Home » MODDING HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Idea Incubation Lab  » New CTH system - Presentation
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250959] Tue, 04 May 2010 18:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2676
Registered:May 2009
Headrock

Quote:
5. Recoil: should be zero for machine gun and a normal value for main gun


Since the main gun can only fire single shots, recoil is irrelevant. But for the machine gun I guess 0 recoil would be possible. Of course that would make that MG very very powerful.


I wasn't thinking of automatic fire. I just thought that since these old tanks don't have computers for gun stabilization the muzzle should be a bit off the target after firing so it takes time to align aim again - if that was necessary... Wink
I don't know how shooting time is calculated for tanks. For people the second shot takes less AP. For tanks there should be a penalty (also to reflect the need to see through the smoke again). But recoil is probably the wrong place to implement something like that.


The machine gun should be powerful. It could be given a higher deviation value just to make sure that the tank doesn't become an "automatic sniper rifle".

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250961] Tue, 04 May 2010 19:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
I don't know how shooting time is calculated for tanks. For people the second shot takes less AP. For tanks there should be a penalty (also to reflect the need to see through the smoke again). But recoil is probably the wrong place to implement something like that.


The first shot costs (AP_to_Ready + AP_to_Fire). Subsequent shots only cost AP_to_Fire. I don't know if tanks have to "ready" their weapons at all though. In either case, this would work as a modifier for AP costs, not for accuracy...

Quote:
The machine gun should be powerful. It could be given a higher deviation value just to make sure that the tank doesn't become an "automatic sniper rifle".


Yes, I was considering this. Big bullets with massive drag.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250962] Tue, 04 May 2010 19:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
With respect to the grippod and the overall prone/bipod situation, as you are planning to add variables somewhere, why not just repeat the variables again but for prone uses? Frankly I would not have a problem with having four sets of the final shooting related variables: General, standing, Crouched/firing stance, and prone.

[Updated on: Tue, 04 May 2010 19:37] by Moderator



Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250963] Tue, 04 May 2010 19:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3743
Registered:July 2009
What MG does the tank use at all? I remember something like stealing from a tank in retail-WF gave you a Minimi. But I don't know if it's 1) true in JA2 and if the tank 2) really uses this particular MG.
If it is true, we should probably create a proprietary tank MG to get the ability for better balancing without interfering with a weapon a merc could use. Finally, those coax MGs are usually special versions of the armies standard MG.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250964] Tue, 04 May 2010 21:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Hairysteed

 
Messages:193
Registered:December 2007
Location: Finland
In the tactical view the tanks appear to be M60 Pattons, but the intro movie shows a M48s moving into Omerta. Either way both tanks are armed with a coaxial 7.62x51mm M73(or M219) machine guns (A variant of M1919), although later versions of the M60 might be armed with M240s

I can't think of any armored vehicle that has an FN Minimi as a coaxial... Puma - the Bundeswehr's new IFV - is the only one I know that has a 5.56mm coax

[Updated on: Tue, 04 May 2010 21:10] by Moderator

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250965] Tue, 04 May 2010 22:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3743
Registered:July 2009
I know the most likely types for the JA2 tanks and that the usual coax MG is in the 7.62+ range.
I never actually tried stealing from a tank myself, just read it somewhere. And it somehow makes sense. With the limited capabilities of the original weapon collection, the devs probably wanted the longest possible burst for tanks which was offered by the minimi. Seriously, they used the HK21 for air raid strafing runs, using the minimi for tanks isn't that far off.
Although there could be problems arising from a change in that section.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250968] Wed, 05 May 2010 00:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Gorro der GrĂ¼ne

 
Messages:1482
Registered:March 2009
Location: Broadwurschd-City
the vanilla steal was always the FN Mimidingsbums

did it often enough


(but never managed to steal from bloodcats)
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250974] Wed, 05 May 2010 05:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
With respect to the grippod and the overall prone/bipod situation, as you are planning to add variables somewhere, why not just repeat the variables again but for prone uses? Frankly I would not have a problem with having four sets of the final shooting related variables: General, standing, Crouched/firing stance, and prone.


