Clipping issues

[Deadfast 43]

I've tried for 10 pages to explain that many things depend on this failing design choice.

Perhaps you should try actually explaining it better because after 10 pages all you've managed to establish is that something is wrong and really needs to be fixed. Please easy up on the generalizations and appeals to emotion and simply explain in detail what is wrong.

[GShock 10]

Perhaps you should try actually explaining it better because after 10 pages all you've managed to establish is that something is wrong and really needs to be fixed. Please easy up on the generalizations and appeals to emotion and simply explain in detail what is wrong.

Listen.

The video at the thread-opening message shows you clearly 2 things.

1) When crawling on higher ground, the AI below, at that distance, sees you and shoots at you before you can see it. When you crawl, you crawl with head front so if that AI sees your head, you should obviously be able to see it. Geometry 101: 2 dots connected by a line.

2) You further crawl ahead until you see the AI in the scope while the AI has been shooting at you all along.

You will notice that when the target is in the scope, your shots hit the ground (clipping/invisible obstruction/lack of visual cues <-- where 1 doesn't exclude the other).

Now... That piece of ground which is obstructing that line of fire (but no longer the line of sight) stops your bullets but it doesn't stop the AI's bullets. How combat would take place in this situation can't be simulated at the current state of development of this engine. And a whole set of consequences is born after the clipping/obstruction and LOS problems:

3) Absent a system of auto-adaptive cover, where soldiers can use the environment with clearly restricted and visually cued firing arches, it is not possible to make a realistic use of cover. To make an example, close hatch and test firing out of towers.

4) It is not possible to correctly simulate CQB in these circumstances, regardless of clipping. Buildings have many objects that could be used as cover.

5) It is not possible to change the AI logics and make them seek cover first. This is why they shoot from prone but in open ground, almost never from cover (not intentionally it seems) and they surely don't use sub-stances.

6) It is not possible to "humanize" the AI skills: an AI that is compelled to shoot from the open must have an instant aim, regardless of the situation and an almost unerring shot.

7) It is not possible to fix the damage model. The AI will shrug bullets off and nonchalantly still be combat effective, since it must fight from open ground.

8) It is not possible to have weapons resting on scenery for increased stability.

9) It is not possible to have bipods working.

10) It is not possible to call this a simulation things so important still amiss.

It all starts from clipping but it doesn't end there.

[Deadfast 43]

1) When crawling on higher ground, the AI below, at that distance, sees you and shoots at you before you can see it. When you crawl, you crawl with head front so if that AI sees your head, you should obviously be able to see it. Geometry 101: 2 dots connected by a line.

2) You further crawl ahead until you see the AI in the scope while the AI has been shooting at you all along.

You will notice that when the target is in the scope, your shots hit the ground (clipping/invisible obstruction/lack of visual cues <-- where 1 doesn't exclude the other).

Now... That piece of ground which is obstructing that line of fire (but no longer the line of sight) stops your bullets but it doesn't stop the AI's bullets. How combat would take place in this situation can't be simulated at the current state of development of this engine. And a whole set of consequences is born after the clipping/obstruction and LOS problems:

I'm sorry, you lost me there. How many times do we need to draw a diagram to explain to you this is not how reality works. You do not have eyes on your forehead so it is entirely correct that the AI sees you first, your helmet is skylining against the horizon.

[GShock 10]

I'm sorry, you lost me there. How many times do we need to draw a diagram to explain to you this is not how reality works. You do not have eyes on your forehead so it is entirely correct that the AI sees you first, your helmet is skylining against the horizon.

Please can I have an answer by the DEVs about this issue?

[progamer 14]

Please can I have an answer by the DEVs about this issue?

It's not one issue. You are listing multiple known issues and seem to understand the actual issues. What is there for the developers to say? One of your issues is a feature request.

[GShock 10]

It's not one issue. You are listing multiple known issues and seem to understand the actual issues. What is there for the developers to say? One of your issues is a feature request.

You do not have eyes on your forehead so it is entirely correct that the AI sees you first, your helmet is skylining against the horizon.

They could say: Hang on, don't uninstall the game. Sooner or later we'll fix it.

