Reciprocal LOS

[Jaresh]

Hi,

Has any one experience non-reciprocal LOS?

After checking my LOS to my opponent's tank and finding out that I was fine where I was, e.g. I had no LOS to him (he has a Pz VG and I have M4s...), I decided to stay where I was and fire some Smoke elsewhere.

Well, guess what, he fired at me and destroyed both my M4 in one single hit each.

No bocage involved - noone moved and the PzVG was sitting on top of a height on the edge of a flat part (a Crest situation in ASL).

I'm loving it!..:confused:

[Battlefront.com]

Since CM:SF came out back in 2007 I don't think we've ever found an example of non-recipocal LOS. There's tons and tons of reasons for non-recipocal spotting. While I don't rule out the possibility of a bizzaro bug possibly lurking around for an unlucky sod to stumble upon, I would say the chances are something else was going on. For example, someone moved just enough to change the equation.

Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to look at a save game at a point where the two perspectives can be examined. Short text descriptions don't have the sort of subtle information that is necessary to look at it further.

Steve

[Jaresh]

Hi

the only thing that changed is that I blew off the house next to the Pz VG.

I expected the explosion to bring enough dust in the air to block his view for a while (now I'm getting demanding ).

but the house was not blocking the LOS to my M4. so destroying it shouldn't affect the outcome. note that the line is blue up to the road where it turns pink. it doesn't get pink besides the house.

[YankeeDog]

Ah. A picture is worth a thousand words. I see what is going on here.

Jaresh, note in your first picture the first thing it says next to the targeting line -- "Reverse Slope No Aim Point". This this is telling you that the unit from which you are drawing the target line (your M4 Sherman, I assume) can't see the actual ground at this point, and therefore you can't plot an Area Fire order to this point. Usually, this is because there is a crest or low rise between your unit and the target point (that is, the target point is on a reverse slope, relative to your location).

However, this text also tells you that while your unit can't see the ground at the target point, it is, in fact, able to draw LOS to a point in the air not far above this point, and therefore your unit might be able to see (and be seen) by an enemy unit on this point of ground, depending on the exact height of the enemy unit in question. For example, you might not be able to see a prone infantryman at that point, but be able to see the same infantryman if he stands up. And you'll almost certainly be able to see (and be seen) by something as tall as a tank.

This is a sublety of the Target line in CMx2 that people sometimes miss. Welcome to the wonderful world of multi-height, relative spotting.

[BadgerDog]

YankeeDog ...

Do the different colors (purple and pink in example) and their relative lengths of colored lines to each other, hold any significance?

In other words, if the pink part of the line is shorter or longer, does that mean the obstacle between you and the target point is close to you or further away?

Thanks ...

Regards,

Doug

[Jaresh]

Hi,

thanks for your response.

I understand the principle of crest very well but had assumed that the end of the blue line was giving all possible targets, whatever their height in respect of their position to the crest. I thought that it was the purpose of the blue part.. OK then... Of course you can see a higher point by raising your barrel but then from what you say, the target line doesn't give you any info on a target point in the air, it gives you info on a target point on the ground..

OK... so, this then begs the question: how do I determine that target point in air? because the line will simply continue to go pink up to the end of the map?

do I have to get a horizontal view at ground level, while I play with the target line to do an estimation?? not workable..

thanks anyhow in enlightening me on that point. that may save my butt in future situations.

[GreenAsJade]

It's the words "Reverse slope" that tell you that a target at that spot might be viewable even though the ground is not.

I always understood the junction between the pink and the blue to mark the spot where the obstacle is.

GaJ

[YankeeDog]

It's the words "Reverse slope" that tell you that a target at that spot might be viewable even though the ground is not.

I always understood the junction between the pink and the blue to mark the spot where the obstacle is.

GaJ

Yep. "Reverse Slope" is the clue you're looking for, Jaresh.

To refine a bit, the point where the pink and blue meet on the target line is where the LOS break is. But this might not be an obstacle -- in cases such as foliage or fog, nighttime, etc., it might simply be the distance at which the game engine considers the LOS to have degraded to the point where it is effectively zero. And it gets a bit funky when you're checking LOS from a waypoint. In this case I *think* the LOS break is still shown at the correct distance on the target line, even though the line is actually drawn from the unit's current location (and therefore isn't actually over the point on the map where the LOS break will occur, once the unit gets to the waypoint).

[Jaresh]

ouch, are you sure regarding the LOS from the waypoint?? this would mean that you do not actually know whether you have LOS or not as you plot your waypoints on the map (the object being precisely to gain or not a LOS).

and, regarding the height you says that once the word Reverse Slope disapears there is no risk to have a possible enemy (it's too high)?

[YankeeDog]

ouch, are you sure regarding the LOS from the waypoint?? this would mean that you do not actually know whether you have LOS or not as you plot your waypoints on the map (the object being precisely to gain or not a LOS).

I think you misunderstood. When you select a waypoint and draw a target order, the LOS IS shown from that waypoint. However, target line is still drawn from the unit's current location. It's a little weird, but I guess this is what BFC can give us for now.

and, regarding the height you says that once the word Reverse Slope disapears there is no risk to have a possible enemy (it's too high)?

To the best of my knowledge, this is correct. Since I started playing CMSF in 2007, I have never seen a situation where the target line shows a clean "No LOS" (with no additional text like "Reverse Slope", or anything), but two units standing on the ends of the target line could actually get LOS to each other (regardless of their height).

[Jaresh]

Okidoki I'm clear. I'll pay more attention to the target line details..

[Battlefront.com]

Glad things got cleared up!

I want to explain the problem we had when we moved to the ELOS (Enhanced LOS) system with multiple heights. There is no clean way to show the possible heights you can see to each Action Spot. This is especially true for infantry which themselves have different heights, frequently at the same time (some guys prone, some kneeling, some standing). Therefore, the LOS tool always shows LOS from a fixed height to the ground of another point on the map. When something partially blocks LOS, as in this example from Jaresh, it is noted and the lines change color.

Steve

[sfhand]

Not quite, at least for me... As a result of this post I put together a barren map with elevation changes to try to examine hull down spotting. I attached a sherman and a p4 to their respective Forward Observer units and put the Amis on the downhill side. I gave both tanks target arcs and put the spotters and their vehicles in places where they would be unobserved. I then proceeded to hunt the p4 forward ~one action spot at a time. I got to a point where the sherman could spot the p4 but the p4 couldn't spot the sherman - a barren map with only the default grass and elevation changes. Wondering what the deal was I then hunted the German spotter vehicle forward until it spotted the sherman. German C2 then did its magic and the p4 was able to spot the sherman. What I want to know is why, since there was los to the sherman, the p4 couldn't spot it without help? Savegame is available if interested.

[Battlefront.com]

Remember... never confuse Spotting and LOS because other than LOS being a requirement for Spotting they have nothing to do with each other.

So, the question is why did the Sherman spot the Pz IV before the Pz IV was able to spot the Sherman on it's own. Based on a text description, I haven't a clue There's dozens of possible reasons to explain this and a simplified text description will never do it. A screenshot might help, but it depends on if the needed info is in the screenshot or not.

BTW, there is no way to tell if the PzIV spotted on it's own or got the info from the FO's C2 link because the Sherman was in LOS of the PzIV. If the PzIV was on the opposite side of a hill and became aware (spotted) the Sherman, then you could be sure it was the C2 info sharing.

Steve

[sfhand]

Replaying from the beginning is giving different results:) I gotta watch that tunnelvision thing. So far the Sherman is still spotting first, but by seconds not 5-10 minutes. My guess is because the Pz is skylined. The game is getting better, and more amazing, the deeper I look...

[sburke]

Replaying from the beginning is giving different results:) I gotta watch that tunnelvision thing. So far the Sherman is still spotting first, but by seconds not 5-10 minutes. My guess is because the Pz is skylined. The game is getting better, and more amazing, the deeper I look...

+1 ya got that right.

