they'd be getting shot in the face. LOS needs to be mutual. Except in rare circumstances, if you can see me to engage me with a direct fire weapon, then I am also in a position to see and engage you also.

[Battlefront.com]

One quick correction... the fixed ELOS points involve partial meters, which is to say their relative heights are not necessarily equal to terrain heights as Pandur suggests. He's correct in concept, just not in the values used. I don't remember what they are, honestly, because they aren't relevant except when looking at a very specific individual instance. Which isn't relevant except for that instance and therefore not very interesting

Keep in mind that for spotting purposes the Human figure is divided up into three segments. Therefore, a standing soldier gives you three segments to spot (standing to kneeling, kneeling to prone, and prone). For LOF it's about the specific polygons which are exposed, not center mass.

Rustman has hit upon why Adam's concerns about head/torso are irrelevant:

While kneeling or standing, the intersection of the horizontal "altitude" plane used to calculate LOS intersects with the soldier model at more or less one point....whether that point is the head, chest, belt, rifle, whatever..it doesn't really matter...it's one point and so functions more or less correctly.

Very well put! No matter what the stance is the exposure to spotting is generalized because we aren't trying to spot individual polygons (as I previously explained, that's impossible). Spotting always occurs from fixed points regardless of where the graphical element is in relation to the cover. These fixed points produce extremely case sensitive results based on terrain and relative positions of units.

In a specific instance perhaps having the fixed point be one distance above the ground would produce a different result than another, but it's like flipping a coin. Do it enough and there is no advantage or disadvantage for any specific point chosen.

The only way to get better fidelity out of the system is to increase the number of points that can be spotted to/from. The ultimate fix would be to spot to/from individual polygons (that can NEVER happen, I can assure you ). Until then we have a system which is about 600% better than CMx1 and almost any other wargame out there. We're pretty happy with that

We're probably not going to mess with that for a couple of years because each one adds an enormous amount of strain on the system. More importantly, we think the current system is pretty close to the point of diminishing returns because it is pretty well matched with the fidelity of the terrain. In other words, we don't see this as a portion of the simulation that needs to be improved, unlike before we put in ELOS.

The problem is with the prone positioning. When prone the plane used to calcutate LOS bisects the soldier model along the coronal plane putting the head, torso, waist, and feet all on the same altitude, and thus, eligable to project the LOS for that position, each of which drastically alters what the model is capable of "seeing".

This is why center mass is a better choice than the head for spotting purposes. Remember, relative orientation between shooter and target matters a lot. If the head were used then you could have 95% of the soldier's model be exposed to an enemy to the rear and yet be unspottable if the head were stuck behind something solid. Which would be noticed by you guys and would be detailed in threads just like this one

The question is, what part of the model actually "sees"? It is obviously not the head, as shown by the screen shots. I know that the original question on here was about exposure and not LOS, but the two issues are intristincly linked.

Correct, which is why "averaging" center mass (or segmenting for soldiers) is the better concept.

To simplify the issue with the screenshot of soldiers on the hill into two questions, can those prone soldiers be shot? By the rules of bullet intersects model as I understand it, yes they can. Can they shoot back? No, they can't because their LOS is interuppted by the terrain, which is particularly odd since they'd be getting shot in the face. LOS needs to be mutual. Except in rare circumstances, if you can see me to engage me with a direct fire weapon, then I am also in a position to see and engage you also.

Ah... but you're forgetting that the only way someone can shoot at those prone soldiers is if they have LOS to the "center mass" of the soldier. If the targeting soldier can draw LOS to that portion of the target then the target can draw LOS to the targeting soldier.

In other words, there is no inconsistency here. LOS is two way, LOF is polygon specific based on established LOS. There's never a situation when a unit can draw LOF to something and not draw LOS. Never. So it all works just dandy

Steve

[Paper Tiger]

Are you sure that's how LOS works?

Well, after reading Steve's post I would have to answer "No"

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Firstly, can they be hit by area target?

Depending on the circumstances, yes.

If they can, the LOF/Exposure problem still exists.