While I could make that happen, I think that would be a little heavy to mod. I mean, I respect your fearlessness but I think it may discourage lots of smaller-scale modders if they had to work with 40+ different tags for all the stances - and most of them would at least assume that this is necessary. Perhaps there's some better way to work with it that I still haven't thought of. Ideas on this from modder perspective would be awesome.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250975] Wed, 05 May 2010 07:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Forral

 
Messages:72
Registered:May 2009
Location: Sweden
Quote:
Also, things like bipods will need to be reconsidered. In this system, either I keep a "" tag that has its own complex effect and is only applied when prone, or I make a new "" tag that means the attachment as a whole is only active when prone. If the original setup is kept, bipods will remain hardcoded and difficult to mod (giving a set number of effects based on one value). With the second system, grippod-type attachments will become impossible since they won't be useable when standing up.

I don't fully understand the problem. Could not an item have multiple tags, so it could essentially act as both a foregrip and a bipod, but the bipod property would only ever be taken into account when the wielder is prone?
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250982] Wed, 05 May 2010 10:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2676
Registered:May 2009
Headrock

While I could make that happen, I think that would be a little heavy to mod. I mean, I respect your fearlessness but I think it may discourage lots of smaller-scale modders if they had to work with 40+ different tags for all the stances - and most of them would at least assume that this is necessary. Perhaps there's some better way to work with it that I still haven't thought of. Ideas on this from modder perspective would be awesome.



If you would allow different effects for different stances this would be an advantage and make the system flexible. Of course it could get more complicated for modders. But how is this tag stuff done anyway?
I could imagine something like this:

This is for a bipod:
standing	effect1	effect2	effect3	    crouched	effect1	effect2	effect3	      prone	effect1	effect2	effect3
   0						0					1	bla	blub



This is a grippod example:
standing	effect1	effect2	effect3	    crouched	effect1	effect2	effect3	      prone	effect1	effect2	effect3
   1		bla	blub			1	bla	blub			1	bla	blub


So the tags "standing", "crouched" and "prone" only define THAT effects have to be applied for a certain stance. If they are zero no effects have to be read from the items properties and modders don't have to care about the other columns. Is this scenario possible?

[Updated on: Wed, 05 May 2010 10:46] by Moderator


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #250986] Wed, 05 May 2010 16:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2842
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Yes, having variables to account for stances is a brute force method, but I do not see any other way to account for all the possible combinations of attributes in a satisfactory manner. Originally I was thinking of only three sets, but I threw in the "General" set to serve as a default if nothing else is filled in, though after looking at it again, I suppose my suggestion could get away with only three sets of the final variables as in silversurfer's example. The variables for the 1st set, say standing, carry over to the other stances, unless something is filled in for the equivalent variable for the stance.

This idea was actaulally inspired by something DBB/IOV has in their mod. They are effectively trying to create different firing stats for prone and not-prone by giving some sniper rifles (and perhaps others) horrible penalties that are only made up for by the bipod bonus. Their intention was to encourage people to fire from a prone position some of the more oversized anti-material rifles. I've used, a watered down, variation in the UC-1.13 Hybrid.

[Updated on: Wed, 05 May 2010 17:10] by Moderator



Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251005] Thu, 06 May 2010 02:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
UniversalWolf

 
Messages:141
Registered:June 2009
Location: United States
I admit haven't had time to read every post in this thread, but based on what I have read, I must say Kudos! So I'm just being supportive ATM. This sounds really good and I can't wait to see how it plays.

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251007] Thu, 06 May 2010 03:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Thanks. I just hope I get it right.

Quote:
The variables for the 1st set, say standing, carry over to the other stances, unless something is filled in for the equivalent variable for the stance.


Ah, interesting. That cuts out 1/4 of the tags. 25% more workable isn't bad at all. If any more ideas come up, I'll be very interested in hearing them.

