These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

When are they going to fix the HORRIBLE collision detection?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-01-07 00:20:32 UTC
18 months.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
stoicfaux
#22 - 2013-01-07 00:25:37 UTC
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...

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Randolph Rothstein
whatever corp.
#23 - 2013-01-07 00:59:55 UTC
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
Kahu ia Kane'ohe
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-01-07 01:22:28 UTC
Good "collision detection" is hard to do with a game whose servers only ping each client only every second I think...

Guardian of the Land of Kings ~Sriracha Nighthawk's twin
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#25 - 2013-01-07 01:27:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
…so don't get so close to the asteroids?

Anyway: when someone figures out a way to solve the same scale problems without compromising performance. Also, because causality bubbles are cool. P


Is it really down to performance? Or just that CCP have not or round to redrawing the collision models?

I mean, compared to a FPS game map, with all sorts of intricate terrain, EVE is fairly simple. It doesn't even need to be as precise as feet-on-the-ground accuracy.

Some of the station boxes drive me nuts. It would be nice if you didn't bounce off gates etc when still 100s of meters from the edge of the graphic.

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Spurty
#26 - 2013-01-07 01:32:38 UTC
You have three choices:

- up
- down
- backwards


What more do you need man?

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2013-01-07 03:20:13 UTC
Spurty wrote:
You have three choices:

- up
- down
- backwards


What more do you need man?

Forward
We arent the Vichy Republic here.
Sideways
Because OP and ISD are crabby with each other
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#28 - 2013-01-07 03:22:59 UTC
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.
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#29 - 2013-01-07 03:36:52 UTC
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...



You mean make it more appealing. Now people wont have to fit guns, boosters and damage mods to their ships. They will just need armour plates and a MWD. Much cheaper, lower accel so you start out further to get a velocity bonus into that mass bonus. Because I'll tell you now, if CCP puts in collision damage (which they wont, not really, there is too many problems both with the game engine and design philosophy) it will work both ways.

Look at the bounty system. I remember reading screeds of posts and local chat snips heralding it as if it was Saint Nick incarnate and the big baddies were all on the naughty list. And how is that working in reality?
galenwade
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2013-01-07 04:27:44 UTC
Pewty McPew wrote:
Katie Frost wrote:
Jealousy Asques wrote:
...unable to warp or move untill you randomly pick the right direction to get out.


Pro-piloting tip: Away from the asteroid is usually the way to go.





Pro tip #2: Orbit the asteroid to begin with. (Taking a Mackinaw into the middle of a crowded asteroid field is like taking a hooker to church, no good will come of it)




My church is way more fun than your church ....Oops
Aren Madigan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-01-07 05:01:59 UTC
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
Cruor Angelicus
#32 - 2013-01-07 09:18:50 UTC
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.
…not 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
#33 - 2013-01-07 10:06:22 UTC
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
#34 - 2013-01-07 10:11:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Inxentas Ultramar
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
Blackfyre Enterprise
#35 - 2013-01-07 10:16:59 UTC
Considering how much lag there is already with the spherical hitboxes, I'd say...

Never.
Doddy
Excidium.
#36 - 2013-01-07 10:20:32 UTC
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
koahisquad
#37 - 2013-01-07 10:43:23 UTC
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
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2013-01-07 10:54:07 UTC
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
Doomheim
#39 - 2013-01-07 11:16:59 UTC
Just imagine that they are gravity fields emitted by the ship's hyperscrew.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-01-07 12:39:37 UTC
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...

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Previous page123Next page