Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Aren Madigan
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 05:01:00 -
[31] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Hit detection is a group of spheres. Maybe when rocks and stations get v3ed, they will try and tighten the bubbles when and if they modify the geometry. Otherwise, wtf are you doing in the middle of a belt?
Maybe I'm wrong, but if its all spherical based currently, would it be a big issue to add some more cube-like collision on certain objects that it would result in a tighter box for like many astroid types? or does that affect orbiting mechanics? |
Xercodo
Xovoni Directorate
2060
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 09:18:00 -
[32] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Nariya Kentaya wrote:basically, dont expect anything liek this until CCP's budget doubles for their server farms, they are allowed 3-4 years to rewrite and bugtest the new physics engine, and the playerbase GETS OFF THEIR AS AND BUYS NEW FREAKIN COMPUTERS, XP is dead folks, time to upgrade to something that can handle DX11, your ruining my game with your DX9 bs. GǪnot that the DirectX version on the client would make any difference in this case.
On the contrary, the tessellation tech demo we got in last fanfest included some physx stuff as well. I'm not saying that we're guaranteed to have better collisions once the tessellation project is complete but I'd imagine update the game's physics engine to be physx based and provide super accurate collisions wouldnt be out of the question for the next major project.
And seeing as how tessellation is being held back by the need for DirectX 11 and the fact that 50% of the player base can't use DirectX 11...... The Drake is a Lie |
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting Home Front Coalition
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 10:06:00 -
[33] - Quote
Spherical collision is fast to calculate because if you take the distance from one object's center to another, and you subtract both object's radius, you end up with the distance between them. If that distance is lower then 0, the spheres intersect. You don't have to do calculations for everything within a given system, only for objects on the same grid. Now imagine there are several grids per system. That's a lot of calculations!
Most multiplayer games solve this by instancing, which simply isn't suitable for EvE. The simple collision detection is indeed kind of wonky and might block you from warping while you are stuck on something. For this very reason I prefer slower ships. They don't need so much room to speed up for warp, they just accelerate slower. |
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting Home Front Coalition
261
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 10:11:00 -
[34] - Quote
Aren Madigan wrote:Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Hit detection is a group of spheres. Maybe when rocks and stations get v3ed, they will try and tighten the bubbles when and if they modify the geometry. Otherwise, wtf are you doing in the middle of a belt? Maybe I'm wrong, but if its all spherical based currently, would it be a big issue to add some more cube-like collision on certain objects that it would result in a tighter box for like many astroid types? or does that affect orbiting mechanics?
This would cause problems, because then there are far more calculations to do. First off, you'd have to evaluate the two shapes to determine what method of hit detection to use (box vs sphere, box vs box, sphere vs spere). Adding shapes would exponentially multiply the amount of possible algorithms. Apart from that, spherical 3D collision detection is extremely simple to calculate compared to any other shapes: distance and radius is all you need to detect a collision. |
Thomas Gore
Black Dawn Rising
168
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 10:16:00 -
[35] - Quote
Considering how much lag there is already with the spherical hitboxes, I'd say...
Never.
|
Doddy
Excidium.
822
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 10:20:00 -
[36] - Quote
Randolph Rothstein wrote:coming from wot this games physics is piece of dogsjit
but if you nerf bumping people would complain,so its ok the way it is
one is an rpg, one is a shooter, colour me surprised.
|
Kainotomiu Ronuken
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
542
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 10:43:00 -
[37] - Quote
I agree! Sometimes when you're about to hit something at high speed, you just glitch right through the middle. It happens more than 50% of the time when flying a 100MN Stabber Fleet Issue. Needs a fix.
stoicfaux wrote:Plan B is for collisions to cause ship damage. This would * quickly solve the problem of getting stuck in/against asteroids, and * would make ship bumping less appealing...
I dunno man... I think I'd find it pretty appealing if I knew my target was going to get moved and damaged.
|
psycho freak
Snuff Box
226
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 10:54:00 -
[38] - Quote
To lazy to make a book mark so you dont bounce are we
well why not log on forums and whine like a pansy
please please ccp change this im to lazy to try new way around problem
i hope you get stuck on a roid and someone blows you up my spelling sux brb find phone number for someone who gives a fu*k
nop cant find it |
Doctor Ungabungas
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
226
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 11:16:00 -
[39] - Quote
Just imagine that they are gravity fields emitted by the ship's hyperscrew. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
25
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 12:39:00 -
[40] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Randolph Rothstein wrote:coming from wot this games physics is piece of dogsjit
but if you nerf bumping people would complain,so its ok the way it is one is an rpg, one is a shooter, colour me surprised.