Quote:
This idea was actaulally inspired by something DBB/IOV has in their mod. They are effectively trying to create different firing stats for prone and not-prone by giving some sniper rifles (and perhaps others) horrible penalties that are only made up for by the bipod bonus.


Fortunately, the new CTH/Shooting system already does the same things within the rules, so we wouldn't need those workaround-penalties. Large weapons are going to be pretty hard to aim without a good solid support just by having high AP to Ready costs, cutting down "creative workarounds" in favour of streamlining. And if you don't need those workarounds in the XML, that balances the extra work of adding the new modifiers.

I hope.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251128] Sat, 08 May 2010 07:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
storytime

 
Messages:19
Registered:March 2004
Location: Ontario
Regarding tanks,

Any tank main gun will have essentially perfect accuracy at any relevant range and the barrel can point low enough beyond the barrel length for a standing man. However, tracking a moving target becomes difficult due to the intrinsic 4x magnification of the sight. The vision angle is narrow.

[Updated on: Sat, 08 May 2010 07:03] by Moderator

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251179] Sun, 09 May 2010 00:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Hedrock,

What do you think about adding the possibility of aimed burst/auto fire like it was made in Zilpins mode, DDD-s mini mode, JA2'005 and JA2 Night Ops? Long test of DDD-s mod proved that it does not break the game balance at all if using proper value of burst penalties. Is it also possible to teach AI to use burst fire?

I have written a lot about possible positive effects of such system on game and weapon balance in some other threads you might have already read.

To sum up a possibility of usage the same aiming and CTH mechanics for all types of fire seems to be very strong feature. In hands of AI aimed auto fire together with suppression system could become a deadly feature that will dramatically increase game difficulty.

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251180] Sun, 09 May 2010 00:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
What do you think about adding the possibility of aimed burst/auto fire like it was made in Zilpins mode, DDD-s mini mode, JA2'005 and JA2 Night Ops?


I integrated Zilpin's mod into HAM at some point to see what it was like. Firstly, the mod only included aimed-burst mode, not auto-fire, mainly because Zilpin believed that aimed autofire would be too powerful. Also it is a lot more difficult to do something like that, as it requires a two-layered approach (setting aim, then setting the number of bullets).
The other problem was that his mod was unfinished. It didn't work very well with the targeting cursor - threw the graphics out of whack. Dunno why Zilpin released it that way, maybe he wasn't too concerned about how it looked.

In either case, I do want to put his Aimed-Burst into the game, and if possible come up with some way to handle aimed-auto. I think they'll both be very important in the new system, especially for those who don't use HAM suppression.

Quote:
Is it also possible to teach AI to use burst fire?


AI already uses burst and auto. However, it's not very good at choosing the right place and time. Also, teaching it to aim bursts would be a little more difficult, but possible. I do intend to revisit the AI attack routines after completing this project in either case.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251184] Sun, 09 May 2010 00:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BrainDonor

 
Messages:34
Registered:January 2006
Location: Ontario
All debate aside, I am really looking forward to this new CTH system, Headrock. it sounds awesome!
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251186] Sun, 09 May 2010 02:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Quote:

I integrated Zilpin's mod into HAM at some point to see what it was like. Firstly, the mod only included aimed-burst mode, not auto-fire, mainly because Zilpin believed that aimed auto fire would be too powerful. Also it is a lot more difficult to do something like that, as it requires a two-layered approach (setting aim, and then setting the number of bullets).

The other problem was that his mod was unfinished. It didn't work very well with the targeting cursor - threw the graphics out of whack. Dunno why Zilpin released it that way, maybe he wasn't too concerned about how it looked.



In this case you could try DDD's mod - the problem of controls was successfully resolved by implementation of additional mouse controls - the length of the burst in auto fire mod and aiming clicks are regulated using the mouse scrolling "wheel". It is extremely comfortable and must have feature for 1.13. Additional functionality was also added for other additional mouse buttons implemented on some mouse models. So as DDD's mod is a 1.13 mod the part of the full auto handling job is done the best way ever possible.

