Damage model so inconsistent/ View range of inf

[dm79]

Why is the game engines damage model so inconsistent with hits, take the same situation the first time what you do kills the other player the next time carrying out the same action has no effect, it almost feels like some times the shell fired is not even registered by the game engine at all like ghost shells, i am tempted to start recording all the WTF moments i have so you can see i am not making this [censored] up or imagining it.

2 examples in the last two days S35 taking hit after hit at 1k from a Tiger, first shot took out his engine, next 19 were direct hits while he kept landing shots on me and kept shooting, after the 20th round hit he stopped shooting, Tonight frontal fight with a S76 at 1.4 k i had height advance and fired all 40 rounds at least 30 of these hit the front plate which should have been a kill, i even watched the shells hit though my commander as i could not believe what i was seeing. I have shot plenty of tanks in this game to know what should work and what does not hence why i am questioning these WTF moments i seem to get a lot of lately.

Is it conceivable that the game misses game packets which contain the data on ballistics and impacts or does not even calculate them at all. Did i read BM write the other day that what the game does is calculated locally then sent to the server to process?

The other issue is how far inf render these days, and invisible ei, while tanking i keep my commander out 100% of the time and and normally using the hat on my joystick to look in all directions at all times but inf still seem to get close and take me out and i never see them even on the death cam.  I have my setting to the max as far as i am aware but EI don't render at mid ranges any more and this feels like it has been changed since i played in the past? Am i right in saying the EI render range is around 1k? Is there a known issue with invisible inf?

I have to say events like above i am sure are not unique to me, just take a look at the bofors vid in a DM post further down for wonky game engine stuff imo, its highly frustrating and i have to admit i am 50/50 on leaving the game again as it seems far more flaky than i ever remember is being when everything was hosted in Texas or on older game versions. 

[TR6AL]

There has been no recent vis distance change with infantry. Its still 600m . 

 

[DOC]

The more complex the number of variables that are considered in the outcome of consequential events ... the more variety you will encounter in the results. If you want absolute regularity in a small number of possible outcomes, you have to move further and further to a far more simplified model. The ultimate extreme example would be 1 hit boom in every instance. The other end of that extreme is ... well you can figure that out. This is in a perfect world where nothing is ever in error, like the transfer of data for example ... and again, there's a lot of variables there too.

If you look at real life, the number of variables is so high that the impossible (or that which might have been thought to have been impossible) is observed, surprisingly, to actually take place on occasion. This is only for those instances where there is a surviving witness we hear from, often such things occur with no surviving witness that *we are aware of* to recount the event, whereas in game, any such event is recounted often and loudly in many cases.

Edited December 9, 2021 by DOC

[dm79]

7 hours ago, DOC said:

The more complex the number of variables that are considered in the outcome of consequential events ... the more variety you will encounter in the results. If you want absolute regularity in a small number of possible outcomes, you have to move further and further to a far more simplified model. The ultimate extreme example would be 1 hit boom in every instance. The other end of that extreme is ... well you can figure that out. This is in a perfect world where nothing is ever in error, like the transfer of data for example ... and again, there's a lot of variables there too.

If you look at real life, the number of variables is so high that the impossible (or that which might have been thought to have been impossible) is observed, surprisingly, to actually take place on occasion. This is only for those instances where there is a surviving witness we hear from, often such things occur with no surviving witness that *we are aware of* to recount the event, whereas in game, any such event is recounted often and loudly in many cases.

Sure i get that, but in a game surely its never variable its either a 1 or a 0, yes or no, bang no bang, at what point does the number of variables become a issue with the code or server setup, connection that needs to be fixed or looked into, or do we all just do as i think you are suggesting which is write it off as its impossible to control or improve, like it or lump it.

[dm79]

9 hours ago, TR6AL said:

There has been no recent vis distance change with infantry. Its still 600m . 

 

That was a very political reply, so was it further in the past at any point as it is my belief it was, also why is it so low, not even the 1km i thought it was.

[DOC]

8 minutes ago, dm79 said:

Sure i get that, but in a game surely its never variable its either a 1 or a 0, yes or no, bang no bang, at what point does the number of variables become a issue with the code or server setup, connection that needs to be fixed or looked into, or do we all just do as i think you are suggesting which is write it off as its impossible to control or improve, like it or lump it.

