2.3 projectile test builds [Vote for best build!]

The projects speaking tube.
Add your two cents if you want to.

Which of the three builds behaves best?

2.3-proj1
7
58%
2.3-proj2
1
8%
2.3-proj3
4
33%
 
Total votes: 12

User avatar
effigy
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1217
Joined: 22 Jan 2010, 03:21
Contact:

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by effigy »

Iluvalar wrote:I'm not sure I like that then. I appreciate the relative security just behind a cliff and i'm not sure building a mortar at the foot of a cliff is a brillant idea. It's the only 2 reason I see for a mortar to fire skyward. It's the same thing as letting the projectile trought the cliff. There is apparently no cloaser range limit to the new skyward shots.

It's an interesting feature for mortar players. But a frustrating idea for the others ^^ . I think from gameplay point of vue, a player can avoid direct cliff when he build or position his arty...
It's not the same, it's a bit of realism, and visually makes sense (compared to firing through the cliff).

Would you also agree that we might as well remove arty from the game? What advantage do you think it should have over direct fire weapons?
This is why some features aren't implemented: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7490&view=unread#p87241
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by Iluvalar »

Realism ? not sure. In real life, a) that kind of skyward shot are probably a lot more hazardous and B) The range of the mortar is seriously cutted down.

that's enough so in real life you would avoid those high cliff when building/positionning mortars. Arty still have the advantage of firing over more reasonnable obstacle as long as you position them at the cost of building a sensor. Why should they have a better advantage ?
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
effigy
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1217
Joined: 22 Jan 2010, 03:21
Contact:

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by effigy »

hazardous, more complicated than it would seem in this game, but certainly possible.

Sorry, I guess I thought that was the reason to spend more on mortar, etc than hardpoints (shooting over stuff). Maybe limited trajectory provides some element to balancing arty?
This is why some features aren't implemented: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7490&view=unread#p87241
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by Iluvalar »

From what I understand the price is only due to higher range. I did no distinction in my autobalance mod between direct and indirect and both type are not specificaly weaker or stronger. Unless you say that ripples need a boost right now, i'd say it's balanced like this.
+somewhat fire over cliff, walls and structures.
-need sensor to gain full range.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
dak180
Trained
Trained
Posts: 288
Joined: 01 Nov 2009, 23:58
Location: Keeper of the Mac Builds

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by dak180 »

Iluvalar wrote:Realism ? not sure. In real life, a) that kind of skyward shot are probably a lot more hazardous and B) The range of the mortar is seriously cutted down.
Wikipedia wrote:A modern mortar consists of a tube into which gunners drop a shell, which is usually referred to as a bomb or round. The tube is generally set at between 45 and 85 degrees angle to the ground, with the higher angle giving shorter firing distances. They operate well at short range, but not at long range. In particular, the mortar can drop shells on close-by targets, even behind obstacles, due to its "lobbing" trajectory. This also makes it possible to launch attacks from positions lower than the target of the attack; for example, conventional long-range artillery could not shell a target 1 km away and 30 metres (100 ft) higher, but shelling the target by mortar would be easy.
User:dak180
Keeper of the Mac Builds
Sick0
Trained
Trained
Posts: 41
Joined: 06 Jul 2011, 01:40

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by Sick0 »

Yeah I have to go with this, even tho it's a game it makes sense in the game... I just have to say that I don't think anything should actually be able to go through a mtn. (it should have to be able to reasonably clear it, also while on that subject arty should be like tanks, if they are shooting at something it the ammo happens to be going pass a structure to get to the target, then structure should be subject to dmg if it's more or less in direct line of fire. However I think that the game shouldn't allow the arty to fire into ones own structures. ?

