1st & 3rd person views for inf... does something seem off?

[hathcock]

Eh? Something seem different?

I've been trying to put my finger on what feels so different to me with 1.31. Especially when it comes to shooting at people in windows... somethin doesn't seem entirely right. Like how much they're exposed, versus how much they think is showing, doesn't match up.

Coulda sworn I've been shot at by guys who only had an elbow showing in a window or doorway.

Suppose megalag could do that too, but...

[Lob12]

I get killed a lot when im in perfect cover, got used to it....

[ZeroAce]

I reported this in the bug forum because something is definitely not right.

I've been killed by EI that were hidden completely behind cover, such as when deployed on FB sandbags or or a building window.

One of them was leaning around a corner but it never rendered in third person. This has happened a couple times and I couldn't figure out what was happening, so I messaged one of them and found out he had been leaning around the corner.

[romzburg]

At first in 1.31 there was a "pop-up" aim "feature" to the infantry.

When prone, or crouched or in the standing "combat-ready" semi-hunch, your avatar would get slightly higher when you brought your rifle to the "aim" position.

Seems like a good idea, you stay lower so you can peek over walls, then when you arte ready to aim, you have to expose a bit more to get your rifle up.

Problem was, when you were in a building and were back away from the window and you aimed at something 200 meters away that was in your line of sight near the top of the window opening, your "pop-up" wold cause the target to disappear above the window.

Same for crouching or lying prone in bushes, or under a truck, or anywhere there was anything between you and your target just higher than your sight line to the target, even if it was 50 meters away.

Your target disappeared when you aimed at it because your head raised up and the bush you are concealed in has a leaf in your face now.

It even happened when prone.

It could give you a headache, all the screen bouncing up and down if you tried to walk or reposition yourself while crouched, because the crouch movement triggered the same head bob as when you aimed.

The head also bounced up and down like crazy when you jogged or sprinted, making your screen go nuts.

We complained a LOT. I complained like never before.

But, with radial clutter, they couldn't take the eye position back lower, because you wouldn't be able to see jack. It's still pretty bad, but not as bad as it would have been.

They also didn't want to lose the combat-ready stance (the semi-hunch).

So after a couple tweaks and me and others still crying our eyes out about how we had to completely exit a bush in order to shoot anything, and that bushes were now smaller and sparser, and how that combination meant infantry were just totally screwed now they decided to:

Leave the eye height at the "aiming-pop-up" level permanently, whether you are in "aim mode" or not. This means your avatar will be lower while you are scouting, and when you decide to aim, your avatar will get a little taller as he aims, but from a 1st person perspective nothing changes.

This was the correct decision.

So, it's probably true that you've been shot by EI that were barely visible because they weren't aiming when they saw you and prepared to shoot you, and then they aimed and shot quickly.

At least that's the way I understand how things work now.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

Edited July 11, 2010 by romzburg

[branko]

I think that the predictor code used to smooth infantry movement in 3rd person - and it has done a great job - is playing tricks on us all?

The other day an nme entered the CP I was guarding. I crawled down the stairs, trying to make my mind up whether to go left or right at the bottom.

Just before I reached the decision point - on my screen - the nme (rifleman) took a shot at me. He missed. I crawled a foot or two forward and turned left, shooting him before he could reload.

Two things are in play in the above scenario:

* I am prone and judging where my eyes are compared to my head is difficult

* The predictor code may well keep moving me - a short distance - in 3rd person on the other guy's PC - after I have actually stopped (before snapping me back to where I actually am).

I have also experienced the "how the hell can he have shot me when I only see his elbow", routine.

Finally "perfect cover": Go checkout the bugs forum. Apparently there is no such thing.

[romzburg]

I reported this in the bug forum because something is definitely not right.

I've been killed by EI that were hidden completely behind cover, such as when deployed on FB sandbags or or a building window.

One of them was leaning around a corner but it never rendered in third person. This has happened a couple times and I couldn't figure out what was happening, so I messaged one of them and found out he had been leaning around the corner.

Might be due to position status update lag, or might be a byproduct of uyour eye position not matched exactly to your avatar position.

The real question here is "How did that guy get "lean" to work?!?!"

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[joelq]

This is what i dont like about the new eye position.

[gtanner]

This is what i dont like about the new eye position.

As far as we were told eye positions were verticle only not horizontal, and they got changed back after feedback.

Hopefully with 1.32 the possible 3rd person redo of inf will get some of these strange issues out the way...

Lets get some info

[Fredrik1]

This is what i dont like about the new eye position.

That's how it always has been and probably always will be.

It's how 99% of all first person shooters do it.

[berzerkr]

This is what i dont like about the new eye position.

might be with certain bvushes,looks like a fix will be needed

[gothic]

That's how it always has been and probably always will be.

It's how 99% of all first person shooters do it.

Then this should be the first to fix it.

//G

[catfive]

This is what i dont like about the new eye position.

Where's that guy who came in telling us nothing had been changed? lol..

Its almost impossible now to use foliage for concealment with a very few exceptions.

[hick]

At first in 1.31 there was a "pop-up" aim "feature" to the infantry.

When prone, or crouched or in the standing "combat-ready" semi-hunch, your avatar would get slightly higher when you brought your rifle to the "aim" position.

Seems like a good idea, you stay lower so you can peek over walls, then when you arte ready to aim, you have to expose a bit more to get your rifle up.

Problem was, when you were in a building and were back away from the window and you aimed at something 200 meters away that was in your line of sight near the top of the window opening, your "pop-up" wold cause the target to disappear above the window.

Same for crouching or lying prone in bushes, or under a truck, or anywhere there was anything between you and your target just higher than your sight line to the target, even if it was 50 meters away.

Your target disappeared when you aimed at it because your head raised up and the bush you are concealed in has a leaf in your face now.

It even happened when prone.

It could give you a headache, all the screen bouncing up and down if you tried to walk or reposition yourself while crouched, because the crouch movement triggered the same head bob as when you aimed.

The head also bounced up and down like crazy when you jogged or sprinted, making your screen go nuts.

We complained a LOT. I complained like never before.

But, with radial clutter, they couldn't take the eye position back lower, because you wouldn't be able to see jack. It's still pretty bad, but not as bad as it would have been.

They also didn't want to lose the combat-ready stance (the semi-hunch).

So after a couple tweaks and me and others still crying our eyes out about how we had to completely exit a bush in order to shoot anything, and that bushes were now smaller and sparser, and how that combination meant infantry were just totally screwed now they decided to:

Leave the eye height at the "aiming-pop-up" level permanently, whether you are in "aim mode" or not. This means your avatar will be lower while you are scouting, and when you decide to aim, your avatar will get a little taller as he aims, but from a 1st person perspective nothing changes.

This was the correct decision.

So, it's probably true that you've been shot by EI that were barely visible because they weren't aiming when they saw you and prepared to shoot you, and then they aimed and shot quickly.

At least that's the way I understand how things work now.

____________________

Not quite.

The "head-pop-up" while crouched or prone was removed, but the eyes are still at the avatar's head height. Now where this is significantly different from pre-1.31 when the eye height was roughly in the avatar's chest.

afaik, the pop-up feature for standing inf still remains.

It could be an issue with the leaning inf not displaying properly in 3rd person. It will take some testing though to be sure.

Oh, moved to the Bug forums for possible input from the dev team.

[jackw]

From some things that I have seen 3rd person views are off.

I have seen ei looking sideways to my position I pull up and before I shoot the sideways ei shoots me. (Probly not how it is but it is how I am seeing it)

I have seen ei on roofs lie down near the top of the roof and there bodies are on the far side of the roof while thier gun sticks through the roof able to shoot while not exsposing there body.(Probly not how it is but it is how I am seeing it )

The same thing from above happens with berms and logs. (Again probly not how it is but it is how I am seeing it)

[romzburg]

Not quite.

The "head-pop-up" while crouched or prone was removed, but the eyes are still at the avatar's head height. Now where this is significantly different from pre-1.31 when the eye height was roughly in the avatar's chest.

afaik, the pop-up feature for standing inf still remains.

It could be an issue with the leaning inf not displaying properly in 3rd person. It will take some testing though to be sure.

Oh, moved to the Bug forums for possible input from the dev team.

There is no pop-up when you aim at all, in first person. Your eyes are where the pop-up would have been in the pop-up system, I think.

The prone eye height is also higher than it was, this was stated by CRS, due to the clutter issue. (Which still needs attention.) I am almost positive it is also the pop-up height rather than just the head height....

I'm pretty sure in every state, prone, crouched, standing that eye height has been fixed to the pop-up height because they didn't want to change any animations, and changing the eye height to make it lose the pop-up in first person was easy, and of the positions to choose to use, the pop-up height made sense.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

Edited July 11, 2010 by romzburg

[romzburg]

From some things that I have seen 3rd person views are off.

I have seen ei looking sideways to my position I pull up and before I shoot the sideways ei shoots me. (Probly not how it is but it is how I am seeing it)

I have seen ei on roofs lie down near the top of the roof and there bodies are on the far side of the roof while thier gun sticks through the roof able to shoot while not exsposing there body.(Probly not how it is but it is how I am seeing it )

The same thing from above happens with berms and logs. (Again probly not how it is but it is how I am seeing it)

I *think* this is because your 1st person view has the eyes a little higher than they are on your avatar, due to the pop-up issue, and the rule is, "If you can see it, you can shoot it".

So Since your eye are a bit high, from 1st person you seem to be fully over the top of the berm, but from third you aren't, and so you rifle sticks through.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

[hick]

There is no pop-up when you aim at all, in first person. Your eyes are where the pop-up would have been in the pop-up system, I think.

The prone eye height is also higher than it was, this was stated by CRS, due to the clutter issue. (Which still needs attention.) I am almost positive it is also the pop-up height rather than just the head height....

I'm pretty sure in every state, prone, crouched, standing that eye height has been fixed to the pop-up height because they didn't want to change any animations, and changing the eye height to make it lose the pop-up in first person was easy, and of the positions to choose to use, the pop-up height made sense.

____________________

Just did some testing on the training server, and the eye height while standing is roughly where the eyes are located in the combat stance position, not the fully upright stance. But you are correct, they no longer raise up when aiming.

As for the issue of not being able to see players when they are shooting, it has to do with the eye placement relative to the 3rd person render while leaned.

Also there seems to be a discrepancy in the eye position when prone. Screen Shots to follow.

Conditions of test:

The test was conducted on a Dell M6300 Mobile Workstations with the following specs:

Intel T9300 Core 2 Duo Processor @ 2.5 ghz per core. Affinity set to both cores.

4GB PC5300 DDR2 RAM

nVidia Quadro FX3600M Graphics with 512Mb RAM

Resolution set to 1200x800

100mbps Ethernet, 15Mbps Cable Internet

Ping appr 60ms, Packet Loss nil

All models were allowed to sit in a fix position for 30 seconds prior to taking position photos to accommodate predictor algorithms.

[hick]

Standing Eye Height:

The Blue dot is the apprixmate Eye position on the Avatar when standing erect. Notice the eyes are lower in the combat stance mode.

The red dot is the approximate eye position in 1st person. Notice it is roughly the same height as the combat-stanced 3rd person avatar's eyes.

Crouched:

Notice the eyes are about halfway between the two mortar seams on the wall texture.

And in 3rd person the avatar's eyes are also at the same height.

[hick]

Prone:

Notice the 1st person eye height & weapon is above and left of the 3rd person's weapon and head.

Notice too that the first person eye position is behind where the 3rd person eye position was for the other player.

Leaning:

Notice I have a clear view through the window in 1st person while leaned

Notice though that the target cannot see most of my head due to the window frame.

[hick]

A couple things seem to be evident.

1) Leaning. The eye position in the 1st person is leaning farther than the 3rd person avatar art is indicating.

2) Prone. The first person eye height is higher than the 3rd person avatar. Also, it is possible that the eyes are still located on the vertical centerline of the standing avatar, thus making them in the torso of a prone infantryman instead of the head.

[hick]

bump

[hick]

Bump again.

The result of this issue is infantry are able to fire from complete cover and concealment (i.e. completely hidden behind a roof, sandbag, etc) and successfully hit opposing targets that physically cannot see them nor successfully attempt to engage them.

[slr]

Some interesting points being made here which I have noticed varieties of myself. For example, being shot by an ei behind cover when the only thing visible to me was the top of his helmet. Also I'm convinced there is more than one issue with using bushes for cover. Many times it's clear that I think I'm in full cover when I''m not, and conversely many times ei can fire out of a bush in total cover and yet even using binos nothing can be seen except the muzzle flash.

[GOPHUR]

A couple things seem to be evident.

1) Leaning. The eye position in the 1st person is leaning farther than the 3rd person avatar art is indicating.

2) Prone. The first person eye height is higher than the 3rd person avatar. Also, it is possible that the eyes are still located on the vertical centerline of the standing avatar, thus making them in the torso of a prone infantryman instead of the head.

There's nothing to bump. This is obvious. This is correct. This is in the read me. This is intentional.

We like the combat stance and we like that it provides more concealment in a game with fixed heights. It reduces the profile slightly but never actually makes a player invisible.

We liked having the eyepoint tied to this change but everyone had a hissy fit so we took it out.

[romzburg]

There's nothing to bump. This is obvious. This is correct. This is in the read me. This is intentional.

We like the combat stance and we like that it provides more concealment in a game with fixed heights. It reduces the profile slightly but never actually makes a player invisible.

We liked having the eyepoint tied to this change but everyone had a hissy fit so we took it out.

I'm not "everyone", but thanks anyway!

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.