| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |

Multor Kaston
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Surprised I haven't seen more threads on this... is anyone else tired of getting stuck on invisible pieces of objects? I can understand when undocking, but the rest is damn frustrating. Is there a reason why it has to be this way?
Stations - Some parts you can travel directly through, other parts you'll bounce off when several ship lengths away. Asteroids - Inconsistent. Sometimes you can pass right by them, other times you'll get stuck as above. Structures in missions - UGH. I have gotten stuck while a good 2-3km from anything visually apparent.
What's the deeeeeeeeeal with EvE's collision detection?
"Fly better" - Thanks for being an idiot and/or a troll. Appreciate it. |

Tron 3K
Three Thousand Industries
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Stay 4k away from things.. then no problem.. Easy fix I win! Oh and Fly better! |

Whitehound
1521
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
Collision detection is not what gets you stuck. You could have the best and finest collision detection and you would still get stuck on a hook or a gap. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Multor Kaston
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:16:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tron 3K - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehension You win at sucking at that^. Being discussed is the collision detection itself, not how to work around it. At that, your suggestion isn't full-proof, as mission objects can be 30km in diameter yet it will say 0km distance from the object no matter where you're at.
Whitehound - What do you mean? |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
440
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tron 3K wrote:Stay 4k away from things.. then no problem.. Easy fix I win! Oh and Fly better!
Seriously, though, stay 4k away from collidable objects is the right answer. That's just about the max distance that something like that can reach out and mess you up with their invisible hitboxes. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |

Multor Kaston
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Okay I will accept that perhaps I was not clear enough in the OP. Let me re-explain.
I am not asking for the best steps to avoid this issue. I am asking why this issue exists; I have played many other games and never seen collision detection like this.
"Does it have to be this bad?" - NO! CCP are lazy! blah blah blah... - YES! You see, the blah blah blah...
Hopefully if there is indeed no logical reason for it to still be like this, and if there's enough support for this to be fixed, CCP would get ahold of the thread and consider it. Of course I'm not holding my breathe on that, I realize most threads end up dead within a day or two :P. |

mechtech
Ice Liberation Army
461
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
The collision system is one of those ancient systems that was built over a decade ago. Last time they had to tweak it (4ish years ago for desynch reasons I think) it took a ton of work for devs to dive into the system. It was written by a guy with a degree in chaos theory... on the other hand it's basically just a ball simulation. That in a nutshell is why it is so poor. Performance is good though, because it's such a simple system.
So the final answer is that it's poor because CCP would have to rip out the entire system and rewrite it from scratch, and then do massive amounts of tweaking and testing, not to mention redoing collision boxes for the extremely large amount of structures and ships in the game. Maybe someday, but CCP knows that players would appreciate putting that effort into graphics, more anti-lag, features, etc. It's just not a very sellable feature for the amount of effort it takes. |

Multor Kaston
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
mechtech wrote:The collision system is one of those ancient systems that was built over a decade ago. Last time they had to tweak it (4ish years ago for desynch reasons I think) it took a ton of work for devs to dive into the system. It was written by a guy with a degree in chaos theory... on the other hand it's basically just a ball simulation. That in a nutshell is why it is so poor. Performance is good though, because it's such a simple system.
So the final answer is that it's poor because CCP would have to rip out the entire system and rewrite it from scratch, and then do massive amounts of tweaking and testing, not to mention redoing collision boxes for the extremely large amount of structures and ships in the game. Maybe someday, but CCP knows that players would appreciate putting that effort into graphics, more anti-lag, features, etc. It's just not a very sellable feature for the amount of effort it takes. Nice response, thanks.
Sucks that it would take so long to fix it then, because I agree, not really worth countless hours if they could add half a title update worth of features in that same time.
Another possible solution though, not sure how you guys would feel about this: Remove collision detection from certain objects. I'd imagine they could load up each structure 1 by 1 and easily see the borders of this bubble/ball. It shouldn't take too long then to determine which structures are most adversely affected by this due to the stucture's shape. Now obviously some things need the collision detection. Ships of course, and most stations. Smaller objects like containers, not even worth the effort. However I think with asteroids they could just say F it, and with the mission structures that basically ruin the missions by making it impossible to determine if you have 2km or 10km of space to move around (I've read of large groups of NPCs getting stuck on more than one occasion). |

Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
621
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
mechtech wrote:The collision system is one of those ancient systems that was built over a decade ago. Last time they had to tweak it (4ish years ago for desynch reasons I think) it took a ton of work for devs to dive into the system. It was written by a guy with a degree in chaos theory... on the other hand it's basically just a ball simulation. That in a nutshell is why it is so poor. Performance is good though, because it's such a simple system.
So the final answer is that it's poor because CCP would have to rip out the entire system and rewrite it from scratch, and then do massive amounts of tweaking and testing, not to mention redoing collision boxes for the extremely large amount of structures and ships in the game. Maybe someday, but CCP knows that players would appreciate putting that effort into graphics, more anti-lag, features, etc. It's just not a very sellable feature for the amount of effort it takes.
Citation please (Dev blog for example). |

Whitehound
1521
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
Multor Kaston wrote:Whitehound - What do you mean? Imagine we had a detail level and a collision detection that was so fine that one could shove a stick up someone's butt. You would still be able to get stuck on it. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Jonny Monroe
Unlicensed Medical Professionals
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
Loosely related: NPC pathfinding.
I go into a mission and there's a bunch of NPC ship groups, one of which is 180km away behind a static object. After klilling all other groups, I now have to drift 90km over to them to kill them then 90km back to the acceleration gate. If that static object wasn't there, they would have come to me while I was fighting the other groups. As it is, the entire group spends the 20minutes+ bumping their spaceships into an object in space. I can only imagine the pirate captains of these ship raging at unfair universe for putting an object there and giving them no tools to go around it. They look pretty damned stupid either way, just hitting their heads against a wall because they can't figure out to go around.
If you don't want to put at least basic pathfinding on your NPCs, you could at least do them a favour and not put objects in their way.
Immersion = killed. |

Whitehound
1521
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 15:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
Jonny Monroe wrote:I can only imagine the pirate captains of these ship raging at unfair universe ...
Immersion = killed. I imagine these pirate captains being utterly drunk and sucking at some girls **** while piloting their ships into space junk.
Immersion = awesome. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |

Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
191
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 15:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
I made a picture not long ago demonstrating what's wrong with Eve's colission. It's because of single convex colission hulls. Probably was a decent enough technical solution 10 years ago but not anymore. Separating the colission models at least into some parts shouldn't be that much more expensive on the hardware. It's not like Eve is a game with thousands of props sitting around in the environment like some other games.
http://i.imgur.com/7vzXngA.jpg
|

Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
126
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 15:27:00 -
[14] - Quote
This issue is why someone (could have been me) suggested that on undocking you appeared 4km away from the station in a random spot (same mechanics as the gates) which would negate any problems like this. I think I even added it to "the little things" thread because a fix like this would be a small adjustment. I am aware of my own ignorance and have checked my emotional quotient - thanks for asking |

Kult Altol
Confederation Navy Research Epsilon Fleet
587
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 15:48:00 -
[15] - Quote
lol poor op, trying to have a serious discussion in the sea of trolls. good luck.
I agree though CD, sucks. Can't wait untill when Eve online is Freemium. WiS only 10$, SP booster for one month 15$, DPS Boost 2$, EHP Boost 2$ Real money trading hub! Cosmeitic ship skins 15$ --> If you don't pay for a product, you ARE the product. |

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
430
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 15:54:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tron 3K wrote:Stay 4k away from things.. then no problem.. Easy fix I win! Oh and Fly better!
Can't do it, especially in missions when the ships are on launch pads.
Got stuck INSIDE a launch pad because my ship got stuck on it when trying to retrieve the item in the ship on the launch pad.
When I tried to warp out of this mess, it turned my ship into the hole in the platform and it bounced for minutes...as I was trying to find something in the system to align the ship to get out.
It's b-a-d and can't be avoided even. "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|

Kult Altol
Confederation Navy Research Epsilon Fleet
587
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 16:10:00 -
[17] - Quote
Its not that I get stuck on stuff (well it is) its that my ship is flipping full re tard. and keeps trying to hug the object. Can't wait untill when Eve online is Freemium. WiS only 10$, SP booster for one month 15$, DPS Boost 2$, EHP Boost 2$ Real money trading hub! Cosmeitic ship skins 15$ --> If you don't pay for a product, you ARE the product. |

Verunae Caseti
Viziam Amarr Empire
100
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 16:45:00 -
[18] - Quote
Johan Toralen wrote:I made a picture not long ago demonstrating what's wrong with Eve's colission. It's because of single convex colission hulls. Probably was a decent enough technical solution 10 years ago but not anymore. Separating the colission models at least into some parts shouldn't be that much more expensive on the hardware. It's not like Eve is a game with thousands of props sitting around in the environment like some other games. http://i.imgur.com/7vzXngA.jpg
Hey, neat picture, but it grossly oversimplifies the fix.
The red collision box is ugly, yes, but guess what is missing from your picture? Spawning that item takes 1 call with 1 coordinate location to spawn the object. spaw(gurista_com_tower,x,y,z);
Your green collision boxes now require five (5) objects to be placed in space in VERY specific positions relative to one another which the object spawning system is probably not prepared to do out of the box.
So you're either looking at rewriting the code to spawn objects, adding a rather complex parent/child object relationship such that certain objects can be spawned in positions relative to a parent object or reference point, or manually updating every script that spawns that object and calculating offsets precisely understanding that any mistake will result in that object spawning improperly. |

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
430
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 16:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
Kult Altol wrote:Its not that I get stuck on stuff (well it is) its that my ship is flipping full re tard. and keeps trying to hug the object.
It gets stuck on the objects, as the object box is so huge in itself.
It's the same problem seen in Battlefield and it's objects (1.0 size, when 0.5 would do). Bump and snag on objects despite clearly not even near them. Shoot through that box, get suicided, too (which then players glitch to use it to fire through and not get shot themselves).  "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|

Milan Nantucket
New Eden Misfits
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 17:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Multor Kaston wrote:Tron 3K - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehensionYou win at sucking at that^. Being discussed is the collision detection itself, not how to work around it. At that, your suggestion isn't full-proof, as mission objects can be 30km in diameter yet it will say 0km distance from the object no matter where you're at. Whitehound - What do you mean?
You win at not reading the your own link above. Full-Proof is non-existant meaning in order for someone to comprehend what your typing then learn how to spell.
Maybe fool proof... or dumby proof or idiot proof. http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/spelling |

Tron 3K
Three Thousand Industries
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 17:06:00 -
[21] - Quote
Multor Kaston wrote:Tron 3K - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehensionYou win at sucking at that^. Being discussed is the collision detection itself, not how to work around it. At that, your suggestion isn't full-proof, as mission objects can be 30km in diameter yet it will say 0km distance from the object no matter where you're at. Whitehound - What do you mean?
OP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm You suck at this^.. And you are this -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
Its fun with these arrows and wikipedia.. When you learn to take sarcasm and someone being a smartass in stride and not respond you won't get another smartass remark.. |

Skeln Thargensen
The Scope Gallente Federation
188
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 17:12:00 -
[22] - Quote
the worst is when you have to go into structures to access a can or whatever. if it were possible to see the collision boundaries on tactical overlay that would be make life easier. freelance space bum |

Kult Altol
Confederation Navy Research Epsilon Fleet
589
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 18:15:00 -
[23] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:the worst is when you have to go into structures to access a can or whatever. if it were possible to see the collision boundaries on tactical overlay that would be make life easier.
I agree, or the make the boundaries smaller. Can't wait untill when Eve online is Freemium. WiS only 10$, SP booster for one month 15$, DPS Boost 2$, EHP Boost 2$ Real money trading hub! Cosmeitic ship skins 15$ --> If you don't pay for a product, you ARE the product. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15455
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 18:24:00 -
[24] - Quote
Read this. 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 2.0. |

Verunae Caseti
Viziam Amarr Empire
104
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 19:35:00 -
[25] - Quote
Neat, but not relevant to object collision detection. |

Khira Kitamatsu
681
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 19:36:00 -
[26] - Quote
Multor Kaston wrote:Surprised I haven't seen more threads on this... is anyone else tired of getting stuck on invisible pieces of objects? I can understand when undocking, but the rest is damn frustrating. Is there a reason why it has to be this way?
Stations - Some parts you can travel directly through, other parts you'll bounce off when several ship lengths away. Asteroids - Inconsistent. Sometimes you can pass right by them, other times you'll get stuck as above. Structures in missions - UGH. I have gotten stuck while a good 2-3km from anything visually apparent.
What's the deeeeeeeeeal with EvE's collision detection?
"Fly better" - Thanks for being an idiot and/or a troll. Appreciate it.
In EVE it is up to the players to find a work around for CCP's shoddy programming. Ponies!-á We need more ponies! |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15458
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 19:57:00 -
[27] - Quote
Verunae Caseti wrote:Neat, but not relevant to object collision detection. GǪapart from being the core element of how collision works and explaining why it's set up the way it is.
You didn't read it, did you? 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 2.0. |

Verunae Caseti
Viziam Amarr Empire
104
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 20:02:00 -
[28] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Verunae Caseti wrote:Neat, but not relevant to object collision detection. GǪapart from being the core element of how collision works and explaining why it's set up the way it is. You didn't read it, did you?
I read it, and it doesn't say anything about object collision at all.
Why would you need chaos theory equations to predict the motion and interaction with a STATIC, STATIONARY OBJECT?
The article you linked describes event cylinders which deal with potential interactions between DYNAMIC objects in space - other ships, drones, etc. things that might change behavior between now and the next frame. Nothing at all to do with colliding with objects or why object/station collision works they way it does.
Why would the server need to "predict" the behavior of things that have no behaviors?
Doing this kind of complex analysis in order to detect collision with objects that don't move would be an enormous waste of resources and completely illogical.
So yes, I read it. Not only that, unlike you, I understood it. |

Ash Katara
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 18:55:00 -
[29] - Quote
Another aspect of this is that while we are unable to fly through other ships or objects, we have absolutely no issues shooting threw them. This also seems add to me. If they ever re-visit collision detection, hit-boxed it would be nice to also disallow shooting through other objects or have those shots strike the obstructing object. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15472
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 19:16:00 -
[30] - Quote
Verunae Caseti wrote:I read it, and it doesn't say anything about object collision at all. GǪexcept that they're part of what ships can intersect with, and that they therefore get tossed into the same algorithms using the same models.
Quote:Why would you need chaos theory equations to predict the motion and interaction with a STATIC, STATIONARY OBJECT? Because you never know where your ship might go on the next tick. You wouldn't need it if the two objects you're trying to predict are both static, but they aren't GÇö one is moving around in according to the whims of a player. So you include them in the calculations for what the ship can collide with. What more robust: a special case for every specific type of object, or treating all objects the same using the same model?
Quote:Why would the server need to "predict" the behavior of things that have no behaviors? They don't. They are trying to predict the behaviour of the ship. One of those behaviours includes colliding with other object. Other objects are things like structures, asteroids, and ships. To make things easy and consistent, they are all modelled using the same kind of collision sphere. Static objects just makes their GÇ£event cylinderGÇ¥ trivial to calculate, which is a good thing.
GǪaside from the part where it deals with how collisions work and why it's set up this way. The ship collision calculations expect to be fed an extruded bubble. So they're being fed an extruded (length 0) bubble. 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 2.0. |

Solutio Letum
Terpene Conglomerate
151
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 19:40:00 -
[31] - Quote
Cant people understand this is part of the current upgrades being made to the model. Its a physical problem meaning a graphical one also, they are remaking the models to V3 thats what is being done, until everything is V3 i guess they wont upgrade the whole physics engine on TQ.
Dont you guys remember the incursion mothership with the asteroid bouncing on it?? remember that video? Thats what V3 is supposed to be from all i can remember, they have been working on this side of the game for years now. |

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
15472
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 19:47:00 -
[32] - Quote
Solutio Letum wrote:Dont you guys remember the incursion mothership with the asteroid bouncing on it?? remember that video? Thats what V3 is supposed to be from all i can remember, they have been working on this side of the game for years now. No, that was just a demo of what DX11 and tesselation can do on the client side. The client does not handle physics calculations so that won't change how you'll actually collide with stuff (only how it gets animated for the viewer's pleasure).
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 2.0. |

