Home » MODDING HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Idea Incubation Lab  » New CTH system - Presentation
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #262774] Thu, 16 September 2010 17:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ko5ma

 
Messages:35
Registered:January 2010
Location: Poland
If anything, targets at longer distance are easier to track than at close distance, lower angular velocity.

EDIT: Heh, it took me way too long to type this message Smile.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #262781] Thu, 16 September 2010 19:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
alph
Messages:8
Registered:January 2010
Location: China
The angles work in both directions though, you move your gun less but you also HAVE to move your gun less because the further you are away, the more magnified any deviation from your target will be. If I move my barrel a millimeter to the right on a target that is across the room from me, the bullet is still going to end up pretty close to where it would have hit anyway. If I do the same on a target that is down the street, the bullet probably won't even come close. The point being that the farther away your target, the more steady you have to hold your gun to have an accurate shot, therefore the more of a negative effect moving your gun while aiming will have on your final trajectory.

And yes your target is moving optically slower the further away it is but, by the exact same degree, your reticle and barrel are moving optically faster and are that much harder to control with any useful precision.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263156] Tue, 21 September 2010 10:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mtb20

 
Messages:15
Registered:September 2010
Any hope of having an open alpha soon? Smile
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263158] Tue, 21 September 2010 11:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Nope. There will be an open beta though.

Eventually.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263165] Tue, 21 September 2010 12:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
loonyphoenix

 
Messages:47
Registered:September 2010
Is there an approximate ETA for the open beta?
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263166] Tue, 21 September 2010 12:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CptMoore

 
Messages:210
Registered:March 2009
At least 20 years, headrock is currently reimplementing everything to run on a quantum computer, his code is finished at the end of this week but the first computers will only arrive in 20 years.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263171] Tue, 21 September 2010 13:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
The more feedback is given by those participating in the Alpha testing, the faster this will go. At the current rate, I'd say about a month or so - but this is just tentative, I'm very bad with deadlines.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263176] Tue, 21 September 2010 14:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mauser

 
Messages:799
Registered:August 2006
Location: Bavaria - Germany
Headrock
The more feedback is given by those participating in the Alpha testing, the faster this will go. At the current rate, I'd say about a month or so - but this is just tentative, I'm very bad with deadlines.


your productiveness doesn

☆★GL★☆
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263357] Thu, 23 September 2010 17:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
loonyphoenix

 
Messages:47
Registered:September 2010
I have a couple of questions regarding the NCTH.

1. "Sway and Deviation are both calculated at the "Normal" distance if possible (shown in the first three images up there)."

I don't understand this part. Isn't Sway and Deviation angles which don't depend upon the distance to the target? Sure, the Muzzle Point and the Impact Point will be different depending on the angle at different distances; however, the Sway and Deviation are unchanged regardless of the distance.

So I don't really understand what "Normal" distance does. If we're subtracting from the maximum Muzzle Sway of 22.5 degrees (for example, 30% Base CTH, and then 60% with extra aiming, making it a 90% decrease, which makes the actual Maximum Sway for this particular shot 2.25 degrees to any side from the center), does it really matter how far away the target is?

The only practical application of the Normal Distance I can see is to calculate the distances at which the scopes become less useful. As I understand it, the scopes start to deteriorate at distances shorter than Normal Distance multiplied by the scope's Magnification Factor. What else does the Normal Distance have effect on?

2. What happens when the Muzzle Point is at the edge of the red arch (the maximum Bullet Deviation in the geme), and then random Bullet Deviation adds up on top of it in the direction outside the red arch? If it is shot at the nearest available point within the arch, then what happens when Base CTH is 0%, the shooter doesn't do any aiming, and the weapon is cheap and broken (like, 10 degrees bullet deviation or something like that). Does the probability of shooting at the points of the red arch actually increase? Is it a possible exploit of the system to shoot at a point 22.5 degrees to the left/right of a target with a bad weapon in bad codition to increase the probability of a hit? Smile

[Updated on: Thu, 23 September 2010 18:13] by Moderator

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263362] Thu, 23 September 2010 18:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
I don't understand this part. Isn't sway and deviation an angle which doesn't depend upon the distance to the target? Sure, the the muzzle point and the impact point will be different depending on the angle at different distances; however, the sway and diviation itself are unchanged regardless of the distance.


