Hit Detection

Comments

  • Mearen1911
    115 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Mearen1911 wrote: »
    Being killed by invisible players has returned. Good job Dice.

    This could be quite a few different bugs. Without footage, it's pretty hard to guess.

    It's the bug that was already fixed and addressed in the patch notes. You die and THEN the other guy appears on your screen. It's part of the fubar netcode.

    I don't know why I bother responding.

    I don't either since you're not adding anything to the conversation.

    Look dude, I am trying to help. You not posting footage really doesn't help your cause.

    At all.

    I know it's easier to say "some invisible guy killed me", but one lone voice on the forums with no proof is almost guaranteed to be ignored.

    I don't want your issue to be ignored.

    Look dude no you're not helping. You're not trying to help. If you were you would have detailed how it was a bug. You didn't do that. My "cause" is to simply let people know that things are broken. If the devs don't already know they re-introduced a previous bug, then they will never fix things because they don't have devs that actually know how to program and practice solid change management.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I used the wrong word , I meant reverse the netcode so it no longer compensates for players data loss, every battlefield more than likely has netcode that does the same thing, compensates for players lost data in some sort of way which is where the issues come from, every fps shooter has netcode that does the same, cod even being built on a completely different engine has the exact same de sync, aim desist and player movement issues as battlefield.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I used the wrong word , I meant reverse the netcode so it no longer compensates for players data loss, every battlefield more than likely has netcode that does the same thing, compensates for players lost data in some sort of way which is where the issues come from, every fps shooter has netcode that does the same, cod even being built on a completely different engine has the exact same de sync, aim desist and player movement issues as battlefield.

    The outcome is worse if the server doesn't "compensate" for the data loss.

    John is sprinting at X speed and at Y heading. The server receives that input and passes it along to you. Your client receives this information and renders it. John's next update is never received by the server. So technically the server does not know what John's new action is.

    Was is stop, crouch, turn, walk, jump, prone or maintaining the same course and heading? It has to send something to you.

    Typically it was a small extrapolation to accommodate the time offset. This resulted in you receiving an update about John maintain his current course and heading. so john moves a few more feet in that same direction at the same speed. The server would continue to do this until either an update was received or the connection timed out.

    Eventually the server receives an update from John. The new update shows a new world space position and heading direction. You get this new update and John gets warped a to the new location and his direction of movement is changed.

    If you had shot at John during any of those moments of loss the server would've denied all client claims of hits if his update was received first.

    HTF is that better?

    Now when the server doesn't get a response from a client it actively maintains the extrapolated dummy info as an actionable position in the games history. Meaning if you shot at John's extrapolated position it would count.

    For the record the majority of games do not alter data loss. They let it go unchecked. Which results in you seeing inaccurate character positions on screen that cannot be dealt damage. It's quite a bit more forgiving in games such as CoD, CSGO, Quake etc because they use Hitscan.
  • rock1obsta
    3819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I used the wrong word , I meant reverse the netcode so it no longer compensates for players data loss, every battlefield more than likely has netcode that does the same thing, compensates for players lost data in some sort of way which is where the issues come from, every fps shooter has netcode that does the same, cod even being built on a completely different engine has the exact same de sync, aim desist and player movement issues as battlefield.

    The outcome is worse if the server doesn't "compensate" for the data loss.

    John is sprinting at X speed and at Y heading. The server receives that input and passes it along to you. Your client receives this information and renders it. John's next update is never received by the server. So technically the server does not know what John's new action is.

    Was is stop, crouch, turn, walk, jump, prone or maintaining the same course and heading? It has to send something to you.

    Typically it was a small extrapolation to accommodate the time offset. This resulted in you receiving an update about John maintain his current course and heading. so john moves a few more feet in that same direction at the same speed. The server would continue to do this until either an update was received or the connection timed out.

    Eventually the server receives an update from John. The new update shows a new world space position and heading direction. You get this new update and John gets warped a to the new location and his direction of movement is changed.

    If you had shot at John during any of those moments of loss the server would've denied all client claims of hits if his update was received first.

    HTF is that better?

    Now when the server doesn't get a response from a client it actively maintains the extrapolated dummy info as an actionable position in the games history. Meaning if you shot at John's extrapolated position it would count.

    For the record the majority of games do not alter data loss. They let it go unchecked. Which results in you seeing inaccurate character positions on screen that cannot be dealt damage. It's quite a bit more forgiving in games such as CoD, CSGO, Quake etc because they use Hitscan.

    What's the difference between Hitscan (CoD) and RNG/Lag comp?(Battlefield)?

    Why do you think each game uses a different method of bullet to body contact recognition?

    If I had to wager a guess, I would say it's because BF wants the weapons to behave somewhat like their real-life counterparts,(which means practice) whereas CoD is more concerned with pick up & play and ease of access.

    I may be way off, but I can't think of any other reason.

  • Rev0verDrive
    6761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I used the wrong word , I meant reverse the netcode so it no longer compensates for players data loss, every battlefield more than likely has netcode that does the same thing, compensates for players lost data in some sort of way which is where the issues come from, every fps shooter has netcode that does the same, cod even being built on a completely different engine has the exact same de sync, aim desist and player movement issues as battlefield.

    The outcome is worse if the server doesn't "compensate" for the data loss.

    John is sprinting at X speed and at Y heading. The server receives that input and passes it along to you. Your client receives this information and renders it. John's next update is never received by the server. So technically the server does not know what John's new action is.

    Was is stop, crouch, turn, walk, jump, prone or maintaining the same course and heading? It has to send something to you.

    Typically it was a small extrapolation to accommodate the time offset. This resulted in you receiving an update about John maintain his current course and heading. so john moves a few more feet in that same direction at the same speed. The server would continue to do this until either an update was received or the connection timed out.

    Eventually the server receives an update from John. The new update shows a new world space position and heading direction. You get this new update and John gets warped a to the new location and his direction of movement is changed.

    If you had shot at John during any of those moments of loss the server would've denied all client claims of hits if his update was received first.

    HTF is that better?

    Now when the server doesn't get a response from a client it actively maintains the extrapolated dummy info as an actionable position in the games history. Meaning if you shot at John's extrapolated position it would count.

    For the record the majority of games do not alter data loss. They let it go unchecked. Which results in you seeing inaccurate character positions on screen that cannot be dealt damage. It's quite a bit more forgiving in games such as CoD, CSGO, Quake etc because they use Hitscan.

    What's the difference between Hitscan (CoD) and RNG/Lag comp?(Battlefield)?

    Why do you think each game uses a different method of bullet to body contact recognition?

    If I had to wager a guess, I would say it's because BF wants the weapons to behave somewhat like their real-life counterparts,(which means practice) whereas CoD is more concerned with pick up & play and ease of access.

    I may be way off, but I can't think of any other reason.

    Hit scan doesn't use a projectile. There are zero physics involved. Shots are instant hit with infinite speed. The only delay is client and server arbitration. Client instantly deems it a hit, sends it to server, server arbitrates and awards the hit.

    Projectile on the other hand uses physics and each shot has a travel time that must elapse before the client can claim a hit which is then sent to the server. That amount of time (travel, client calculation, client to server transmission) allows for target positional updates to be received, thus changing potential outcomes on hit arbitration.

    For example let's take a 50ms player using the Cei-Rigotti Factory. It has a 700m/s velocity. The target is 100m out. It'll take each bullet 142.86ms to cover that distance. That's 142.86ms of time before the client can start a localized arbitration to issue a hit claim.

    With hit scan it would be 0.0ms to start calculation ~1ms to arbitrate.

    now figure in client-server transmission time of 25ms.

    Hit scan: hit, arbitrate and server receive 26ms.
    Projectile: hit, arbitrate and server receive 158.86ms (142.86+1+15)

    Projectile physics opens a 158ms window in which old positional updates can be received by the server. Hitscan enables only 26ms.


    Hit scan is a lot easier to work with. That's why most games use it. Faster and easier arbitration times. They "fake" bullet speed/velocity by delaying impact rendering.
  • kniphtee
    244 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    New issue here. I dont know if it is related to hit reg. No damage at all done. PS4. It happened mid match after some desync, server side problem indicators.

