How should I configure 1.3pb2 so it's more like 1.2? I don't want some new rec variant, just want to know how I should configure these cfg files and other stuff.
You do know that any changes to the base files will cause bad assets and you won't be able to play online?
Otherwise what you've said is so vague I don't think anyone can help you. Depends on what you mean by 'more like 1.2'. If you're talking physics that's discussed elsewhere and will be a huge job, best done by a large group of players...
-Av-
I heard someone talking about configuring some config files and you should be able to *see* things in multiplayer just like you see them in 1.2. That you only needed to do a little tweaking depending on your setup, connection, etc. and that smooth-warp stuff would be no more.
The smoothing settings are in addon\config\Gameprefs.ini.
Try adjusting them according the the text and see if it improves things for you. Might not if the positioning lag is a true bug.
// Range for a percentage of a craft's normal forward velocity it may
// be smoothed by when multiworld is on. This value should be between
// 0.0 and 5.0, where 1.0 means that the craft is allowed to travel up
// to 100% of its forward velocity per frame.
//
// Setting the min down to 0 is not recommended, as craft rotating in
// place w/o any position changes won't have their changes shown until
// it moves.
//
// Setting the max number higher will be slightly more jumpy, while
// lower numbers will tend to induce warp if remote players maneuver
// really quickly.
MinMWSmooth_DTPercentage = 0.5
MaxMWSmooth_DTPercentage = 1.5
// Some other clamps on the smoothing code ranges. These are in absolute
// dt values, not percentages of current frame. Values less than 0.00001
// mean that this value is ignored. These can be adjusted with the
// game.minsmoothdt and game.maxsmoothdt console commands
MinMWSmooth_dt = 0.01
MaxMWSmooth_dt = 0.5
// Feedback factors for MW smoothing. Each of these may be between 0.0
// and 1.0, with 0.0 meaning "use 100% of the traditionally-calculated
// value for this, 1.0 meaning "use 100% of the new calculation for
// this", and 0.5 meaning "average the two exactly." In limited
// testing, values closer to 0 than 1 tend to work better.
//
// PositionFactor is used to blend between the just-calculated
// position and the last frame's position. A value of 0 will use only
// the highly-smoothed position, a value of 1 will use the 'best
// guess' position of where they are, and a value of 0.5 will use 50%
// of both values. Values between 0.75 and 0.999 will probably be
// intolerable. This value is applied on a per-frame basis, so as
// your framerate goes up, PositionFactor will seem to get stronger.
//
// VelocityFactor is used to blend between the true (physics)
// velocity (value of 0) and the velocity needed to get it going
// towards its true position (value of 1).
MWSmooth_PositionFactor = 0.15
MWSmooth_VelocityFactor = 0.00
// The above 4 values can be adjusted at the console with game.minsmooth,
// game.maxsmooth, game.smooth_posfactor, and game.smooth_velfactor . Older
// variables and console commands have been removed.
I've tried changing those, nothing changes.
Then that proves that it is something recently introduced as it worked before.
It didn't work before...
I've seen massive changes in multiworld brought on by my touching the smoothing options, none of which were good... :) I quickly decided it was better if I didn't mess with them...
Just as a thought, I keep seeing this mentioned in conjunction with the targeting reticule, has the issue with targeted ships jerking around in multiworld cropped up again? For that matter, was it ever fixed? Sounds a lot like what people are talking about...
-Av-
I think this is exaggerated by the quality of people's rigs and the latency of the players.
People should post their system specs and settings when reporting problems.
The bug is, very simply, the visual immage of any given ship gets a few seconds behind where the ship actually is, and all the other information related to the ship. This makes it impossible to hit almost any moving ship by visual alone, you need some targeting factor to see where it really is.
The Question is "is it fixable"????
Or do we just live with it??
If it isn't fixable then 1.3 won't be accepted.
i trust that GSH, and now, Ken together again, can fix anything :)
Well, I don't know about fixing absolutely anything. There can be some problems so fundamental that fixing them involves major changes to critical systems, spawning numerous secondary bugs. Remember what happened when I fixed the terrain collision system? :)
actually, i dnt know this story.
I had changed the way hover vehicles interacted with the ground, cutting out code that clamped the vehicle to at least ground height, thus reducing the "wall-climbing" behavior. However, this led to noticeable terrain collisions (which people didn't like), so I had to modify the hover physics to treat the vehicle like an ellipsoid, reducing the chance of striking the ground when you weren't flying level. But that fix also made hover vehicles fly slightly higher over rough terrain, decreasing the sensation of speed (which people didn't like either). So, Nathan commented out that fix, but that brought back the terrain collision problem. D'oh! (I'm tempted to put it back in, but I'd like to make sure it's okay first.)
i like it, its like in BZ1, the ground hurts again :)
god i love slamming into a cliff as a pilot in BZ1....:)
It's worth a try ken :-D
I can't speak to 1.2 vs 1.3, but I still prefer BZ1 physics to BZ2 because:
1. Less terrain 'messing with me', in that I can sit on a hill without sliding and cruise over rough terrain without bumping all over the place. BZ2 Walkers especially need more 'cotton' under their feet.