Not really, because LOF and exposure are not the same things because exposure is always always situational. I can be behind a wall and completely, 100%, protected from a firing position along the same rough line of elevation. But put a guy up one story and suddenly that position I'm in is 100% exposed. As the soldier behind the wall I'm in the position that I expect will give me cover from a very specific possible threat. Having someone appear above me and pop shots off at me completely screws that up.

Further, area fire is no different than when someone lobs rounds behind cover when the soldiers are 100% out of LOS/LOF. Something you'll be seeing a lot more of with v1.20, BTW. The reason is that such fire is designed to achieve an advantage that isn't possible through direct fire. There's no problem with this at all EXCEPT that the game allows people to use Area Fire and Indirect Fire in ways which would not be possible in a real battlefield situation. But that's something that we can't fix and therefore it will remain for the entire life of the CMx2 game engine and carry over to any other game we should ever make.

But more importantly, in all the instances where the soldiers have LOS to an enemy and vice versa, the soldiers stance presents way too many polygons for the enemy to hit. This was the original point of the thread, before I even knew there was a spotting behaviour problem (not LOS) as pointed out by Thomm.

First, there is no spotting problem. I've already addressed that. Second, the exposure issue I've also addressed a few times already. Exposure is relative to the individual situation. It's impossible to say "there's too many polygons exposed" because that's something which is situationally dependent. I'd also argue that if you talk to real soldiers in real combat situations they'll tell you that optimal concealment is not possible if you want to remain offensively capable. OK, sure... a well trained sniper is going to be pretty close to optimal in most situations, but look at the KIA rate of well trained US Army and Marine snipers in Iraq and you'll see that they often exposed "more polygons" than was optimal for the situation they were in.

In all instances where fire is going both ways, or perhaps also in instances of area fire, the exposure level of the troops is arguably too high. Right?

No It's all relative and occasionally you can make the case that it is too high based on that one specific example, but not for a different specific example. Therefore it's demonstrably false to think of this in binary terms and use words like "all". Personally, I don't even think exposure level is too high on average.

In any case there is still a level of abstraction in several of these components since we can't do LOS or Spotting based on individual polygons. There is no way we can get around this fundamental technological limitation. Abstracting things, like CMx1, doesn't fix the problem it only obscures it to the point that nobody can tell one way or the other. Smoke and mirrors, in other words, which likely produces an overall poorer and less accurate result even if the player isn't aware of it.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[c3k]

Steve,

Not trying to beat a dead horse, just seeking clarification.

LOS FROM an individual soldier - does it start from the map coordinates corresponding to his center of mass, with height adjusted for stance? Or, does it start from the map coordinates corresponding to his head, with height adjusted for stance?

I recognize that the LOF starts from the head/shoulder area. My understanding is also that the LOS check for the individual is something like the third step in the LOS checking routine. (First step; after map creation a table a LOS is created - 3 categories: LOS exists, LOS cannot exist, LOS may exist. Second step; during game, from action spot to action spot a check is made and adjusted based on unit's activities. Third step; individual LOS check.)

My question: since you stated that LOF is calculated from head/shoulder, why can't LOS be calculated that way? (Obviously at the third, final, step.)

I read your answers and didn't see if you addressed the underlying question; why does it seem that prone men with their heads exposed cannot gain LOS based on where their heads are?

Thanks,

Ken

Addendum: I've just read through all I've missed in the thread on the Brits Manual. I see there that Steve mentions that v1.20 has some tweaks for LOS crossing sharp crest lines. This may well address, adjust, or correct the LOS from a prone position near a crest.

Thanks.

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

LOS FROM an individual soldier - does it start from the map coordinates corresponding to his center of mass, with height adjusted for stance? Or, does it start from the map coordinates corresponding to his head, with height adjusted for stance?

It starts from the predetermined level above the ground which represents the particular stance. The height is based on roughly where the head would be for such a stance. The individual polygons you see in the game are not relevant when it comes to ELOS since that's a level of detail which is impossible for the computers to deal with. Plus, we don't have 2000 variations of each stance which would represent the various real life possible permutations. Therefore, having spotting to/from specific polygons is actually completely unnecessary, even if computers could handle the load.