As for the balance:

Since DDD released his mode I have played hundreds of combats using aiming both in burst and full auto mods. Comparing aimed full auto with the old school full auto approach it turns out that the old school wins in 70% of the combat situations. The explanation of this strange fact will take some time.

DDD implemented different math for auto and burst penalty calculation in case we spend extra aiming clicks. If no aim click are spend everything happens like in wanilla 1.13 (the old system). In the old system we can put any burst penalty value in weapon.xml but we will newer get 0 CTH for the last bullet of the burst of any length in case CTH for the first bullet is greater then 0%. In DDD-s mod firing 4-rouns in aimed auto fire with the auto penalty of 20 (weapons.xml penaly walue of 10, ini auto penalty multiple set to 2) will give the following result:

1-st round: 100% CHT (the same as for the full aimed single shot)
2-d round: 80 CTH,
3-d round: 60% THC,
4-th round: 40% CTH.

So the DDD's system behaves in a very intuitive way. The "vanilla" 1.13 calculates auto penalty impact on CTH in some strange and unintuitive vay. This gives an interesting result: for the long burst the total number of hits will be higher when no extra aim click are spend because the vanilla 1.13 math is used in this case In DDD's mod . The possibility to compare the old system with the new one is more a bug then a feature because different math for aimed auto fire and unaimed auto fire was not intended. But this is a great possibility to estimate the balance issue.

With doubled auto/burst penalty and extra aiming costs it is hardly possible to fire more then 3-4 bullets due to the low CTH for the last bullet in the burst. This means that aimed burst is more effective then aimed full auto because of better control of the ammo (no extra unintended bullets are fired in burst mode).

All the graphics issues are 100% resolved in DDD-s mod. All the new features are toggled via ini.

I could contact DDD in ja2.su forum for the source code in case you are interested.

There is a link for the thread: http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=232772#Post232772
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251188] Sun, 09 May 2010 02:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
I am unfamiliar with DDD. If the source code is available, it may be extremely helpful, given that it's based on 1.13. However, if it is not properly annotated, someone like me may have problems copying the important parts - MOUSE CONTROLS. I've been hoping to add scroll/MMB functionality to 1.13 for a long time, and that system is way too complicated for me to understand. Perhaps one of the coders could look at DDD and see how he managed it.

As to the burst penalty:

Quote:
In the old system we can put any burst penalty value in weapon.xml but we will newer get 0 CTH for the last bullet of the burst of any length in case CTH for the first bullet is greater then 0%.


That is completely incorrect. The vanilla system reduces CTH by a set, flat number of points for each bullet. If the gun has a penalty of 5, and CTH is 10, the third bullet will be fired with 0% CTH.

If your explanation of DDD's system is correct, then he is using percentages instead of flat penalties. However, having analyzed the penalty system for a long time, and going through many different alternatives, I can tell you that this is hardly a good solution. At least in my opinion.

However, that is largely irrelevant. As explained in the article above, the new CTH system will have a completely different method of calculating the penalty, and far more advanced and realistic. There will no longer be any need to stick to the old method, especially since CTH as you know it will no longer exist anyway.

In any case, I'll be happy to have a look at DDD's code if it's made available. I can't promise I can actually make sense of it, but it might give a couple of good clues nonetheless... assuming it isn't too different from recent 1.13 code.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251214] Sun, 09 May 2010 10:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3743
Registered:July 2009
I tested DDD's mod a long time my self and since voted for its major features to be included in 1.13 on every occasion of the topic.
Mousewheel for aiming / ALT+mousewheel for additional bullets is much faster, comfortable and much less annoying than 30+ clicks for longer bursts with fast weapons, especially when your cursor slips away from the target and you have to do it all over again.
The system is well implemented under the old ways, at least the end result wasn't overpowered yet still had its field of application, however 'creative' the implementation might be (can't judge on that one).
Namely a medium range application for weapons with low recoil (5.56 and the like) that can't down someone with 1-2 aimed bullets to the chest but are very well capable of downing that same guy with 1-2 bursts, he just happens to be just outside of the effective range for unaimed burstfire..., think you get it.
Aside from that, it's the only way for certain weapons, to get a limited possibility for aimed singlefire (if it's necessary), namely some older MGs (M1919/MG3/M60...)
(you know, that last guy who is perfectly in the line of fire for your gunner but just a tile outside the range where you could hit him with unaimed bursts...)

