Jump to content

true LOSD Question


42 replies to this topic

#21 Psydotek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 745 posts
  • LocationClan 'Mechs? Everywhere? GOOD!

Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:18 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.

Another +1. I love tech info.

I really do hope that I can see the previously mentioned pink Atlas in the middle of a desert standing in plain sight regardless of how much ECM it's packing.

Another thing I'm hoping is that hiding in a dense forest surrounded my with a powered down 'Mech would at least provide some sort of ability to hide despite being able to see the rare polygon between trees...

*keeps fingers crossed for bridges to hide under and access tunnels to ambush from*

#22 Paul Inouye

    Lead Designer

  • Developer
  • Developer
  • 2,815 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 07 January 2012 - 11:52 PM

Let me quell one notion you guys may be having... if a Mech is standing in a grove of trees, we're not going to stop rendering that Mech.

#23 John Clavell

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,609 posts

Posted 07 January 2012 - 11:59 PM

In a nutshell. It's double blind rules with cherries on top.

#24 phelanjkell

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 08 January 2012 - 12:00 AM

I think what Paul is saying, MW:O will not have fake LOS. WoT does not use real line of sight. It uses something entirely different.

The LOS system they are talking about is actual worldly LOS. One of the problems they were talking about is a problem past games created, if you locked someone even if they moved behind objects or moved 700m away someone would still know where you are.

Radar and LOS will play a large role in the game it seems. If you see your target and gain a lock, but they move behind cover or other means of losing sight, that target lock will fade rapidly.

This is where we see light mechs with gear come into play. I'm quite frankly ecstatic about this type of system, it almost reads how the novels depict the combat.

#25 Octobit

    Member

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

Posted 08 January 2012 - 01:05 AM

So that means that enemy mechs will always be drawn? (Unless they're outside of the render distance or something?)

#26 Corsair114

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 213 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 03:48 AM

View PostPaul Inouye, on 07 January 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Let me quell one notion you guys may be having... if a Mech is standing in a grove of trees, we're not going to stop rendering that Mech.


Thanks Paul, that answered the question I had.

View PostOctobit, on 08 January 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

So that means that enemy mechs will always be drawn? (Unless they're outside of the render distance or something?)


Basically. What your eyes see, and what your sensors see, are strictly identical. Hypothetical scenario, but Catapult prowled past a fairly low building your Orion was crouching behind, you might be able to see its ears, but not necessarily pick it up with your sensors due to said building occluding the rays that constitute your sensors (whether because the rays don't originate from your head, or just because some aerial on the building happens to intersect one of the rays you send out that would otherwise hit the Catapult).

At least, I think that's what Paul was getting at.

#27 T0RC4ED

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 312 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 02:41 PM

W00T Bring out the technicals... Totally a great way to kill deployment time and understand the mechanics behind how im going to rock some fools =)

#28 Raeven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 324 posts
  • LocationHal's Bar. Middletown, Cathay District, Solaris VII

Posted 08 January 2012 - 02:51 PM

I'm most intrigued by the idea that there will be terrain features that allow you to hide from UAV's.

#29 Volume

    Member

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

Posted 08 January 2012 - 05:33 PM

View PostRaeven, on 08 January 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

I'm most intrigued by the idea that there will be terrain features that allow you to hide from UAV's.


I would be more surprised if there weren't. ^_^

It would be stupid to have a guaranteed 100% correct I-win give-me-intel button...

#30 Sturmbb

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 52 posts
  • LocationKissimmee , fl

Posted 08 January 2012 - 05:39 PM

Hopefully this does mean that the mech is always there but not nessisarily on the map. Random bush shot for the win.

#31 pcunite

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 08 January 2012 - 05:56 PM

Awesome, appreciate PGI explaining things ...

#32 Dlardrageth

    Member

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

Posted 08 January 2012 - 08:36 PM

View PostOmigir, on 07 January 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:


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?


You have consider that if is a giant pink Atlas, he wants to be seen in the first place probably.

Or in those immortal words: "It's a trap..."

More on topic, a major difference between MWO and other "similar" games will be that Mechs do have the option for a variety of sensor types. Just sitting in a bush or a copse of trees won't really suffice to hide you.

And yeah, then there's the part where there are no similar games, MWO will be unique! ^_^

View PostRaeven, on 08 January 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

I'm most intrigued by the idea that there will be terrain features that allow you to hide from UAV's.


Think "cave", think "ruin with partly intact roof" etc.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 08 January 2012 - 08:37 PM.


#33 Vulpesveritas

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • LocationWinsconsin, USA

Posted 08 January 2012 - 08:41 PM

Or morso a trap when you see an Atlas in a kilt skirt.

But yes, unless the UAV has thermal imaging / magnetic resonance imaging, it's not seeing in a cave. Or it flys into a cave, but who would fly their UAV into a cave?

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 08 January 2012 - 08:42 PM.


#34 Raeven

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 324 posts
  • LocationHal's Bar. Middletown, Cathay District, Solaris VII

Posted 08 January 2012 - 08:42 PM

View PostDlardrageth, on 08 January 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:


You have consider that if is a giant pink Atlas, he wants to be seen in the first place probably.