I recognize that the LOF starts from the head/shoulder area. My understanding is also that the LOS check for the individual is something like the third step in the LOS checking routine. (First step; after map creation a table a LOS is created - 3 categories: LOS exists, LOS cannot exist, LOS may exist. Second step; during game, from action spot to action spot a check is made and adjusted based on unit's activities. Third step; individual LOS check.)

Correct. And then a forth one which is individual LOF check. It can be that you establish LOS and then lose it, for whatever reason. Or you still can spot the enemy but the particular weapon system isn't capable of drawing LOF to the target.

Having said that, generally speaking if you can draw LOS from A to B you can also draw LOF from A to B.

My question: since you stated that LOF is calculated from head/shoulder, why can't LOS be calculated that way? (Obviously at the third, final, step.)

Because LOF is a known line between two already established points, which were determined as a result of the LOS check. Therefore, the variability is almost nil when checking for LOF. Then when shooting the shot travels along an established physics path, specific to that weapon and conditions, which doesn't pay any attention to theoretical LOF or actual LOS (some exceptions for "smart" weapons).

What you're asking for is completely different. Currently we have (depending on how you count) 6 or 7 different positions to draw LOS to/from. That means for every given position of every given unit there are something like 36 or 49 different possible matchups that have to be checked. My math sucks so I'm pretty sure the number is actually lower when you account for duplication But the point here is that whatever the number is, it's fairly large considering that LOS checks are "expensive" in terms of CPU usage. What you're asking for is for LOS checks to be infinite instead of finite. Or, as I've said above, from polygon to polygon. There's not a computer in the world in the hands of a customer which could handle that.

I read your answers and didn't see if you addressed the underlying question; why does it seem that prone men with their heads exposed cannot gain LOS based on where their heads are?

As I stated above, the problem with this is if your soldier spots 90% of an exposed soldier, but the 10% of that exposed soldier is the head, then you won't spot that soldier. Likewise, the soldier with 10% of his head behind a building corner will have 0% chance of spotting anything around the other side. Having center mass be the location makes the average results superior. The way of getting around this limitation is to have spotting to polygons, which as I explained is technically impossible.

Plus, you guys are focusing on the situations where the current system doesn't work instead of all the situations it does work. It's natural, and not incorrect to focus on the incorrect stuff, but it doesn't put the problem in perspective of the overall game.

Remember too that the problem with prone is that the margin of error is far more narrow than with other stances. In other words, when prone a tiny bit too low or a tiny bit too high makes more of a significance than it does when the check is from standing or even kneeling height.

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

Again, thanks for taking the time and exercising such patience with your explanations. I imagine with v1.20/CMUK right around the corner, your time must be precious. However.... .... although I'm starting to understand what you're saying a bit more clearly, I think you're missing a small part of the question.

c3k,

It starts from the predetermined level above the ground which represents the particular stance. The height is based on roughly where the head would be for such a stance. The individual polygons you see in the game are not relevant when it comes to ELOS since that's a level of detail which is impossible for the computers to deal with. Plus, we don't have 2000 variations of each stance which would represent the various real life possible permutations. Therefore, having spotting to/from specific polygons is actually completely unnecessary, even if computers could handle the load....

Steve

Okay, taking what you said, above; "The height is based on roughly where the head would be for such a stance." That's the key question! When I can SEE the head of the guy sticking up from the ground (be it a slope, a crest, or a ditch), THAT guy, the head-sticking-up-guy, cannot SEE out. The blocked LOF (which is all a player can see) seems to start from his belly - which is behind dirt and out of sight. So, it's not an issue of "individual polygons", but, rather, the essential part of the human body which sights things - the eyeballs located in the neck-mounted head. Why does the blocked LOS not take the head location into account.

Again, this is a specific issue to prone soldiers with dirt between their bodies and the enemy, but their heads exposed. However, EVERY soldier likes this kind of position over the more exposed ones! Hence, this specific condition does occur more frequently than one would suppose.

... Correct. And then a forth one which is individual LOF check. It can be that you establish LOS and then lose it, for whatever reason. Or you still can spot the enemy but the particular weapon system isn't capable of drawing LOF to the target.

Having said that, generally speaking if you can draw LOS from A to B you can also draw LOF from A to B.

Because LOF is a known line between two already established points, which were determined as a result of the LOS check. Therefore, the variability is almost nil when checking for LOF. Then when shooting the shot travels along an established physics path, specific to that weapon and conditions, which doesn't pay any attention to theoretical LOF or actual LOS (some exceptions for "smart" weapons)....

The above statement draws two responses from me. First, I'm aware of the non-recipricol LOF condition. Specifically, if unit A positions a member in a buildings action spot near a window, it can fire on unit B which is in the open. However, unit B traces it's LOS to the action spot center, which is blocked. Since unit A has a member AWAY from the blocked center of the action spot, A can fire on B, but B cannot fire on A.

The second response is more of a question than a statement. Since the prone soldier's LOF isn't even checked (or applied) if the LOS is blocked, shouldn't the LOS be checked from the same spot as the LOF? I'm not saying the LOS should FOLLOW the LOF (indirect fire, ballistics, etc., account for differences). I'm saying the LOS should be checked from the head/shoulder.

The confusion here is borne out by your next statement...

...As I stated above, the problem with this is if your soldier spots 90% of an exposed soldier, but the 10% of that exposed soldier is the head, then you won't spot that soldier. Likewise, the soldier with 10% of his head behind a building corner will have 0% chance of spotting anything around the other side. Having center mass be the location makes the average results superior. The way of getting around this limitation is to have spotting to polygons, which as I explained is technically impossible...

Let's take your 90/10% splits. This is where a misunderstanding may be occurring. If soldier A has a rifle and is prone behind a crest line/slope/ditch/etc., and his head is up, rifle is up, and he is looking to his front, I think we can agree that he only has 10% exposure, yet he also has 100% firing and spotting ability. His offensive capability does not care whether or not his left foot has LOS to the enemy. Nor his belt buckle. I DON'T CARE what enemy soldier B has exposed. If B has LOS towards A, then A's lack of exposure should be a factor keeping him from being spotted. (It's harder to spot a head sticking out from a ridgeline compared to an entire torso/body.)

You state that, "the way of getting around this limitation is to have spotting to polygons, which as I explained is technically impossible..." Um, why does it HAVE to be "spotting to polygons"? You say that, "Having center mass be the location makes the average results superior." For many situations, STARTING the LOS FROM center of mass and adjusting the height (through ELOS) to roughly head elevation, works. But that's because most humans keep their heads roughly over their center of mass for any position - OTHER than being prone. Since LOF is calculated from head/shoulder, why not LOS? This is NOT asking for polygon checks on eyeball locations! (Although, that would be cool!)

That's the FROM portion of LOS. Earlier you stated that the INBOUND portion breaks the body into distinct portions. That's great. Really. This is all about the guy whose head is sticking up, and what he can see.

Again, you state "the problem with this is if your soldier spots 90% of an exposed soldier, but the 10% of that exposed soldier is the head, then you won't spot that soldier". Why not? Why does MY LOS TO the enemy have to touch the enemy's head???? It doesn't work that way now, nor is anyone asking to change that.

It's the reverse which can be tweaked; if I have 10% exposed, why can't THAT 10% do the spotting? Especially if it's the 10% with eyes and brain?

Finally....

...Plus, you guys are focusing on the situations where the current system doesn't work instead of all the situations it does work. It's natural, and not incorrect to focus on the incorrect stuff, but it doesn't put the problem in perspective of the overall game.

Remember too that the problem with prone is that the margin of error is far more narrow than with other stances. In other words, when prone a tiny bit too low or a tiny bit too high makes more of a significance than it does when the check is from standing or even kneeling height.

Steve

Yeah, we're focusing on a small portion where the current system doesn't work. BUT, it's an important portion. A lot of guys under fire try to hide their bodies and only expose their head and weapon. Right now, if there's a SLIGHT elevation difference intervening between belt-buckle and enemy, the guy with his head up cannot see or shoot.

Center of mass as a start point for LOS is flawed; this is masked in many situations, but gets highlighted for prone soldiers with their bodies hidden in an elevation difference from the enemy.

Thanks for your time!

Regards,

Ken