I am aware that all the stuff I said about 'just outside range' (I don't mean the weapons range, but the one where you have some cth >0 without extra aiming) isn't necessarily true under your new system, but the basic point is, it helps keeping some weapons useful later and has it's useful applications and in my opinion, it doesn't break the game.

btw: DDD's mod has HAM3.5 as basis, just to give you an idea where it branched away from basic 1.13.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251215] Sun, 09 May 2010 11:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Headrock
If the source code is available, it may be extremely helpful, given that it's based on 1.13. However, if it is not properly annotated, someone like me may have problems copying the important parts - MOUSE CONTROLS.


I will try to get in touch with him ASAP.

Headrock
As to the burst penalty:

That is completely incorrect. The vanilla system reduces CTH by a set, flat number of points for each bullet. If the gun has a penalty of 5, and CTH is 10, the third bullet will be fired with 0% CTH.


I 100% agree this is a base idea of how it should work. However 2 years ago I tried to experiment with weapons.xml setting an auto penalty value to 50%. The result was surprising as I did not get 0% CTH for the second shoot as it is logically intended.

Headrock
If your explanation of DDD's system is correct, then he is using percentages instead of flat penalties
That was my assumption on how the 1.13 system works due to the reason described above. As i am not good at programming i did not looked at the code and just made an assumption that could be wrong or I have met a strange bug. However that could be a problem of particular SVN I used the time i played with values. Anyway DDD is definitely using flat penalties adjusted through .ini multiple

Headrock
However, that is largely irrelevant. As explained in the article above, the new CTH system will have a completely different method of calculating the penalty, and far more advanced and realistic. There will no longer be any need to stick to the old method, especially since CTH as you know it will no longer exist anyway.


I have provided the detailed description of the DDD's system just to illustrate positive effect of aimed burst and auto fire on game balance. You system seems to be a true revolution. The best thing about your possible implementation of the recoil effect on CTH is that it will be range-dependent (i mean the effect of recoil will increase with the range to target)

Headrock
I can't promise I can actually make sense of it, but it might give a couple of good clues nonetheless... assuming it isn't too different from recent 1.13 code.


I hope it is not too different since HAM 3.5 is integrated there

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251219] Sun, 09 May 2010 11:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Beka

 
Messages:89
Registered:November 2009
Location: Vault 13
Quote:

Quote:
By the way I would vote for adding new values to the existing item XMLs so that the old engine ignores the new values while the new engine will ignore the old values. It's up to the modders to decide which system they support or if they support both.


That might cause a rift in the modding community, and we're already battle-weary as it is. ......... It's possibly just as bad if we FORCE everyone to use this system, just imagine how many people will get pissed off and stop playing.


IMO,

the least favourable solution is to force everyone to use this new system.
This system is not just some fixing of bugs and bad issues in the old system, it also offers new features.
Bug fixes on the one hand, together with things like stability issues are things that can be 'forced' on every player. New features, especially features with a huge impact on gameplay should always be made optional.
What disturbs some players and thus creates rifts between them is, when they are forced to experience a different playing experience creatd by new features which not everyone likes (as it is always the case with new things).
Making things optional never creates rifs, especially because we're mostly talking about singleplayer games when we're talking about ja2. Most efforts in the last years point towards offering each player his personal favourite experience.

Quote:
.........If the system is made optional (I.E. the player gets to pick which system to use), a mod with no support for one system or the other would receive only a fraction of the potential number of users, and would cause massive problems with people complaining that they don't understand why a mod doesn't work. This is possibly the LEAST favourable solution.......