Huh? I didn't know World of Tanks is an actuall RPG. I thought You just fit Your Tank and then shoot stuff on the battlefield... There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
|
Seleia O'Sinnor
Drop of Honey
302
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 12:44:00 -
[41] - Quote
Jealousy Asques wrote:Seriously, this is embarassingly bad, especially in places like asteroid belts. If you're in the middle of a bunch of collidable objects, asteroids etc you can't even tell which way to go, you just keep bumping around unable to warp or move untill you randomly pick the right direction to get out. All this while your ship is visually no where near hitting anything. It hasnt killed me yet but it is only a matter of time. When it does happen, I'm going to be pissed. It would be better not to have collision at all than this mess. You can shoot thru collidable objects anyways, so they are nothing more than scenery. So cheesy and one of my biggest immersion breakers.
It's a feature preserved by CCP by regularly going back to the future with a Navy Issue DeLorean. New inventory: Getting better since version 1.2, but what about back and forward buttons? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12535
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 13:17:00 -
[42] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote:Is it really down to performance? Or just that CCP have not or round to redrawing the collision models? Performance. BecauseGǪ
Xercodo wrote:On the contrary, the tessellation tech demo we got in last fanfest included some physx stuff as well. I'm not saying that we're guaranteed to have better collisions once the tessellation project is complete but I'd imagine update the game's physics engine to be physx based and provide super accurate collisions wouldnt be out of the question for the next major project. GǪthat was client-side to demonstrate what tessellation can do for visuals. Yes, in a single-player game, it can also be used for those kinds of collision calculations, but that's not what we're dealing with here. The physics is handled on the servers and don't care one whit about what DirectX version the client is running. They're not going to install (multiple) PhysX copros on every blade to deal with the calculations needed to have the two synch up.
You can't trust the client. You can send data to the client so it can run its own mini-simulation and try to predict where everything will be the next update, but if that simulation substantially differs from what the server does, it will be wrong. So adding in a lot of extra physsim bling in the client, only to have the server say "nah, all of that was wrong, redraw with this new, accurate info instead" will just make things look silly.
The server needs to be able to calculate and predict the interaction of several thousand discrete objects at once at full fidelity and then update all those clients with the information about all other objects. This is not something that can be readily compared with what's going on on the client side. Increasing the fidelity of that server simulation will rapidly ramp up the amount of work and the bandwidth needed. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
|
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1768
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 13:21:00 -
[43] - Quote
Moved from General Discussion. ISD Suvetar Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Abu Tarynnia
Abu Tarynnia Corporation
72
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 13:49:00 -
[44] - Quote
Nariya Kentaya wrote:Jame Jarl Retief wrote:That's a good point about collision detection, actually.
I mean, yeah, performance is a consideration. But considering there's tons of games out there where dozens if not more people are shooting each other with weapons that have rates of fire at or above 400-800 rpm, and those same games have per-polygon collision detection between players and the environment (and the environment itself is often fully or partially destructible by those projectiles) as well as projectile physics (bullet drop, windage, spread, etc). EVE should have much better collision detection, considering it's only between ships and other collidable objects. It's not like the game has line of sight or projectile collision mechanics to it. the issue becomes, you now have to calculate and remember complex geometry for the MILLIONS of items strewn around eve, instead fo the just couple hundred in most fo those games. and m,ost fot hsoe games only calculate short term as arenas are only in existence as long as their mdoels are bing used.
Hm .. I wonder how World of tanks solves this problem .. with basically the same number of players online and a far better collision detection then EVE :) YOU CANNOT HAVE MY STUFF!!!! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12538
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 14:49:00 -
[45] - Quote
Abu Tarynnia wrote:Hm .. I wonder how World of tanks solves this problem .. with basically the same number of players online and a far better collision detection then EVE :) By having nowhere near the same amount of objects that can collide with each other. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
411
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 15:50:00 -
[46] - Quote
This is actually already a work in process, but with even more depth than you might imagine.
There will be effects showing the asteroid hitting your ship such as your shields pulsing and so on.
Took me a while to find it, but it's called Tessellation and here's a vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k7oaz8mWug
It's pretty. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
425
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 16:03:00 -
[47] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Abu Tarynnia wrote:Hm .. I wonder how World of tanks solves this problem .. with basically the same number of players online and a far better collision detection then EVE :) By having nowhere near the same amount of objects that can collide with each other. It's only the players in space in any given system that require accurate collision detection.
In a busy system (barring massive fleet actions) you are looking at a few dozen player ships requiring accurate collision detection at any given time.
Exactly how is this going to be a problem for the servers? http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12540
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 16:10:00 -
[48] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:Exactly how is this going to be a problem for the servers? The same way it is one right now. It must be able to scale to several thousand objects being within potential-interaction distance from each other, which is why they had to devise the whole 1-second-frame causality bubble mechanic, and why they made all objects simple vectors or points.
Joe Risalo wrote:This is actually already a work in process, but with even more depth than you might imagine.
There will be effects showing the asteroid hitting your ship such as your shields pulsing and so on.
Took me a while to find it, but it's called Tessellation and here's a vid. Just one problem: that's client-side visual effects. Collisions in EVE are decided on the server, so the graphical (and phys-sim) capabilities of your video card are completely meaningless for the purpose of determining where things go. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
411
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 16:19:00 -
[49] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:Exactly how is this going to be a problem for the servers? The same way it is one right now. It must be able to scale to several thousand objects being within potential-interaction distance from each other, which is why they had to devise the whole 1-second-frame causality bubble mechanic, and why they made all objects simple vectors or points. Joe Risalo wrote:This is actually already a work in process, but with even more depth than you might imagine.
There will be effects showing the asteroid hitting your ship such as your shields pulsing and so on.
Took me a while to find it, but it's called Tessellation and here's a vid. Just one problem: that's client-side visual effects. Collisions in EVE are decided on the server, so the graphical (and phys-sim) capabilities of your video card are completely meaningless for the purpose of determining where things go.
Except, if you skip ahead in the video to 6:40 and watch that portion where the asteroids are colliding with the ship, they state how tessellation will give ships and asteroids real geometry allowing them to actually collide with each other instead of invisible hit boxes. They even go on to explain how this could allow them to have asteroids shatter when colliding with ships and other asteroids.
So, it's more than just client side. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
425
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 16:27:00 -
[50] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:Exactly how is this going to be a problem for the servers? The same way it is one right now. It must be able to scale to several thousand objects being within potential-interaction distance from each other, which is why they had to devise the whole 1-second-frame causality bubble mechanic, and why they made all objects simple vectors or points. Asteroids don't move. The only moving objects are ships.
NPC's don't care how accurate their collision detection is.
That leaves player ships colliding with fixed objects, NPC ships, and each other.
It's only thousands of objects during massive fleet battles and exceptionally busy systems that already get special treatment server-side. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12540
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 17:03:00 -
[51] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Except, if you skip ahead in the video to 6:40 and watch that portion where the asteroids are colliding with the ship, they state how tessellation will give ships and asteroids real geometry allowing them to actually collide with each other instead of invisible hit boxes. They even go on to explain how this could allow them to have asteroids shatter when colliding with ships and other asteroids.
So, it's more than just client side. Yes, I know, I was there. There's a difference what it could let them do, client-side, and it they actually will let them do, server-side. The server dictates the physical interaction. The server will not have one GPU-accelerated sim for every ship (or other object) in the field.
So not only is it more than just client-side: it's nothing client-side. At most, what the client would let them do is have the ships scrape off each other without any model clipping, but it won't affect what the server actually says about the movement of those objects and trying to give single-player fidelity to the actual-MMO scale of EVE would make the servers have a core dumpGǪ the nuclear kind, not the OS kind.
This is the core issue here: people are looking at it from the standard single-player GPU-accelerated perspective. None of that applies to EVE. It will not be GPU accelerated. Your computer is not relevant other than for rendering the result. The tricky part GÇö the one that make things look bad GÇö still has to be done by the server, and it would require a massive recode to change that part, which has nothing to do with fancy graphics and neat new GPU APIs.
Buzzy Warstl wrote:Asteroids don't move. The only moving objects are ships.
NPC's don't care how accurate their collision detection is. Doesn't matter. They are still physical objects that have to be included and/or subjected to the same sims. No, the NPC AI doesn't care whether they bump in the right direction, but the simulation does, as do you: if you bounce correctly off the NPC ship, wouldn't you expect it to bounce off you correctly as well?
Quote:It's only thousands of objects during massive fleet battles and exceptionally busy systems that already get special treatment server-side. The only special treatment they get is that other systems get lower priority, or that the fleet gets its own dedicated node. None of it changes the physics and prediction sims in any way.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
426
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 17:18:00 -
[52] - Quote
Asteroids (and other fixed "collidable objects") only need collision boundaries. They don't move, and so there is no collision to track unless there is a player or NPC ship involved.
