Should LOS be increased?

[Rayden]

I wonder if Line of Sight depends on terrain like in org. TA.
TA had 3 settings for line of sight: realistics, round and inactive (u see all).

If you choosed realistic you couldn't look behind a mountain. Respective a cannon on the mountain had a perfekt view. This added much for the strategic use of terrain. (Although it's a bit less useful in TA:Spring because of automatic radar aiming)

[NOiZE]

radar can't "look" trough hills and stuff

[Rayden]

somehow i don't think this is true, but i will try in game.

[NOiZE]

press "L" and u can see the radar coverage (green)

[Redfish]

It's even more realistic than OTA I believe.

[Warlord Zsinj]

LOS definitely needs a revamp in Spring. Its just a bit silly when I'm driving a flash around, and I can see a big red dot what seems to be just a few steps away, and should definitely be in LOS. I'd say most LOS needs to be upped by well over double, just for it to make sense in the 3D world of Spring...

[NOiZE]

Not to much please, gameplay for everything imho

[Doomweaver]

yeah up, los, but not to the detriment of gameplay.

[Tsumari]

This is a mod thread more than a spring thread. Remember that spring is different from whatever mod it is running at the time.

Tsumari

[Dwarden]

What about rise unit's eye visibility range with rank ? :) so l33t units got some advantage :))

[Rayden]

that is a VERY GOOD proposal, dwarden

[GrOuNd_ZeRo]

I definitly agree, I also think the targetting reticule should be bigger so you can lock on much better, I think it should be atleast double the size or maybe depending on the tollerances of the weapon, but that's a FP mode issue.

[Vehementi]

Yeah LOS really needs to have realistic ranges. In 30 thousand years if they can't design robots that can detect the presence of units a kilometer away, something is wrong. Realistically, you should have perfect vision on anything in your line of sight - there should be no radius. That's kinda wierd gameplay wise though - on flat maps you'd be able to (correctly as per realism) see all the way across the map which might not be cool.

[sp2danny72]

I think there should be a per-map fog-density witch should
determine how far you can see...

[Zoombie]

I think the aircraft LOS needs to ramped WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY up. Its realy frustrating to fly a bomber wave over the enemy with out radar coverage. Siriously the LOS that is used for Aircraft sould only be imposed dureing HEVY FOG let alone the clear and sunny day's that seem to make up all the maps weather.

[Phoenix]

I think the aircraft LOS needs to ramped WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY up. Its realy frustrating to fly a bomber wave over the enemy with out radar coverage. Siriously the LOS that is used for Aircraft sould only be imposed dureing HEVY FOG let alone the clear and sunny day's that seem to make up all the maps weather.

Hmmm But thats the whole points of bombers. They need to go in with radar coverage to pin point there target!

But i do agree with raising the LOS on aircraft. It is a tad hard.

[HellToupee]

bombers aircraft often miss as they fire before they can see the target, bombers have trouble with a metal extractor :/

[AF]

Modern bombers use other technologoies to terget bombs. Sucha s trackers at the target or GPS.

Aircraft should ahve a much bigger LOS, afterrall this would provide a balance for thsoe who think that radar jamming is far too effective. Aircraft LOS should be dependant on their current height not what the unit file says, so the higher it goes the more ti can see untill a point the engien defiens where ti starts to fall again unless the unit file specifies

[10053r]

Yeah LOS really needs to have realistic ranges. In 30 thousand years if they can't design robots that can detect the presence of units a kilometer away, something is wrong. Realistically, you should have perfect vision on anything in your line of sight - there should be no radius. That's kinda wierd gameplay wise though - on flat maps you'd be able to (correctly as per realism) see all the way across the map which might not be cool.

I agree 100% that LOS needs to more closely approach realistic. However, that would ruin gameplay unless map size more closely approaches realistic. Remember that the commander stands about 10 meters tall (based on the fact that he seems about twice the height of semis in the city maps). Therefore, we can guess that he walks at about 1-2 m / s, or about 5 km / hr, tops. It takes him around 5 minutes to walk 16 screens of OTA map size. Therefore, core prime is 400 meters across.

When we can have maps that are 400 Km across, then we can extend LOS to what it ought to be. In the mean time, we are stuck with unrealistically small LOS to match the postage stamp sized pieces of real estate we are fighting over. My advice is to bug the devs to increase the maximum map size by about a factor of 100 as a start, or if you have the 1337 sk1llz, to do it yourself.

[Torrasque]

My advice is to bug the devs to increase the maximum map size by about a factor of 100 as a start, or if you have the 1337 sk1llz, to do it yourself.

hum, I don't know what to think. map 100 times bigger mean ressource needed 100 times bigger (in fact, more).
So, you will need to decrease the qualitiy of something if you want to play with a normal computer. Map 100 times bigger means 100 times more units, wich is cool, but wich mean 100 times more path to calculate. etc..

64*64, 16 times bigger is still good.

But I don't think the size of the map will resolve LOS problem : the los is determined by the range of fire of units. If all the los of your unit is bigger than their range, it will totaly break the gameplay.