That would really boost my spirits and give me some hope, ProGamer but I don't think it's ever going to happen.

[Smurf 12]

You do not have eyes on your forehead so it is entirely correct that the AI sees you first, your helmet is skylining against the horizon.

They could say: Hang on, don't uninstall the game. Sooner or later we'll fix it.

That would really boost my spirits and give me some hope, ProGamer but I don't think it's ever going to happen.

But there is nothing to fix there, that IS how it works.

[Deadfast 43]

You do not have eyes on your forehead so it is entirely correct that the AI sees you first, your helmet is skylining against the horizon.

They could say: Hang on, don't uninstall the game. Sooner or later we'll fix it.

That would really boost my spirits and give me some hope, ProGamer but I don't think it's ever going to happen.

You're right, it is not going to happen because it works exactly as it should!

[GShock 10]

You're right, it is not going to happen because it works exactly as it should!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34730455/random/coversystem.png

You accidentally forgot to draw my rifle pointing down at him over the ridge.

After you add that, you can also change the text into "he didn't even know what hit him".

EDIT: when you redraw this to depict the correct post-mortem situation of the target, remember that the target is at a lower altitude. This drawing would apply if the target was HIGHER than the ridge line. Another accidental mistake you made.

Edited October 27, 2013 by GShock

[dmarkwick 261]

You accidentally forgot to draw my rifle pointing down at him over the ridge.

After you add that, you can also change the text into "he didn't even know what hit him".

EDIT: when you redraw this to depict the correct post-mortem situation of the target, remember that the target is at a lower altitude. This drawing would apply if the target was HIGHER than the ridge line. Another accidental mistake you made.

I think you're being a little disingenuous here: the illustration is describing why you're experiencing one of your reported problems, but you're complaining because it doesn't address the other problem

Listen.

I just rewatched your video, and quite honestly I don't see any problem areas with it.

1. I don't know what happened just before you started recording, so I don't know how they know your location. But generally, they don't have magic eyesight, you must have drawn attention to yourself & your position somehow. Once they are aware of you, they will continue to know where you are, or at least where they last saw you. In your case, you don't make any attempt to move off so they still know where you are.

2. I linked to a simple drawing previously about why there is an apparent difference between what you can see vs what the AI can see, and what each of you can hit. I'll link it again:

scale aside, this is roughly what's going on. In this particular scenario, Deadfast's image is probably more descriptive.

3. They are firing at you, but they don't appear to be hitting you. You have conveniently ignored that.

4. If you're interested in realism, which you say you are, then you should not be in that location if they're firing at you. Crawling up to the ridge while being fired upon is nonsense, you should be backing away to move to a better, safer location. I find it difficult to believe you can be surprised by this.

5. It's obvious to me that you will hit the ground firing from that position, and I'm no great player. You'll just have to learn how to read the situation better IMO.

Edited October 27, 2013 by DMarkwick

[Greenfist 1863]

You accidentally forgot to draw my rifle pointing down at him over the ridge.

After you add that, you can also change the text into "he didn't even know what hit him".

EDIT: when you redraw this to depict the correct post-mortem situation of the target, remember that the target is at a lower altitude. This drawing would apply if the target was HIGHER than the ridge line. Another accidental mistake you made.

Like this?

He sees me from below as can I but I can't shoot him.

[GShock 10]

Strange... it is yet again a drawing that doesn't take in consideration the height difference... very strange...

[dmarkwick 261]

Strange... it is yet again a drawing that doesn't take in consideration the height difference... very strange...

*sigh*

Tilt your head to one side if you wish to imagine it on a slope. Really, it's exactly the same.

I mean, I can redraw it with a slope if it will help...?

[progamer 14]

*sigh*

Tilt your head to one side if you wish to imagine it on a slope. Really, it's exactly the same.

I mean, I can redraw it with a slope if it will help...?

Just draw it with a slope.

[dmarkwick 261]

[progamer 14]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v15/DMarkwick/LoS_vs_LoF_slope_zps36c4f5ab.jpg

Lol! :)

---------- Post added at 22:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:58 ----------

Wait, do you mean some of the geometry in game is not the same exact way as the visual object? Meaning bullets get stopped by the invisible edges of a rock. Because you have established the bug with first person not being rendered correctly. Is English your first language?

