Jump to content

true LOSD Question


42 replies to this topic

#1 SaJeel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 170 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 12:56 AM

Ok so one fear that I have had is that this game will emulate World of Tanks. So i just want to know if anything has been said on if it uses true line of sight. World of tanks for instance does not. In WoT each tank has a sight range, any tanks beyond that sight range are invisible, forests and bushes along with enemy camo decrease sight range (so basically a tank can be really close to you, and because they are touching a bush they are invisible.

So back to the question, will MWO use true line of sight?

#2 Halfinax

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 01:05 AM

I wonder, what is "true LoSD?" Does that factor in camouflage, atmospheric interference, terrain, foliage, general obstructions, or is it just about what the human eye can see on a bright clear day when looking out into an open sky? Granted I hear a lot of bad things about WoTs LoS system, but seriously define "true LoSD" for me.

#3 Pave Low

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • LocationSydney (Australia)

Posted 07 January 2012 - 01:09 AM

I would day yes SaJeel, otherwise how would lasers (which travel in a straight line) hit other Mechs & do damage??

That's what I understand from your question anyway.

See u on the battlefield...;)

#4 Adridos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 10,635 posts
  • LocationHiding in a cake, left in green city called New A... something.

Posted 07 January 2012 - 02:25 AM

SaJeel, you should ask this in the Q&A thread and don't make additional threads. ;)

#5 Demi-Precentor Konev

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 386 posts
  • LocationDnepropetrovsk, Galedon Military District

Posted 07 January 2012 - 05:17 AM

View PostHalfinax, on 07 January 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

I wonder, what is "true LoSD?" Does that factor in camouflage, atmospheric interference, terrain, foliage, general obstructions, or is it just about what the human eye can see on a bright clear day when looking out into an open sky? Granted I hear a lot of bad things about WoTs LoS system, but seriously define "true LoSD" for me.


Last time I played, you couldn't see a tank that was sitting in an open field unless you were within *** meters - even if you had a clear LoS to it. You needed to have a teammate with LoS, or it had to be firing or something silly.

#6 Dlardrageth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,198 posts
  • LocationF.R.G.

Posted 07 January 2012 - 07:30 AM

The whole "true LoS" issue is basing on three pillars, so to say...

1. Technical feasability. If we get the really big/huge maps most are hoping for, "true LoS" might put a bit of a strain on system resources. And as much as some random person is now likely to show up and post: "Not our fault you are a cheapa***/unemployed/nOOb/poor bum, get a decent computer or GTFO!", that is not an approach PGI will assume to get a big customer/player base.

2. Balancing. For reasons of having to balance out weapons versus environmental factors vs. map size vs. speed scaling and what else, we cannot be sure thatw e will see a true 1:1 scaling of weapon ranges like the TT has them. There might be the necessity to make minor tweaks. Same goes for LoS issues. Depending on how exactly some environmental factors (weather) will be implemented, there might have to be some artificial limitation on LoS in some situations.

3. The "information warfare" angle. This one is tied to map size and speed scaling again. If on a given map with a given speed scaling "true LoS" woul severely handicap gamplay or lead to information warfrae turning pretty much obsolete, I'm all for imposing a limit there. On the other hand though, specialized recon Mechs might actually getting better than "true LoS" performance occasionally, if it is befitting their role. Keep in mind that BT is based on way more advanced Tech than the tanks in WoT for example. So "Line of Sight" isn't really based on "sight" alone with the sensors available to Mechs.

What I really do not want to see though, is ridiculous stuff like detecting (with only visual detection available on paper) an enemy tank through a railway dam that is double its size like in WoT. That borders on game-breaking. Or you running full speed into an enemy on an open field and he only shows up the moment you ram into him. That is even with just "visual detection" means a matter of shoddy programming, nothing else, IMHO.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 07 January 2012 - 07:31 AM.


#7 Fooooo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,456 posts
  • LocationSydney, Aus.

Posted 07 January 2012 - 08:03 AM

I'm guessing they will use a "true los" as you call it, however any minimap updates or HUD targeting stuff will involve the "information Warfare" stuff (for purposes of informing teammates of enemy locations etc)

Basically true los to me is you can see everything the game draws, and the game draws everything within a certain set limit for balancing reasons (people with lower spec pcs would be at a disadvantage otherwise).

There would be no mechanics that would stop your own personal mech from seeing a target at whatever the max limit for draw distance is set at by the devs. (that doesn't mean they will necessarily show up on your radar if you dont have long enough radar range, or transmit info to teammates on them)


WoT's uses a true los , but has mechanics that determine when your tank can see something. So basically it wont physically draw the enemy tanks unless some conditions are met even if you can "physically" see miles of terrain past where they are.

This causes the "invisible" tank problem, wherby a tank sitting 20metres infront of you can be completely invisible (not drawn at all), instead of a true los where the enemy is drawn but physically hidden behind bushes you may or may not be able to see him thru. (like spotting his gun poking out the bush etc.)

It also causes a problem when tanks with 400m + view range go against tanks with 300m, on the open flat field, the guy with 400m+ will spot the other guy and be able to shoot him, whilst the poor soul with 300m is getting shot by an invisible tank that should clearly be spotted.

In some ways it works well in WoT's case because of 3rd person and them trying to simulate what your commander / gunner / driver would see thru their little holes...(not much IRL).

Put me down for a no WoT style vision mechanics ;)

#8 Bryan Ekman

    Creative Director

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 1,106 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 07 January 2012 - 12:18 PM

Our Technical Director could explain it better, but I'll give it a shot. We use a math calculation known as vectors, which are part of a ray casting system. The server knows the location of every Mech at all times. Each tick (a time slice), the server checks LOSD between all of the active units in the play space. If a raycast is blocked by geometery, range, or another gameplay variable, that LOSD fails and the Mech is invisible to the appropriate players. The system gets more complicated when you add in units like UAVS, but the basic principal is the same.

#9 Demi-Precentor Konev

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 386 posts
  • LocationDnepropetrovsk, Galedon Military District

Posted 07 January 2012 - 12:21 PM

'Range'? I hope it's reasonable range...

#10 Skwisgaar Skwigelf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,136 posts
  • LocationMordhaus

Posted 07 January 2012 - 12:24 PM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 07 January 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Our Technical Director could explain it better, but I'll give it a shot. We use a math calculation known as vectors, which are part of a ray casting system. The server knows the location of every Mech at all times. Each tick (a time slice), the server checks LOSD between all of the active units in the play space. If a raycast is blocked by geometery, range, or another gameplay variable, that LOSD fails and the Mech is invisible to the appropriate players. The system gets more complicated when you add in units like UAVS, but the basic principal is the same.

Now when you say "invisible", does that apply to actual vision as in the mech does not show up on the computer screen, or is it "invisible" to radar and targeting systems?

#11 Xhaleon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Money Maker
  • The Money Maker
  • 542 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 12:51 PM

Uh, yeah, Bryan, that pretty much sounds like what the WoT people are saying. I never played WoT, but I get what they're saying about how LOS works there.

I'd assume for now that the "other gameplay variable" might be rare examples of ancient NullSig mechs...

#12 Vulpesveritas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • LocationWinsconsin, USA

Posted 07 January 2012 - 12:56 PM

I pray it is only invisible to targeting and radar.

#13 Orzorn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,327 posts
  • LocationComanche, Texas

Posted 07 January 2012 - 01:54 PM

Guys, don't freak out. That's pretty much, as far as my knowledge goes, how basically every first and third person video game handles line of sight. You draw vectors out from the player camera, and if they strike an object, then the object is deemed visible and is drawn to the screen. Every "clock" tick, the game redraws these vectors and then redraws the screen based on these vectors. Every object falls under this system, because it allows the game to not draw off-screen objects, which would waste precious system resources and most likely the lag your game to Clan space and back.

It seems to me that World of Tanks has some additional workings under the hood that make it act the way it does, perhaps some sort of camoflauge values and what not (or maybe, its just downright poor programming somewhere in their engine). If MWO DID act like World of Tanks, then the most important part of what Mr. Ekman said would be "or another gameplay value", which, at this time, I really don't know what that would entail (camoflauge? ECM maybe?).

#14 Bryan Ekman

    Creative Director

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 1,106 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 07 January 2012 - 05:12 PM

View PostSkwisgaar Skwigelf, on 07 January 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Now when you say "invisible", does that apply to actual vision as in the mech does not show up on the computer screen, or is it "invisible" to radar and targeting systems?


