Can this game render hundreds against hundreds ?? - Page 5

Mietz · 2013-02-07, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

OK they can do some dynamic Infiltrator only special case rendering, like Infantry can see and infiltrators can see them up to 500m...

That would mean that all infantry can see up to 500m.
Thats not a special ruleset, thats just a flat infantry render distance increase.

No matter how you slice it, the render issues are not solvable by just changing how far what types of units render.
The render fix needs to go deeper into the engine and at this point can probably not be solved without presenting performance issues (bandwidth, server and clientside).

Figment · 2013-02-07, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Well, Indar having the most bases (= less focused) but being by far the most popular continent might suggest the players don't mind uber insane battles that much as you might think. I for once don't mind it all, I'm still getting way bigger and more epic battles than I have ever seen in a game and I guess that goes for most players (who are not PS1 vets) as well.
With Amerish, they tried to achieve more of a focus/natural lattice system with the terrain and guess what, it's the least popular continent. I guess people don't like it to be restricted in their movement.

That's got nothing to do with it. We'd like Amerish more, if it wasn't for the obvious issue with unfair facility placement: The southern empire ALWAYS has extensive Tech Plant control that can hardly be denied, where it's pretty easy to do that to the north.

Plus, there are simply a lot of issues with flow in general. The Bio Labs ground terrain for instance are next to impossible to hold on to or regain, while when you do hold something there's a ton of other bases you lose to ghosters. What with the amount of outposts surrounding it you never getting solid control over them. There's simply a lot of ghosting going on and on Amerish you feel it a bit more because response times are longer due to terrain. In comparison, Indar funnels fighting into the canyons, where most fighting occurs. But when you look at some of the other bases, on Amerish they often lack walls entirely (Mekala for instance) and are simply an open "urban/rural" area.

If you look at the layout of Splitpeak Pass, it's not strange that it is never held: the distance between the three CCs and the solid spawn point is just huge, while you can drive an AMS in from the north behind the ridge!

Then when you do get it and start moving out, players move out in such great numbers with so many vehicles, it's simply impossible to stop the zerg's momentum till three-four regions later unless it happens to run into a zerg. By which time you're cut off from your warpgate or lost your Tech. Either way, response time is a problem there.

The terrain however, is some of the best around.

Rolfski · 2013-02-07, 09:27 AM

These might be all fair complaints about Amerish from the perspective of very experienced players but the majority isn't probably aware of them. They are probably more annoyed that they have to check the map all the time to check which way to go.

Figment · 2013-02-07, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

These might be all fair complaints about Amerish from the perspective of very experienced players but the majority isn't probably aware of them. They are probably more annoyed that they have to check the map all the time to check which way to go.

Checking the map all the time is a good thing to get situational awareness, the new hot spot system should help a lot with getting an idea where the fighting actually occurs. It's generally what squad leaders are for though.

If we didn't always have to watch every position - and if we didn't always end up in a situation where the crossfire between CC and spawns prevents a fight to have a proper defensive victory, then people would be more stimulated to actively seek out defensive fights.

Have you ever really thought to yourself "let's go defend that mini outpost, because I just noticed it's being taken!"? Or was it more an "blegh, it's being taken, probably going to be too late if I try to get there from here, besides, too many tanks in between here and there to even get a vehicle out and too little time to recall". :/

Defending something remotely by blocking the link to it would help so much as well (see that other thread on influence treshold requirements for instance).

SGOniell · 2013-02-07, 10:07 AM

I only suffered the rendering issue shortly before the Ultimate Empire Showdown, and during. Didn't have it just after, and I haven't played recently, so once its done updating I'll check and find out, though it very rarely happens to me.

Dkamanus · 2013-02-07, 11:31 AM

Would it be so bad for a dynamic system in which the player only renders all things his FoV is towards? I mean, whats the point of rendering infantry/tanks/air somewhere we my view isn't pointing at? I doesn't matter if I don't render the objects I can't see IF I can see their bullets at least. Unless animation and object are one, which would make that impossible.

If that's not possible, then enforce a strict LoS limit, at least for now. Being able to render EVERYTHING at 500m. Past that the object dissapears, and then we start from there. Although we must admit, for a rendering issue to become proeminent, there has to be a HUGE influx of players (AND BY huge, we can confortably say more the 500 players in once area).

Ti Alloys and The Crown on Waterson have a HUGE influx of players EVERY NIGHT. We can clearly see a HUGE amount of players in-game, and most can be seen at distance. Problem is when one tries to see from the Crown into Ti Alloys, no infantry renders. Its strange to thing the engine can render big boxes (vehicles and airplanes) at that distance, while players it can't. This seems an artificial way the developers have put on in order to minimize the GPU stress on most people average computer.

Its just strange how the engine handles hitboxes, since everything that can take damage in-game has a hitbox.

Mietz · 2013-02-07, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

Would it be so bad for a dynamic system in which the player only renders all things his FoV is towards? I mean, whats the point of rendering infantry/tanks/air somewhere we my view isn't pointing at? I doesn't matter if I don't render the objects I can't see IF I can see their bullets at least.

The problem doesn't come from graphics rendering.
When people say rendering, they mean "rendered by the client", as in recognized as an object/actor, not just displaying the model on screen.

Its a processing and bandwidth limitation cap, not graphics.

Calisai · 2013-02-07, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Checking the map all the time is a good thing to get situational awareness, the new hot spot system should help a lot with getting an idea where the fighting actually occurs. It's generally what squad leaders are for though.

You want to know what REALLY annoys me... The vehicle stops while you are in the map. So, a quick check of the map to know if I should take the left fork or right fork slows my Sundy down... and the damn things aren't speedsters.

It makes driving a sundy and setting waypoints (as an SL) and exercise in frustration. At least they did autorun on infantry correctly.. even if it took this long to put it in.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-02-07, 01:09 PM

Again we were pressing the attack to the TR warpgate. The devil dogs and ccg were pressing the attack. There must have been three hundred of us trying to take a tower and I couldnt see friend or foe further than ten yards out. This shits gotta be fixed.

Quovatis · 2013-02-07, 01:17 PM

I don't understand why they don't just use the same algorithm from PS1. It worked perfectly and you could ALWAYS see what was shooting you (except for flail fire). The render distance should be the same for all players and not depend on what vehicle you are or are not in. It's just stupid.

typhaon · 2013-02-07, 01:26 PM

Unless everyone stands in one spot - I'm pretty sure fights of about 300-ish (sometimes more) tend to work pretty smoothly... in/around bases.

Things get wonky when you get out in more open areas where you'd actually expect to SEE 100+ enemies on your screen, at once - and we all know those issues.

Nevertheless... fun can still be had... as anyone that was a part of the madness taking place just east of the NC Indar warp gate on Matherson a couple of days ago, can atest too... Pretty much the entire continent population of NC, TR, and VS were all fighting in that one hex... guns still worked... but that was about it!

Would LOVE to know what the population stats were during that battle.

MrBloodworth · 2013-02-07, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Quovatis

I don't understand why they don't just use the same algorithm from PS1. It worked perfectly and you could ALWAYS see what was shooting you (except for flail fire). The render distance should be the same for all players and not depend on what vehicle you are or are not in. It's just stupid.

It IS the same system. But the deign has changed.

First, PS1 render distance, even for static objects was MUCH shorter than PS2. Second, there are no interior spaces in PS2. That may sound odd to say, but in the technical sense there is no interior spaces in PS2, its all Terrain based, nothing seems to be portalized at all.

In PS1, base interiors were portalized, meaning 2 portals ( Areas/Zones ) away, people were not rendered/networked. This is not the case in PS2, there is only one space, all of it. This meant you could have 100 people inside, and 100 people outside and they were different groups in terms of render and network. So instead of physical spaces determining groups and such, they use pure distance in PS2, but that leads to the issues we have currently I think.

The scale has also changed, part in turn by the Cert system ( IE: It takes half the users to man a tank, thus less consolidation of traffic ), part by the PS2 design of 2000 people per server. Lastly, PS2 does not use the backpacks, meaning your full ( or LOD by distance ) toon is in screen and rendered.

Ever notice that in PS2, you are not ever unloaded, not even when you die. When you reapawn you are MOVED ( Faster than you can see most times, internets willing ) to a new location and your state is changed. You are a dynamically placed object from log in to log out. Tracked and considered as part of density.

Couple this with game action that happen at a much faster pace from client to server in terms of frequency than PS1. And you have a tough nut to crack.

However, for all bias as a player. PS2 IS a technical marvel.

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

Would it be so bad for a dynamic system in which the player only renders all things his FoV is towards?

Welcome to engines 101?

Dougnifico · 2013-02-07, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Ironside

innovation? they've made a piss poor game, if you're happy with it great you must have low standards

You see, innovation is this thing people do when they don't want to do what has always been done. If no one does, then no one changes. You my friend that person who complains that Edison's first light bulb didn't work and should have made a candle. Whether or not the devs executed things well is up for debate, but you have to credit them with stepping out of the comfort zone of their industry.

To make this easy on you: They do new. Even if new not work, at least we go forward.

Hopefully our next exchange can be free from you lashing out. Instead try "I respectfully disagree and this is why...."

Ironside · 2013-02-07, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

You see, innovation is this thing people do when they don't want to do what has always been done. If no one does, then no one changes. You my friend that person who complains that Edison's first light bulb didn't work and should have made a candle. Whether or not the devs executed things well is up for debate, but you have to credit them with stepping out of the comfort zone of their industry.

To make this easy on you: They do new. Even if new not work, at least we go forward.

Hopefully our next exchange can be free from you lashing out. Instead try "I respectfully disagree and this is why...."

lol trying to patronize me? my skin is thick m8
i understand well enough and i stand by my posts, how can you have a fps game where you can't see the enemy until the last possible moment and who the fuck makes supposedly a cutting edge, innovative game using dx9

MrBloodworth · 2013-02-07, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Ironside

lol trying to patronize me? my skin is thick m8
i understand well enough and i stand by my posts, how can you have a fps game where you can't see the enemy until the last possible moment and who the fuck makes supposedly a cutting edge, innovative game using dx9

People smarter than you, apparently.