1) complaints from people who don't understand why a mod doesn't work is at least 33% of the whole questions asked in ja2 communities. This isn't gonna be changed by another feature and is it really that bad of an issue?
2) theissue with mods supporting not one system is an old one. Just remember: There were always mods wich required a certain version of ja2 - some mods had to be played with a certain language (e.g. russian, german, english...), a certain version (standard ja2 or gold [reconquisita or whatever that mod was called]).
That mods don't receive all of the players and most importantly dont appeal to every player is the most normal thing about a mod.

Quote:
........although at the moment I have no idea what the best (or even just better) solution would be.

That's why I'm writing down my thoughts.

-Beka
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251235] Sun, 09 May 2010 16:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Alex_SPB
2 years ago I tried to experiment with weapons.xml setting an auto penalty value to 50%. The result was surprising as I did not get 0% CTH for the second shoot as it is logically intended.


The reason for this is, unfortunately, that the Auto_Penalty value was not hooked up to the CTH system at all. Everything was being calculated off the Burst Penalty value. When I stumbled across this in the CTH formula I nearly shit myself - no one apparently noticed the bug for several years.

It's fixed in SVN versions in the last couple of months. Also, the new formula will not have separate values for burst and autofire anyway.

Quote:
The best thing about your possible implementation of the recoil effect on CTH is that it will be range-dependent (i mean the effect of recoil will increase with the range to target)


Yes, neither recoil nor bullet deviation would be affected by scopes, and hence will be increased with range. This is one of the reasons why Aimed Autofire isn't going to be as useful as it would've been in the older system. But it will make autofire weapons more useful than they currently are. Bullet Deviation, primarily, would be the reason to choose an accurate weapon like a sniper rifle over an auto-capable assault rifle. If you want a high-odds hit, you'll go for an accurate weapon with a scope. If you're fine with less frequent hits, aimed autofire will provide more reasonable results than it does now though.

Quote:
I hope it is not too different since HAM 3.5 is integrated there


Very different. Fortunately, thanks to SVN, I can track down an older version of the code with HAM 3.5 on top of it, then compare DDD to that - it would save a lot of problems. Can you tell me what specific build version is reported when DDD fires up?

Beka
Making things optional never creates rifs


That's sadly not true. NIV created a great turmoil here despite being optional. Heck, I even got lots of flak for things like EDB and HAM Suppression, two features that have to be turned on manually.

Unfortunately the biggest problem isn't with players at all - I could make duplicates of each function and allow players to alternate between them even while playing if I wanted to, but it's the modders who would be getting the worst hit because they don't get a choice. Modders would have to add tags belonging to BOTH systems, or possibly even have two separate copies of Items.XML, one for each system. That would increase the work on each weapon item (and attachment item) considerably. Some modders might appreciate it, most won't.

Quote:
complaints from people who don't understand why a mod doesn't work is at least 33% of the whole questions asked in ja2 communities. This isn't gonna be changed by another feature and is it really that bad of an issue?


Giving them more reasons to complain is never a good thing. As you said, it's bad enough when mods don't work by accident.

Quote:
theissue with mods supporting not one system is an old one. Just remember: There were always mods wich required a certain version of ja2 - some mods had to be played with a certain language (e.g. russian, german, english...), a certain version (standard ja2 or gold [reconquisita or whatever that mod was called]).
That mods don't receive all of the players and most importantly dont appeal to every player is the most normal thing about a mod.


