Jump to content


Artificial Aiming-- Changes in Aiming due to topography

aiming aiming trouble aiming different sight moves sight changes

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

PNR #1 Posted Oct 08 2018 - 05:21

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 11232 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    08-29-2014

Hello WoTankers!

 

I am bringing something up because I see it as an issue.  Firstly, I am unsure whether this is a bug, or a mislabeled (key) command, or regular-game-play.  I'm bringing it up to gather some attention & either a) you will say that it is normal, as in every player deals with it or b) you have a valid opinion.

My issue:

When we all spawned at our latest game, and a faster tank passed your barrel by several meters- did you notice the sight lowering?  Normally (for me) it would lower to the tracks of the passing-tank.  (This was leaving the mouse untouched).  When I pass topography with the tanks, I've been noticing immediate sight changes.  The tank sight spontaneously changed.  For instance, I passed a high rock last game.  The barrel was aimed at the top of it.  I left the mouse alone.  I turned directly in front of the rock.  The sight lowered to the bottom of the rock.  This happens with my tanks.  This happened when I was directly pointed towards other tanks (enemy/friendly).

I am labeling this an issue because the function (whatever it is), takes away from my capacity to utilize the current tank(s) to 100%.  It is usually necessary to change shell-trajectory because of the issue.  I would even go so far as to call it a technicality.  There is no need for a tank to automatically change in this manner.  Prior to every battle, the players' know that they have 100% control over their tank (or tank destroyer).  I have been playing mediums lately.  I know this happens with my mediums.  I do not like it.  I do not need it.  Provided that it ('issue;) is beyond my control, I would like to label it as a "Bug".

 

I have checked AutoAim.  It was previously right click.  I am changing that to # 0.  I am changing "Auto-Aim Off" to #9.  I will try one game like this now.  If it does not disengage this (presumed) function, I will continue to define adequate game-play necessities.  Thank You.

Okay.  I am currently in-game (not playing) & whether or not the AutoAim was on/off, it did not matter!

The same problem is occurring.

-All mods have been uninstalled.

-AutoAim is OFF

 

I have attached a .jpg file, depicting the issue I'm raising.  The .jpg screenshot might be larger than s-s insert.  The sight was aimed higher than you see there, until it was automatically changed (only by driving past).  This could have been a friendly tank.  This could have been an enemy tank (with artillery behind it).  If I needed to shoot over that rock/tank, then I couldn't.  You can see the red circle is where true aim is.  You can see how this is problematic.

Thank you.

I will continue to evaluate my settings.

 

<You may be asking yourself why I wasn't aiming at the enemy tank.  Why was I aiming at a rock?  Couldn't I pen the tank? If not, why not? Why would he be there? Why wouldn't he keep moving around the rock?  Was he taking screenshots?

I will tell you this.  crazy, huh.>

 

EDIT: If this post is deemed improperly located, please relocate the OP.  -PNR

 


Edited by PNR, Oct 08 2018 - 16:23.


Elevendy #2 Posted Oct 08 2018 - 11:45

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20743 battles
  • 2,519
  • [YOUJO] YOUJO
  • Member since:
    03-30-2011

Yes this is a mechanic known in the game for quite some time. Essentially what the game does is it zeroes automatically to the target distance and raises the gun accordingly to hit it.

 

In the past, this bothered a lot of players so a mod called Melty'sMathMod was commonly used to lock zeroing at certain distances so you could hit people crossing over ridges or across horizontal fields easier. Now, most top players are just used to it, but what you are seeing is actually meant to make it easier for most players to play the game, hence why you never need to account for shell drop in a game where shell drop does occur.

 

EDIT: Also this is a server side game so that's probably why you see the delay like that at close ranges.


Edited by Elevendy, Oct 08 2018 - 11:46.


Vulcan_Spectre #3 Posted Oct 08 2018 - 13:48

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 1597 battles
  • 293
  • [ACE1] ACE1
  • Member since:
    12-25-2017
did the little red/orange/green circle go down?

PNR #4 Posted Oct 08 2018 - 13:59

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 11232 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    08-29-2014

View PostVulcan_Spectre, on Oct 08 2018 - 07:48, said:

did the little red/orange/green circle go down?

 

The larger circle in the screenshot shows a loading indicator, along with projected landing-zone of the shot.  The initial aim was directly where you see the small red hollow circle.

 

Edits: Changed 'trajectory' to 'landing-zone'

Changed : "The 'initial' reticle's resting-point, is our 'desired' landing-zone."


Edited by PNR, Oct 10 2018 - 14:37.