[Deadfast 43]

You accidentally forgot to draw my rifle pointing down at him over the ridge.

And how could you actually know that? The rifle would be behind the obstacle so even if I drew it you couldn't see it.

I guess I could draw the rest of the body all dashed out but since I cannot be bothered I will just accidentally take a few of screenshots in-game...

[GShock 10]

Let's talk about the place in object.

http://img15.picoodle.com/i5ar/gshock/jqf0_850_uczqg.jpg <-- seen from the unzoomed AI.

http://img10.picoodle.com/i5ar/gshock/vs8_548_uczqg.jpg <-- moment that unzooming AI shoots me.

Look how far behind the ridge I am when it shoots.

I can barely see the top of the tower myself and that AI sees me from ground level below that tower...

Some of the things this engine does are truly remarkable.

The grass that appears in a picture masks a target from sight... when you get to that target and look up the hill, the grass is magically gone and that guy's head pops out. :)

It's a kind of magic inn'it!?

[Tacti-Cool 10]

This thread has drifted into the realm of randomness.... i dont even know what points are being argued anymore, Deadfasts screenies are showing exactly what he is talking about, but Mr. Shocks look like they are 2 different areas of the map.

[progamer 14]

Let's talk about the place in object.

http://img15.picoodle.com/i5ar/gshock/jqf0_850_uczqg.jpg <-- seen from the unzoomed AI.

http://img10.picoodle.com/i5ar/gshock/vs8_548_uczqg.jpg <-- moment that unzooming AI shoots me.

Look how far behind the ridge I am when it shoots.

I can barely see the top of the tower myself and that AI sees me from ground level below that tower...

Some of the things this engine does are truly remarkable.

The grass that appears in a picture masks a target from sight... when you get to that target and look up the hill, the grass is magically gone and that guy's head pops out. :)

It's a kind of magic inn'it!?

So now the problem is with the AI?

[GShock 10]

So now the problem is with the AI?

Lists of every time I've answered to "what's the problem" question:

#73

#82

#96

#102 <-- This is probably the most detailed list of what BIS can't fix before it fixes the clipping/cover management issue.

AI is but one of the things that can't be touched at present stage.

[Sealife 22]

This thread has drifted into the realm of randomness.... i dont even know what points are being argued anymore, Deadfasts screenies are showing exactly what he is talking about, but Mr. Shocks look like they are 2 different areas of the map.

i think this pic kinda sums up the thread , everybody sees it from one perspective however Gshock sees it from a somewhat different perspective.

http://imgur.com/0oPS107

[Ezcoo 47]

I can't help thinking that the OP tries to gather attention and "keep the show on" with various tactics... His text is full of known fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies), both formal and informal, such as non sequitur, ad hominem and ad populum. Example of formal fallacy (non sequitur, both premises (1. and 2.) can be true but they're invalid as argument because there's no connection between premises and the conclusion):

"1. If point B can be observed from point A, point A can be observed from point B.

2. Soldiers can observe.

3. Therefore, if soldier A can observe soldier B then soldier B can also observe soldier A."

(Instead of that conclusion must be true, it only can be true. And because the conclusion is not true every time, the statement is false.)

Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.

Sound familiar? :p

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.

Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning

Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is. (#80)

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. (#112)

Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect. (#112)

Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to. A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion. (eg. reply #118)

Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.

Personal attacks (Argumentum ad hominem) – the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent. (#80)

False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.

Misleading vividness – involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.

Inductive fallacy – A more general name to some fallacies, such as hasty generalization. It happens when a conclusion is made of premises which lightly supports it.

Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning.

etc. etc.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Ezcoo

[dmarkwick 261]

I can't help thinking that the OP tries to gather attention and "keep the show on" with various tactics...

Yep. The OP moves the goalposts with no acknowledgement at all when his problems are addressed, then, when his new problems are also addressed he moves the goalposts back again, without any acknowledgement again. Thusly, he keeps a useless and nonsensical thread alive by jerking people about.

I guess we are clowns for participating.

I guess this thread is done :)

[Tacti-Cool 10]

...

Science