44 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Prosperity Park, on 01 February 2016 - 03:31 PM, said:

Send a note to support with the map and exact grid location (by pressing F9).

Posting angrily on the forums will not fix the problem, there is no direct link between the forum website and the in-game map files.

Earlier in the thread you'll see an example of what I send to support.

Typically, I'll record it, and send it in.

I was just participating in the discussion, attempting to dissuade the 'white knights' from leaving us with a 'just check the little numbers when firing through empty space' as an 'acceptable' solution to the problem.

When I get egregious examples this problem, I always record, create the vid, send it in to PGI...

[sycocys]

wanderer, on 01 February 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:

If you're checking your rangefinder constantly while trying to corner-poke, than mister you're a better man than I.

Especially when it's visually clear otherwise. It's a bug, pure and simple where the hitbox is far, far outside the graphics that go with it. HPG used to be horrid for this, even though now many of the worst offenders got stomped.

I check my rangefinder whenever I'm about to fire my weapons anywhere. How else are you going to calculate how much damage you are doing or making sure you aren't poking through an empty space on a mech?

[TheBlackMegadeus]

was pushing for this stuff since open beta, glad to see the fight still strong.

[Dimento Graven]

sycocys, on 01 February 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:

I check my rangefinder whenever I'm about to fire my weapons anywhere. How else are you going to calculate how much damage you are doing or making sure you aren't poking through an empty space on a mech?

I am typically using ballistics where leading is important, so the range on the target reticule doesn't necessarily reflect what I'm actually aiming at. Yeah, in an energy build that's probably a good thing to do as 'WYSIWYG' aiming and firing kind of applies.

Beyond that though, again, in some situations the small text for the range, plus the idiotic 'blendy' coloring of the numbers, makes it damn hard for the color blind like me to be able to read the numbers. Depending on the background it may as well not even be there...

[Wattila]

tortuousGoddess, on 01 February 2016 - 09:55 AM, said:

It's a side effect of how this version of CryEngine draws its hit detection geometry. From what I recall, it basically "blankets" over visible terrain, which results in some walls and other objects having larger, blockier physical areas than what you see visually displayed. HPG for example is particularly rife with these problems, especially in the doors and over the edges of ramps.

Mmh, I've always assumed object bounding box is used for most hit geometry as it's the fastest method. This method works relatively well for buildings and other objects that closely resemble their bounding volume, but falls short with more complex objects. Another option is to create separate collision objects as necessary, but it's a slower method and requires more work. That aside, MWO has some of the worst hit geometry I've seen in any game.

Edited by Wattila, 01 February 2016 - 04:36 PM.

[Ratpoison]

Wattila, on 01 February 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

Mmh, I've always assumed object bounding box is used for most hit geometry as it's the fastest method. This method works relatively well for buildings and other objects that closely resemble their bounding volume, but falls short with more complex objects. Another option is to create separate collision objects as necessary, but it's a slower method and requires more work. That aside, MWO has some of the worst hit geometry I've seen in any game.

There's a decently long list of technical limitations and problems that CryEngine has imposed on this game over the years, this being one of the bigger ones. The update to CryTek should really do a lot for the game's potential, hopefully overcoming such problems.

[Alex Warden]

well...it has been an issue since forever... they reworked quite alot of the "boxes" of objects, but by far not all and appearently the architecture over all doesnt allow for really tight edges *shrug* (not to mention objects having actually the shape that is shown^^)

it´s something that bothers me for a long time, especially objects that appear as you could shoot thru them but you cant, because there is actually a box around them...

as i said: they got better with that stuff ((you can see some good results on mining, where you can shoot through stuff that i´d not think you could, by the experience on older maps )), but there are still many many "unclean" edges and too big boxes...

Edited by Alex Warden, 01 February 2016 - 05:14 PM.

[sycocys]

Dimento Graven, on 01 February 2016 - 04:10 PM, said:

I am typically using ballistics where leading is important, so the range on the target reticule doesn't necessarily reflect what I'm actually aiming at. Yeah, in an energy build that's probably a good thing to do as 'WYSIWYG' aiming and firing kind of applies.

Beyond that though, again, in some situations the small text for the range, plus the idiotic 'blendy' coloring of the numbers, makes it damn hard for the color blind like me to be able to read the numbers. Depending on the background it may as well not even be there...

I use ballistics and srms, lasers are only a secondary weapon.

Knowing the range of your target before you fire is essential really to any weapon system, but especially ballistics and definitely srms. You need to know exactly where/how close you are to cut-offs and damage dips before you start spending ammo - 1m in the case of srms. is the difference between full damage and 0 damage. ~50m is the difference between missing with half your salvo and having a tight grouping.

You can estimate and get unnecessarily close, often having to forgo a means to re-enter cover or you can get the info and know where you can safely be or if you need to make a alternate approach.

[Dimento Graven]

sycocys, on 01 February 2016 - 06:20 PM, said:

I use ballistics and srms, lasers are only a secondary weapon.

Knowing the range of your target before you fire is essential really to any weapon system, but especially ballistics and definitely srms. You need to know exactly where/how close you are to cut-offs and damage dips before you start spending ammo - 1m in the case of srms. is the difference between full damage and 0 damage. ~50m is the difference between missing with half your salvo and having a tight grouping.

