I'm trying! Fileuniverse had denies my upload everytime i try... maybe it has something to do with the filename :/mongus wrote:cmon kixxe, post the replay of that game and we can bitch all toguther if its worth it
Fps off Checkbox?
Moderator: Moderators
In games with "Limit D-Gun" on, FPS mode can be used to fire the D-Gun outside of this area. This means that "Limit D-Gun" is pretty pointless.smoth wrote:RLY? I have not seen that yet, but hey if someone can reach you with his comm then you were comm rushed and it has little to do with your ability to play the game with fps mode. Also the d-gun weapon expires after a certain distance.
You're mixing apples and oranges... FPS mode can be used to bypass the Comm limit DGun... this is an exploit. FPS mode itself is NOT, I repeat, NOT is an exploit.
The devs know about the exploit, and im sure they're working on it... if, once the Comm-Dgun Range exploit is taken out of the FPS Mode feature, will you be cool with it?
The devs know about the exploit, and im sure they're working on it... if, once the Comm-Dgun Range exploit is taken out of the FPS Mode feature, will you be cool with it?
Dragon, perhaps you should heed your own advice: Now you stop twisting our words around.Dragon45 wrote:You're mixing apples and oranges... FPS mode can be used to bypass the Comm limit DGun... this is an exploit. FPS mode itself is NOT, I repeat, NOT is an exploit.
The devs know about the exploit, and im sure they're working on it... if, once the Comm-Dgun Range exploit is taken out of the FPS Mode feature, will you be cool with it?
FPS mode is fine. Using FPS mode to make units violate the rules - fire farther than they should be able to, fire when they shouldn't be able to, fire at targets they shouldn't be able to - is not fine. Everyone in this thread who's expressed a problem with FPS mode has said that they'd have no problem with it if these exploits were fixed. Since many will probably be annoying to fix, having a simple option to disable FPS mode in games would be a probably-less-annoying-to-implement alternative until the bugs themselves are fixed.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
Okay then I guess just left with best option being:
Make an option that removes the FPS Glitch or Feature or Advantage or whatever it is called, so if people want to play without that, they can check the check box, if they like it the way it is, they can just not touch the check box. Will that suit everyone's needs?
Make an option that removes the FPS Glitch or Feature or Advantage or whatever it is called, so if people want to play without that, they can check the check box, if they like it the way it is, they can just not touch the check box. Will that suit everyone's needs?
Now just you wait Sir, let me correct YOUR typo.
If the attack button's range-finder were modified to reflect these actual simulation values, now we wouldnt have a problem, now would we?
But again, I don't think it SHOULD reflect the accurate value of the vector- its a fun little trick, and like i said, adds character to the game.
Do you understand how the engine works? The "Attack" button works within the context of the simulation- not the other way around. As such, even if that command doesn't accurately reflect what the true range of the unit is- well then that is in the design of the Attack calculation- which doesnt use the shortest distance vector, but, an APPROXIMATION, to save calculation time.Egarwaen wrote:I like taking things out of context, blah blah blah
If the attack button's range-finder were modified to reflect these actual simulation values, now we wouldnt have a problem, now would we?
But again, I don't think it SHOULD reflect the accurate value of the vector- its a fun little trick, and like i said, adds character to the game.
You don't save much calculation time by doing
1) r^2 = x^2+z^2 (current method that allows fps bug) compared to
2) r^2 = x^2+z^2+y^2.
It's roughly one third more, or even less if you count that the overheads don't increase much at all.
I don't get it why the targeting should be different than the range. If the range is 3-dimensional, so should the targeting be.
Only reason is mods "breaking" but does this really have such a drastic effect? Currently stuff on hills or in pits shoots farther than it should? Or targets further than it can actually shoot? I'm all mixed up by this 2d and 3d mixup.
1) r^2 = x^2+z^2 (current method that allows fps bug) compared to
2) r^2 = x^2+z^2+y^2.
It's roughly one third more, or even less if you count that the overheads don't increase much at all.
I don't get it why the targeting should be different than the range. If the range is 3-dimensional, so should the targeting be.
Only reason is mods "breaking" but does this really have such a drastic effect? Currently stuff on hills or in pits shoots farther than it should? Or targets further than it can actually shoot? I'm all mixed up by this 2d and 3d mixup.
Real life has very little to do with TA.mongus wrote:IRL weapons surpass "given" max range
No, because then they'd have done exactly what I asked for - eliminated the rules violation that can be achieved using FPS mode.Drag-on45 wrote: If the attack button's range-finder were modified to reflect these actual simulation values, now we wouldnt have a problem, now would we?