Feedback - infantry Fighting Position

[GOPHUR]

Please use this thread for feedback on the new Infantry Fighting Position that can be placed by any infantry except sappers and mission leaders.

====

Player Placed Objects:

We've added a new type of Server Tracked Object to this release, the Player Placed Object (PPO). These objects are only the first in a series of objects we hope to allow players to use to impact the battle they are in by affecting the world around them.

• Infantry players may now place certain objects in the world
  
• Sappers can place a gun emplacement
  
• All other infantry/paratroopers can place an infantry fighting position
  
• These objects cannot be destroyed
  
• Infantry units have a new entrenching or build tool
  
• When using this tool you will have visible feedback if you can place an object
  
• Infantry go to kneeling while placing the object
  
• There is a build timer to place the object
  
• There is a cool down timer on the entrenchment tool once it has been used before it can be used again
  
• These can be placed online or offline
  
• There is a limit on how many can be placed in an area by each side *
  
• There are no map icons because these objects are not part of strat
  
• There is a buffer around each object so that they may not be placed too close together or too close to other objects
  
• These objects cannot be placed on cobblestones or airfield or roads etc.
  
• These objects cannot be placed if another player is intersecting their placement position
  

Update 1.32.0.8:

• Moved the ghost object closer
  
• Decreased the buffer zone surrounding this object
  
• Working on a new object with more sloped sides to reduce rifle clipping
  

Known Issues:

• shadow flickering - FIXED
  
• luger animations wonky
  
• the auto removal function is not working
  
• the quantity limit is not working
  

Edited October 1, 2010 by GOPHUR

[elegance]

Looks fine. Is it supposed to show penetration marks when shot? Like this:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Also getting some shadow flicking on the inside like this:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[GOPHUR]

Same hit effects as on the grass but yeah, kinda odd. Will ticket.

[monsjoex]

It looks pretty crap if you deploy a lmg inside and aim to the left/right.

Like 1/2 your body can go into the berm.

But don't think this can be fixed easily..

[hotjoe]

I really think the minimum distance you can place one IFP from another should be shortened a bit.

[AHWULF]

I see the flicker on Mac as well.

[matt6767]

I really think the minimum distance you can place one IFP from another should be shortened a bit.

indeed, hard to place one in towns since buildings or objects tend to be close to each other.

[hotjoe]

indeed' date=' hard to place one in towns since buildings or objects tend to be close to each other.[/quote']

Also it would be great to place a nice defensive perimeter around the new infantry resupply points. Tried it today and the minimum distance you could place them away from the point just didn't provide a very secure position.

[matt6767]

I wonder what the number limit and the grid size is for ppo placement. So far I built 14 ifps very close to each other, trying to see how far I can go before I hit the limit.

[GOPHUR]

I really think the minimum distance you can place one IFP from another should be shortened a bit.

Building this type of thing would allow you to block AB entrances.

[GOPHUR]

I wonder what the number limit and the grid size is for ppo placement. So far I built 14 ifps very close to each other' date=' trying to see how far I can go before I hit the limit.[/quote']

The grid size is..800m?? Limit is 64 per side???

Not sure as it isn't in and working yet.

[Tigger6]

Building this type of thing would allow you to block AB entrances.

Doesn't a tank just roll over it? (Can't check today)

[GOPHUR]

Does a truck? How about an AA gun? it's not really a valid question. A valid question is "Why do you need to stack them edge to edge to form a barrier?"

[gigerman]

Just for consideration—US Army doctrine on foxhole design is that they are built for two infantrymen (who typically cooperate in the building of them). Might reduce the need for placing them closer together.

[GOPHUR]

True, I've thought about making it bigger but I want a lot of feedback before we make any changes to this. It's been changed over and over again and while it isn't what I want a lot of people like it so we're going to test it out as is and await feedback.

[helvan]

Gopher can we rotate the ghosted IFP placement object so the "front" is facing us? Yea this might be a little counterintuitive for newbs but I wanna be able to place the sight hole as close to brush cover as possible. IE; currently to get the "sight hole" between two branches of a bush you have to place it blindly from far behind that bush. Rotate the object and we'd have much more control over exactly where the sight hole gets placed.

Edited September 30, 2010 by helvan

[hotjoe]

Building this type of thing would allow you to block AB entrances.

Well theres 2 solutions to that. Well one as the other is technically already there. I'm pretty sure tanks can roll right over the IFP's?

If not, I'd think it would be pretty simple to code any IFP's that are near AB entrances to be transparent (no colliders) to tanks only so the tank would be able to pass right through it as if it wernt even there...?

[fluth]

It looks pretty crap if you deploy a lmg inside and aim to the left/right.

Like 1/2 your body can go into the berm.

But don't think this can be fixed easily..

Hopefully this illustrates the issue:

[hchris]

Checked and didn't see this anywhere reported yet.

I get a flickering texture when looking at the IFP from different angles. Also got the shadow flicker already reported above.

v1.32.0.7

My dx diag:

------------------

System Information

------------------

Time of this report: 5/29/2009, 21:28:58

Operating System: Windows Vista™ Home Premium (6.0, Build 6001) Service Pack 1 (6001.vistasp1_gdr.090302-1506)

System Model: MS-7358

BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG

Processor: Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.4GHz

Memory: 3326MB RAM

Page File: 1351MB used, 5522MB available

DirectX Version: DirectX 10

DxDiag Version: 6.00.6001.18000 32bit Unicode

---------------

Display Devices

---------------

Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260

Manufacturer: NVIDIA

Chip type: GeForce GTX 260

DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC

Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_05E2&SUBSYS_09A619F1&REV_A1

Display Memory: 2290 MB

Dedicated Memory: 883 MB

Shared Memory: 1407 MB

Current Mode: 1280 x 1024 (32 bit) (60Hz)

Monitor: PnP-Monitor (Standard)

Driver Name: nvd3dum.dll,nvwgf2um.dll

Driver Version: 7.15.0011.7824 (English)

DDI Version: 10

Driver Attributes: Final Retail

Driver Date/Size: 10/7/2008 14:33:00, 5963776 bytes

WHQL Logo'd: Yes

WHQL Date Stamp:

Device Identifier: {D7B71E3E-46A2-11CF-D164-AD2901C2CA35}

[Fredrik1]

Luger recoil animation is wonky while prone in a IFP

[GOPHUR]

Well theres 2 solutions to that. Well one as the other is technically already there. I'm pretty sure tanks can roll right over the IFP's?

If not, I'd think it would be pretty simple to code any IFP's that are near AB entrances to be transparent (no colliders) to tanks only so the tank would be able to pass right through it as if it wernt even there...?

The best answer is hardly ever "make it more complicated".

[tater]

is clone position accurate to where I leave it? I tested offline deploying LMG, and I'm seeing the same effect when I leave a clone. The 3d person is grossly different than the 1st person view.

if the clones are not dropped on the exact position (particularly deployed) then this is not a useful test, obviously.

[GOPHUR]

Luger recoil animation is wonky while prone in a IFP

Ticketed.

[tater]

Try deploying an IFP at the rear (open) side of one of the current player-ATG emplacements. As the IFP "ghost" steps up towards the roof, you can deploy it in mid-air.

I did this by backing into the ATG emplacement, when I saw it green in mid-air, I tried and sure enough it works.

[mrfancyp]

The IFP looks very nice. Maybe you could remove the sandbag that is visible from the front though? Not sure if it is intended, but it seems to increase the visibility of the emplacement quite a bit.