[CONFIRMED] Further forward than you think you are. [790]

[ZEBBEEE]

In the stomach when prone but on top of the head when standing up. That’s why windows and doors look so small, as does ranks. 

[Merlin51]

1 hour ago, Zebbeee said:

as does ranks. 

So HC looks really really tiny?

[Nick]

You wouldn't believe the grief this is giving me trying to fix it, I can see why the RATS didn't fix it in the past!

I'll keep trying guys but no promises on a time scale.

[imded]

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 5:28 PM, merlin51 said:

Yes, its $30,000.00 USD

I thought it would be greater. The fine.

More like $1.5M USD  <due to inflation

 

 

[dropbear]

@Nick

Thank you Nick for at very least trying to fix it..it seems to have been very poorly modelled in the initial designs and all the issues we have with clipping, deploying and pov are based off this.

Any progress?

[Merlin51]

I think it was done as a response to clipping.
Not saying it was a good response, might have been all they could get together quickly at the time or something.
Remember way back when, you could get up against something, then turn your head and peek right into it?
Sometimes even shoot into it?

Think that is also the reason that leaning got disabled, which i miss

[Nick]

The problem is when you transition from standing to prone the animation shifts forward but during that shift there is no collision detection.

The whole infantry collision detection needs completely rewriting and to make that work it also needs all of the terrain objects to have proper collision objects too. As you can imagine that will require a huge amount of time from several different people.

I did stumble upon some code where the old rats tried to artificially fix it by moving the 3rd person model back rather than the camera forward. I tested it and it works ok except on slopes where it causes jittering, when I get some more time I'll look into that code a bit more.

[jet2019]

so its related to the old granny animation system?

[Nick]

3 hours ago, jet2019 said:

so its related to the old granny animation system?

No it's the way the animation was made not the granny software itself.

[nc0gnet0]

On 1/30/2019 at 5:10 AM, Nick said:

The problem is when you transition from standing to prone the animation shifts forward but during that shift there is no collision detection.

The whole infantry collision detection needs completely rewriting and to make that work it also needs all of the terrain objects to have proper collision objects too. As you can imagine that will require a huge amount of time from several different people.

I did stumble upon some code where the old rats tried to artificially fix it by moving the 3rd person model back rather than the camera forward. I tested it and it works ok except on slopes where it causes jittering, when I get some more time I'll look into that code a bit more.

Why  not just change the fact you shift forward when going from standing to prone to either no shift or a slight shift backwards. Is this also the case of sometimes getting stuck inside an object? I am really tired of setting charges on a fms, only to get stuck like a fly to flypaper to the efms, and then have my own charges kill me. 

[Nick]

15 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Why  not just change the fact you shift forward when going from standing to prone to either no shift or a slight shift backwards. Is this also the case of sometimes getting stuck inside an object? I am really tired of setting charges on a fms, only to get stuck like a fly to flypaper to the efms, and then have my own charges kill me. 

Unfortunately it needs someone who can make new animations, I could probably do it but I'm flat out doing other things.

You get stuck because the objects do not have what I would call correct collision shapes, the whole thing requires updating to use modern techniques.

[jet2019]

In the short term we can alter the animations to a slightly backward stance..as suggested.

Any animators around? There are plenty of people who like to promote their work on the unreal forums.

[imded]

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 7:17 PM, delems said:

Your eyes are in your stomach for the game, that is why.

I don't want to see the contents of my stomach, thank you.

[jwilly]

Old CRS said a long time ago that a prone character rotates around the eye point for technical reasons, which means that the "swing radius" of the body extremities from the center of rotation/eye point is minimized by having that center of rotation at the center of the prone character length. a prone character lfacing up or down a terrain slope always has a horizontal body, irrespective of the local slope. The worst case extent to which the prone character clips into the terrain is minimized by having the eyes centrally located. In conjunction with the vertical collider (that causes the character's body...at least at that point...to be above the terrain) also being located at the horizontal center of the prone body, but lower than the eye point, this also keeps the eye point above the terrain even when characters are facing up- or down-slope.

Old CRS said that a prone character could not have its eyes located in its head unless the always-horizontal body position was changed to follow the local terrain slope, including being able to bend at the waist when the prone character is straddling a terrain inflection line.

Quote

Unfortunately it needs someone who can make new animations

If someday within our lifetimes there's a decision to develop new infantry characters to resolve all these problems, could they also be made historically sized? IIRC, old CRS said the infantry characters were modeled at 6'2". The average WWII German, French or British young male adult was 5'4".