But 1.13 is trying to move AWAY from that problem, not towards it.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251237] Sun, 09 May 2010 16:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3743
Registered:July 2009
Build version of DDD is 3111 (09.07.15)


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251238] Sun, 09 May 2010 17:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Right. I have the base code installed. Now all I need is DDD code.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251242] Sun, 09 May 2010 19:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
storytime

 
Messages:19
Registered:March 2004
Location: Ontario
This mod is the great leap forward I was waiting for. Especially now that we know how bad the old code was.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251243] Sun, 09 May 2010 19:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
It wasn't BAD, it's just isn't up to par with all the other advancements we've made. So it's only bad because it doesn't fit anymore. Worked fine in JA2 vanilla.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251245] Sun, 09 May 2010 20:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
storytime

 
Messages:19
Registered:March 2004
Location: Ontario
When I had full map sight and weapon ranges previously the fights were all going according to pure random chance of a bullet hitting with all CTH being either 0 or 100. You couldn't get any gradual decrease in accuracy over long distance. This will make big maps and long range modding work for the first time.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251246] Sun, 09 May 2010 20:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Minty

 
Messages:112
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK
For what it's worth, I'm in favour of making NCTH non-optional if it's going to mean changing the structure of, or adding tags to the Items, Weapons and Ammo.XMLs. Sure, it's going to be a fairly massive amount of work initially for modders and Starwalker to update the relevant files, but once they're updated, maintainance should be relatively simple.

That being said, if NCTH were to work by adding NEW XMLs in addition to the current ones, then optional would be the way to go. That way, mods could specify whether they're NCTH-compliant.

Actually, I'm rather curious about the percentage-split between players who use OIV and NIV. Personally, when NIV came out, I embraced it wholeheartedly, and didn't look back. Same with Warmsteel's NAS. I simply can't imagine going back to the old, limited systems now that I have, you know, more options to play with.

I can imagine it's going to be the same with your NCTH too. Far more realistic and transparent, rather than the current convoluted, opaque, and downright *abusable* CTH system.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251262] Mon, 10 May 2010 00:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Headrock
Right. I have the base code installed. Now all I need is DDD code.


I have contacted DDD - all we need is a hosting where we can put 35 MB. Could you please advice on some?

By the way what do you think about the implementation of the "delayed" recoil for G11 and Abakan? While there are only 2 guns in game (and in the real world) using delayed recoil they will add huge amount of fun. All we need to model them properly is to implement a variable "recoil starts from the bullet #" (will be 2 for Abakan and 3 for G11). To implement the system ideally we will need separate variables for burst fire and for auto fire - both guns then would behave exactly like in a real life.

Abakan: delayed recoil for 2 of 2 rounds in burst mode and delayed recoil for the first 2 bullets in auto fire mode (third and other bullets are affected by recoil)

HK G11: delayed recoil for 3 of 3 rounds in burst, no delayed recoil effect for auto fire.

As the variables will be equal to 1 (means no recoil shift - recoil affects second bullet in burst and auto fire) by default for all the guns except ones mentioned above this will not create any additional work for modders.

If this is implemented there will be definitely no reason for separate auto penalty and burst penalty as they will always be the same. It is strange that they are currently different for some weapons in 1.13 except the "recoil shifting" ones


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251265] Mon, 10 May 2010 00:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
I have contacted DDD - all we need is a hosting where we can put 35 MB. Could you please advice on some?


It's 35 MB?! Why? All I need is the code, that can't be more than a few megabytes even if you leave in all the code files that haven't been touched... I don't need any of the project files or VC++ output, which is undoubtedly what's inflating it.

Quote:
By the way what do you think about the implementation of the "delayed" recoil for G11 and Abakan?


DepressiveBrot suggested a possible solution - putting in a series of numbers for the penalty, instead of just one number. Each number controls the recoil of successive bullets. Therefore, inputting 0,X would mean the first two bullets are fired along the same path, and all others one suffers a penalty with a force of X. That emulates the Abakan. For the G11 it would be something like 0,0,X. Modders would be able to change the first values as well, creating guns that have less (but existent) recoil for the first few bullets.

I'm not sure how easy that would be to implement, and of course there would be a limit on the number of bullets that can be governed by it. Regardless, I'll attempt it. And yes, this would mean that Burst and Autofire can share the same recoil penalties.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251273] Mon, 10 May 2010 00:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Headrock


I'm not sure how easy that would be to implement, and of course there would be a limit on the number of bullets that can be governed by it. Regardless, I'll attempt it. And yes, this would mean that Burst and Auto fire can share the same recoil penalties.