You can estimate and get unnecessarily close, often having to forgo a means to re-enter cover or you can get the info and know where you can safely be or if you need to make a alternate approach.

90% of battle devolves WELL into the range of most weaponry (short range weapons it's not overly critical as for them they're typically, "in your face" kind of brawling.

Beyond that, the new feature of the weapons list on your HUD changing color to indicate whether or not you're targeting something that can be hit, AND WHEN YOUR CURSOR IS NOT ON A WALL, BUT SAY 10 to 30 FRICKIN' METERS WAY FROM SAID WALL, IT IS ILLOGICAL TO ASSUME YOU HAVE TO CHECK YOUR RANGE TO AVOID HITTING THE WALL YOU ARE NOT AIMING AT.

Please, Misses Uber White Knight, just admit this is a problem that should be fixed, REGARDLESS of how many craptastic work arounds PGI accidentally gives us...

[GRiPSViGiL]

Such fail coding. Sums up this game entirely. They usually get everything wrong first try guaranteed and then need one but mostly more tries to fix it and then the other half of the time they just ignore it. HERE IS YOUR NEXT MECH PACK!!!!!

[Pardo Kerensky]

Minimally Viable Product™
What? Did you expect PGI to actually bother to make hitboxes actually match the 3D model?
Where do you think you are?

[sycocys]

Dimento Graven, on 02 February 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

90% of battle devolves WELL into the range of most weaponry (short range weapons it's not overly critical as for them they're typically, "in your face" kind of brawling.

Beyond that, the new feature of the weapons list on your HUD changing color to indicate whether or not you're targeting something that can be hit, AND WHEN YOUR CURSOR IS NOT ON A WALL, BUT SAY 10 to 30 FRICKIN' METERS WAY FROM SAID WALL, IT IS ILLOGICAL TO ASSUME YOU HAVE TO CHECK YOUR RANGE TO AVOID HITTING THE WALL YOU ARE NOT AIMING AT.

Please, Misses Uber White Knight, just admit this is a problem that should be fixed, REGARDLESS of how many craptastic work arounds PGI accidentally gives us...

Believe I already said it should be fixed - still doesn't change the fact that you should be verifying your target ranges before you fire off your weapons, whether you lead targets with ammo based ones or use lasers. Get into good practices and the invisible boxes won't eat up your shots when you are trying to play peek-and-hide-the-laser.

[Almond Brown]

And it is quite likely that Map based "Polygon Counts" have to be accounted for as well. I am sure PGI could make bounding boxes as tight is if it were a ladies nylon stocking but at what cost in processing and how many "Toasters" would be left out in the cold?

Something always has to give with these things.

Edited by Almond Brown, 02 February 2016 - 08:27 AM.

[Drollzy]

Meh happens alot on certain maps i just assume its bad clipping on devs. Its hard for them to find and yhey rely on us to inform.

[wanderer]

Quote

And it is quite likely that Map based "Polygon Counts" have to be accounted for as well. I am sure PGI could make bounding boxes as tight is if it were a ladies nylon stocking

Tighter hitboxes actually would take up less, not more. It's sloppy hitboxing, period.

[Ratpoison]

It's a bit funny

wanderer, on 02 February 2016 - 11:48 AM, said:

Tighter hitboxes actually would take up less, not more. It's sloppy hitboxing, period.

Uh, that isn't how 3D games work. Tighter bounding boxes = more polygons in order to better fit the shape = more 3D objects the engine has to draw. It doesn't matter that you can't see them, they are still there and they still take up processing. It's a separate process from the environment that you visually see.

[wanderer]

We're talking hitboxes that extend huge distances from a vertical wall here.

Tightening that up only requires drawing a smaller hitbox. This isn't even something like putting a more complex shape to cover something like the circular HPG pillars.

[Ratpoison]

wanderer, on 02 February 2016 - 12:13 PM, said:

We're talking hitboxes that extend huge distances from a vertical wall here.

Tightening that up only requires drawing a smaller hitbox. This isn't even something like putting a more complex shape to cover something like the circular HPG pillars.

That would be true for a sprite based 2D game, but again, that isn't how 3D games work. You can't just "tighten up the graphics on level 3". The 3D engine has to draw the map that you see, and then it has to draw ANOTHER mesh of bounding boxes on top of it. So basically, there's the map you see, and the map you "feel". The engine must draw both, using polygons. The more specific the shape, the more polygons it requires to draw. Less polygons results in better performance, but more invisible wall moments.

[Dread Render]

OP... its not a thing, its nothing... thats why its a thing! ;-p

[sycocys]

tortuousGoddess, on 02 February 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

That would be true for a sprite based 2D game, but again, that isn't how 3D games work. You can't just "tighten up the graphics on level 3". The 3D engine has to draw the map that you see, and then it has to draw ANOTHER mesh of bounding boxes on top of it. So basically, there's the map you see, and the map you "feel". The engine must draw both, using polygons. The more specific the shape, the more polygons it requires to draw. Less polygons results in better performance, but more invisible wall moments.

Don't talk sensibly in here, these people can not and shall not be reasoned with.