I never said that at all. That implication is all on you. I merely mentioned that perceptions of what "should" occur are not always driven by the same things that the code may be utilizing to determine the results you get. The more complex the manner in which results are arrived at, the greater is that difference, generally speaking. As far as errors or unintended consequences are concerned, that's another huge ball of wax that exists quite independently of what you perceive as the result of an enormous algorithmic variable array.

 

[GrAnit]

12 hours ago, TR6AL said:

There has been no recent vis distance change with infantry. Its still 600m . 

 

It used to be 800m.  It really needs to be 1.2 km to enhance gameplay experience.

[TR6AL]

at 1.2 k inf would be barely a speck/pixel .. not worth the cpu/gpu power to try to render them .

 

[OLDZEKE]

The last inf render or vizlist changes that were made was quite a few years ago, 5 years or more? Honestly can't remember but around 2017. That set the render range (when you see inf) at 700m. 

 

[jester]

Suggest reading through this thread DM:

 

...in which some CRS representatives have stated there "may be" an issue, despite the abundance of reports from long time vets such as yourself, Mosizlak, and others observing and reporting this issue. Undercova made one of the first threads I noticed describing exactly it, shortly after I spent a campaign playing ATG and dealt with several situations not unlike what you described in your OP. It's possible the situation - which clearly freakin' exists - is getting worse. But alas, CRS not unlike the days of old is seemingly incapable or unwilling to weigh the power of the thousands of hours of experience from their own players, even if it includes video evidence, without some hubbub of twisted words and (what they think are) possible explanations.

Oh and inf rendering at 700m has been around for some time. It is indeed a burden on the armored level of the game. 

 

[OLDZEKE]

The orginal CRS lowered inf render/viz to cure flyers stuttering over heavy pop AOs

[dm79]

1 hour ago, GrAnit said:

It used to be 800m.  It really needs to be 1.2 km to enhance gameplay experience.

Sorry can this be cleared up a bit as its a little confusing so it currently 600 meters but was as high has 800 or more?

Edited December 9, 2021 by dm79

[jester]

17 minutes ago, dm79 said:

Sorry can this be cleared up a bit as its a little confusing so it currently 600 meters but was as high has 800 or more?

Zeke is correct in that it's 700. From what I remember, it was previously 1km

Edited December 9, 2021 by jester
clarity

[dm79]

28 minutes ago, jester said:

Suggest reading through this thread DM:

 

...in which some CRS representatives have stated there "may be" an issue, despite the abundance of reports from long time vets such as yourself, Mosizlak, and others observing and reporting this issue. Undercova made one of the first threads I noticed describing exactly it, shortly after I spent a campaign playing ATG and dealt with several situations not unlike what you described in your OP. It's possible the situation - which clearly freakin' exists - is getting worse. But alas, CRS not unlike the days of old is seemingly incapable or unwilling to weigh the power of the thousands of hours of experience from their own players, even if it includes video evidence, without some hubbub of twisted words and (what they think are) possible explanations.

Oh and inf rendering at 700m has been around for some time. It is indeed a burden on the armored level of the game. 

 

I have had a read through it and also seen the same people dance round it with fancy ways of saying, what you expect and what you get will never match up, which is not a great standpoint to take, making out the problem is the players expectation rather than the game having a fault or problem or just [censored] outdated hardware and connections.

It's like going to the garage and saying my car has started going at 10mph it use to go at 50mph and ran lovely and the garage then turning round and saying ahh right 10mph huh, maybe the road you are driving on now is the problem, or maybe you use to think you were going 50mph, maybe you should just enjoy going 10mph because that is normal and what you should expect anything more is just you having too high expectation and your problem not the car's.

[dm79]

3 minutes ago, jester said:

Zeke is correct in that it's 700. From what I remember, it was previously 1km

I thought i remembered it being further out, can this be returned or is the game/hardware not capable any more?

[OLDZEKE]

Orginaly is was farther....I'm thinking 1.5k for inf. I can remember sitting in anhee ab veh with a atg and picking off inf on the far south ridge west of the rr bridge. But that was way back

 

[OLDZEKE]

It's not just a simple edit DM79. We looked at in a few years ago. I post up a question internally about it but don't expect a quick answer being everyone is pretty well

plate full atm.

[dm79]

4 minutes ago, OLDZEKE said:

It's not just a simple edit DM79. We looked at in a few years ago. I post up a question internally about it but don't expect a quick answer being everyone is pretty well

plate full atm.

Understood mate, i never made the mistake of expecting it to be simple but rather why it was changed which has i think been explained and info to follow on why it can or can't be changed back. Appreciate the input.

Edited December 9, 2021 by dm79

[OLDZEKE]

3 minutes ago, dm79 said:

Understood mate, i never made the mistake of expecting it to be simple but rather why it was changed which has i think been explained and info to follow on why it can or can't be changed back. Appreciate the input.

I posted up a query as to looking into it.

 

[jwilly]

Can interaction distances be viewer unit type dependent?

Aircraft could remain at 700 meters for stutter avoidance, and in accord with Scotsman's recent post that if anything aircraft currently can see too much ground detail from too far away. 

Surface units OTOH could be 1K or 1.5K, for better gameplay.

[JAMES10]

1 hour ago, jester said:

Suggest reading through this thread DM:

 

...in which some CRS representatives have stated there "may be" an issue, despite the abundance of reports from long time vets such as yourself, Mosizlak, and others observing and reporting this issue. Undercova made one of the first threads I noticed describing exactly it, shortly after I spent a campaign playing ATG and dealt with several situations not unlike what you described in your OP. It's possible the situation - which clearly freakin' exists - is getting worse. But alas, CRS not unlike the days of old is seemingly incapable or unwilling to weigh the power of the thousands of hours of experience from their own players, even if it includes video evidence, without some hubbub of twisted words and (what they think are) possible explanations.

Oh and inf rendering at 700m has been around for some time. It is indeed a burden on the armored level of the game. 

 

Hello jester how are you.

For the record I was the one who you are quoting, however you are selectively quoting the section. Here is the full section:

Quote

Is there an issue, possibly however, the experience gained also has a issue as well. I believe Ammunition Audit and Damage Audit have happened. New datasets

A link to the posting.

https://forums.wwiionline.com/topic/432036-dm-or-he-broken/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-6561513

Cheers

[OLDZEKE]

Just want to note here, we do read these forums regularly. We do also read through the bug reports daily.

There can be issues, real issues you are having that, until we can actually experience them ourselves and then find a way to replicate that issue with some consistency so as to know if it needs dev time or artist time etc, we really have no idea where to start the hunt.

[BMBM]

1 hour ago, jester said:

...in which some CRS representatives have stated there "may be" an issue

Yes. Deliberate wording. We deal with absolutes and we cannot say whether the issue exists or not until conclusively proven by testing. Therefore - ”may be”.

Dm79 et al: would you rather have weapon effects based on player expectation or hard data? Velocity, angle of impact, kinetic energy, resistor thickness etc: data that is pretty conclusive and easily trumps expectation any day in the week. You may think you got an easy kill at 1200 meters but you really don’t know the exact details of angle or precise hit location - data knows, and may come up with surprising results.

[OLDZEKE]

1 hour ago, jwilly said:

Can interaction distances be viewer unit type dependent?

Aircraft could remain at 700 meters for stutter avoidance, and in accord with Scotsman's recent post that if anything aircraft currently can see too much ground detail from too far away. 

Surface units OTOH could be 1K or 1.5K, for better gameplay.

Biasing per unit? I honestly don't have a good answer as it would be outside the data I have access too

[warspite]

I'm 100% sure that there is a problem somewhere, I haven't played for a while but the last time I did, it was very noticeable.

I've killed many DM79's over the years, you learn what hits will kill tanks, you get a feel for it. When you put multiple rounds into a spot that you know will kill and it doesn't, you have to question what the **** is going on. 

I've been on the CRS team, I know how the code works and I feel that there is a problem somewhere in the code. 

Whether Xoom will allow any investigation by a coder is another thing though, I'm led to believe that he doesn't want anymore coder time spent on this old game and that is why I don't sub anymore.