Or in those immortal words: "It's a trap..."

More on topic, a major difference between MWO and other "similar" games will be that Mechs do have the option for a variety of sensor types. Just sitting in a bush or a copse of trees won't really suffice to hide you.

And yeah, then there's the part where there are no similar games, MWO will be unique! ^_^



Think "cave", think "ruin with partly intact roof" etc.



Caves, cliffs, trees, buildings that 'Mechs can enter or gut to hide in, overpasses... all sorts of options.

#35 MuffinTop

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,089 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationNext door to nobody.

Posted 08 January 2012 - 08:47 PM

So can an Atlas or any other mech dig a hole the size of small town to hide it self, especiially in the desert sand? Stop me if I'm going way off base here.

#36 BarHaid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 1,050 posts
  • LocationMid-Cascadia

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:40 PM

Gawd yes; way off base. That's what the Engineering Vehicle is for. Pink Atlas ain't going to dirty those pretty hands.

#37 Mason Grimm

    Com Guard / Technician

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationToronto, ON

Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:45 PM

View Postphelanjkell, on 08 January 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

I think what Paul is saying, MW:O will not have fake LOS. WoT does not use real line of sight. It uses something entirely different.

The LOS system they are talking about is actual worldly LOS. One of the problems they were talking about is a problem past games created, if you locked someone even if they moved behind objects or moved 700m away someone would still know where you are.

Radar and LOS will play a large role in the game it seems. If you see your target and gain a lock, but they move behind cover or other means of losing sight, that target lock will fade rapidly.

This is where we see light mechs with gear come into play. I'm quite frankly ecstatic about this type of system, it almost reads how the novels depict the combat.


I couldn't agree more! When reading this months Information Warfare blog I went into nerdgasm mode. The options and levels of complexity that even a F2P type game like this can achieve are amazing; that PGI is doing it is astounding. Sure it may up the learning curve but it prevents said "I Win" Intel buttons AND gives any serious mechhead something to really sink their teeth in to!

#38 Duncan Jr Fischer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 493 posts
  • LocationKyiv

Posted 08 January 2012 - 10:07 PM

I see it fair if they make a true LOSD where you can see your enemy in the distance, through some holes or over the obstacles, but your mech can not. And so, any firing in such cases will have some precision issues. Especially at range,
And when your mech can't see the target, you can't 'spot' it for your lancemates. For proper 'spotting' some game mechanics steps must be made.
I mean I don't mind some steps from reality for the sake of gameplay, but it is really silly when one step of your mech decides if you see a 10-meters tall machine in front of you or not. Mechs are huge and should be seen from afar if not obstructed completely.
If the mech has a cityscape camo and stands in shutdown in some shady alley it may not jump in the eye naturally, but if you are attentive enough you should be able to notice it.

Edited by Duncan Jr Fischer, 08 January 2012 - 10:12 PM.


#39 CG Anastasius Focht

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 08 January 2012 - 10:16 PM

For Me LOS is about weapons having a clear path to fire down.
Mechs have radar and MAD (magnetic anomaly detectors) as well as infrared detectors which should show any powered up mech as a plume of heat rising well above the mech itself, in addition there is satellite data, narc beacons etc etc.
So my interpretation of LOS is what weapons can hit the target. for example in the pic below

Posted Image

The weapons on the left arm/torso/shoulder of the madcat have LOS, those on the right arm/torso/shoulder do not.

The S as in what your mech can See/sight is often at odds with what it can directly hit with any given weapon

The Madcat pilot can "see/sight" the Daishi visually and with the suite of sensors available IR, MAD etc etc, but only those weaps on the left side of his/her mech have LOS

Indeed when playing CBT with large scale mechs like this, we had to clarify the LOS rules as posted in the rules of warfare to reflect this, what you can "see" and what weaps have LOS are two different kettles of fish

Edited by [CG]Anastasius Focht, 08 January 2012 - 10:43 PM.


#40 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 09 January 2012 - 02:09 AM

Refering to the cave analogy mentioned above. Heat sensors are unlikely to be able to pick up anything from a stationary mech unless you have a direct LOS through the entrance to the mech and it is sufficiently above ambient for the semsors sensitivity to detect. MAD will only work on same lines - unlikely to read through any depth of rock, depending on type. remember magnetic anomalies exist naturally. Infra-red sensors are likely to be directional and "sweep" like radar. This gives the chance of missing picking up transient responses or having them "squelched" out by the interpreting software. In cities picking up mechs that are not actively fireing/moving is going to be difficult useing IR or MAD because of the background sources of emissions. As for radar - if active you can be picked up at a greater range on passive sensors than the radar can detect. Bear in mind all ranges will be reduced because you are operating at effectively ground level and as such will have reduced range and sensitivity. It's why ground based radars in RL are only effective for airbourne targets above a certain height from the ground. IMHO the best means of detection (without specialised gear) will still be the Mk1 Eyeball. Our own "computer" is very good at picking up and identifying movement and shapes. I think this will still be the main tool of scouts.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users