Multor Kaston
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 11:10:00 -
[33] - Quote
Milan Nantucket wrote:Multor Kaston wrote:Tron 3K - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehensionYou win at sucking at that^. Being discussed is the collision detection itself, not how to work around it. At that, your suggestion isn't full-proof, as mission objects can be 30km in diameter yet it will say 0km distance from the object no matter where you're at. Whitehound - What do you mean? You win at not reading the your own link above. Full-Proof is non-existant meaning in order for someone to comprehend what your typing then learn how to spell. Maybe fool proof... or dumby proof or idiot proof. http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/spelling And what does "the your" mean, might I ask? Let alone your sentence structure... See what happens when you obsess over such things? You end up making yourself look ridiculous and fullish .
Tron 3K wrote:Multor Kaston wrote:Tron 3K - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_comprehensionYou win at sucking at that^. Being discussed is the collision detection itself, not how to work around it. At that, your suggestion isn't full-proof, as mission objects can be 30km in diameter yet it will say 0km distance from the object no matter where you're at. Whitehound - What do you mean? OP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SarcasmYou suck at this^.. And you are this -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IdiotIts fun with these arrows and wikipedia.. When you learn to take sarcasm and someone being a smartass in stride and not respond you won't get another smartass remark.. I don't suck at understanding sarcasm, you just suck at conveying it. Do you notice other people as well have commented that staying within 4km is not a feasible solution? Of course I considered you may have been just trolling with that suggestion. I also considered you may not have been. Why are you trolling anyways? Nice life.
Idiot is a word I had thought had described you upon the first post you had made. I'm glad you've come and confirmed it. |

Multor Kaston
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 11:38:00 -
[34] - Quote
Ash Katara wrote:Another aspect of this is that while we are unable to fly through other ships or objects, we have absolutely no issues shooting threw them. This also seems add to me. If they ever re-visit collision detection, hit-boxed it would be nice to also disallow shooting through other objects or have those shots strike the obstructing object. I believe this has been discussed and the consensus was such a system would create too much lag and might not even function properly anyways. Don't quote me on that though. |

Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
36
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 12:35:00 -
[35] - Quote
How about collision detection for weapons? It might actually be fun using some of these stationary objects as cover. |

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
448
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 13:19:00 -
[36] - Quote
Solutio Letum wrote:Cant people understand this is part of the current upgrades being made to the model. Its a physical problem meaning a graphical one also, they are remaking the models to V3 thats what is being done, until everything is V3 i guess they wont upgrade the whole physics engine on TQ.
Dont you guys remember the incursion mothership with the asteroid bouncing on it?? remember that video? Thats what V3 is supposed to be from all i can remember, they have been working on this side of the game for years now.
Years?
Ever seen the collision model used in WoW? Players walk through each other. The reason for it is seen in Battlefield: the griefing it can cause if one player stops at a doorway or window.
Realism has a place in solo games. But in MMOs with problem children they don't work at all.
It's a sci-FI game. Not science fact. "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|

Multor Kaston
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 07:15:00 -
[37] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:How about collision detection for weapons? It might actually be fun using some of these stationary objects as cover. That would require them to redo the entire weapons system, would it not? As right now I'm quite sure the visuals are simply there for aesthetics; the missles/beams themselves not actually existing as physical entities within the world.
I do like the idea though, if they can get around lag issues. Ideally this would be implemented. |

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
320
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 07:54:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tessellation. & DX11. That is the video that was mentioned above. V3 is just prettiness with a bit of dynamic lighting effects & makes it easier to re-skin the same shape ( think on this last one). Tessellation is what had the direct skin mapping for collisions. |

Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
186
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 07:59:00 -
[39] - Quote
Jonny Monroe wrote:Loosely related: NPC pathfinding.
I go into a mission and there's a bunch of NPC ship groups, one of which is 180km away behind a static object. After klilling all other groups, I now have to drift 90km over to them to kill them then 90km back to the acceleration gate. If that static object wasn't there, they would have come to me while I was fighting the other groups. As it is, the entire group spends the 20minutes+ bumping their spaceships into an object in space. I can only imagine the pirate captains of these ship raging at unfair universe for putting an object there and giving them no tools to go around it. They look pretty damned stupid either way, just hitting their heads against a wall because they can't figure out to go around.
If you don't want to put at least basic pathfinding on your NPCs, you could at least do them a favour and not put objects in their way.
Immersion = killed.
As far as I could see so far (the few times I actually bothere to check) those ships were actually stuck inside that large collidable object. For whatever reason some missions seem to spawn NPC ships so close to some objects (like the Amarr Station ruins present in some missions) that they actually glitch inside them unable to ever leave it again. Hooray for mission design. -.- There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |

Multor Kaston
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 08:04:00 -
[40] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote: For whatever reason some missions seem to spawn NPC ships so close to some objects (like the Amarr Station ruins present in some missions) that they actually glitch inside them unable to ever leave it again. Hooray for mission design. -.-
Lol, I actually had something similar happen in my first couple weeks of playing. I ended up inside a station like that somehow but in low-sec. Sat there thinking I found a glitched out safe spot. Well, someone locked onto me and showed me otherwise .
|

Burl en Daire
The Ecstatic Cult of Dionysus Trifectas Syndicate
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 08:05:00 -
[41] - Quote
I was stuck on a data can the other day for five minutes at 6000m. I couldn't even use my data module. I have also had so run ins with roids that we further than 4k. I never had any of these problems before the latest expansion. |

Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
186
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 08:20:00 -
[42] - Quote
Multor Kaston wrote:Lol, I actually had something similar happen in my first couple weeks of playing. I was trying to warp out in low-sec but had that "bump the station" endlessly problem. It eventually pushed me THROUGH the station somehow, so I disengaged warp thinking I found a glitched out safe spot I could troll from. Well, within a few minutes someone locked onto me and showed me otherwise  .
Yeah, the first time I saw that hollowed out asteroid in a mission I thought "AWESOME" and pilotest my Merlin right into it, star wars feeling and all... o_O
Was fun until I tried to turn around and get out of it. It took me only 15 Minutes at a speed only slightly faster than the average pedestrian...  There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |

Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting Home Front Coalition
588
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 08:41:00 -
[43] - Quote
The answer is math. Because it needs to be done serverside algorithms must be simple and fast to compute.
Take two spheres. One is the object, the other is you. Calculate the distance between the centers and subtract the radius if both. Is that number lower then 0? The objects collide and the collision is handled. Problem? The 3D models obviously aren't all sphere shaped. |

Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
187
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 08:49:00 -
[44] - Quote
Inxentas Ultramar wrote:The answer is math. Because it needs to be done serverside algorithms must be simple and fast to compute.
Take two spheres. One is the object, the other is you. Calculate the distance between the centers and subtract the radius if both. Is that number lower then 0? The objects collide and the collision is handled. Problem? The 3D models obviously aren't all sphere shaped.
But, spheroid ships would be cool, too. :)
I always wanted my private little mini death star.  There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |

Vorll Minaaran
Centre Of Attention Middle of Nowhere
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 13:46:00 -
[45] - Quote
Devblog about Destiny (EVE's physics simulation engine) from 2009. You can see how 'easy' to bugfix/improve it: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/facing-destiny/ |

Alicia Aishai
Universal Freelance CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 04:24:00 -
[46] - Quote
OP makes a good point. I was almost stuck several times, including one so badly that I was starting to wonder whether I should just self-destruct... In the end I got out after 10 minutes but that wasn't a very good 10 minutes given that it was in null and fully exposed to gank.
I understand the point people are making that this is not a priority item for devs and CCP has better things to do, which may as well be true.
However, there are easy things which could be done: - Give us an option to see the collision boxes on the screen in "wire view" so at least we understand what's happening. Rather than bumping on invisible objects or going through visible objects, both of which are very frequent... - Improve path finding (this can be done on client side, no server resources used) so that people don't get stuck 10 minutes trying to go around a (small) asteroid. Right now, the path finding is just horrendous. - Have some sort of failsafe to avoid players being stuck in places where wrap is impossible and getting out is a nightmare (or impossible) Edit: by failsafe, I mean a /unstuck command or similar; to avoid exploit it could be disabled in combat
Those 3 things do not require a lot of developer resources to be delivered. |

Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
574
|
Posted - 2013.07.16 19:27:00 -
[47] - Quote
It's because their collision maps are old as **** and badly in need of updating.
It annoys the hell out of me when asteroids are much bigger than they appear (which makes it easy to get stuck in an asteroid belt that looks fairly easy to move through), and in missions and other deadspace pockets you have to memorize where the invisible collision areas are, just so you don't get stuck, and because they are completely arbitrary and bear almost no resemblance at all to the actual structure of the site. Same goes for stations. Acceleration gate collision maps are entirely too big. You warp to them at zero and land at anywhere from 1500m to -3500m (from the collision map edge). You have to be lucky to not have to fly away from it for a while just to be able to use it. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |