38 replies to this topic

[Tennex]

Mr 144, on 06 April 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

They are not...your shot was converging on a spot further away then the mech you were shooting at...due to leading your shots, the range finder on your reticule did not match the position of the mech...hemce, a wider spread at closer un-converged range.

Mr 144

again. there is no convergence speed. there is weapon speed.

your weapons converge WHERE THEY ARE POINTED. at the time in which they are fired ALWAYS it doesn't take time for your weapons to get to where your cursor is pointed. because the cursor speed is limited by arm movement speed. it doesn't move faster and then wait for arms to catch up.

what does take time however, is your weapons. it takes time for them to get to where they need to go.

in which time the enemy may have moved closer to your convergence point. (now your two gauss rounds will hit the two side torsos)
or further away from your convergence point. (now your gauss rounds will cross in front of the enemy mech and not hit him)

Edited by Tennex, 06 April 2013 - 05:06 PM.

[Hillslam]

Tennex has clearly confused the definition of convergence with shot travel and leading one's target. CONVERGENCE is when your reticule starts out floating out over an object say 2000m away, your weapons are parallax'd to that distance, then you float your reticule over a target 600m away - the time it takes for the right side weapons to gimbal left and the left side weapons to gimbal right (and this ISNT instantaneous) is the concept of convergence time.

[Tennex]

Hillslam, on 06 April 2013 - 05:01 PM, said:

Tennex has clearly confused the definition of convergence with shot travel and leading one's target. CONVERGENCE is when your reticule starts out floating out over an object say 2000m away, your weapons are parallax'd to that distance, then you float your reticule over a target 600m away - the time it takes for the right side weapons to gimbal left and the left side weapons to gimbal right (and this ISNT instantaneous) is the concept of convergence time.

ah alright. i guess i assumed the arm reticule circle was the same speed as how fast your arms could move.

though that is not the case with torso mounted weapons? since the torso cursor speed is the same as aiming speed.

Edited by Tennex, 06 April 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[Hillslam]

also - please stop interchanging the word weapon when you should be using the word ordinance. When you shoot a ballistic round downrange the round is not called your weapon. And yes the round always goes where ITS barrel is pointed. the WEAPON is the delivery or launch mechanism that send the ordinance, ie the gun. But the term convergence is NEVER applied to a single weapon. convergence speaks to a battleships turrets, an aircraft's wing mount MGs, a mechs weaponS (plural).

Tennex, on 06 April 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

ah alright. i guess i assumed the arm reticule circle was the same speed as how fast your arms could move.

but you still have to wait on convergence even when - from your point of view- the reticule doesn't move. if you walk and your range indicator is 2000m and then you walk past a building at 500m, your reticule doesn't move, but your arms will, to converge the barrel tips to the new range. there is no visual indicator in MWO of convergence or parallax whatsoever. Its up to the pilot and "feel" to get the timing right. but the mechanic is modeled in the code.

[Muffinator]

Tennex, on 06 April 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

again. there is no convergence speed. there is weapon speed.

your weapons converge WHERE THEY ARE POINTED. at the time in which they are fired ALWAYS it doesn't take time for your weapons to get to where your cursor is pointed. because the cursor speed is limited by arm movement speed.

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Your weapons fire at a point based on how long you have aimed at that point. For example if your reticule is on 1000m and you quickly shift to 500m and press fire, your weapons will hit the ground either side of the 500m mark because they were still 'focused' at 1000m. If you changed to 500m then held your aim there for long enough and fired they would all hit the 500m point.

*I tested this before posting and it is not currently working as I described in the testing grounds so either the testing grounds is different (unlikely I think) or they have changed the convergence behaviour.

Edited by Muffinator, 06 April 2013 - 05:10 PM.

[Tennex]

Hillslam, on 06 April 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

also - please stop interchanging the word weapon when you should be using the word ordinance. When you shoot a ballistic round downrange the round is not called your weapon. And yes the round always goes where ITS barrel is pointed. the WEAPON is the delivery or launch mechanism that send the ordinance, ie the gun. But the term convergence is NEVER applied to a single weapon. convergence speaks to a battleships turrets, an aircraft's wing mount MGs, a mechs weaponS (plural).



but you still have to wait on convergence even when - from your point of view- the reticule doesn't move. if you walk and your range indicator is 2000m and then you walk past a building at 500m, your reticule doesn't move, but your arms will, to converge the barrel tips to the new range. there is no visual indicator in MWO of convergence or parallax whatsoever. Its up to the pilot and "feel" to get the timing right. but the mechanic is modeled in the code.

so are we assuming that the arm reticle moves faster than the arms. and we have to wait for the arms to catch up to them?

seems very counter intuitive when the torso reticles don't do the same thing.

[Mr 144]

And this is why the Closed Beta Forums should not have been wiped...

There was..possibly still around, but who knows where at this point...a very detailed develpoer thread/tutorial on how convergence works. The out from behind a building example is what was diagramed and used.

The way it's suppose to work, if your torso is facing a building at point blank range...and you step out from behind that cover...your weapons....ANY weapons be it arm or torso...take a certain amount of time to 'converge' on the new range garnered from your targeting reticule. This is not the same as the torso to arm tracking mechanism, and is not what the pilot skill is about AFAIK. Range correction has never been intended to be instantaneous.