This is even a more accurate approach since some part of the recoil forces still affect the second bullet in Abakan. The official deviation of the second bullet for Abakan is 1 centimeter at 100 meters (while it is told by the guys who use it that it can easily put 2 bullets in one hole at 100 meters). However while it perfectly simulates the recoil "shift" it will be still a bit inaccurate regarding the mods of fire of G11 and Abakan (as described in my previous post). But it is still way better then 0 recoil between 2 (or 3) bullets in other case.

Is there any possibility to use this approach separately for the burst and autofire mods to model both guns exactly like they are in real life?

Edit:

It seems that it is not or we have to return to auto and burst penalties again which is an evil.

I am waiting for the code by DDD - hopefully will send it tomorrow

Edit 2:

Or it is: we use the approach proposed by DepressiveBrot with one addition. We could have the base penalty for all types of fire and the special "burst penalty" by default equal to the base penalty in case it is set to 0 (or omitted). If it is set to anything greater then 0 (for example 1) it is treated separately. The result is that we do not have to fill the burst penalty values in XML for every gun and have a possibility for a perfect fine-tune of both guns. It seems that this will be the most precise modeling of delayed recoil systems in tactical games ever.

[Updated on: Mon, 10 May 2010 01:36] by Moderator

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251279] Mon, 10 May 2010 01:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
It's possible. But excuse me if I start with just a single penalty, I'm still trying to get a skeleton version of this working.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251281] Mon, 10 May 2010 01:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Headrock
It's possible. But excuse me if I start with just a single penalty, I'm still trying to get a skeleton version of this working.


It still will be a perfect solution and probably the best ever implemented.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251318] Mon, 10 May 2010 07:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
SharkD

 
Messages:358
Registered:July 2003
This may sound stupid, but it would be cool to see the red, purple and blue arcs in the second post in the actual game. (Optional via a toggle key of course.)
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251319] Mon, 10 May 2010 07:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kaerar

 
Messages:2045
Registered:January 2003
Location: Australia :D
They were done in PS and certainly not dynamic. Would be very difficult to model them ingame...


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251320] Mon, 10 May 2010 07:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
I'm sure that would be cool, but there are two problems with it:

A) Such arches would either require a virtually infinite number of images, one for each possible angle and size, OR actual real-time rendering, possibly using Assembly language. Either solution is completely beyond my capabilities.

B) The entire point is NOT to let players know how likely they are to hit the target. I prefer to minimize the amount of information about shot probability if I can, although I do agree that the arches would be within the limit of logical data we should receive from the merc (especially since they don't include muzzle climb, bullet deviation, or anything else that happens once the trigger is pulled).

Of course, even if B is overlooked, A is still one hell of a barrier.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251323] Mon, 10 May 2010 07:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
SharkD

 
Messages:358
Registered:July 2003
Headrock

A) Such arches would either require a virtually infinite number of images, one for each possible angle and size, OR actual real-time rendering, possibly using Assembly language. Either solution is completely beyond my capabilities.

Or add support for vector graphics. But I definitely can see how it would be hard.

[edit]
Actually, applying matrix transformations to a single image of a circle should produce the desired elliptical shape.

[Updated on: Mon, 10 May 2010 07:45] by Moderator

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251330] Mon, 10 May 2010 09:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Alex_SPB

I am waiting for the code by DDD - hopefully will send it tomorrow


Headrock, I have sent the link to the code to your hotmail
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #251344] Mon, 10 May 2010 16:05 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
I've received nothing to my hotmail box, not even in the junk box. If it's just a link, send it to my PM here on bear's pit, should be more reliable.


Previous Topic: Alternative Music Pack??
Next Topic: Instead of keep moding v1.13 why not create a WHOLE NEW GAME?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri May 29 23:00:23 EEST 2020

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01878 seconds