In essence you are correct, but you need to remember that this presentation was just that - a presentation of an idea. Since it was written there have been quite a few changes. Among them, sway and deviation (as well as other things that change the impact point) are calculated by distance from the target center, not by angle. This is why it's important to have a distance multiplier (and hence, a scope divisor). The reason I decided to dump angles is because it would've required finagling with very fine decimal values when firing at very distant targets. That proved to be very unwieldy when I sat down to write the code.

Quote:
The only practical application of the normal distance I can see is in the range of the weapon (if it has any effect on it) and the distances at which scopes become less useful.


Just for scopes and lasers, actually. Think of it as a multiplier and divisor working against each other. If your shot is randomly determined to deviate 1 unit up and 3 left, at 2x distance it will deviate 2 up and 6 left, and so forth. A 2x scope would divide by 2, giving 1 up and 3 left again. Bullet deviation is unaffected by scopes, and so is only multiplied and never divided (which is why you need guns with very high accuracy values to hit far-away targets). Similarly, recoil is also not affected by scopes. All of this is, again, due to the fact that I don't use angles in the calculation, except for determining the size of the outer circle for making sure that shots don't go outside that circle.

Quote:
2. What happens when the muzzle point is at the edge of the red arch...


Shots are always restricted to the red arch, with one exception: raising the gun upwards to compensate for shooting outside the gun's range. In theory that does indeed increase the chance of hitting a target on the edge of the outer arch. However, if you do have 100% Muzzle Sway, at virtually any distance your chances of hitting the target are slim, whether you try to exploit the boundary or not. Not to mention the fact that accurately placing a target at the edge of the circle is virtually impossible unless you spend a lot of time measuring your angles - no one is that bored.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263364] Thu, 23 September 2010 18:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
loonyphoenix

 
Messages:47
Registered:September 2010
One more thing.

Quote:
Base CTH = a value based primarily on the shooter's stats and various other factors. It is anywhere between 0 and 30.
Aiming CTH = a value based primarily on the shooter's stats and various other factors. It increases as more Extra Aiming Levels are added.
CTH Cap = a value based primarily on the shooter's Marksmanship. It can be anywhere between 0 and 100.

Muzzle Sway = Base CTH + Aiming CTH, both depending on the shooter's stats and all the conditional modifiers.
Muzzle Sway is limited to between 0 and CTH Cap.
Bullet Deviation = A value derived from the gun's properties only.

RandomMuzzleSway = a random number between 0 and (100-Muzzle Sway)
RandomBulletDev = a random number between 0 and Bullet Deviation

Muzzle Point = a random point within RandomMuzzleSway distance from the target's center
Impact Point = a random point within RandomBulletDev distance from the Muzzle Point.

Fire a bullet directly towards Impact Point


Do I understand correctly that the probability of any number within the RandomMuzzleSway and RandomBulletDev is equal?

Muzzle Sway is constant (depends on the shooter and aiming). Let's say 90. RandomMuzzleSway is then from 0 to 10.

Let's say the target is round. It is the center from which Muzzle Sway is calculated (by definition) and is, let's say, half the radius of Muzzle Sway. However! It is 0.25 of the AREA within the arch. But the probability of hitting it is 55% (it can be hit with R=0..5, 6 out of the 11 equal possibilities). In fact, the probability of hitting the exact center (Muzzle Sway = 0), one point out of the thousand of points within the area of MuzzleSway, is 9%. Do you think this is realistic?

The same goes for Bullet Deviation.

Edit: I should have reread the topic; seems you answered several of my previous points Smile

PS: Regarding the above: I think at least the Bullet Deviation should be completely random. Aiming might actually be realistic -- that is, you are more probable to hit nearer the center than at the edges; however, the bullets don't aim at all. I'm no ballistics expert, though Smile

PPS: To make the bullet deviation completely random, I'd propose the following method.

Let's say the exact center is 1 cm in radius (it can't really be one point), and each point of deviation adds one cm of radius. The area of the center would be Pi cm^2. The area of the first strip would be 4Pi minus 1Pi = 3Pi. The area of the second strip would be 9Pi minus 4Pi = 5Pi. The area of the the third strip would be 16-9 = 7Pi. And so on.

In fact, the increase of 2Pi is constant: ((X+1)^2-X^2) - (X^2-(X-1)^2) = (X^2 + 2X + 1 - X^2) - (X^2 - X^2 + 2X - 1) = (2X + 1) - (2X - 1) = 2

Therefore, each subsequent strip is 2Pi cm^2 larger than the previous.

The area of the whole circle is BulletDeviation^2*Pi. Let's drop the Pi from all values.