    Video:

    Have had similar issues on xbone - I originally called hacks but after seeing your footage I might have to reevaluate and post more vids - thanks for these (cross console should be manageable between micro and sony)
  • rock1obsta
    3819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I used the wrong word , I meant reverse the netcode so it no longer compensates for players data loss, every battlefield more than likely has netcode that does the same thing, compensates for players lost data in some sort of way which is where the issues come from, every fps shooter has netcode that does the same, cod even being built on a completely different engine has the exact same de sync, aim desist and player movement issues as battlefield.

    The outcome is worse if the server doesn't "compensate" for the data loss.

    John is sprinting at X speed and at Y heading. The server receives that input and passes it along to you. Your client receives this information and renders it. John's next update is never received by the server. So technically the server does not know what John's new action is.

    Was is stop, crouch, turn, walk, jump, prone or maintaining the same course and heading? It has to send something to you.

    Typically it was a small extrapolation to accommodate the time offset. This resulted in you receiving an update about John maintain his current course and heading. so john moves a few more feet in that same direction at the same speed. The server would continue to do this until either an update was received or the connection timed out.

    Eventually the server receives an update from John. The new update shows a new world space position and heading direction. You get this new update and John gets warped a to the new location and his direction of movement is changed.

    If you had shot at John during any of those moments of loss the server would've denied all client claims of hits if his update was received first.

    HTF is that better?

    Now when the server doesn't get a response from a client it actively maintains the extrapolated dummy info as an actionable position in the games history. Meaning if you shot at John's extrapolated position it would count.

    For the record the majority of games do not alter data loss. They let it go unchecked. Which results in you seeing inaccurate character positions on screen that cannot be dealt damage. It's quite a bit more forgiving in games such as CoD, CSGO, Quake etc because they use Hitscan.

    What's the difference between Hitscan (CoD) and RNG/Lag comp?(Battlefield)?

    Why do you think each game uses a different method of bullet to body contact recognition?

    If I had to wager a guess, I would say it's because BF wants the weapons to behave somewhat like their real-life counterparts,(which means practice) whereas CoD is more concerned with pick up & play and ease of access.

    I may be way off, but I can't think of any other reason.

    Hit scan doesn't use a projectile. There are zero physics involved. Shots are instant hit with infinite speed. The only delay is client and server arbitration. Client instantly deems it a hit, sends it to server, server arbitrates and awards the hit.

    Projectile on the other hand uses physics and each shot has a travel time that must elapse before the client can claim a hit which is then sent to the server. That amount of time (travel, client calculation, client to server transmission) allows for target positional updates to be received, thus changing potential outcomes on hit arbitration.

    For example let's take a 50ms player using the Cei-Rigotti Factory. It has a 700m/s velocity. The target is 100m out. It'll take each bullet 142.86ms to cover that distance. That's 142.86ms of time before the client can start a localized arbitration to issue a hit claim.

    With hit scan it would be 0.0ms to start calculation ~1ms to arbitrate.

    now figure in client-server transmission time of 25ms.

    Hit scan: hit, arbitrate and server receive 26ms.
    Projectile: hit, arbitrate and server receive 158.86ms (142.86+1+15)

    Projectile physics opens a 158ms window in which old positional updates can be received by the server. Hitscan enables only 26ms.


    Hit scan is a lot easier to work with. That's why most games use it. Faster and easier arbitration times. They "fake" bullet speed/velocity by delaying impact rendering.

    Lol, you'll hafta forgive my laymans terms.
    This is my interpretation of your explanation; in BF, because it uses physics, and the time from gun to body can be considered "slack," which is why there are occasions where you'd swear you hit the bad guy but the game says you didnt. Because the "slack" (time traveled) varies between players depending on location and internet quality.

    CoD can be compared to the way the old light gun works on the NES. Pull the trigger, and it "feels" the light on the screen, and registers a hit instantaneously. In this case, the enemy is the tv, and your guy has the light gun. No slack.

    Like I said, forgive my layman terms. I wouldn't know how to explain it any other way.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    rock1obsta wrote:
    Lol, you'll hafta forgive my laymans terms.
    This is my interpretation of your explanation; in BF, because it uses physics, and the time from gun to body can be considered "slack," which is why there are occasions where you'd swear you hit the bad guy but the game says you didnt. Because the "slack" (time traveled) varies between players depending on location and internet quality.

    CoD can be compared to the way the old light gun works on the NES. Pull the trigger, and it "feels" the light on the screen, and registers a hit instantaneously. In this case, the enemy is the tv, and your guy has the light gun. No slack.

    Like I said, forgive my layman terms. I wouldn't know how to explain it any other way.

    You could view/explain it that way. Works. Real bullets vs laser beams is another way to go.

    As layman as I can put it.

    The "more" realistic physics approach depends on lower stable latencies for accurate hit reg. Those wtf moments where you hit, but the server doesn't count it are when the target gets an update in just before your claim reaches. His update changes his positional history. Thus stating to arbitration he was never in X position therefore he couldn't be hit.

    Each update you send to the server creates a historical record of your game input and positioning. 60 updates a second creates a pretty accurate mapping of your movements/actions. If the server doesn't receive an update within x ms it will extrapolate a new official record based on your last known. When it finally does get a new update it will interpolate the old position with the new and create another historical record.

    These extrapolated records are called dummy data, but they are considered as official as you actually doing them.

    The data loss compensation enables your shots to end up being arbitrated against a positional history that's inline with what you saw on screen vs a non existent or late arriving history.
  • rock1obsta
    3819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    rock1obsta wrote:
    Lol, you'll hafta forgive my laymans terms.
    This is my interpretation of your explanation; in BF, because it uses physics, and the time from gun to body can be considered "slack," which is why there are occasions where you'd swear you hit the bad guy but the game says you didnt. Because the "slack" (time traveled) varies between players depending on location and internet quality.

    CoD can be compared to the way the old light gun works on the NES. Pull the trigger, and it "feels" the light on the screen, and registers a hit instantaneously. In this case, the enemy is the tv, and your guy has the light gun. No slack.

    Like I said, forgive my layman terms. I wouldn't know how to explain it any other way.

    You could view/explain it that way. Works. Real bullets vs laser beams is another way to go.

    As layman as I can put it.

    The "more" realistic physics approach depends on lower stable latencies for accurate hit reg. Those wtf moments where you hit, but the server doesn't count it are when the target gets an update in just before your claim reaches. His update changes his positional history. Thus stating to arbitration he was never in X position therefore he couldn't be hit.

    Each update you send to the server creates a historical record of your game input and positioning. 60 updates a second creates a pretty accurate mapping of your movements/actions. If the server doesn't receive an update within x ms it will extrapolate a new official record based on your last known. When it finally does get a new update it will interpolate the old position with the new and create another historical record.

    These extrapolated records are called dummy data, but they are considered as official as you actually doing them.

    The data loss compensation enables your shots to end up being arbitrated against a positional history that's inline with what you saw on screen vs a non existent or late arriving history.

    Thanks for explaining the difference in the two methods. :)
    It makes me appreciate the guys and girls at DICE even more for the video game magic they can create.
    Now If they could dump EA, we would all be happier with the game in general.
  • XXxx_ABH_xxXX
    573 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote:
    Lol, you'll hafta forgive my laymans terms.
    This is my interpretation of your explanation; in BF, because it uses physics, and the time from gun to body can be considered "slack," which is why there are occasions where you'd swear you hit the bad guy but the game says you didnt. Because the "slack" (time traveled) varies between players depending on location and internet quality.

    CoD can be compared to the way the old light gun works on the NES. Pull the trigger, and it "feels" the light on the screen, and registers a hit instantaneously. In this case, the enemy is the tv, and your guy has the light gun. No slack.

    Like I said, forgive my layman terms. I wouldn't know how to explain it any other way.

    You could view/explain it that way. Works. Real bullets vs laser beams is another way to go.

    As layman as I can put it.

    The "more" realistic physics approach depends on lower stable latencies for accurate hit reg. Those wtf moments where you hit, but the server doesn't count it are when the target gets an update in just before your claim reaches. His update changes his positional history. Thus stating to arbitration he was never in X position therefore he couldn't be hit.

    Each update you send to the server creates a historical record of your game input and positioning. 60 updates a second creates a pretty accurate mapping of your movements/actions. If the server doesn't receive an update within x ms it will extrapolate a new official record based on your last known. When it finally does get a new update it will interpolate the old position with the new and create another historical record.

    These extrapolated records are called dummy data, but they are considered as official as you actually doing them.

    The data loss compensation enables your shots to end up being arbitrated against a positional history that's inline with what you saw on screen vs a non existent or late arriving history.

    Thanks for explaining the difference in the two methods. :)
    It makes me appreciate the guys and girls at DICE even more for the video game magic they can create.
    Now If they could dump EA, we would all be happier with the game in general.

    Unfortunatelly, EA bought DICE soo...
  • rock1obsta
    3819 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    rock1obsta wrote: »
    rock1obsta wrote:
    Lol, you'll hafta forgive my laymans terms.
    This is my interpretation of your explanation; in BF, because it uses physics, and the time from gun to body can be considered "slack," which is why there are occasions where you'd swear you hit the bad guy but the game says you didnt. Because the "slack" (time traveled) varies between players depending on location and internet quality.

    CoD can be compared to the way the old light gun works on the NES. Pull the trigger, and it "feels" the light on the screen, and registers a hit instantaneously. In this case, the enemy is the tv, and your guy has the light gun. No slack.

    Like I said, forgive my layman terms. I wouldn't know how to explain it any other way.

    You could view/explain it that way. Works. Real bullets vs laser beams is another way to go.

    As layman as I can put it.

    The "more" realistic physics approach depends on lower stable latencies for accurate hit reg. Those wtf moments where you hit, but the server doesn't count it are when the target gets an update in just before your claim reaches. His update changes his positional history. Thus stating to arbitration he was never in X position therefore he couldn't be hit.

    Each update you send to the server creates a historical record of your game input and positioning. 60 updates a second creates a pretty accurate mapping of your movements/actions. If the server doesn't receive an update within x ms it will extrapolate a new official record based on your last known. When it finally does get a new update it will interpolate the old position with the new and create another historical record.

    These extrapolated records are called dummy data, but they are considered as official as you actually doing them.

    The data loss compensation enables your shots to end up being arbitrated against a positional history that's inline with what you saw on screen vs a non existent or late arriving history.

    Thanks for explaining the difference in the two methods. :)
    It makes me appreciate the guys and girls at DICE even more for the video game magic they can create.
    Now If they could dump EA, we would all be happier with the game in general.

    Unfortunatelly, EA bought DICE soo...

    Yeah...I know. I think they've owned DICE since BF3.

    Doesn't hurt to dream though. I really despise them as a corporation. I understand their goal is to make money, can't fault anyone for that.

    But customers should be their priority. Without us, there is no them.

    We need to make them understand this by speaking with money, rather than typing up my meaningless opinion. I don't see that ever happening. But alas, people will still buy their games in droves, so they really have zero motivation to start being decent and stop being the excessively greedy company they are.
  • oJU5T1No
    901 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I used the wrong word , I meant reverse the netcode so it no longer compensates for players data loss, every battlefield more than likely has netcode that does the same thing, compensates for players lost data in some sort of way which is where the issues come from, every fps shooter has netcode that does the same, cod even being built on a completely different engine has the exact same de sync, aim desist and player movement issues as battlefield.

    The outcome is worse if the server doesn't "compensate" for the data loss.

    John is sprinting at X speed and at Y heading. The server receives that input and passes it along to you. Your client receives this information and renders it. John's next update is never received by the server. So technically the server does not know what John's new action is.

    Was is stop, crouch, turn, walk, jump, prone or maintaining the same course and heading? It has to send something to you.

    Typically it was a small extrapolation to accommodate the time offset. This resulted in you receiving an update about John maintain his current course and heading. so john moves a few more feet in that same direction at the same speed. The server would continue to do this until either an update was received or the connection timed out.

    Eventually the server receives an update from John. The new update shows a new world space position and heading direction. You get this new update and John gets warped a to the new location and his direction of movement is changed.

    If you had shot at John during any of those moments of loss the server would've denied all client claims of hits if his update was received first.

    HTF is that better?

    Now when the server doesn't get a response from a client it actively maintains the extrapolated dummy info as an actionable position in the games history. Meaning if you shot at John's extrapolated position it would count.

    For the record the majority of games do not alter data loss. They let it go unchecked. Which results in you seeing inaccurate character positions on screen that cannot be dealt damage. It's quite a bit more forgiving in games such as CoD, CSGO, Quake etc because they use Hitscan.

    I am on about the late damage more than anything, I understand what your saying in terms of movement yes the extrapolation is much needed, but for damage and hits there should be a cap on how late the data can be before the server disregards it. Battlefield is better than cod in extrapolation, more often that not in cod your just shooting at ghosts players would easily exploit this aswell drop shotting , jump shotting etc.
  • lizzard
    985 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    The damage model is also something that effects how hitreg is perceived.

    If it takes 5-6 bullets to kill an enemy at 100% health at a distance. its going to open up more chances of one or two misses. or a hitreg issue. Witch the fireing player doesn't notice.. It simply feels to him like "OMG how many bullets does it take to kill this guy!?"

    In bc2 and bf3. The hardcore mode always felt much more accurate than core!

    Then in bf4, hardcore felt less accurate than core!

    In bf1 its equally as inconsistent..
    I wonder why?
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I used the wrong word , I meant reverse the netcode so it no longer compensates for players data loss, every battlefield more than likely has netcode that does the same thing, compensates for players lost data in some sort of way which is where the issues come from, every fps shooter has netcode that does the same, cod even being built on a completely different engine has the exact same de sync, aim desist and player movement issues as battlefield.

    The outcome is worse if the server doesn't "compensate" for the data loss.

    John is sprinting at X speed and at Y heading. The server receives that input and passes it along to you. Your client receives this information and renders it. John's next update is never received by the server. So technically the server does not know what John's new action is.

    Was is stop, crouch, turn, walk, jump, prone or maintaining the same course and heading? It has to send something to you.

    Typically it was a small extrapolation to accommodate the time offset. This resulted in you receiving an update about John maintain his current course and heading. so john moves a few more feet in that same direction at the same speed. The server would continue to do this until either an update was received or the connection timed out.

    Eventually the server receives an update from John. The new update shows a new world space position and heading direction. You get this new update and John gets warped a to the new location and his direction of movement is changed.

    If you had shot at John during any of those moments of loss the server would've denied all client claims of hits if his update was received first.

    HTF is that better?

    Now when the server doesn't get a response from a client it actively maintains the extrapolated dummy info as an actionable position in the games history. Meaning if you shot at John's extrapolated position it would count.

    For the record the majority of games do not alter data loss. They let it go unchecked. Which results in you seeing inaccurate character positions on screen that cannot be dealt damage. It's quite a bit more forgiving in games such as CoD, CSGO, Quake etc because they use Hitscan.

    I am on about the late damage more than anything, I understand what your saying in terms of movement yes the extrapolation is much needed, but for damage and hits there should be a cap on how late the data can be before the server disregards it. Battlefield is better than cod in extrapolation, more often that not in cod your just shooting at ghosts players would easily exploit this aswell drop shotting , jump shotting etc.

    They do have a cap, but it needs to be lowered. BF4 for example has a lower cap than BF1.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I used the wrong word , I meant reverse the netcode so it no longer compensates for players data loss, every battlefield more than likely has netcode that does the same thing, compensates for players lost data in some sort of way which is where the issues come from, every fps shooter has netcode that does the same, cod even being built on a completely different engine has the exact same de sync, aim desist and player movement issues as battlefield.

    The outcome is worse if the server doesn't "compensate" for the data loss.

    John is sprinting at X speed and at Y heading. The server receives that input and passes it along to you. Your client receives this information and renders it. John's next update is never received by the server. So technically the server does not know what John's new action is.

    Was is stop, crouch, turn, walk, jump, prone or maintaining the same course and heading? It has to send something to you.

    Typically it was a small extrapolation to accommodate the time offset. This resulted in you receiving an update about John maintain his current course and heading. so john moves a few more feet in that same direction at the same speed. The server would continue to do this until either an update was received or the connection timed out.

    Eventually the server receives an update from John. The new update shows a new world space position and heading direction. You get this new update and John gets warped a to the new location and his direction of movement is changed.

    If you had shot at John during any of those moments of loss the server would've denied all client claims of hits if his update was received first.

    HTF is that better?

    Now when the server doesn't get a response from a client it actively maintains the extrapolated dummy info as an actionable position in the games history. Meaning if you shot at John's extrapolated position it would count.

    For the record the majority of games do not alter data loss. They let it go unchecked. Which results in you seeing inaccurate character positions on screen that cannot be dealt damage. It's quite a bit more forgiving in games such as CoD, CSGO, Quake etc because they use Hitscan.

    I am on about the late damage more than anything, I understand what your saying in terms of movement yes the extrapolation is much needed, but for damage and hits there should be a cap on how late the data can be before the server disregards it. Battlefield is better than cod in extrapolation, more often that not in cod your just shooting at ghosts players would easily exploit this aswell drop shotting , jump shotting etc.

    They do have a cap, but it needs to be lowered. BF4 for example has a lower cap than BF1.

    If I'm not mistaken this "cap" was adjusted in the last patch. At least for those with latency spikes and packetloss.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I used the wrong word , I meant reverse the netcode so it no longer compensates for players data loss, every battlefield more than likely has netcode that does the same thing, compensates for players lost data in some sort of way which is where the issues come from, every fps shooter has netcode that does the same, cod even being built on a completely different engine has the exact same de sync, aim desist and player movement issues as battlefield.

    The outcome is worse if the server doesn't "compensate" for the data loss.

    John is sprinting at X speed and at Y heading. The server receives that input and passes it along to you. Your client receives this information and renders it. John's next update is never received by the server. So technically the server does not know what John's new action is.

    Was is stop, crouch, turn, walk, jump, prone or maintaining the same course and heading? It has to send something to you.

    Typically it was a small extrapolation to accommodate the time offset. This resulted in you receiving an update about John maintain his current course and heading. so john moves a few more feet in that same direction at the same speed. The server would continue to do this until either an update was received or the connection timed out.

    Eventually the server receives an update from John. The new update shows a new world space position and heading direction. You get this new update and John gets warped a to the new location and his direction of movement is changed.

    If you had shot at John during any of those moments of loss the server would've denied all client claims of hits if his update was received first.

    HTF is that better?

    Now when the server doesn't get a response from a client it actively maintains the extrapolated dummy info as an actionable position in the games history. Meaning if you shot at John's extrapolated position it would count.

    For the record the majority of games do not alter data loss. They let it go unchecked. Which results in you seeing inaccurate character positions on screen that cannot be dealt damage. It's quite a bit more forgiving in games such as CoD, CSGO, Quake etc because they use Hitscan.

    I am on about the late damage more than anything, I understand what your saying in terms of movement yes the extrapolation is much needed, but for damage and hits there should be a cap on how late the data can be before the server disregards it. Battlefield is better than cod in extrapolation, more often that not in cod your just shooting at ghosts players would easily exploit this aswell drop shotting , jump shotting etc.

    They do have a cap, but it needs to be lowered. BF4 for example has a lower cap than BF1.

    If I'm not mistaken this "cap" was adjusted in the last patch. At least for those with latency spikes and packetloss.

    I think youre right, but i havent looked i to it yet.
  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    oJU5T1No wrote: »
    I used the wrong word , I meant reverse the netcode so it no longer compensates for players data loss, every battlefield more than likely has netcode that does the same thing, compensates for players lost data in some sort of way which is where the issues come from, every fps shooter has netcode that does the same, cod even being built on a completely different engine has the exact same de sync, aim desist and player movement issues as battlefield.

    The outcome is worse if the server doesn't "compensate" for the data loss.

    John is sprinting at X speed and at Y heading. The server receives that input and passes it along to you. Your client receives this information and renders it. John's next update is never received by the server. So technically the server does not know what John's new action is.

    Was is stop, crouch, turn, walk, jump, prone or maintaining the same course and heading? It has to send something to you.

    Typically it was a small extrapolation to accommodate the time offset. This resulted in you receiving an update about John maintain his current course and heading. so john moves a few more feet in that same direction at the same speed. The server would continue to do this until either an update was received or the connection timed out.

    Eventually the server receives an update from John. The new update shows a new world space position and heading direction. You get this new update and John gets warped a to the new location and his direction of movement is changed.

    If you had shot at John during any of those moments of loss the server would've denied all client claims of hits if his update was received first.

    HTF is that better?

    Now when the server doesn't get a response from a client it actively maintains the extrapolated dummy info as an actionable position in the games history. Meaning if you shot at John's extrapolated position it would count.

    For the record the majority of games do not alter data loss. They let it go unchecked. Which results in you seeing inaccurate character positions on screen that cannot be dealt damage. It's quite a bit more forgiving in games such as CoD, CSGO, Quake etc because they use Hitscan.

    I am on about the late damage more than anything, I understand what your saying in terms of movement yes the extrapolation is much needed, but for damage and hits there should be a cap on how late the data can be before the server disregards it. Battlefield is better than cod in extrapolation, more often that not in cod your just shooting at ghosts players would easily exploit this aswell drop shotting , jump shotting etc.

    They do have a cap, but it needs to be lowered. BF4 for example has a lower cap than BF1.

    If I'm not mistaken this "cap" was adjusted in the last patch. At least for those with latency spikes and packetloss.

    I think youre right, but i havent looked i to it yet.

    While it's a good thing, I highly doubt it will be noticeable, even if the changes were 100% effective.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6761 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    lizzard wrote: »
    The damage model is also something that effects how hitreg is perceived.

    If it takes 5-6 bullets to kill an enemy at 100% health at a distance. its going to open up more chances of one or two misses. or a hitreg issue. Witch the fireing player doesn't notice.. It simply feels to him like "OMG how many bullets does it take to kill this guy!?"

    In bc2 and bf3. The hardcore mode always felt much more accurate than core!

    Then in bf4, hardcore felt less accurate than core!

    In bf1 its equally as inconsistent..
    I wonder why?

    I exclusively played HC in all 3 of those titles. I believe what you're feeling is the spread decrease. In BC2 and BF3 it was a lot higher. 2x on average. Take the AEK for example. In BF3 the decrease is 15.0 and BF4 it's 7.7. This meant you recovered from spread really fast. Less time between bursts.

    Comparably BF1's spread decrease is almost 2x slower than BF4's.
  • GunSHEEP
    16 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    What if it's weapons spread that is messed up and not hit detection?? Stay with me here. The first two videos I posted (well before the last patches) were one that took eleven shots to kill one guy with the first hit happening when I wasn't even on target.
    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GunSHEEP/video/33140238

    Followed by this one where I'm firing a laser... while moving. When I'm on target it's a hit.
    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GunSHEEP/video/33207790

    Here is another where I seem to be affected by 'spread' yet my target, also moving, get's both first shots in. One with a rifle, one with a pistol.
    Also notice my ONLY hit is not even on target. Look at the score....
    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GunSHEEP/video/35647966

    And the laser like Heigl...heig..uh gun. Every shot is a hit even though he is moving. Notice it's not just me he kills, but another guy running up to.
    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GunSHEEP/video/35648017

    Not even sure how the spread could have been large enough to miss here...
    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GunSHEEP/video/35648138

    And how many videos have been posted where it's the 'spread' that caused you to miss, but the target has no problem putting rounds on target.

    And how many times have you been killed by the dancing sniper who seems to be able to dance left and right without affecting his aim.

    Maybe the problem is weapon spread isn't applying correctly (or at all in some cases). That would at least explain why the game feels so incredibly inconsistent.

  • KingTolapsium
    5491 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    GunSHEEP wrote: »
    What if it's weapons spread that is messed up and not hit detection?? Stay with me here. The first two videos I posted (well before the last patches) were one that took eleven shots to kill one guy with the first hit happening when I wasn't even on target.
    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GunSHEEP/video/33140238

    Followed by this one where I'm firing a laser... while moving. When I'm on target it's a hit.
    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GunSHEEP/video/33207790

    Here is another where I seem to be affected by 'spread' yet my target, also moving, get's both first shots in. One with a rifle, one with a pistol.
    Also notice my ONLY hit is not even on target. Look at the score....
    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GunSHEEP/video/35647966

    And the laser like Heigl...heig..uh gun. Every shot is a hit even though he is moving. Notice it's not just me he kills, but another guy running up to.
    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GunSHEEP/video/35648017

    Not even sure how the spread could have been large enough to miss here...
    http://xboxdvr.com/gamer/GunSHEEP/video/35648138

    And how many videos have been posted where it's the 'spread' that caused you to miss, but the target has no problem putting rounds on target.

    And how many times have you been killed by the dancing sniper who seems to be able to dance left and right without affecting his aim.

    Maybe the problem is weapon spread isn't applying correctly (or at all in some cases). That would at least explain why the game feels so incredibly inconsistent.

    Hmm, as someone spanning two platforms, I will see if I can find a difference.

    You could be right.
Sign In or Register to comment.