NPC's only need accurate collision mechanics when colliding with a player ship, when colliding with asteroids or each other the simplified mechanic can be used.
So I don't get where you are coming up with
Tippia wrote: several thousand objects being within potential-interaction distance from each other
except on the busiest nodes. http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs |
iskflakes
Magnets Inc.
253
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:11:00 -
[53] - Quote
Tippia wrote:iskflakes wrote:The collision in EVE is very 2003, and it's evident to new players who are used to seeing flawless collision of high poly models in other games. GǪgames that still have to handle far fewer collision calculations than EVE does. So again, how would you handle it on the scale of EVE without massive drops in performance.
Collisions in EVE are very infrequent, and detailed collision detection is only required when the bounding spheres intersect (which is already tested) so the resources required are actually minimal. A ship does not need a high poly collision model, infact only 6-10 would be fine for most ships and would fix most of the issues.
Tippia wrote:Quote:To fix this CCP would need to start sending orientation information to the client, which they currently don't (ships don't even have orientations, it's all just made up client side). This wouldn't be a big performance problem as various developers have stated before that EVE's performance is not bandwidth bottlenecked. There's nothing stopping them modernizing this. GǪaside from the fact that the client has no need for the orientation information; and that using it would serve no purpose without a complete rewrite of everything that would cause pretty huge performance hits.
You say the client would not need orientation information, which is untrue. If the client is to do its own predictive collision detection (which is how physics is done these days) then it needs to know the orientation of the objects it's trying to collide. As I justified earlier orientation information is not a large overhead given what CCP have made public about their performance issues. Can you justify that final sentence? You seem to have pulled it out of thin air. The changes are all server-side, and limited to the physics sections of code. In my opinion two developers could implement all these changes in a few weeks.
Nevyn Auscent wrote:CCP have said that in order to have significantly better collision detection, they would really need to move to DX-11. Not to say it wouldn't be possible other ways, but it's silly to do a complete graphics engine rewrite and use a years old DX version. (Rather than tweaking some of the bubbles smaller a fraction).
CCP have also said their stats say a large portion of Eve systems are not DX-11 capable, so for them to consider the move, they would need a much larger portion of their player base to be DX-11 capable.
Citations not provided, use the search under Tesselation.
This is nonsense, collisions are not handled by graphics code. The DX11 tesselation features are graphics, not physics. Track your wealth with EVEStats - https://ohheck.co.uk/EVEStats/home.php |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
294
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:14:00 -
[54] - Quote
iskflakes wrote:This is nonsense, collisions are not handled by graphics code. The DX11 tesselation features are graphics, not physics.
That line is blurring with PhysX, which CCP used to model the asteroids and their collisions in that demo. Given that the old SGI tesselation pipeline is now uncontested gospel, and given that the graphics code is now able to enhance the model in real time with textures and maps, it makes sense to put the predictive physics as close to the final render as possible. That's what's starting to happen.
If you just went by the model geometry then collisions would continue to look terrible under DX11, because the further tesselation and mapping done by the graphics code would be ignored, and the ships would appear to merge with each other. Avatar clothes (which are nothing but textures on the avatar model) would pass through walls and other avatars, and so on. |
Zanzbar
The Scope Gallente Federation
102
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 22:37:00 -
[55] - Quote
Watch the Fanfest demo on using tessellation in eve, a technology that would be available if they upgraded eve to allow dx11? ( maybe 10 can't seem to remember) . It let's the graphics card render a lot of extra geometry for both visuals AND hit detection with little extra coding on their part, even to the extent of asteroids breaking across a ship hull and shield ripples on hit.
Damnit beat to it, guess I should have read further |
Kitt JT
League of Non-Aligned Worlds Nulli Secunda
171
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 01:49:00 -
[56] - Quote
This needs fixing. Would be nice. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
412
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 03:47:00 -
[57] - Quote
Zanzbar wrote:Watch the Fanfest demo on using tessellation in eve, a technology that would be available if they upgraded eve to allow dx11? ( maybe 10 can't seem to remember) . It let's the graphics card render a lot of extra geometry for both visuals AND hit detection with little extra coding on their part, even to the extent of asteroids breaking across a ship hull and shield ripples on hit.
Damnit beat to it, guess I should have read further
Yeah.... I kinda beat ya there, and I linked the video, lol... |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |