P.U.R.E. RC5.3 - Page 4

P.U.R.E. RC5.3

WolfeGames and projects headed by Argh.

Moderators: Moderators, Content Developer

Tobi
Spring Developer
Posts: 4598
Joined: 01 Jun 2005, 11:36

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Tobi » 04 Apr 2009, 22:22

AFAIK the point from where LOS is calculated is unrelated to the collision volume of a unit. (IIRC it's the unit's Y position + the model height.)
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 06 Apr 2009, 03:12

AFAIK the point from where LOS is calculated is unrelated to the collision volume of a unit. (IIRC it's the unit's Y position + the model height.)
If it's model height, then I probably need to standardize that, for anything that isn't really, really tall.
while most othermods keep their collision spheres so that they are a sphere around the units size and do not submerge under the ground, you have done yours so they are half submerged to make a dome over the unit.

this means units (which aim at the center of collision spheres) are aiming too close to the ground, which becomes very apparent once a weapon with a sprayangle becomes involved.
you would defo benefit from redoing all the collision spheres that are like this, because atm its the fail

also, the point LoS is taken from units seems to be extremely close to the ground; a unit on a piece of ground a near invisible amount lower than the ground around it has no LoS
Can you give me a specific example of this causing a major problem? I can understand why the behavior's maybe not perfect, but the choices available all come with a price.
metal extractors dont turn off when they run out of energy
also, when turned off they still use energy
Fixed.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 06 Apr 2009, 08:06

Ok, I've converted all of the Units to use hitboxes, and I've standardized their heights. We'll see if this is a good thing or a bad thing. If nothing else, standardizing their heights is going to do some very funny stuff with LOS, and may break things very badly for certain situations.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 06 Apr 2009, 08:17

<comes back from testing>

LOL, this is hilarious. With a height of 96 (high enough to cover everything but the very tallest units)... now everybody can see the other side of the Mesa. It's almost circular LOS.

Kinda defeats the purpose of having terrain, if everything can see over it. Mystery is definitely part of the fun.

I guess I need to standardize it with a lower height for everything, and use a manual setting for healthbar height, so that my own Widget will work right. That will not ruin gameplay, and it'll all be standardized, but it'll hose non-standard Widgets, which expect height to be set per-model like I used to have it. Oh well, the only one that I'm going to miss at all is the ETA one, and I can probably fix it specifically for the game anyhow.

All centroids have been raised to 16 off the ground unless they were somewhere really special before, as well, so that if there are serious issues with aiming being cancelled due to ray collisions with the ground, they're a thing of the past. I really feel like I just spent 4 hours solving a non-problem, though. I guess it is a good thing that this was the "freebie" day this week.
0 x

Tobi
Spring Developer
Posts: 4598
Joined: 01 Jun 2005, 11:36

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Tobi » 06 Apr 2009, 10:35

What is the problem again with lower units having a lower point from where LOS is calculated? (In other words, why do all units need the reference point for LOS on the same height?)

To me it kinda makes sense that a huge unit can look over higher hills/bumps in terrain then a tiny unit. It's easy enough to check in L view that LOS is approximately what you want, and then optionally artificially raise the height a bit for units so tiny that their LOS acts up, or something.
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 06 Apr 2009, 11:35

the LoS should be taken from the approximate head height of the unit. setting it to a really high value is kind of dumb. also, it might help if every unit didnt have such huge LoS when you only play the mod on that 8x8 map
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 06 Apr 2009, 18:29

The LOS was being set from the approximate head height, except where it was interfering with the position of the healthbar. You guys forget, that one integer gets used all over the place.

Anyways, it doesn't matter, it's done. Standardizing the LOS for most things isn't a terrible thing, and the healthbars are re-adjusted.

And Ivory, I hate to put it this way, but the LOS distance is long because it's exactly like it should be. It's not like this is new, or something.

I don't have any nice way to say that one. You asked for it in E&E, too, and Fanger was entirely right to tell you no. I really thought about it, at one point. I really thought about giving everybody the cartoon-like LOS of older games. But I decided that I liked the feel of more realistic sight distances, and that's how it's staying. Changing it now would break everything, so I can safely say that your chances of convincing me otherwise are zero.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 06 Apr 2009, 21:05

New video up: http://www.wolfegames.com/teaser001.wmv

Not entirely happy with this one, but meh, it's something that needs to get done.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22300
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by smoth » 07 Apr 2009, 00:21

pretty cool and you did a good job on the voices.
0 x

User avatar
1v0ry_k1ng
Posts: 4656
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by 1v0ry_k1ng » 07 Apr 2009, 00:24

Argh wrote:And Ivory, I hate to put it this way, but the LOS distance is long because it's exactly like it should be. It's not like this is new, or something.