So we have an area of (BD+1)^2 sub-divided into strips with the following areas: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, ... 1+2(BD+1). BD+1 is to account for the extra inner radius of one centimeter. The probability of hitting each strip is proportional to that value.

The script for calculating the probability of hitting a praticular diameter would be the following:

Take a random number between 1 and (BD+1)^2. Compare it to 1+0*2=1. If it's equal or less (in this case if it's 1), shoot at the center. Otherwise, compare it to (1+0*2)+(1+1*2)=4. If it's less or equals 4 (and we know it is more than one), shoot at the first strip. And so on.

Edit: Or we could do it easier. Take a random number between 1 and (BD+1)^2. Compare it to the area of the innermost circle, that is, 1^2. If it's less or equal, it goes within that circle. If it's more, compare it to the area of the second circle, one with the first strip tucked upon the innermost one: 2^2=4. If it's less or equal, shoot the first strip. Otherwise... and so on.

For example: BD=5. Random number between 1 and (5+1)^2=36. Let's say 17.

17<=(0+1)^2? No. No center.
17<=(1+1)^2? No. No first radius.
17<=(2+1)^2? No. No second radius.
17<=(3+1)^2? No. No third radius.
17<=(4+1)^2? Yes. Pick a random point inside the fourth radius.


I feel stupid that I haven't thought of this way before. It's so obvious.

Anyway, maybe I've done all these calculations in vain and you're already doing this Smile

[Updated on: Thu, 23 September 2010 21:55] by Moderator

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263372] Thu, 23 September 2010 20:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
But the probability of hitting it is 55% (it can be hit with R=0..5, 6 out of the 11 equal possibilities). In fact, the probability of hitting the exact center (Muzzle Sway = 0), one point out of the thousand of points within the area of MuzzleSway, is 9%. Do you think this is realistic?


Again, the pseudo code you quoted above was just an abstract explanation of the process, not the way it actually works. In practice, the randomized deviation is done as:
RandomMuzzleSway = (random(Muzzle Sway Radius*100)) / 100

So the chance of drawing an exact 0 is 1/1000 for a shot whose maximum radius is 10 (1 tile). It may not be 100% realistic to calculate things that way (I'm not very good with maths to begin with), but this is a simpler method that achieves a fairly randomal result.

Quote:
PPS: To make the bullet deviation completely random, I'd propose the following method.


I didn't understand any of it, sorry... As I said, I'm very bad with maths. You have no idea how difficult it was to get the trigonometry correct with regards to shooting angles.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263373] Thu, 23 September 2010 20:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
loonyphoenix

 
Messages:47
Registered:September 2010
@Headrock: please look at the final edit. It is the most easily understandable algorythm I could come up with.

(Yes, I know I'm an editing maniac. I always try to edit them to perfection...)
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263375] Thu, 23 September 2010 20:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
loonyphoenix

 
Messages:47
Registered:September 2010
In pseudocode it would be something like this:

//Completely random shooting
IntermediateRandomNumber = random number between 1 and (MuzzleSway+1)^2 //random((MuzzleSway+1)^2-1)+1?
Cycle Radius from 0 to MuzzleSway
 If IntermediateRandomNumber <= (Radius + 1)^2
    then RandomMuzzleSway = Radius; exit cycle
    else continue cycle


Something like that. But I'm not a programmer Smile
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263378] Thu, 23 September 2010 21:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
loonyphoenix

 
Messages:47
Registered:September 2010
Headrock
Again, the pseudo code you quoted above was just an abstract explanation of the process, not the way it actually works. In practice, the randomized deviation is done as:
RandomMuzzleSway = (random(Muzzle Sway Radius*100)) / 100

So the chance of drawing an exact 0 is 1/1000 for a shot whose maximum radius is 10 (1 tile). It may not be 100% realistic to calculate things that way (I'm not very good with maths to begin with), but this is a simpler method that achieves a fairly randomal result.


Do I understand correctly that the resulting RandomMuzzleSway is any value between 0 and MuzzleSwayRadius, with the step of 0.01? That doesn't remove the problem I'm talking about. The probability of shooting inside from 0 to 1 (the small inner circle with the radius of 1 point) is the same as the probability of shooting from 8 to 9, which is a big strip on the outside. Again, I'm not sure it's bad, maybe it's realistic. This makes the density of shots in the center higher, which I think is natural. However, I want to make sure this is intended, not accidental.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263386] Thu, 23 September 2010 21:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
As I said, it's not 100% natural, it's just the easiest way to program it. The other way (which would yield "more natural" results would be to randomly select X deviation then Y deviation and then make sure the result is inside the given limits. This would be less comfortable code-wise (though it is doable). In any case, I am not really keen on reducing the probability to hit the center anyway - given that shots have become much less accurate already.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263390] Thu, 23 September 2010 22:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
loonyphoenix

 
Messages:47
Registered:September 2010
Regarding my previous question. Does the Normal distance affect the accuracy of shots with iron sights? Or accuracy at all? Because it seems like 75% of the total aperture from 45 degrees will be the same regardless of any distance... And of course the size of people relative to that aperture is constant too.

Off-topic: I've asked in the HAM Alpha Testing thread, but maybe you missed it: can I be part of the closed testing? As you can probably see, I'm very interested in NCTH Smile Though I have no idea what UDB is. Is it an enhanced EDB?

[Updated on: Thu, 23 September 2010 22:24] by Moderator

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263392] Thu, 23 September 2010 22:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
Regarding my previous question. Does the Normal distance affect the accuracy of shots with iron sights? Or accuracy at all? Because it seems like 75% of the total aperture from 45 degrees will be the same regardless of any distance... And of course the size of people relative to that aperture is constant too.


Again, when your consideration is only in angles, normal distance is not important unless scopes or lasers are involved. It's simply a way to compared how much better/worse such items are than iron sights.

Quote:
can I be part of the closed testing?


That remains to be seen. If I went around handing the alpha to anyone who asked, it wouldn't really be "closed". I need people I can trust to deliver useful feedback.

Quote:
I have no idea what UDB is. Is it an enhanced EDB?


Yes.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263394] Thu, 23 September 2010 22:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
loonyphoenix

 
Messages:47
Registered:September 2010
Headrock
That remains to be seen. If I went around handing the alpha to anyone who asked, it wouldn't really be "closed". I need people I can trust to deliver useful feedback.


Hey, how can you tell what kind of feedback I'll be delivering unless there is any feedback for me to deliver? I seem lucid enough, in my opinion at least Wink

How do I go around convincing you I'm decent at delivering feedback? In the worst possible case, I can't do too much harm, can I?
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #263397] Thu, 23 September 2010 23:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
How do I go around convincing you I'm decent at delivering feedback?


You can't, at least not directly. Spend more time on Bear's Pit, be helpful, partake in conversations, that sort of stuff.


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #273853] Thu, 17 February 2011 22:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Sincleanser

 
Messages:65
Registered:November 2009
Location: Houston

So Headrock, it's been several months since discussion on this stopped here - any progress made? I looks very promising, along with the massive amount of data that is being displayed, it really helps players get the feel of the objects they are using and helps in the decision making process.

Thank you for all your hard work over the years.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #273854] Thu, 17 February 2011 22:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Shadow21

 
Messages:335
Registered:November 2001
Location: on route to San Hermanos
afaik it is being beta tested and fine tuned right now look for the ham 4.0 alpha testing thread

http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=273844#Post273844

two threads underneath

[Updated on: Thu, 17 February 2011 22:29] by Moderator

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #279898] Fri, 13 May 2011 22:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kermi

 
Messages:92
Registered:October 2002
Okay.. i hate to do this after so long of inactivity.. But seriously..

I just tried to start a new game of JA2 after a long while.. that was three days ago, and i'm STILL not done. I just copy-pasted the first three posts on this thread to Word and did a word count. Over 9000 words to explain how the new incarnation of the most basic task of the game works. And there's 22 PAGES of discussion about it after that.

I tried a test game for the new attachement system (which actually is rather intuitive) and ended up playing with ncth on. Mind you, for someone who hasn't read every forum topic for the last two years, that thing is IMPOSSIBLE to figure out without reading the aforementioned 9000+ word monster of an explanation. And when you need to read all that text to know how to shoot at people, you have gone seriously wrong somewhere.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #279901] Fri, 13 May 2011 22:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
RoWa21

 
Messages:2048
Registered:October 2005
Location: Austria
@kermi: you could write a short howto on the 1.13 wiki to help others Smile


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #279903] Fri, 13 May 2011 23:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kermi

 
Messages:92
Registered:October 2002
RoWa21
@kermi: you could write a short howto on the 1.13 wiki to help others Smile


Yea.. i might concider that, if i thought for a second it would be possible to write a short howto about the thing in the first place.

Now it seems you missed my point by several miles.. Just to clarify: The system is too complex to make it even as nearly intuitive as the old cth system is, and it's equally impossible to write a short and simple explanation about it.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #279906] Sat, 14 May 2011 02:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ctiberious

 
Messages:607
Registered:March 2007
What's not intuitive?
1) Put your cursor over a target.
2) Right click and/or mouse wheel to reduce the size of the aiming aperture.
3) Left click to fire.

From a "new person" stand point, what more do you need to know?

Now, if you're trying to understand exactly how 3D/2D math is being used to calculate flight paths of the bullets being fired, and how that is used to determine if a target gets hit or not.... or if you're trying to understand exactly how ever variable effects the 3D/2D calculations.... well, honestly there isn't an "intuitive" way to explain all that short of writting a short novel.

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #279977] Sun, 15 May 2011 19:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kermi

 
Messages:92
Registered:October 2002
ChrisL
What's not intuitive?
1) Put your cursor over a target.
2) Right click and/or mouse wheel to reduce the size of the aiming aperture.
3) Left click to fire.

From a "new person" stand point, what more do you need to know?

Now, if you're trying to understand exactly how 3D/2D math is being used to calculate flight paths of the bullets being fired, and how that is used to determine if a target gets hit or not.... or if you're trying to understand exactly how ever variable effects the 3D/2D calculations.... well, honestly there isn't an "intuitive" way to explain all that short of writting a short novel.


Well, to start with, would you care to explain why would it be, that i have a merc with an SMG, and a merc with an AR with stats close to each other, shooting at the same enemy from roughly at the same range (2 or 3 squares differend range), the merc with the AR hasn't got a chance in hell to hit?

As it stands, i actually do know why it happends, but only after i wasted half an hour of good playing time to read this very same topic...

Edit: Now that i tried to find the bit again, for the life of me i can't find it. So it was one piece of info possibly in this specific forum thread, or somewhere else among the thousands of threads in the board..

Edit2: And i just checked, this information is not presented IN ANY WAY to the player inside the game. Currently, to figure out what the hell is going on, you need to either shuffle through insane amount of forums posts, or alternatively shuffle through insurmountable amount of XML files.

[Updated on: Sun, 15 May 2011 19:30] by Moderator

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #280028] Mon, 16 May 2011 21:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ctiberious

 
Messages:607
Registered:March 2007
There are lots of reasons why two merc will have drastically different hit chances. Range is an obvious factor, as are the individual merc's skills and traits. But assuming all that is pretty close for both merc's, there's still terrain and attachments, plus a number of other factors.

Terrain has a huge effect on chance of hitting because it controls how well the program thinks your merc can see the target. Just because two mercs are approximately the same distance from the same target, doesn't mean they can both see the target equally as well. That's all part of the LOS system, however, which is not directly effected by NCTH. Both NCTH and OCTH use the LOS data in the same way so I'd imagine you'd have similar CTH results if you turned NCTH off.

Attachments also play a big role in determining hit chance. Especially scopes. Using a scope below it's minimum effective range will make it alot harder to hit the target because it's alot harder to keep the target in your sights. Unlike OCTH, NCTH at least tries to warn you of this by displaying a reduced magnification factor right on the cursor. But both systems cause penalties to their related hit chance systems when using scopes at close range. The way to work around this is to carry multiple scopes and change them out depending on the range you're attacking at.

But what you're looking for is more then simply how the system operates for a user. You're after coding details which are beyond what any sort of user guide would probably ever offer. Even if someone were ever willing to write one. And to learn all that, you really do have to read the threads where all this has been discussed. Of course, if you think you want to take up the challenge of writting a user guide, I'll be happy to answer whatever questions you have.

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #284015] Mon, 20 June 2011 04:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bever

 
Messages:24
Registered:March 2009
Location: Australia
I've got a fairly simple question for you as opposed to all the technical jargon being discussed in here.

I've just downloaded and started incorporating my personal mod into the latest SVN version of the game and while using the XML editor noticed a new field for the NCTH system. I'm curious as to whether there is an explanation anywhere as to what each of these fields actually does. I can figure them out for the most part based on their field names but I'm currently unsure as to who these values relate.

e.g. on a spectra vest while standing there is a -20 to percent base. Now is that a -20% to the base CTH of the person shooting at someone wearing the vest or a -20% to the base CTH of the wearer?

Basically not sure if these values effect the user or someone targeting the user.

Cheers for any help or redirection to the appropriate info, been out of thr=e loop for around 4mths and now I've dropped back in a search brought up too many random results to sort through.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #284037] Mon, 20 June 2011 11:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Scouty

 
Messages:77
Registered:April 2008
I'm pretty sure the accuracy modifiers on armor affect the person wearing it. It's to balance the heavier armors by giving them CTH and AP penalties.
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #284079] Mon, 20 June 2011 17:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ctiberious

 
Messages:607
Registered:March 2007
All tags effect just the user doing the shooting. What a target is wearing doesn't have any effect on the shooters hit change, except for LOS calculations. I.E., if the target is harder to see because of camo, then he's harder to hit.

Not really sure if there is any documentation around. Headrock start the project and wrote alot about it but I don't know if he ever got around to writting up explanations for all the tags before turning the project over to me for incorporation into the released game.

On the assumption that there is no documentation, I'll explain that the "STANDING_MODIFIERS", "CROUCH_MODIFIERS" and "PRONE_MODIFIERS" are all have inheritance. Prone modifiers can be inherited from Crouch; Crouch can be inherited from Standing. In other words, that -20 PERCENTBASE modifier in the standing section actually means there is a -20 whether you're standing, crouching or prone.

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #284104] Mon, 20 June 2011 19:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bever

 
Messages:24
Registered:March 2009
Location: Australia
Sweet thanks for the reply, just finished reading through this entire thread and now have a pretty good grasp on how those tags work. The only one I'm not too sure on now is the percent handling tag as not sure if higher or lower is better...

I think I might have read something to do with it back near the middle but figured I'd ask if you know off of hand rather than spending another 10hrs reading through every post in this thread.

Cheers for the quick reply
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #284108] Mon, 20 June 2011 19:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ctiberious

 
Messages:607
Registered:March 2007
PercentHandling directly effects the handling portion of the NCTH system. Handling is pulled directly from the "Handling" tag in Weapons.xml. Bigger weapons are harder to handle/control (i.e., keep stable) therefore have higher Handling values. So, if PercentHandling is a positive number it will increase the overall Handling value of a weapon, making the weapon harder to handle. And therefore a negative PercentHandling should make a weapon easier to handle by lowering the effective Handling value.

So, as an example, something like an AR or Sniper suppressor, which make the weapon longer, or a C-Mag adapter which makes the weapon heavier (well, technically it's the filled C-Mag magazine but current 1.13 can't distinguish that yet), would probably deserve some kind of positive PercentHandling modifier. The heavier weapon would be harder for the shooter to keep stable.
While things like foregrips and bipods, which help with weapon stability, would probably deserve some kind of negative PercentHandling modifier.
Something to note here.... since foregrips are only supposed to effect the standing and crouching stances, if you wanted to add a PercentHandling modifier for a foregrip you'd actually want to add whatever modifier you wanted in the STANDING_MODIFIERS section but you'd also want to include a PercentHandling=0 in the PRONE_MODIFIERS section so that the system would know not to apply any handling modifiers when a shooter was prone.
To apply the PercentHandling modifer for a bipod, you'd simply add a single entry to the PRONE_MODIFIERS section and leave the modifier completely out of the Crouch and Standing sections which would result in the modifier ONLY being applied when the shooter was prone.

EDIT: One more thing. Because "Handling" was originally controled through the ubReadyTime tag, NCTH still uses the PercentReadyTimeAPReduction tag from items.xml as a generic handling modifier. This tag is not stance dependant, though. So if you want a generic, stand independant handling modifier, you can use this tag as well. Unfortunately, PercentReadyTimeAPReduction ALSO effects that actual ubReadyTime which is the APs required to "ready" a weapon. Originally Headrock felt that the time it took to ready a weapon would have a direct relationship to the weapons handling characteristics (big, slow weapons take more APs to ready and are also harder to handle/keep stable). When I integrated NCTH into the release code, enough people complained about these two characteristics being controled by a single tag that I added the "Handling" tag so they could be controlled seperately. I didn't create a seperate "PercentReadyTimeAPReduction" tag specific for handling, though, which is they that one tag still effects both values.

[Updated on: Mon, 20 June 2011 20:03] by Moderator


Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #284185] Tue, 21 June 2011 04:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bever

 
Messages:24
Registered:March 2009
Location: Australia
Awesome that more than answered my question. It's good to know about the ap ready reduction still being a valid operator too, thanks.