Any who, just my 2 cents worth. :)
Wikipedia wrote:A modern mortar consists of a tube into which gunners drop a shell, which is usually referred to as a bomb or round. The tube is generally set at between 45 and 85 degrees angle to the ground, with the higher angle giving shorter firing distances. They operate well at short range, but not at long range. In particular, the mortar can drop shells on close-by targets, even behind obstacles, due to its "lobbing" trajectory. This also makes it possible to launch attacks from positions lower than the target of the attack; for example, conventional long-range artillery could not shell a target 1 km away and 30 metres (100 ft) higher, but shelling the target by mortar would be easy.
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by Iluvalar »

wikipedia wrote:These attributes contrast with the mortar's larger siblings, howitzers and field guns, that fire at higher velocities, longer ranges, flatter arcs, and sometimes using direct fire. These weapons also do not use the mortar's gravity-assisted means of detonating the shell.
dak180 : But this is the description of the man-portable mortar. They fill a very specific purpose. As soon as one build an artillery on ground or build a "giant" cannon on a vehicule, i doubt he intend to lob at short range.

I'd say that in warzone such lobbing weapon is too specific and would need to much micromanagement to be really interesting in that game. What we call a "mortar" is really a big cannon more like field guns then the man portable one.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
dak180
Trained
Trained
Posts: 288
Joined: 01 Nov 2009, 23:58
Location: Keeper of the Mac Builds

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by dak180 »

Iluvalar wrote:
wikipedia wrote:These attributes contrast with the mortar's larger siblings, howitzers and field guns, that fire at higher velocities, longer ranges, flatter arcs, and sometimes using direct fire. These weapons also do not use the mortar's gravity-assisted means of detonating the shell.
dak180 : But this is the description of the man-portable mortar. They fill a very specific purpose. As soon as one build an artillery on ground or build a "giant" cannon on a vehicule, i doubt he intend to lob at short range.

I'd say that in warzone such lobbing weapon is too specific and would need to much micromanagement to be really interesting in that game. What we call a "mortar" is really a big cannon more like field guns then the man portable one.
I would say that is not true; one of the more common mounted mortars is the M120 which has a minimum firing range of only 200m compared to a man portable M252 which has a minimum range of 93m.

Those would seem to be rather comparable ranges given the rather large difference in bore sizes. Mortars are meant for close in, high angle artillery work, with their other distinguishing feature being that their shells have the largest percentage devoted to payload of any sort of artillery.

Field Guns are larger and have largely been replaced by mortars since the end of WW II; their firing profile is closer to that of a howitzer than a mortar.
User:dak180
Keeper of the Mac Builds
medusa
Trained
Trained
Posts: 175
Joined: 25 Jul 2011, 01:56

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by medusa »

Iluvalar wrote:
wikipedia wrote:These attributes contrast with the mortar's larger siblings, howitzers and field guns, that fire at higher velocities, longer ranges, flatter arcs, and sometimes using direct fire. These weapons also do not use the mortar's gravity-assisted means of detonating the shell.
dak180 : But this is the description of the man-portable mortar. They fill a very specific purpose. As soon as one build an artillery on ground or build a "giant" cannon on a vehicule, i doubt he intend to lob at short range.

I'd say that in warzone such lobbing weapon is too specific and would need to much micromanagement to be really interesting in that game. What we call a "mortar" is really a big cannon more like field guns then the man portable one.
since when is a mortar like a field gun? :roll:
you obviously never used one.

for all these patches none of them are perfect and each have their own issues.
can you guys keep tweaking this stuff, since I don't think anyone of these should be final.
User avatar
MaNGusT
Art contributor
Posts: 1152
Joined: 22 Sep 2006, 10:31
Location: Russia

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by MaNGusT »

dak180 wrote:compared to a man portable M252 which has a minimum range of 93m.
You are wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPcfp5ppGnk :wink:
Image
User avatar
macuser
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1052
Joined: 19 Mar 2010, 23:35
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by macuser »

ROFL ROFL :lol2: :lol2: :roll: :roll:
ArtRev Website

ImageImage

System: AMD Phenom II x4, 4GB RAM, 640GB HD, Nvidia GeForce GT 240 1GB, Mac OS X 10.6
Happy Camper
Trained
Trained
Posts: 32
Joined: 04 Sep 2010, 00:23
Location: Germany

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by Happy Camper »

cybersphinx wrote:Since 2.3.8's projectile handling sucks, I've made some test builds with various patches. Please test them and report back on the behaviour of them, and which you like best.
Difficult to decide. I found all of them playable.

#1: The trajectures of projectiles seem to be rather flat, but not annoyingly. Scourge hardpoints have a shorter range than ususal when shooting from a cliff. Mobile artillery units didn't seem to hurt themselves when firing from under a cliff.

#2: Scourge bots are more likely to shoot into the ground on bumpy terrain. It's a general flaw of unit behavior that they fire when their shots are blocked by terrain. Artillery units hurt themselves when placed to close to the bottom of a cliff - a little bit annoying that they fire in spite of that.

#3: Ballistic weapons hit from everywhere without taking damage from being placed close to a cliff. IIRC, this is similar to the behavior in the original game. Towers don't always shoot over walls or other towers.

I voted for #1, although I didn't like the reduced range of the scourge hardpoints.
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by Iluvalar »

Happy Camper wrote:I voted for #1, although I didn't like the reduced range of the scourge hardpoints.
Proj1 is slightly more demanding in term of line of sight. Proj3 will manage to pull extremely improbable shot were you just see the tip of the target and still hit at the same accuracy then usual. While proj1 will wait that the target is more visible before telling the droid it can fire. If you make your test in front of a slope that a unit climb. Proj3 will effectively pull out a magic shot (and succeed) before the more pragmatic proj1.

however it's unsure in proj3 if the situation will be symetrical (units can fire at different moment) creating situation where, because of the visual position of the weapon, one unit will fire the other without the other being able to react.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
User avatar
effigy
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1217
Joined: 22 Jan 2010, 03:21
Contact:

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by effigy »

maybe it's time to see a comparison table of 3 side-by-side.

It seems people are noticing what I would call random changes between builds (myself included). It'd be nice to know if they're hallucinations or discoveries.
This is why some features aren't implemented: http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7490&view=unread#p87241
User avatar
Iluvalar
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1828
Joined: 02 Oct 2010, 18:44

Re: 2.3 projectile test builds

Post by Iluvalar »

ok here's my explanation (there can be other point of vue)

I'll start with proj2 that is 2.3.7 : the droids stop and shoot into cliffs (miss). A variant of 2.3.8 : the droids stop and shoot trough cliffs (hit). The line of sight is determined by the visibility which was heavily tweaked to see units behind corners and on top of cliff. However when the projectile is drawed we see the obvious flaw. We'll call it : "over the head to over the head".

proj3 is "tip to top" (this is the tip of your weapon to the top of the target). If that line of sight is cleared, then the game engine dice (accuracy) determine if there is a hit. The terrain passed that point will not affect precision. From a gamer point of vue, that one would be correct for me. Even if it create assymetrical situation sometimes (The attacker stop and fire, just out of range of the defender because of sight not weapon range). The coder inside me see other problems. The code heavily rely on 3d models. The exact position of the weapon. It also have it own new set of functions and stuff in the code, which might make it pretty heavy to maintain and change in the futur. Since it was recycled form early 3.0 beta codes, there is apparently others changes around that is not directly the test here.

Proj1 is "mid to mid" assuming that the weapon is somewhere in the middle of the design and that it need to see at least half of the target before starting to shoot at it. It's a lot simpler and reuse the visibility functions instead of making it own set. it is also probably easier to predict as a player. It still rely on 3d model but only for the height. It could be changed for stats data easily if only they were existing. Other fix : the arty (like mra) shoot straight if they have a clear line of sight.
Heretic 2.3 improver and proud of it.
Post Reply