2. More in-air control, or at least it feels like it. BZ2 feels like my momentum is all I have, BZ1 feels like my thrusters are actually doing something.
Oops, here comes the boss...
-Av-
"i like it, its like in BZ1, the ground hurts again"
well now count you in the group of 2 players who like this effect....
Seriously.....It does seem RD is making progress on the ship physics via the ODF route, I hope this continues.
But IF this ground bumping needs to be corrected at "hard code" level I don't know..I suppose the best route is to see if it can be improved via the RD(ODF) route..before hoping Ken steps back in to "find a fix to fix the fix that the last fix didn't fix"
If he was forced to do that...then RD would have to start all over on the fix via ODF approach.
He wouldn't need to start over, probablly just lower the ships or raise the speeds.
Quote from: BZ FeebleEffort on March 14, 2006, 08:11:57 AM
well now count you in the group of 2 players who like this effect....
Am I in that group? I should be...
The collisions can be minimized by changing some old and new ODF entries, but they still do collide with the terrain sometimes. I made the collision sound a silent.wav that Nathan made. Minimizing the collision via ODF also made them a bit bouncier, but I'm pretty sure I can adjust that too.
The thing that would be really nice to have fixed is the walker step/animal step collision. It sounds like a machine gun when they are on uneven terrain. I think it's a default step sound too as I've substituted one in there.
Also, the default engine sound for hovercraft (and maybe all craft) is the Walker engine.
Quote from: Ultraken on March 13, 2006, 11:41:04 PM
I had changed the way hover vehicles interacted with the ground, cutting out code that clamped the vehicle to at least ground height, thus reducing the "wall-climbing" behavior. However, this led to noticeable terrain collisions (which people didn't like), so I had to modify the hover physics to treat the vehicle like an ellipsoid, reducing the chance of striking the ground when you weren't flying level. But that fix also made hover vehicles fly slightly higher over rough terrain, decreasing the sensation of speed (which people didn't like either). So, Nathan commented out that fix, but that brought back the terrain collision problem. D'oh! (I'm tempted to put it back in, but I'd like to make sure it's okay first.)
I was asked to give my opinion on this, and here it is :)
Terrain collision is stupid, remove it.
Ty :)
Seriously, if this is one of those GSH's new *features* then I can't be bothered trying to convince him of fixing it, even if all the BZ2 players in the past and present would sign their name on a petition... it's impossible.
If it can be disabled somehow in the ODF's or other config files, then cool!
Personally I like it, after all, if you hit something hard with any kind of speed, it is going to hurt...
Agreed. That's something I liked when I was playing BZ1, but my personal thought (though doesn't mean anything) is that you should me going close to like max speed of the ship or falling off something high for it to hurt you. In places on BZ1 you got hurt by simple collisions that should have just pushed you away.
If the repulsion force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two masses it could be that the closer you get the harder you're pushed away, possibly even resulting in the two bodies being never able to actually touch...
Right? It's been a long time since math class, although I think I still have those tablets around here somewhere...
:)
-Av-
Well, because the whole property of bz2 hoverphysics is completely unknown as to how it works, I would have to say "kitten" is the correct answer.
Generally it wouldn't matter, too little of a change in distance to effect things for gravity, and the whole not touch ever would depend on how steeply the curve acts.
I do not like terrain bumps causing damage
or hindering the speed of the craft.
Why?
Because I am used to bz2 after maybe
three years playing it that way.
And, if you believe the whole "we know a LOT more about biometal now" bit the BZ2 ships should handle hovering a LOT better than the BZ1 ships do... :)
-Av-
It's also pretty unrealistic that scouts can hover above the ground. I mean when was anti-gravity invented??? I think scouts need to have wheels, I'm sorry, but that's just the truth. Also, their max speed shouldn't go to high, and since it has wheels... there is no need to up hills or stuff like that.
Hey, if I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a frakking computer game.
http://engineering.com/content/ContentDisplay?contentId=41008006
Quote from: appel on March 15, 2006, 01:08:32 AM
Hey, if I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a frakking computer game.
Ah, a fellow Battlestar fan... :)
Exactly. It's all about 'fun', not so much 'real'. Make 'em fun again... :)
-Av-