These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Collision detection - Does it have to be this bad?

Author
Tron 3K
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-07-12 17:06:33 UTC
Multor Kaston wrote:
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?


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
Doomheim
#22 - 2013-07-12 17:12:01 UTC
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.

forums.  serious business.

Kult Altol
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2013-07-12 18:15:51 UTC
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.

[u]Can't wait untill when Eve online is Freemium.[/u] 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 [u]pay **[/u]for a product, you ARE the [u]**product[/u].

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#24 - 2013-07-12 18:24:50 UTC
Read this.
Verunae Caseti
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2013-07-12 19:35:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Read this.


Neat, but not relevant to object collision detection.
Khira Kitamatsu
#26 - 2013-07-12 19:36:07 UTC
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!  We need more ponies!

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#27 - 2013-07-12 19:57:22 UTC
Verunae Caseti wrote:
Neat, but not relevant to object collision detection.
…apart 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?
Verunae Caseti
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2013-07-12 20:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Verunae Caseti
Tippia wrote:
Verunae Caseti wrote:
Neat, but not relevant to object collision detection.
…apart 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
#29 - 2013-07-13 18:55:42 UTC
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
#30 - 2013-07-13 19:16:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Verunae Caseti wrote:
I read it, and it doesn't say anything about object collision at all.
…except 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 — 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 “event cylinder” trivial to calculate, which is a good thing.

Quote:
I understood it.
…aside 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.
Solutio Letum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-07-13 19:40:08 UTC
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
#32 - 2013-07-13 19:47:41 UTC
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).
Multor Kaston
Doomheim
#33 - 2013-07-14 11:10:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Multor Kaston
Milan Nantucket wrote:
Multor Kaston wrote:
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?


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? How about "existant"? Good job describing words as non-existent by using non-existent words. That is just golden, LOL.
Let alone your sentence structure that is reminiscent of the 5th grade.
See what happens when you obsess over such things? You end up making yourself look ridiculous and fullish Big smile.


Tron 3K wrote:
Multor Kaston wrote:
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?


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..
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 post. I also considered you may not have been. If you didn't lack skills in reading comprehension you'd have noticed this was stated in the OP. Much like if you weren't an idiot, you wouldn't assume everyone knows your intentions from one or two poorly crafted sentences.

Why are you trolling a serious topic anyways? Sounds like your life is real fun :P.
Multor Kaston
Doomheim
#34 - 2013-07-14 11:38:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Multor Kaston
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.

Tippia wrote:
Read this.

Thanks. A little bit technical though, must plea some ignorance here. Care to explain it more simply?
As from what I'm gathering, would they not be able to divide stationary objects into multiple pieces - each with it's own sphere - as to make collision detection more precise? Are they already doing this? As I noticed some objects aren't so bad, close to perfect in fact, which makes me scratch my head. It's like some structures have one giant bubble around it, others have dozens of bubbles spread around each different piece.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#35 - 2013-07-14 12:35:27 UTC
How about collision detection for weapons? It might actually be fun using some of these stationary objects as cover.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2013-07-14 13:19:15 UTC
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
Doomheim
#37 - 2013-07-15 07:15:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Multor Kaston
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
#38 - 2013-07-15 07:54:02 UTC
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
Perkone
Caldari State
#39 - 2013-07-15 07:59:22 UTC
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. -.-

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.

Multor Kaston
Doomheim
#40 - 2013-07-15 08:04:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Multor Kaston
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 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 Lol.
Previous page123Next page