Quote:
PercentHandling directly effects the handling portion of the NCTH system. Handling is pulled directly from the "Handling" tag in Weapons.xml. Bigger weapons are harder to handle/control (i.e., keep stable) therefore have higher Handling values. So, if PercentHandling is a positive number it will increase the overall Handling value of a weapon, making the weapon harder to handle. And therefore a negative PercentHandling should make a weapon easier to handle by lowering the effective Handling value.

I actually thought that was how the tag was supposed to work but became a little unsure when I found that in SVN 1.13 the silencers actually have a negative value making the weapon easier to handle even though technically it would be heavier and longer. I think it was -3 from memory. All good though I'll just swap them to positives.

Quote:
EDIT: One more thing. Because "Handling" was originally controled through the ubReadyTime tag, NCTH still uses the PercentReadyTimeAPReduction tag from items.xml as a generic handling modifier. This tag is not stance dependant, though. So if you want a generic, stand independant handling modifier, you can use this tag as well. Unfortunately, PercentReadyTimeAPReduction ALSO effects that actual ubReadyTime which is the APs required to "ready" a weapon. Originally Headrock felt that the time it took to ready a weapon would have a direct relationship to the weapons handling characteristics (big, slow weapons take more APs to ready and are also harder to handle/keep stable). When I integrated NCTH into the release code, enough people complained about these two characteristics being controled by a single tag that I added the "Handling" tag so they could be controlled seperately. I didn't create a seperate "PercentReadyTimeAPReduction" tag specific for handling, though, which is they that one tag still effects both values.

Clearly your the one in the know for how this has all been implemented into the current build so i'd like to encourage you to write a very quick/rough guide for us modders on what the tags for NCTH are for (single sentance descriptions with indication of +/- better/worse would be enough) and which of the old xml tags are obsolete/active with NCTH. :crossed:

I know your probably flat out with real life and your own projects at the moment but just thought I'd ask anyway... surely I can't be the only casual modder who is not 100% sure which each tag is.

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #284249] Tue, 21 June 2011 17:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ctiberious

 
Messages:607
Registered:March 2007
I've actually got that on my todo list. No promises on when it'll be ready, though.

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #284330] Wed, 22 June 2011 02:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bever

 
Messages:24
Registered:March 2009
Location: Australia
Good to hear.

I don't really want to be taking up all your time answering questions but when reading through this thread I read that STOMP due to NCTH some of the stomp traits no longer had effect. This reference was in particular concerned with Marksmanship/Sniper Trait. Was wondering when you intergrated NCTH were there any changes to this... i.e. does the Sniper trait have an effect with NCTH and how. One way even now I can see it could have an effect is where Sniper adds one possible aim click to weapons however under the NCTH system one extra aim click is actually a disadvantage rather than an advantage. I'm wondering if I changed this to a -1 will the value be read in and if so will it have the desired effect. :headscratch:

Since you'll already be reading this ChrisL and your the one in the know just thought I would also ask (even though unrelated :diabolical: ) about the layout of NIV boxs in interface. Are they hard coded and if so/not where? I'm thinking about changing one two of the small slots for Backpacks into one medium slot. I can of course simply change the pocket in the XML but that creates a half covered pocket so I'd prefer to change the actual box layout somehow, similar to what we can do for NAS layouts (if you still can... haven't played with them yet in latest SVN).

Cheers for your help mate. :bow:
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #284339] Wed, 22 June 2011 08:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ctiberious

 
Messages:607
Registered:March 2007
All the STOMP traits are used in NCTH as far as I know. The big things about STOMP and NCTH is that:
1) STOMP traits that impact CTH are split between the "Base" and "Aim" portions of the NCTH calculation in a 40%/60% split.
2) You don't gain extra aim clicks which would, in fact, mean you were a worse shot in NCTH.

In OCTH, you gain a certain CTH bonus for each additional click. So the more clicks you can have, the more accurate your shot can be. In NCTH, however, "max aim" is determined by your merc's abilities. The only question NCTH asks is, "how quickly can you reach 'max aim'?". Basically, the system calculates your "base" stability and your "max aim" stability. It takes the difference between those and splits the result between all possible aim clicks in a weighted fashion (i.e., you get a larger bonus for your first click then for you last). So if the code calculates that you have a 20% base stability and an 80% "max aim", and you get 3 clicks with the weapon you're using, then one click would get you something like 50% stability, two clicks is something like 70% and three clicks gets you your max 80%. If you only need 1 click to reach "max aim" you just from 20% strait to 80%. And if you need 8 clicks to reach max aim, then you've got to spend the AP for 8 full clicks in order to attain that 80% "max aim". So instead of having STOMP ADD clicks for traits like gunslinger and marksmen, it REMOVES clicks meaning mercs with those traits can reach max aim FASTER then mercs without those traits.

I do need to work out a way to update the STOMP tooltips so it'll display the fact that you need fewer clicks instead of the misleading "+1 aim clicks" that is currently there. It's also on my todo list.

And, sure, you can change the value to -1 but you're penalizing yourself cause your mercs would take longer to reach max aim.

As for NIV, yes, all that is hard coded. I had considered externalized values when I wrote NIV, but then you have to include a ton of checks to make sure that slots appear "on the screen" (it's incredibly easy to accidentally write a slot off the screen which will crash the program) and that you have exactly the correct amount of available slots. Also, because of how the rendering is done, we had to hard code the slots because of all the extra checking and layout control needed. Not to mention having to include ways for the game code and the xml editor to know what size slot is needed. Not saying all that wasn't doable but NIV was one of the larger code changes (up there with MP and Big Maps). It involved completely re-writting several dozen functions, not to mention something like 6 completely redesigned and rebuilt structures (which have direct impact on savegame compatibility). And keep in mind, we had to make sure OIV compatability remained plus we had to make sure the AI could still use the old inventory system even in NIV mode (too much extra "thinking" to get the AI to actually use NIV) and even though nothing is actually rendered on the screen, the AI still uses all the same functions.
NAS also had to deal with the rendering concerns that resulted in NIV being statically setup. But NAS is also a little more forgiving because it's much smaller. You might have, at most (and assuming you were going for some exceedling over-attached items) 10-15 attachment slots that display in a relatively small area well within the borders of the display area. It might look funky, but you won't cause a game crash if you try to render an NIV pocket outside of the IDB window. Also, NAS can (and does) use the exact same layout in both tactical and strategic screens. NIV, on the other hand, had to squeeze 55 pockets into an area that basically takes up the entire width of the screen in tactical, and pretty much the entire usable height of the screen in strategic. And both screens have to have a completely different set of coordinates. Plus, each screen gets a different set of coords for each of the two current screen resolutions that support NIV.
Basically, making NIV use dynamic (or externalized) pocket placement would have made an already incredibly complicated project even more complicated. Does that mean we'll never have a dynamic setup? Never say never. I'd still love to get NIV so you could manipulate the items stored in an LBENode (that is, LBE gear that's not currently worn) just like we can add/remove attachments. But redesigning NIV also isn't high on my list of priorities. Smile I'm more interested in working out existing bugs, cleaning up balance issues with NCTH and writting the New Magazine System (NMS). Smile

Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #284493] Thu, 23 June 2011 16:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bever

 
Messages:24
Registered:March 2009
Location: Australia
Cheers ChrisL,

Good to know all the stomp features are utilised in NCTH. Thanks for the explanation on the NIV system too, might still have a play around with the the slot setup in one of my installs but hadn't considered Quote:
NAS can (and does) use the exact same layout in both tactical and strategic screens. NIV, on the other hand, had to squeeze 55 pockets into an area that basically takes up the entire width of the screen in tactical, and pretty much the entire usable height of the screen in strategic. And both screens have to have a completely different set of coordinates.
:wb: that does make things a fair bit more complicated but when I've got the time I'll see if I can achieve my desired effect. Your list of priorities is also encouraging as I'm one of the many eagerly anticipating NMS.

Keep up the good work mate and thanks a tonne for all your answers. :bow:
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #289739] Wed, 24 August 2011 04:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cell

 
Messages:669
Registered:February 2011
User deleted
Re: New CTH system - Presentation[message #289744] Wed, 24 August 2011 08:57 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
usrbid

 
Messages:1580
Registered:December 2008
Cell
First of all Headrock thanks for all your work! I can't really tell how much i like want you did and probably will do


Yo Cell, Headrock posted last on 21st of January at 04:10 PM. He peeks in ever so often, but he is not that active anymore.

Do you know how to get this information? Like when a user posted the last time? Would this knowledge have affected your post?

You have a lot of energy, which is a very good thing. Everyone learns how to focus their energy. Otherwise energy is spead all over the place with close to no effect.


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 Oct 20 04:12:44 EEST 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02144 seconds