Kramah313 #5 Posted Oct 08 2018 - 15:03

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2319 battles
  • 30
  • [_TPR_] _TPR_
  • Member since:
    01-26-2018

As posted above, it is the price we pay for not having to calculate the effects of gravity on a long range shell - the reticle does this for us and shows you the landing spot rather than the starting trajectory. So it gets a bit wonky if the target in front of you changes in terms of distance from your gun. 

 

I think it would be interesting to have an option for a static reticle with a trajectory indicator, like when using a grenade launcher in some FPS games. I doubt it would be easier to use but might be cool to have the option, especially for some guns with very slow shell velocity and high arc. 



PNR #6 Posted Oct 08 2018 - 16:17

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 11232 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    08-29-2014

To clarify my basic point- I don't need aiming assistance in this Video Game.  I need reliability.  I made 3 small payments to Wargaming.net.  The first payment means that I have invested into wargaming.net.

I insist that this feature be overwritten/removed/changed.  Players should be able to reliably snap-shot over a friendly tank (or TD), without scoping-in.

The uselessness of this 'technicality' greatly (in my HONEST opinion) overwhelms any benefits.

 

Edits: Changed a confusing sentence (beginning with 'The uselessness'......ending in 'something confusing;) to (The uselessness  ...   any benefits)

changed typo to 'reliably'.


Edited by PNR, Oct 10 2018 - 14:39.


PNR #7 Posted Oct 08 2018 - 16:36

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 11232 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    08-29-2014

View PostKramah313, on Oct 08 2018 - 09:03, said:

As posted above, it is the price we pay for not having to calculate the effects of gravity on a long range shell - the reticle does this for us and shows you the landing spot rather than the starting trajectory. So it gets a bit wonky if the target in front of you changes in terms of distance from your gun. 

 

I think it would be interesting to have an option for a static reticle with a trajectory indicator, like when using a grenade launcher in some FPS games. I doubt it would be easier to use but might be cool to have the option, especially for some guns with very slow shell velocity and high arc.

 

<from PNR:  I'm pretty sure the forum is letting me edit your quote.  That's not right.  My reply is this.  Gravity does not exist in this game.  Acceleration of free-fall does not currently apply.  I understand the reticle point, showing a shell's projected-target.  I see your 'price we pay' as an expression.  It couldn't be literal.  Please elaborate on your point, including specifics.  Also, please stay on-point.>



Kramah313 #8 Posted Oct 08 2018 - 17:05

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2319 battles
  • 30
  • [_TPR_] _TPR_
  • Member since:
    01-26-2018

Yes sorry, by “price we pay” I don’t mean literal money. I mean the alternative to the current aiming system would mean that when aiming we would need to take into account the shell dropping in height as it travelled to the target instead of the reticle doing that calculation for us. So the further away the target and the slower the shell velocity, the higher above the target we would have to aim to compensate. 

 

Like others have said, it’s probably easier this way, but does have the side effect of introducing the effects observed by the OP. 

 

My other idea was actually agreeing with the OP (though in his later post) in that it would be cool to have the option not to have the game do this for us, and that it would allow some different types of shots over targets with slow shell speed guns or at long range. 


Edited by Kramah313, Oct 08 2018 - 17:08.


PNR #9 Posted Oct 08 2018 - 17:17

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 11232 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    08-29-2014

View PostKramah313, on Oct 08 2018 - 11:05, said:

Yes sorry, by “price we pay” I don’t mean literal money. I mean the alternative to the current aiming system would mean that when aiming we would need to take into account the shell dropping in height as it travelled to the target instead of the reticle doing that calculation for us. So the further away the target and the slower the shell velocity, the higher above the target we would have to aim to compensate. 

 

Like others have said, it’s probably easier this way, but does have the side effect of introducing the effects observed by the OP. 

 

I understand that (probably) algorithms are used to define different game mechanics.  It may also be that there is a 'chief' algorithm that governs all this.  This would might be complex to modify.  I do not program or compile.  I only know what I've experienced.  (If) there is a program governing the firing of shells, then it could be modified. (If) there is a program governing the aiming of shells, then it could be modified. If these are unrelated, and the real governing program is bigger in-and-of itself, then THAT could be analyzed.  If the two (aiming firing) are governed by the same 'script' (or other program/algorithm), then they could ideally be isolated of each-other.  This 'isolation' (separation) would enable more-detailed programming.

 

There is a bunch of speculation mentioned above.  I (stated) do not understand how the game was compiled.  Therefore, I suggest investigation into better game-behavior.

Thank You.



PNR #10 Posted Oct 10 2018 - 13:49

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 11232 battles
  • 40
  • Member since:
    08-29-2014

Guys/Gals,

I would really appreciate at least 200 likes on OP.

I would like to get this 'auto-aim' assisting looked into!

GLHF today.

 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users