This is why arm mounted ballistics/PPCs generally are less accurate..they are fighting two forces..torso tracking, and convergence..

Mr 144

[Tennex]

Mr 144, on 06 April 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

And this is why the Closed Beta Forums should not have been wiped...

There was..possibly still around, but who knows where at this point...a very detailed develpoer thread/tutorial on how convergence works. The out from behind a building example is what was diagramed and used.

The way it's suppose to work, if your torso is facing a building at point blank range...and you step out from behind that cover...your weapons....ANY weapons be it arm or torso...take a certain amount of time to 'converge' on the new range garnered from your targeting reticule. This is not the same as the torso to arm tracking mechanism, and is not what the pilot skill is about AFAIK. Range correction has never been intended to be instantaneous.

This is why arm mounted ballistics/PPCs generally are less accurate..they are fighting two forces..torso tracking, and convergence..

Mr 144

yeah i get what you guys are saying now.

though i just checked form behind a 40m rock and shooting immediately further. it seems to always converge where i am pointing.

instead of crossing in front like we would suspect if the arm weapons took time.

Edited by Tennex, 06 April 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[Jman5]

How long do you guys think it has been gone?

[Muffinator]

Tennex, on 06 April 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

yeah i get what you guys are saying now.

though i just checked form behind a 40m rock and shooting immediately further. it seems to always converge where i am pointing.

Yeah it never used to though

[LaserAngel]

Jman5, on 06 April 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

How long do you guys think it has been gone?

I believe it was during the last patch.

Edited by LaserAngel, 06 April 2013 - 05:26 PM.

[PerfectTommy]

I tried it out earlier, was facing a wall with a 2 PPC loadout, poptarted up and fired at someone 600ish meters away, managed to have both shots take off an arm.

If there was the standard delay it should have not had enough time to adjust the convergence from point blank to 600 meters in the split second I was airborne. At best one shot might have been able to connect, the other should have gone wildly off to the side.

That they both hit seems to indicate there's no delay right now.



-PT

Edited by PerfectTommy, 06 April 2013 - 05:48 PM.

[Royalewithcheese]

That explains why my AC20s are firing so weird. PGI never disappoints.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Quote

An additional aspect of our aiming system is weapon convergence. I touched on this in a post I made in reply to Dev Blog 5, but some of you may have missed it so I’ll copy it over here:
Basically, your targeting systems are always trying to adjust the angle of your weapons so that they converge or focus at a distance of whatever your aiming reticles are pointing at. So, if you fire at a target very far away, your lasers (or whatever else) may fire nearly parallel to each other; firing at a target up close will angle the shots inwards. However, the adjustment of these angles is not instant. For instance, if you were facing a building, while taking cover right up against it, your convergence would adjust to hit just a short distance in front of you (the distance to the building). When you step out from around that building and fire on an enemy in the distance, your convergence point would automatically begin to adjust, but not instantly. If you shoot too soon, your first shots may converge and cross a short distance in front of you and completely miss the enemy as they pass on either side of him. Or perhaps you were aiming for the centre torso and hit his arms instead, as your aim adjusts towards his centre.

From http://mwomercs.com/...-5-mech-warfare

I will try to find the other posts on this in a few minutes.

[Infernus1986]

I'm glad to see people are starting to understand the issue here.
The reason behind this thread was Inform everyone here of what is going on with the game and how they are being ripped to shreds at long range.
It is beyond me why PGI decided to exclude this tidbit from there patch notes as it clearly has a big impact on the game and there has been a 10 fold increase of players on the forum claiming players are cheating hacking etc because of these 800m headshots and such.

Edited by Infernus1986, 06 April 2013 - 06:32 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

i've been told this thread would be best put in patch feedback, as it's a Patch-Related phenomenon.

[Alex Warden]

Tennex, on 06 April 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

. And there is no way for weapons to reconverge in mid flight

not yet anyway... somehow i wait for ppc´s making a "flightpath correction" someday...

[Mild Monkey]

Mr 144, on 06 April 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

wow...you're serious...I didn't expect that...

In your example, your weapons are converged at the range your reticule is displayed at. Check out the Hunchback threads for an actual answer from support how the mismatched shots by the HBKs are WAI due to convergence and range data. Depending on background distances and twitch timing for leads, this may or not be a large enough factor to miss when leading shots. It is most definately converged at the 'ground at the mechs feet distance'.

This is readily apparent in arm mounted ballistics and PPCs....less so in torso placements...

You're not really serious are you?

This thread is the contention that convergence timing delays have been recently removed....to state there is no such thing as convergence boggles my brain.

Mr 144

As for the evidence for the above, please check this out:
http://mwomercs.com/...12#entry2190012


And yes, I am promoting my own thread, but this is exactly what aiming and convergence issues often are confused with.

Edited by Mild Monkey, 07 April 2013 - 05:57 AM.

[Elizander]

Ah, no wonder people have been hitting me from so far out even from behind cover. Could just be me being bad though.