Model Poll

DasSmiter · Post by **DasSmiter** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:54 pm

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11821704/MODELs/quizfig.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11821704/MODELs/quizfigv2.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11821704/MODELs/quizint.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11821704/MODELs/quizintv2.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11821704/MODELs/quizscout.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11821704/MODELs/quizscoutv2.jpg

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11821704/MODELs/quizsf.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/11821704/MODELs/quizsfv2.jpg

These are the close mapped hitboxes versus the autogen hitboxes (dreg pics at the moment)

If a majority of people choose the autogen hitboxes then all small combat ships will be switched to the autogen hitboxes except the GT and IC fig.

If a majority of people choose the close mapped hitboxes then the hitboxes will remain as the modelers give them to us (original models will stay bubbled for the most part)

AI driven ships (cons/miners/carriers) will remain at the modelers discretion for close mapped or bubble mapped as these tend to be large enough that hitboxes aren't an issue. If it ever ends up being an issue (massive holes in ship designs etc) we will default to bubble boxes for these models.

Post by **Dome** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:43 am

Excuse the ignorance but I don't know what I'm looking at. Are the hit boxes the blue circles? why are there so many that dont seem to be on the shipz? Or are the hitboxes the red? Whats the blue then. More information needed for us non hit box nerds. (not only for me but for others that dont want to dig through forums)

Andon · Post by **Andon** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:51 am

What you are looking at is the hitbox itself - That's the grey thing in the lower-right box (And outlined in red on the other boxes). Blue things are joints - Either weapon mounts, missile mounts, or lights.

Post by **Dome** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:56 am

Thanks. In that case autogen all the waaay. It'll at least make dreg better.. wonder about the other factions. We'll see i guess.

notjarvis · Post by **notjarvis** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 8:35 am

personally I prefer close mapped as it leaves slightly less of a new gap for players to learn.

My opinion is that if a model is too hard to hit with a close mapped hitbox - change the model.

Life is hard enough for newbies without vets being able to kill them by hitting the thin air around them while they try to pick out their opponent (a bit of hyperbole - but you get my point).

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:13 am

I think we need to re-scale the bubble hitboxed dreg, and try them in cc_13. Then we'll have a better handle on how they feel.

Jimen · Post by **Jimen** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:21 pm

DasSmiter wrote:QUOTE (DasSmiter @ Apr 4 2011, 06:54 PM) These are the close mapped hitboxes versus the autogen hitboxes (dreg pics at the moment)

If a majority of people choose the autogen hitboxes then all small combat ships will be switched to the autogen hitboxes except the GT and IC fig.

If a majority of people choose the close mapped hitboxes then the hitboxes will remain as the modelers give them to us (original models will stay bubbled for the most part)

AI driven ships (cons/miners/carriers) will remain at the modelers discretion for close mapped or bubble mapped as these tend to be large enough that hitboxes aren't an issue. If it ever ends up being an issue (massive holes in ship designs etc) we will default to bubble boxes for these models.

Wait, why the lack of nuance? Why can't we have close mapped hitboxes where appropriate and autogenned hitboxes where not appropriate? Of course, it's pretty obvious which side you've taken - using the ridiculously goddamn tiny new Dreg models as a standard with which to decide all hitboxes in the entire game is a really skewed choice.

Personally speaking, I like autogen. While that does lead to a bit of open space being hittable, those areas aren't so big that somebody like me could aim for them, so I don't really think they're going to have much effect on the accuracy of new players. Rather, the main difference those empty-space gaps make, to me, are how dispersion affects accuracy. Even if you've got perfect aim, any PW weapon is going to have a certain amount of particles veering off-target, and a close-mapped hitbox will result in many of those errant bullets flying between gaps in the model regardless of how accurate the player is. Close-mapped hitboxes play similarly poorly with other inaccuracy effects, such as lag.

As such, the biggest factor in "autogen vs close-mapping", IMO, is how much damage you want players to lose for things that are entirely beyond their control.

Spinoza · Post by **Spinoza** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:35 pm

I hate to be a broken record, but I have not seen a single logical argument or an actual example of a situation showing that non-WYSIWYG hit boxes make sense.

Despite it, I looked at the pictures before voting. I consider those 30s totally wasted.

Spinoza · Post by **Spinoza** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:42 pm

Seeing what the poll results look like, I have to acknowledge we have a serious problem.
I have two ideas:
A. Create some sort of energy field which boosts IQ.
B. Write a new autogen code which takes a model and creates a form fitting hit-box.

I think B is probably easier, though I'm not a neuroscientist or a 3D programmer, so I might be wrong.

TurkeyXIII · Post by **TurkeyXIII** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:54 pm

Spinoza wrote:QUOTE (Spinoza @ Apr 5 2011, 11:35 PM) I hate to be a broken record, but I have not seen a single logical argument or an actual example of a situation showing that non-WYSIWYG hit boxes make sense.

1. Auto-genned hitboxes are easier to create and less prone to human error. I can't think of any examples where human error messed up a hitbox, but it could happen.

2. People don't realise that ship scale is core-dependent, and so assume that a close-mapped hitbox will be smaller and harder to hit.