one thing I will be happy to get away from with the move from Unreal is the "stickiness" of animations that has plagued it for years. Hopefully, if they include an omnibutton function in the next game it won't be as much of a problem for mobility. Also, if they decide to keep sync-kills, maybe things like this won't happen:
Haha yeah, that's pretty standard, sadly... :/
I what to know how many frames it takes to lose frames.
Packets? Hell the Reegar probably loses shots at 60 FPS.
one thing I will be happy to get away from with the move from Unreal is the "stickiness" of animations that has plagued it for years. Hopefully, if they include an omnibutton function in the next game it won't be as much of a problem for mobility. Also, if they decide to keep sync-kills, maybe things like this won't happen:
The phantom sync kills have nothing to do with the unreal engine and more to do with the fact that Bioware never coded them to bother about checking facing / angle of orientation. Banshees need to have a player within 90 degrees of their front to sync kill, phantoms, brutes, scions, praetorians, atlas just need to have a player "in range" (within X meters and Y centimeters) in order for them to sync kill the player. The facing doesn't matter; if it procs a sync kill and you're in range, it'll move you conveniently to where it needs you before beginning the sync animation.
The phantom sync kills have nothing to do with the unreal engine and more to do with the fact that Bioware never coded them to bother about checking facing / angle of orientation. Banshees need to have a player within 90 degrees of their front to sync kill, phantoms, brutes, scions, praetorians, atlas just need to have a player "in range" (within X meters and Y centimeters) in order for them to sync kill the player. The facing doesn't matter; if it procs a sync kill and you're in range, it'll move you conveniently to where it needs you before beginning the sync animation.
Also, I believe none of them have the "is there some **** between me and him" check coded...
Also, I believe none of them have the "is there some **** between me and him" check coded...
Also, I believe none of them have the "is there some **** between me and him" check coded...
Yes, bioware did not include any object collision for most of the boss melee attacks. Hence why praetorians, atlas, scions, brutes (all of which have quite high range melee attacks) can all melee and sync kill you through walls.
Heldarion, 02:43 PM
^ In other words, you're free to spank a Banshee's behind whenever you so please.
Reegar gains shots at higher FPS. I'm refering to visually though. At a high enough FPS your brains starts to ignore frames because it can't process them fast enough.Packets? Hell the Reegar probably loses shots at 60 FPS.
Reegar gains shots at higher FPS. I'm refering to visually though. At a high enough FPS your brains starts to ignore frames because it can't process them fast enough.
You can visually process in about 13 millisecs (previously thought to be about 100 milliseconds) according to new studies in cognitive research. Not sure how complex the information is that the subjects in the studies were viewing though.
Reegar gains shots at higher FPS. I'm refering to visually though. At a high enough FPS your brains starts to ignore frames because it can't process them fast enough.
Your eyes / brain don't see in "frames per second" it sees a constant undending stream of information. The length of time each "frame" or picture is displayed for dictates how easily the brain can interpret what it is seeing as motion/ fluidity.
Personally speaking, there is a difference between 100fps and 144, not just in terms of control but in terms of smoothness.
Your brain can see and doesn't like it when parts of animations are missed out.
Your brain doesn't "ignore" frames, it simply processes them with the same ms delays that it processes everything else. I could run some shootmania replays, and slow them down to 1/4 of normal speed. You'd be surprised just how much more you can see with 60 instead of 30, or with 120 instead of 60. And your brain subconsciously picks up that parts of what it's seeing are missing; 120 for fast gaming is about the only way that stuff will look truly fluid.
The brain doesn't "miss" information IRL: when something changes position quickly, so why would it miss processing that information in the context of pictures on a screen? Just because you can't pick out each individual picture, doesn't mean you're not acknowledging that they're being shown; your brain doesn't think anything of it when it sees something move in a life like motion, with no blurring and no "missing" chunks. It can however detect low dps very easily.
I can't watch movies on my monitor up close, otherwise I can see the stuttering in the film, where a frame is displayed for 5x longer than I'm used to it being displayed for.
The phantom sync kills have nothing to do with the unreal engine and more to do with the fact that Bioware never coded them to bother about checking facing / angle of orientation. Banshees need to have a player within 90 degrees of their front to sync kill, phantoms, brutes, scions, praetorians, atlas just need to have a player "in range" (within X meters and Y centimeters) in order for them to sync kill the player. The facing doesn't matter; if it procs a sync kill and you're in range, it'll move you conveniently to where it needs you before beginning the sync animation.
I am probably wrong, but I seemed to remember one of the issues they faced when working on the "magnet hands" issue was the limitation of the unreal engine. I definitely could be misremembering though. That is one mechanic that I am interested to see how they address in the next game. I am sure they learned quite a bit from this games metrics and community response. Given their track record, I imagine improvements will be made.
I am probably wrong, but I seemed to remember one of the issues they faced when working on the "magnet hands" issue was the limitation of the unreal engine. I definitely could be misremembering though. That is one mechanic that I am interested to see how they address in the next game. I am sure they learned quite a bit from this games metrics and community response. Given their track record, I imagine improvements will be made.
When you pay millions of $$$ for the unreal engine 3 source code, you cannot blame the code which you just paid to mess around with. Funny thing is, ME3 is the only UE3 game that has these kind of directional problems.
There were no buttlazors in UT3 as far as I remember...
Or maybe Bioware should not include retarded mechanics like sync kills if they're not going to code them fairly or properly. Caratinoid was able to fix all this stuff, simply by adding angle based facing checks IIRC.
When you pay millions of $$$ for the unreal engine 3 source code, you cannot blame the code which you just paid to mess around with. Funny thing is, ME3 is the only UE3 game that has these kind of directional problems.
There were no buttlazors in UT3 as far as I remember...
Or maybe Bioware should not include retarded mechanics like sync kills if they're not going to code them fairly or properly. Caratinoid was able to fix all this stuff, simply by adding angle based facing checks IIRC.
I am pretty sure someone modded buttlazors into UT3 by now 
as I said, I hope it is something they learn from and use to mold the next game. Only time, and a lot of speculation in between, will tell.
Would vorcha health regen be affected by absurdly high FPS in the same way?
Would vorcha health regen be affected by absurdly high FPS in the same way?
Health regen works for non-integers, so my guess would be vorcha health regen would still be fine.
Will test though.
Your eyes / brain don't see in "frames per second" it sees a constant undending stream of information. The length of time each "frame" or picture is displayed for dictates how easily the brain can interpret what it is seeing as motion/ fluidity.
Personally speaking, there is a difference between 100fps and 144, not just in terms of control but in terms of smoothness.
Your brain can see and doesn't like it when parts of animations are missed out.
Your brain doesn't "ignore" frames, it simply processes them with the same ms delays that it processes everything else. I could run some shootmania replays, and slow them down to 1/4 of normal speed. You'd be surprised just how much more you can see with 60 instead of 30, or with 120 instead of 60. And your brain subconsciously picks up that parts of what it's seeing are missing; 120 for fast gaming is about the only way that stuff will look truly fluid.
The brain doesn't "miss" information IRL: when something changes position quickly, so why would it miss processing that information in the context of pictures on a screen? Just because you can't pick out each individual picture, doesn't mean you're not acknowledging that they're being shown; your brain doesn't think anything of it when it sees something move in a life like motion, with no blurring and no "missing" chunks. It can however detect low dps very easily.
I can't watch movies on my monitor up close, otherwise I can see the stuttering in the film, where a frame is displayed for 5x longer than I'm used to it being displayed for.
I purposely toned down my terminology to make statement simple. Don't pick apart the semantics.
You don't see in frames but the frames being given to you are frames and you see them in frames. Your brain processes this information and tries to fill the gaps between them. Basically organic tweening. If your are being given less than roughly 15 frames per second, your brain can individually process each image and will not attempt to connect them. So the framerate must exceed 15 FPS to be perceived as motion.
On the other end of the spectrum when you are being given too much information too quickly your brain only processes some of that information. If you're being shown something at 1000 FPS, there's no way your brain can process all 1000 images in just one second, so some information is lost to allow you to keep up. This is a phenomenon which i'm sure you've observed before. At some point you've probably seen a looping animation speed up so fast that it starts to appear to slow down.
I purposely toned down my terminology to make statement simple. Don't pick apart the semantics.
You don't see in frames but the frames being given to you are frames and you see them in frames. Your brain processes this information and tries to fill the gaps between them. Basically organic tweening. If your are being given less than roughly 15 frames per second, your brain can individually process each image and will not attempt to connect them. So the framerate must exceed 15 FPS to be perceived as motion.
On the other end of the spectrum when you are being given too much information too quickly your brain only processes some of that information. If you're being shown something at 1000 FPS, there's no way your brain can process all 1000 images in just one second, so some information is lost to allow you to keep up. This is a phenomenon which i'm sure you've observed before. At some point you've probably seen a looping animation speed up so fast that it starts to appear to slow down.
Whilst I completely understand where you're coming from, if you're seeing 120 (or as high as 1000) frames per second, the brain will simply not process these as individual images, it will instead see them as a "stream". Debating over just how aware of the individual components of this "stream" the human eye really is is irrelevant, the fact that the human eye perceives it as a fluid motion instead of a series of pictures is the key here.
The human eye is probably not aware of any "frames" at all, because the information is being fed in such realistic smoothness and quantity that the human brain does not even consider them individual pictures and merely identifies them as lifelike motions that it is accustomed too.
Being able to pick out individual frames isn't possible at 120, let alone 1000 fps, and at those frame rates, the mind doesn't have to fill in any gaps, as the information is as complete as the human brain thinks it should be, or is comfortable with.
I am probably wrong, but I seemed to remember one of the issues they faced when working on the "magnet hands" issue was the limitation of the unreal engine. I definitely could be misremembering though. That is one mechanic that I am interested to see how they address in the next game. I am sure they learned quite a bit from this games metrics and community response. Given their track record, I imagine improvements will be made.
They definitely added an extra check on Banshees before they can implement sync kills. I remember a developer commenting on them adding it in because people had so many complaints about Banshees syncs. IDK if the check was similar to the ones Caratonoid used or something different entirely. I think most of the glitches can be fixed with time but they run into spending time perfecting the game or developing new content.
They definitely added an extra check on Banshees before they can implement sync kills. I remember a developer commenting on them adding it in because people had so many complaints about Banshees syncs. IDK if the check was similar to the ones Caratonoid used or something different entirely. I think most of the glitches can be fixed with time but they run into spending time perfecting the game or developing new content.
I believe the only major bug which Caratinoid was unable to fix was the shadow strike not working on atlas.
Pretty much everything else; fire delay on crusader, shockwave radius, typhoon DR, incendiary ammo, shield regen speed being affected by frame rate, to name just a few he had a fix for.
And he gave me something awesome, which wasn't a bug fix, but I deemed a necessary feature.
I believe the only major bug which Caratinoid was unable to fix was the shadow strike not working on atlas.
Pretty much everything else; fire delay on crusader, shockwave radius, typhoon DR, incendiary ammo, shield regen speed being affected by frame rate, to name just a few he had a fix for.
And he gave me something awesome, which wasn't a bug fix, but I deemed a necessary feature.
pre-nerf typhoon right?
pre-nerf typhoon right?
No, that can be changed by anyone.
He gave me an SFXGame.PCC file which adds "config" to the listed attributes of the bcangibhead and gibheadchance variables, so I can alter them based on weapon type in the coalesced.
Though I would say mostly its cosmetic (heads popping) it does allow you to prevent abominations from exploding with headshots, so you could argue it has an affect on gameplay. But for me, I just love seeing heads explode from typhoon bullets.
No, that can be changed by anyone.
He gave me an SFXGame.PCC file which adds "config" to the listed attributes of the bcangibhead and gibheadchance variables, so I can alter them based on weapon type in the coalesced.
Though I would say mostly its cosmetic (heads popping) it does allow you to prevent abominations from exploding with headshots, so you could argue it has an affect on gameplay. But for me, I just love seeing heads explode from typhoon bullets.
that is a nice config to have on hand. I would love to pop heads with every weapon.
that is a nice config to have on hand. I would love to pop heads with every weapon.
Retour en haut