[Steiner14]

There is no clean way to show the possible heights you can see to each Action Spot. This is especially true for infantry which themselves have different heights, frequently at the same time (some guys prone, some kneeling, some standing).

Have you ever considered not to use a single line to display LOS, but draw several lines from each of the possible heights? A line being drawn from each height (prone, kneeling, standing) to the different heights at the target spot?

The graphical result would be similiar to a vertical standing rectangle with direction to the target and being filled with the two LOS-indicating colors.

I have tried to visualize it:

That way the player checking LOS from a prone unit, would nevertheless immediately see, how the LOS would be, if the unit was standing (or from the height of a tank). The player also would see, if he would be able to see a hull down tank, although the LOS to the ground level would have no LOS and therefore is indicated as "reverse slope", because there would also be a line drawn to the height of a tank.

Additionally the thick red line representing the action spot and the heights above it, could be colored depending on how many clear LOS-lines "hit": i.e. the height being hit with the maximum of clear LOS-lines (i.e. clear los from prone-kneeling-standing & tank -> 4 lines out of 4) receives the clearest color representing clear LOS. If a height receives no clear LOS, then it is painted in the "blocked-LOS color", while everything in between receives a gradient of the two colors.

That way it could be very easily possible for the player to get an impression, which height of the target area can be seen.

[Steiner14]

Here is an example of a color coded LOS representation at the action-spot:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Battlefront.com]

We fooled around with a number of designs like that when we first came up with the concept of ELOS. One of them was pretty much identical to what you suggest. But we ruled it out because it still doesn't show all the possibilities. Infantry require 15 lines and vehicles would require probably around 10. That's a LOT of lines to keep track of and get useful information from. Plus, most of the time this information is not necessary and/or obtainable by common sense look at the terrain. I don't think people need an LOS line to show that a wall blocks someone lying prone on the other side, for example. It is also unlikely that it would work consistently well in complex terrain from a visual standpoint.

There's also another reason. Drawing those LOS lines takes a pretty good chunk of processing power. I'm not sure, but I suspect that trying to draw a dozen of them at one time would create noticeable mouse lag.

We have no plans on trying to increase LOS feedback for different heights. We think the current system is generally fine and the few cases where it isn't are not easily addressed with any system.

Steve

[sburke]

I'd be wondering if I was starting to suffer from flashbacks looking at that. Throw on a Grateful Dead show, sit back and look at all the "pretty colors"..oooohhh...aaaahhhh.

[ClarkWGriswold]

We think the current system is generally fine and the few cases where it isn't are not easily addressed with any system.

Does that include showing waypoint LOS from the unit, rather than from the selected waypoint? It would be much less confusing for new players if that were fixed.

[Holien]

We have no plans on trying to increase LOS feedback for different heights. We think the current system is generally fine and the few cases where it isn't are not easily addressed with any system.

Steve

Pity as I think it would be useful even if it was just two heights or maybe three max?

I.e. unit height to unit height, then +1 height band would help and keep lines to a minimum.

Anyway thanks for the explanation and if we could get line drawn from waypoint LOS that would be a big help as noted by Clark.

[Jaresh]

nice to see the debate developing..

For me the colour coding - and this has been expressed elsewhere - should reflect not only the LOS but also LOF for both normal and smoke ammo.

It's blue: I can fire, it's grey: I can fire but have some hindrances on the way (like say for example foliage..). Like that I know whether I'll waste ammo, do collateral damages to my nearby boys, etc.

The 'reverse slope' info now that i understand it fully is good enough for me.

[poesel]

I also think such a tool would be useful to get a better understanding of the terrain. Sometimes its hard to estimate what can be seen from where. Not so fancy with the colors as Steiner please

IMHO having 10 or more lines is not necessary. The number of lines could be derived from the positions (heightwise) of the men in that spot. Only prone and kneeling - 2 lines. TC, gunner, driver - 3 lines and so on.

A pole like Steiners gives a good additional hint at which height a line is.

[Steiner14]

Steve,

if the drawing is heavy on resources, here's another suggestion without any additional LOS-drawing: