These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Recent 'issue'

First post
Author
Malango
A.D.I
#1 - 2013-07-29 18:40:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Malango
There's been a part the game that's always bugged me and only until recently I found out why.


I was running an L4 mission when I was taking a little too much damage so I warped out to refit fit, but instead of warping my ship decided to do an impression of a bucking bronco and flip around in every direction. I was rather confused as on my screen all there was, was space (stars), I had no Ewar on me, I zoomed out and I was near a ruined station. Visually no where near it.

Now I've lost many ships, many more expensive, but this one annoyed me as I fully expected to simply warp away and dock to refit. So I petitioned it, The GM told me I will have been stuck in the station as everything in eve is a sphere, now I was I meant to know this? Where is it told to you when you start the game? So i got a 'tough luck' reply from the GM as I should have known better.

Now in all other games a cube is a cube, but it eve it's a sphere, Even though visually it's a cube, it's a sphere. So when my ship was near the station the game decided I was inside an invisible sphere. In a game where you can freely fly about and also a game where when you die your ship is gone. This really should be documented. Why can't a cube be a cube? all other games manage to have the collision boundaries where the actual objects are.

I also now understand why often when I mission rats get stuck inside space objects. (which in the three years playing as always annoyed me), Even the rats assumed a cube was a cube and got stuck in invisible object boundaries.

Since this loss, even though I've lost way better ships and haven't cared it's really put me off the game and I haven't played since the loss over like 2-3 weeks ago, only logging on to queue a skill.

I just feel it wasn't fair in a game where you can lose ships that you can so easily get stuck in there graphics and no one told me this until a GM pointed out to me all objects in space are spheres.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#2 - 2013-07-29 19:07:14 UTC
Huh. So, collision spheres aren't actually entirely spherical. Not sure what the GM was getting on about there. But they also don't coextend with the graphics perfectly; that's a well-known issue and if you think L4s are bad you should just wait and see how bad some exploration sites can be.[1]

Unfortunately, I don't see this changing any time soon. It's been like that for years, and I'm not even sure CCP knows the best way to go about fixing it. It's rather unfortunate that you lost a ship on it; I've done the same. But honestly, I think the best short term solution is to bug report it whenever it comes up and just learn how to avoid it in the meantime. Enough bug reports and maybe they'll try to prioritize a fix sooner than later.

_____________________________
[1] To be fair, they aren't nearly as bad under the current system since most of the cans were moved away from the truly obnoxious locations. So I guess that's one thing not to complain about in Odyssey exploration. So far I'm up to... one.
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2013-07-29 19:08:23 UTC
Live and learn.
Malango
A.D.I
#4 - 2013-07-29 20:29:27 UTC
I'll try to bounce back as it were. Just annoyed me how the GM acted like it was my fault and something I should have known anyway.
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2013-07-29 21:02:07 UTC
This is indeed annoying especially in AFs and short range T3s (Loki, Legion, Proteus).

What I usually do is zoom out and move camera so that structure/object is between my ship and camera. Then trying to move away by double clicking space behind that structure/object. It doesn't always work on first try. If it doesn't work you have to find correct angle. This can be tricky if there is other structures/objects nearby.
Rengerel en Distel
#6 - 2013-07-29 21:47:10 UTC
Malango wrote:
I'll try to bounce back as it were. Just annoyed me how the GM acted like it was my fault and something I should have known anyway.


Well, to be fair, it is something most people figure out doing the tutorial missions. There are plenty of things you bounce up against to show you that things in space aren't shaped as they appear.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

GM Bunyip
Game Master Retirement Home
#7 - 2013-07-29 22:05:36 UTC
Maybe I can shed a little further light here:

The art models that go with a given item/object in space don't actually depict the areas where the ship will collide with that object. This is defined by an invisible sphere placed around the object - the collision sphere, we call it. My thinking was always that a sphere is used because it creates less client-server calls (relative to a box?) but you'd want someone with technical knowledge to confirm.

One thing I do know, is that the more collision spheres you add to an object, the greater the technical cost in terms of server load, and client-server calls. For this reason the "fidelity" (or accuracy) of the spheres is sometimes quite a ways off and quite simple. These actually used to be more accurate, but then we ran some numbers, reduced the fidelity, and noticed a significant performance improvement (a.k.a. part of the "Need for Speed" initiative, of some years ago). When you think about how many sites are active at a given time, how many objects are in them, and how many interactions there are between those collision spheres and players, this makes some sense - it would add up over thousands of sites.

So, yup, that's why there are invisible walls in odd places sometimes. It's not so much a bug as it is an unfortunate byproduct of technical limitations.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#8 - 2013-07-29 22:24:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
That said, some collision spheres are really bad. A small object inside a huge sphere, where a small sphere would be quite adequate. Or the other way: objects you can fly through because the spheres are not in the right places or big enough.

Also I wounder how well the math for collision detection is actually done. If the distance between two objects is small enough then the collision takes place. The distance is found by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the difference in the three coordinates (X, Y, and Z) of the two objects. But for most items on the grid I will be far too far away for a collision to happen, so the test for collision should throw out as many items as possible as fast as possible. One way to do this is to first see if just the X distance is too large for there to be a collision. That is a faster test than doing all the differences, squares and square roots, and for most objects all that is needed to rule them out.

(Actually you can eliminate the need for doing a square root by comparing the difference in the sum of the squares of the Delta X, Y, and Z distances to the square of the critical distance).

Or another way: Say a complex object consists of many collisions spheres. Instead of checking my ship against them all each tick, surround the entire object with a big "area of influence" sphere. First see if I am in that area of influence. If I am, then do all the collision checks. If not, do none of them.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Miccet
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
#9 - 2013-07-29 22:40:25 UTC
It makes perfect sense for EVE to measure collisions in spheres. The only factors are the sphere's size and relative distance. If you did it with a cube for example you would have to calculate that against the whole area of it since a corner could be closer to you rather than a side is long. A sphere always have the same absolute distance to another sphere, no matter how they are relatively placed to each other.

I guess the real issue is fidelity though, but the tech behind this is still interesting :-)
Malango
A.D.I
#10 - 2013-07-29 23:23:50 UTC
Tobias Hareka wrote:
This is indeed annoying especially in AFs and short range T3s (Loki, Legion, Proteus).

What I usually do is zoom out and move camera so that structure/object is between my ship and camera. Then trying to move away by double clicking space behind that structure/object. It doesn't always work on first try. If it doesn't work you have to find correct angle. This can be tricky if there is other structures/objects nearby.


Yeah I was in a HAM nightkawk, I mostly mission is BS's that barely move so it was a nice change until I was trapped in nothing lol.

And thank you GM Bunyip for making it more clear. Can I have my ship back now. Joking! :P

I'll just have to be more careful in missions with lots of crap in space i guess.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#11 - 2013-07-29 23:27:24 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Malango wrote:
I'll try to bounce back as it were. Just annoyed me how the GM acted like it was my fault and something I should have known anyway.


Well, to be fair, it is something most people figure out doing the tutorial missions. There are plenty of things you bounce up against to show you that things in space aren't shaped as they appear.


The worst is when you're technically in warp, because then there's nothing you can do but watch your ship caterpillar along an invisible wall. I've lost a ship or two that way myself.

Live and learn.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#12 - 2013-07-29 23:50:49 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Malango wrote:
I'll try to bounce back as it were. Just annoyed me how the GM acted like it was my fault and something I should have known anyway.


Well, to be fair, it is something most people figure out doing the tutorial missions. There are plenty of things you bounce up against to show you that things in space aren't shaped as they appear.


The worst is when you're technically in warp, because then there's nothing you can do but watch your ship caterpillar along an invisible wall. I've lost a ship or two that way myself.

Live and learn.


Yeah, immediately stop your ship under those circumstances. Just a quick ctrl-space. That cancels the attempt to warp so you can maneuver again. It's usually much, much faster than just waiting for it to try to resolve itself.
Substantia Nigra
Polaris Rising
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2013-07-30 01:03:27 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:

The worst is when you're technically in warp, because then there's nothing you can do but watch your ship caterpillar along an invisible wall. I've lost a ship or two that way myself.
Live and learn.

Yeah, immediately stop your ship under those circumstances. Just a quick ctrl-space. That cancels the attempt to warp so you can maneuver again. It's usually much, much faster than just waiting for it to try to resolve itself.


Zhilia is correct there. There *is* something you can do! It’s ctrl-space, to stop your ship from blindly trying for the near impossible warp, and then manually fly your ship away from the obstructing objects.

As someone who has just done their first missions for a couple years, and who is using an undertanked blappy machariel, I have been several times caught by obstructing objects stopping me from last-second escapes … usually when I have allowed my ship to get into mid-armor and I am starting to fear actually losing it to NPCs (Oh, the humiliation!).

My advice, having just been refamiliarised with this issue, is:
- Small combat drones … always, always, always. When you messup and your shields are melting is usually the (Murphy’s Law) time that you discover there is one more frig on the field, and it’s a point/scram frig to boot, and it is now too close or too small for your main weapons to do significant damage to. Most any drone will kill them, warriors just get there faster and start applying damage faster, and do not take up much drone bay space.
- When your ship is amongst other objects zoom in close to see what is where, and fly manually to avoid potentially troubling objects. It is usually not too hard to point yourself directly up or down and hit your AB / MWD, if only you were watching close enough to realise you were near objects that may obstruct. The ‘natural’ approach for mission running is usually big-picture, so it is usually a deliberate conscious decision to zoom in and take an up-close look at things.
- Know the mission. I used to know their foibles back to front but my being caught out recently has largely been due to my not giving much thought to the specifics of the mission. Yes, I *knew* there were four scramming frigs in that wave … why TF didn’t I blap them while they were still 50+km away and move myself away from the beacon?
- Overtank. My mission running tengu was pretty bomb-proof in that it never needed to warp-out to save itself. It just pottered around laughing at the incoming DPS. All the same it is much more fun, and makes for faster mission completion, to fly a blap-beast like a machariel … and occasionally see your dial trying hard to enter structure.
- Avoid the clutter. Sure, many missions require you to go up-close to a certain object but in many cases you are not obliged to take the shortest, most cluttered route to get there. I often burn up or down 10 – 20 km then start the traverse to wherever I need to get (usually a can of some sort). This takes a few seconds more but helps keep me away from debris, and usually doesn’t drag me right through the NPC ships all sitting at or working towards their optimals.

Bottom line? Be prepared, be watchful, and learn how to manually fly your ship.

Good luck coping with this little game dynamic in the future.

I guess I am almost a 'vet' by now. Hopefully not too bitter and managing to help more than I hinder. I build and sell many things, including large collections of bookmarks.

Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2013-07-30 01:21:38 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Malango wrote:
I'll try to bounce back as it were. Just annoyed me how the GM acted like it was my fault and something I should have known anyway.


Well, to be fair, it is something most people figure out doing the tutorial missions. There are plenty of things you bounce up against to show you that things in space aren't shaped as they appear.


The worst is when you're technically in warp, because then there's nothing you can do but watch your ship caterpillar along an invisible wall. I've lost a ship or two that way myself.

Live and learn.


Yeah, immediately stop your ship under those circumstances. Just a quick ctrl-space. That cancels the attempt to warp so you can maneuver again. It's usually much, much faster than just waiting for it to try to resolve itself.


I've actually come across a bug where I couldnt even control space and waited a full 8 minutes watching my ship flail helplessly against an accel gate

now I never warp to a gate at 0.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#15 - 2013-07-30 01:55:56 UTC
GM Bunyip wrote:
Maybe I can shed a little further light here:

The art models that go with a given item/object in space don't actually depict the areas where the ship will collide with that object. This is defined by an invisible sphere placed around the object - the collision sphere, we call it. My thinking was always that a sphere is used because it creates less client-server calls (relative to a box?) but you'd want someone with technical knowledge to confirm.

One thing I do know, is that the more collision spheres you add to an object, the greater the technical cost in terms of server load, and client-server calls. For this reason the "fidelity" (or accuracy) of the spheres is sometimes quite a ways off and quite simple. These actually used to be more accurate, but then we ran some numbers, reduced the fidelity, and noticed a significant performance improvement (a.k.a. part of the "Need for Speed" initiative, of some years ago). When you think about how many sites are active at a given time, how many objects are in them, and how many interactions there are between those collision spheres and players, this makes some sense - it would add up over thousands of sites.

So, yup, that's why there are invisible walls in odd places sometimes. It's not so much a bug as it is an unfortunate byproduct of technical limitations.


Collision spheres are far far easier to compute.

Serpentis/Guristas L4 worlds collide however had (may still have, I dunno) a random collision at/near the beacon for the guristas pocket. (along with its random fullstage aggro whether you do or don't do anything in particular).

I even have a denied petition for a fairly expensive loss for tangling with that one. I simply don't bother going in there anymore.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#16 - 2013-07-30 05:11:46 UTC
GM Bunyip wrote:
Maybe I can shed a little further light here:

The art models that go with a given item/object in space don't actually depict the areas where the ship will collide with that object. This is defined by an invisible sphere placed around the object - the collision sphere, we call it. My thinking was always that a sphere is used because it creates less client-server calls (relative to a box?) but you'd want someone with technical knowledge to confirm.

One thing I do know, is that the more collision spheres you add to an object, the greater the technical cost in terms of server load, and client-server calls. For this reason the "fidelity" (or accuracy) of the spheres is sometimes quite a ways off and quite simple. These actually used to be more accurate, but then we ran some numbers, reduced the fidelity, and noticed a significant performance improvement (a.k.a. part of the "Need for Speed" initiative, of some years ago). When you think about how many sites are active at a given time, how many objects are in them, and how many interactions there are between those collision spheres and players, this makes some sense - it would add up over thousands of sites.

So, yup, that's why there are invisible walls in odd places sometimes. It's not so much a bug as it is an unfortunate byproduct of technical limitations.


I liked your explanation but I hope you dont get written up for giving a reply =/= "our logs show nothing".

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#17 - 2013-07-30 06:20:19 UTC
Substantia Nigra wrote:
Zhilia is correct there. There *is* something you can do! It’s ctrl-space, to stop your ship from blindly trying for the near impossible warp, and then manually fly your ship away from the obstructing objects.

As someone who has just done their first missions for a couple years, and who is using an undertanked blappy machariel, I have been several times caught by obstructing objects stopping me from last-second escapes … usually when I have allowed my ship to get into mid-armor and I am starting to fear actually losing it to NPCs (Oh, the humiliation!).

My advice, having just been refamiliarised with this issue, is:
- Small combat drones … always, always, always. When you messup and your shields are melting is usually the (Murphy’s Law) time that you discover there is one more frig on the field, and it’s a point/scram frig to boot, and it is now too close or too small for your main weapons to do significant damage to. Most any drone will kill them, warriors just get there faster and start applying damage faster, and do not take up much drone bay space.
- When your ship is amongst other objects zoom in close to see what is where, and fly manually to avoid potentially troubling objects. It is usually not too hard to point yourself directly up or down and hit your AB / MWD, if only you were watching close enough to realise you were near objects that may obstruct. The ‘natural’ approach for mission running is usually big-picture, so it is usually a deliberate conscious decision to zoom in and take an up-close look at things.
- Know the mission. I used to know their foibles back to front but my being caught out recently has largely been due to my not giving much thought to the specifics of the mission. Yes, I *knew* there were four scramming frigs in that wave … why TF didn’t I blap them while they were still 50+km away and move myself away from the beacon?
- Overtank. My mission running tengu was pretty bomb-proof in that it never needed to warp-out to save itself. It just pottered around laughing at the incoming DPS. All the same it is much more fun, and makes for faster mission completion, to fly a blap-beast like a machariel … and occasionally see your dial trying hard to enter structure.
- Avoid the clutter. Sure, many missions require you to go up-close to a certain object but in many cases you are not obliged to take the shortest, most cluttered route to get there. I often burn up or down 10 – 20 km then start the traverse to wherever I need to get (usually a can of some sort). This takes a few seconds more but helps keep me away from debris, and usually doesn’t drag me right through the NPC ships all sitting at or working towards their optimals.

Bottom line? Be prepared, be watchful, and learn how to manually fly your ship.

Good luck coping with this little game dynamic in the future.


All this.

Also, nice to see you back in this forum. Pretty sure I hadn't mentioned that yet.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#18 - 2013-07-30 06:27:37 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
That said, some collision spheres are really bad. A small object inside a huge sphere, where a small sphere would be quite adequate. Or the other way: objects you can fly through because the spheres are not in the right places or big enough.

Also I wounder how well the math for collision detection is actually done. If the distance between two objects is small enough then the collision takes place. The distance is found by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the difference in the three coordinates (X, Y, and Z) of the two objects. But for most items on the grid I will be far too far away for a collision to happen, so the test for collision should throw out as many items as possible as fast as possible. One way to do this is to first see if just the X distance is too large for there to be a collision. That is a faster test than doing all the differences, squares and square roots, and for most objects all that is needed to rule them out.

(Actually you can eliminate the need for doing a square root by comparing the difference in the sum of the squares of the Delta X, Y, and Z distances to the square of the critical distance).

Or another way: Say a complex object consists of many collisions spheres. Instead of checking my ship against them all each tick, surround the entire object with a big "area of influence" sphere. First see if I am in that area of influence. If I am, then do all the collision checks. If not, do none of them.



The efficient way to check "is point (x1, y1, z1) within radius r of point (x2, y2, z2)" is as follows:

Step 1: Compute delta(x), delta(y) and delta(z)
Step 2: Are any of those greater than r? If so, report 'no collision'
Step 3: Compute the square of the distance (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) and compare to r^2. If the distance squared is less than r^2 or equal, report 'collision', else report 'no collision'.

Note that when talking about two spherical objects, the radius 'r' is just the sum of the radii of the two spheres. Step 1-2 eliminates all long distance potential collisions without further computation.

That said, because of the overview, it appears that the distance between each player ship and each object in space is constantly computed anyway.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Alicia Aishai
Perkone
Caldari State
#19 - 2013-07-30 10:07:31 UTC
GM Bunyip wrote:
Maybe I can shed a little further light here:

The art models that go with a given item/object in space don't actually depict the areas where the ship will collide with that object. This is defined by an invisible sphere placed around the object - the collision sphere, we call it. My thinking was always that a sphere is used because it creates less client-server calls (relative to a box?) but you'd want someone with technical knowledge to confirm.

One thing I do know, is that the more collision spheres you add to an object, the greater the technical cost in terms of server load, and client-server calls. For this reason the "fidelity" (or accuracy) of the spheres is sometimes quite a ways off and quite simple. These actually used to be more accurate, but then we ran some numbers, reduced the fidelity, and noticed a significant performance improvement (a.k.a. part of the "Need for Speed" initiative, of some years ago). When you think about how many sites are active at a given time, how many objects are in them, and how many interactions there are between those collision spheres and players, this makes some sense - it would add up over thousands of sites.

So, yup, that's why there are invisible walls in odd places sometimes. It's not so much a bug as it is an unfortunate byproduct of technical limitations.


I remember commenting on the exact same topic recently.

A SIMPLE and VERY HELPFUL way to alleviate this issue would be to have a way to display the invisible wall on the screen. It's fine that there are technical limitations to change the system but at least, please let us see the invisible walls (add a navigation toggle) so that we don't get stuck in the middle of no where without clear understand in which direction we should go.

dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2013-07-30 10:32:59 UTC
GM Bunyip wrote:
This is defined by an invisible sphere placed around the object - the collision sphere, we call it. My thinking was always that a sphere is used because it creates less client-server calls (relative to a box?) but you'd want someone with technical knowledge to confirm.



Eve is a submarine simulator where deep space uses the physics of fluid dynamics, in term of collision detection eve is 3d version of the classic pool game with modified physics.

Spheres somehow seems like the obvious choice :)

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.

12Next page