I don't have any nice way to say that one. You asked for it in E&E, too, and Fanger was entirely right to tell you no. I really thought about it, at one point. I really thought about giving everybody the cartoon-like LOS of older games. But I decided that I liked the feel of more realistic sight distances, and that's how it's staying. Changing it now would break everything, so I can safely say that your chances of convincing me otherwise are zero.
ok, firstly, FIRSTLY, I have never, ever, at any point, on any forum, commented on the LoS distances in EE
this is because EE is, gameplay wise, one of the most proficient mods spring has, and from a gameplay perspective has no need of my input whatsoever; it is just FINE. also, the LoS in EE isnt that huge in the scale of things; it not somthing you notice so much, and radar certainly has uses. EE is designed for massive (20x20) maps and recent changes have scaled everything down so the LoS is even smaller in the scheme of things.
what you will have heard me say is that the models are too small; this is because, from a players perspective who wants to be able to see what the hell is going on, they are.

there is nothing realistic about games made by the spring engine. they are gamers, ergo, designed to be fun to play first and realistic second.
long range units and long LoS distances (in respect to mapsize) translate terribly to gameplay. hell, there is nothing realistic about a unit being able to see across an entire city. it certainly dosnt allow any subtly or sneaky tactics, unit micro, stratergy, bla bla bla.

Oh, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm alerting you to of the flaws as I find them with the understanding you are attempting to improve things. If I'm wasting my time giving you feedback then I'll stop.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 07 Apr 2009, 02:06

Oh, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm alerting you to of the flaws as I find them with the understanding you are attempting to improve things. If I'm wasting my time giving you feedback then I'll stop.
Yes, I know. Sorry, I'm being grumpy today. I understand you're trying to help. I'm building the new maps for the next release atm, bit busy.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 07 Apr 2009, 06:50

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
A quiet location in the desert. At least until the GIANT ROBOTS ARRIVED :twisted:
0 x

User avatar
zwzsg
Kernel Panic Co-Developer
Posts: 7017
Joined: 16 Nov 2004, 13:08

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by zwzsg » 07 Apr 2009, 09:03

I hated it in TA how the fight was done in the dark, units firing beyond the veil of the fog of war and you had no idea what they fired upon until you saw a wreck appearing.

I have not played Pure BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK!!!, so have no idea what's Pure's los, but as a general wish, I'd rather play RTS where most units have longer sight than range.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 07 Apr 2009, 09:14

Have you tried the 5.3 patch yet? Most people with serious problems had them addressed by that patch. Install 5.2, then the 5.3 patch. Or wait for 6.0, which has several big new features in it.
0 x

Google_Frog
Moderator
Posts: 2440
Joined: 12 Oct 2007, 09:24

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Google_Frog » 07 Apr 2009, 09:26

zwzsg wrote:but as a general wish, I'd rather play RTS where most units have longer sight than range.
CA has this.

I think Pure LOS is a bit large though, weapon range = los is good because it cuts down on micro but in Pure most units have massive los regardless of weapon range which reduces the intel gathering part of the game.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 07 Apr 2009, 09:33

TBH, I've never seen any real issues with "lack of surprise", on anything but the smallest map. But the whole point of Mesa that since there is no real surprise, you're playing for tactical and micro victory. It's a testbed for balance, more or less. IDK whether I'll even keep it, longer term, but probably, every game needs an Ashap.

If anybody wants to see a particular idea in terms of maps using World Builder and designed for the game, let me know. I'm mainly working on more stuff in the 12X12 range balanced for MP atm for the next version, but I'll go to 16X16 if somebody has a really good idea.
0 x

Warlord Zsinj
Imperial Winter Developer
Posts: 3742
Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Warlord Zsinj » 07 Apr 2009, 11:57

I like the map, but the sky colour is a little cornea-searing.
0 x

User avatar
Guessmyname
Posts: 3301
Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Guessmyname » 07 Apr 2009, 12:43

Zsinj, you're not afraid of a bit of pink, are you? :P
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 07 Apr 2009, 18:01

It's not pink. We're all Real Men around here. Therefore, it's "salmon".

Seriously though, it's the best I could do to simulate dusk at that sky-angle, without making a custom skybox, which I don't feel like making atm.
0 x

User avatar
Argh
Posts: 10920
Joined: 21 Feb 2005, 03:38

Re: P.U.R.E. RC5.3

Post by Argh » 08 Apr 2009, 05:05

We tried out the changes I made to all of the heights and hitboxes, etc. today. It was, and I'm trying to figure out a gentle way of putting it... not a good change. It's been reverted.

Oh, and the new map's cool. 2 more coming for the next release, which is scheduled for Friday. Also a few more things, but I'll talk more about that later on.
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “Argh's Projects”