16 replies to this topic

[Clydewinder]

No, this isn't a link to a video. This is something you can do on your next drop.

Right at the beginning of the round, hit F4 to go to 3PV. Now sweep your crosshairs across all of your friendly mechs. See it jerking around? That is the crosshair convergence jumping to adjust to the different ranges of the target under the reticle. Sweep sideways slowly across a friendly spider or other smallish skinny mech. There are very few times when the convergence is actually correct. Sweep across a large, wide mech like a BLR or AWS or AS7 - notice, no twitching of the crosshair.

This is going on ALL THE TIME when you are aiming, you just don't see it because you are exactly behind the reticle in 1st person / cockpit view, and the reticle does not tell you by changing size or otherwise how far it is aimed out, besides the digital "range" readout which is not exactly an item of focus during combat.

Now granted, some shots just flat out disappear due to netcode or lost packets. That happens sometimes. This phenomenon always happens, however, due to the instant convergence of weaponry.

Tank sims ( real ones like Steel Beasts ), and real tanks for that matter, solve this with a "first return/last return" setting on the rangefinder. MWO may want to consider a change to the way convergence is calculated, and the speed at which it is dialed in.

[Clit Beastwood]

At least a counter/bar next to the crosshair that fills up the closer it is to converging, so you know "green means go!" or something. Faster convergence will only further exacerbate the pinpoint damage issues, but letting players see the status of their convergence would at least help people understand why they don't hit what they think they're aiming at.

[Roughneck45]

No, that is a third person "feature". Supposed to help players with {Scrap} aim I suppose. I'm 99% sure this does not happen in first person view.

At least that is how I interpreted the mechanic after using 3rd person in the test server.

Edited by Roughneck45, 25 November 2013 - 01:25 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

3rd Person View has an issue when you move your cross hairs up and down. It isn't side to side but up and down. When you get your cross hair above when looks like your actual eye line, it glitches out. Nothing to do with missiles.

[Clydewinder]

It's more noticeable up and down because the convergence is focusing farther out on the horizon, vs 50 meters ahead when aimed at the ground.

[BbadAK]

Yep this is a thing and the reason why it can be so hard to hit the small and fast moving mechs with ballistic weapons. When you are forced to lead a fast moving target that is close to you, your weapons are converging beyond the target at the background your crosshair is actually aiming at. Thus, when you fire your weapons, they will converge on that spot rather than on the mech you are trying to hit. This is much more apparent with weapons spread far apart such as arm mounted weapons on the jagermech. While this is clearly an issue for ballistics, it also affects lasers as it is almost impossible to sustain damage in a location because your convergence is constantly changng.

The best example i have had happen to me was trying to shoot at a spider running along a ridgetop with my jagermech. Leading the spider put my convergence somewhere out in the upper atmosphere. So when I fired my AC 5s, the rounds actually split and went to either side of the spider.

[Troutmonkey]

Clydewinder, on 25 November 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

No, this isn't a link to a video. This is something you can do on your next drop.

I noticed it with 3PV but never really paid much attention to to, but now that you bring it up it makes a lot of sense. Not sure what you can do to solve the issue though.

[RandomLurker]

This is unique to 3rd person and is not what's affecting your aim.

Krinkov, on 19 October 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

The weapon sway in 3rd person is due to how they figure where the 3rd person reticle should be. An invisible ray is projected from the cockpit of the mech. .

A video demonstration of the different convergence in 3rd vs 1pv is also available in that thread.

[Biglead]

"I'm bad and you should change your game because of it."

Is pretty much all I got from this thread.

[Clydewinder]

Biglead, on 25 November 2013 - 06:47 PM, said:

"I'm bad and you should change your game because of it."

Is pretty much all I got from this thread.

If you think there is nothing wrong with the hit detection in MWO then you are entitled to your opinion. However, you may be way way out on a limb that is already nearly sawn through.

[Biglead]

Clydewinder, on 25 November 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

If you think there is nothing wrong with the hit detection in MWO then you are entitled to your opinion. However, you may be way way out on a limb that is already nearly sawn through.

Then send a ticket to support. Stop regurgitating old vomit.

[Clydewinder]

Isn't that what one does with vomit?

Is it preferable to somehow regurgitate new vomit? Or would the fact that it is re-gurgitating make it by definition "old" vomit? Perhaps an initial gurgitation would yield a fresher product.

[Amsro]

Biglead, on 25 November 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

Then send a ticket to support. Stop regurgitating old vomit.

SRM Hit Detection is being "looked into" by PGI, closing your eyes doesn't mean the problem goes away!

[Clydewinder]

I think one potential solution would be to lock convergence to Target Range on a locked target, rather than the hitscan range of the terrain or object under the reticle... however this would make engaging multiple targets tricky as the convergence will only match the locked one... and in the case of firing at unlocked ECM targets up close would be no help at all.

[Biglead]

Amsro, on 26 November 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

SRM Hit Detection is being "looked into" by PGI, closing your eyes doesn't mean the problem goes away!

Opening your mouth doesn't make PGI work faster on something they are already fixing.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Actually if you are "looking at" something it doesn't necessarily follow that it will be fixed at any point in the near future.

[Blue Footed Booby]

Clydewinder, on 25 November 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

Isn't that what one does with vomit?

Is it preferable to somehow regurgitate new vomit? Or would the fact that it is re-gurgitating make it by definition "old" vomit? Perhaps an initial gurgitation would yield a fresher product.

Quoting for eternal glory.