Capitalship tag for aircraft

[Argh]

Cool, shall test here in a bit. Kloot, what sort of performance hit does a cube entail? I'm really tempted to just use it for most stuff, having played with it...

[smoth]

A "first draft" of this patch is now in SVN (for
unit <--> projectile coldet, tieing the custom
volumes to features is next up). The final tag
names are:

Code: Select all

CollisionVolumeType={"Ell" | "CylT" | "Box"}; // ('T' is one of "XYZ")
CollisionVolumeScales=X Y Z;
CollisionVolumeOffsets=P Q R;

oh man, I need to find where you are and buy you a beer!

[imbaczek]

It's just occured to me that this will break targetBorder in interesting ways. If anybody uses targetBorder, watch out - particularly, melee weapon users. (It may be easy to fix - see Weapon.cpp:725, grep for unit->sqradius - quite possibly changing this to a collision test will suffice.)

[Argh]

Doh! I could see that being a problem, considering how I'm going to use large radii for buildings, to correct aircraft flight behaviors. Gonna need a better check than that, depending on the form of the collision shape, imo. I don't use HTH in P.U.R.E. atm, though, so this is a non-problem for me...

[Kloot]

I'm afraid targetBorder isn't the only thing that'll act funky
for non-spherical volumes, all the raytracing functions that
deal with line-of-fire determination are affected in (more or
less) the same way. That part of the patch is still a work in
progress, so best hold off on that beer smoth.

[Argh]

I see... so Collide / Avoid code is also all screwy. Hadn't seen that, since right now Neutral stuff is just ignored, period. Good to know, thanks for making that clear...

[[Krogoth86]]

Hmm - just something that came to my mind:
Can you finally do floating DTs that block only ships and not amphibs with this system?

[KDR_11k]

No, that's the blocking map.

[Pxtl]

Actually, that's the first time anybody's mentioned a "multilayer blocking map" issue that has actually been intelligent - Most people just want multiple blocking maps so that they can have tanks driving between spiders legs.... but having a separate blocking map for amphibs, subs, and ships would be very nice.

[Argh]

Tested latest revision (5510)... it's not working like the previous version (5499) was, now shots are going right through the collision surfaces

[Kloot]

Strange, there were no changes to the core coldet
functionality between those two revisions. On a side
note, though, it is entirely possible for any projectile
to simply 'tunnel' through a volume with the current
discrete-interval test if its speed is high enough and
the volume not very large (a problem which was also
present in the old code but less noticable), expect a
solution to that soonish.

[FLOZi]

expect a
solution to that soonish.

Love you.

[KDR_11k]

Oh it was highly noticeable if you used s3os with tight spheres, I had big problems with that when I made CvC.

[imbaczek]

theoretically it should be enough to limit projectile's integration step to twice the minimum unit width... but this would incur slowdowns when quickly moving bullets come to play. i'm not sure if tracing rays between projectile's position and next position will be any better.

IOW this needs careful benchmarking and caveats all over the place. if you could make it so it doesn't slow down when there's no unit with small min width in current projectile's quad, modders could minimize impact of those slowdowns by carefully choosing units that actually use the feature. work, work, work...

[KDR_11k]

Tracing rays should be feasible, it's being done every frame for beamlasers so why not for projectiles?

[imbaczek]

I'm afraid of increasing the number of traces, as you said there's a lot of them going on in every frame and because they use slooow sqrt, they directly contribute to spring's fps. As I said, any solution will need benchmarking; it may be that I'm wrong, in which case we all should be happy.

[KDR_11k]

Hm, can we get a way to change the hit primitive size at runtime? Or did I miss somethign that makes it possible already?

[Kloot]

No, I haven't added the necessary Lua call-out yet. It would
probably be of limited value without refactoring anyway, the
primitives are defined per-unitdef so changing one of them
would change it for every other unit of that type (something
you might not want).

[Tribulexrenamed]

They aren't entirely custom, but I have a patch in the works that will at least allow you to attach an ellipsoid, cylinder, or box model of arbitrary dimensions to a unit or feature:



No ETA tho (there is an awful lot of code that deals with collisions that needs to be changed yet kept backward-compatible, so it probably won't make it into 75b1).

When is this ready?

[Argh]

When 0.77 is released. I've been using it in P.U.R.E. for months, works great, and will finally allow for more funky shapes to behave somewhat-correctly in combat.