If you can visually see a mech, it will show up on radar most of the time. With all 3d games, there is a chance you can see something but the ray cast fails. It all depends on how many casts are done and from which point to point. Ray casts are not cheap to use.

#15 MrFancypants

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 05:33 PM

I'm curious about the "range" aspect as well. In a game like WoT the view range is limited in order to give scout tanks something to do (spotting the enemy and thereby extending view range of friendlies). In my opinion this feels rather strange because you should be able to see the enemy if you have line of sight.

#16 Corsair114

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 06:09 PM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 07 January 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

If you can visually see a mech, it will show up on radar most of the time. With all 3d games, there is a chance you can see something but the ray cast fails. It all depends on how many casts are done and from which point to point. Ray casts are not cheap to use.


So, if I understand this right, you could have a 'mech rendered within your visual radius, but have it remain undetectable to your sensors, right?

Or is detection synonymous with a 'mech being rendered visible to the naked eye?

#17 Omigir

    Can I have a hug? :(

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,800 posts
  • LocationVa

Posted 07 January 2012 - 07:24 PM

View PostCorsair114, on 07 January 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

So, if I understand this right, you could have a 'mech rendered within your visual radius, but have it remain undetectable to your sensors, right? Or is detection synonymous with a 'mech being rendered visible to the naked eye?


To piggy back off this, if we are in a desert enviorment, and there is a giant pink atlas with counter electronics and its standing out in plain sight, but its outside our sensors cpabilities, will it render?

is there a 'fog of war' where render will cut off when standing up on a hill and able to oversee a battlefeild?

#18 Volume

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 1,059 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 07:54 PM

Looking at http://mwomercs.com/...rmation-warfare, I feel like there are a couple things that can be added here...

We’ve changed how targeting has worked by layering and controlling what players see and know about the opposing force elements.
Target information is now exclusively Line of Sight/Detection (LOSD). Simply put, if you, a teammate or support unit can’t directly see or detect a target using a module, that target is invisible. Target information decays rapidly. This means if you lose LOSD, you will lose all knowledge that target’s position and current status.
Details about a target are not inclusive, and is now layered based on the type of modules and BattleMech you are piloting. The concept helps emphasizes using specific `Mech and Module combinations to gain and share enhanced targeting information.
Sharing of target information is also no longer inclusive and requires a Module or C3 Master/Slave unit.
  • Night Vision – Allows players to see more detail in low light situations.
  • Thermal Vision – Allows players to see heat signatures that can be detected through obstacles.
  • Magnetometer Assisted – Allows players to detect metal and metal densities which can uncover a BattleMech hiding behind a building.

^ Perhaps these change the "range" that Bryan was talking about, or remove the need for a raycast to have a direct line to the target (might say "Is there anything to the northeast within 150m" instead of "draw a line and see if it hits anything.")

Pure speculation but just considering.

Either way, considering sat scans and UAV, I think we'll have at least the general idea of where an enemy is or recently was without them having to "pop" in WoT style. I would HOPE/ASSUME that the engine renders everything instead of saying "Oh hey there's a tank here, QUICK DRAW IT LOL" the way WoT does. I've seen and experienced "Invisible in bush" a lot, and I've actually witnessed people having bugs where tanks would just show up invisible (only their shadows would be drawn).

I don't see if there's anything to be concerned about. In every game I've played, at least MW3, MW4, and especially MW:LL, there are countless times when I can physically see 'Mechs out of my detection range. I think it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Piranha to create this game without that. Otherwise Passive Radar would be pointless, since you could only see ~250m-300m outwards (which on a map where you'd normally see 1k-1.2k could be fairly significant). I would think LoS would work as in DIRECT LoS and perhaps certain environments will have more visibility than others.

#19 Octobit

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 29 posts
  • LocationVictoria, Australia

Posted 07 January 2012 - 08:14 PM

View PostBryan Ekman, on 07 January 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Our Technical Director could explain it better...


Perhaps any chance you could get him write something up for us? I love reading techincal stuff.

Edited by Octobit, 07 January 2012 - 08:15 PM.


#20 Vulpesveritas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • LocationWinsconsin, USA

Posted 07 January 2012 - 08:34 PM

View PostOctobit, on 07 January 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:


Perhaps any chance you could get him write something up for us? I love reading techincal stuff.


+1 I'd like to read it too.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 07 January 2012 - 08:35 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users