Well, this can certainly explain why I never can hit running targets. (unless they are running towards or away from me). I thought it was just because I stunk at the game.
Upvote
0
Lack of interpolation really kills games with a small community.
- Thread starter Echo Black
- Start date
Well, this can certainly explain why I never can hit running targets. (unless they are running towards or away from me). I thought it was just because I stunk at the game.
It's not, and I didn't imply it was.
Oh, that's easy..
Numbers were run through Wolfram Alpha:
Assuming bullet travels at speed of sound (~342meters per second), would take approximately 294 milliseconds to travel 100meters.
A person jogging at 6mph (~9kph) travels 80cm in 294miliseconds.
I'd say you're about spot on then! Hurrah for ballistics!
--
Edit, adding some historic figures.
Wiki lists the Kar98 having a muzzle velocity of around 760meters/second.. so we'll just dirty-number is and say that means half the flight time.. so the target would travel around 40cm distance. bit closer to your half-a-meter figure now actually
--
Edit2, just some clarification.. these are pretty dirty numbers... I didn't take the historical Ballistic Coefficients into effect, nor did I look and see what RO2's values are used for that.. i just grabbed some quick figured to demonstrate my point, perhaps someone more crunchy can provide the actual figures just now...but YES RO2 uses ballistics.. yes you have to lead your targets.. it's not just bullet drop.. it's also Time-In-Flight.
I am also not implying that everyone's problems are just Ballistics related... just this particular case..
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sure, nice, but try shooting bots on a server and you'll see you almost don't need any lead, if you try on local you can easily shoot on spot. This means that the lead we need to apply is not because of ballistics, but purely because of the netcode of the game.
Upvote
0
Could be.. tbh I haven't played on a serv with bots, and won't be able to for some time. But even local games should also take in account ballistics..
I just answer the question though as it stood 'why do I have to lead..'.. didn't take into account any other considerations, since no other variables were provided. ;]
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Fair enough.
I just fired up a SP german mission 5.. (Spart, germ defend from church, sov attack from village side), and I most certainly had to lead my targets.. every time I went for crosshairs right on the OpFor, it was a no-hit. (Incidently, I've been trained to lead from playing alot of RO in the past..)
I don't think I'll get to testing vs bots today though.
Edit: OpFor was moving almost exactly perpendicular to my sights.. obviously if they were straight on, it's a non-issue
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Been trying to stay out of this dogfight, but alas, I can no longer.
So if I understand what you've been saying throughout, you are aiming directly at a moving target that is 100yds away and expect to hit it? Have you ever shot skeet, sporting clays or gone rabbit hunting, dove hunting, duck hunting, deer/fox hunting with dogs? I ask because several issues come into play when shooting at moving targets that you either aren't aware of or aren't giving them their full credit.
First lets get one not so obvious issue out of the way. Spot shooting at a moving target. One of the first mechanics of shooting a real time moving target is learning to either spot shoot or to keep your weapon moving as you shoot. Forgetting all the innuendos and other non-related reasons that wing shooters swing through their targets, suffice it to say that whether or not you track your target in RO2 and follow through with your swing as you pull the trigger, even with all its ballistics interpolations RO2 does not include the motion of your weapon when calculating the ballistic flight of your bullet. (If they do...wow...kudo's to the them for figuring out that code ) So, in essense, you are 'spot shooting'.
The desired end result of spot shooting is, of course, to have your bullet intersect with the target at a point in space. Taking range, speed, environmental factors, etc. success is figuring out where that target will be at the time your bullet arrives. Also within that mental calculation is your reaction time ( a not so insignificant variable). I'd be willing to take you out back, set up a rifle on a fixed stand, and at 100m away as I run perpendicular to the line of sight of the rifle and have you shoot the instant I was center of the crosshairs. You'd never hit me. Now if you were to anticipate when to shoot so that the bullet's path and my path intersected, you'd be firing before I reached the crosshairs. It has always been my experience that new shooters are amazed at the amount of lead actually required when shooting targets are that up close and moving quickly or are at a distance moving any speed.
Also often neglected are environmental factors. The only environmental factor that RO2 introduces to the equation is latency. I've always considered latency to be that dreaded unseen force that all outdoor shooters deal with....wind. Unless pings are fluctuating wildley (and I'll admit that some servers have issues), in about 2 minutes of playtime, I've got the 'windage' dialed in and killing enemies at range or up close with my bolt consistently. Though you fail to see it as such, there is skill involved with that. The other player has the same factors influencing his shots, so its not as if either is at a dis-advantage to the other. He who can adapt and adjust their technique will prevail. Maybe not on each and every shot, but certainly throughout the course of the game.
I'm not saying that the latency induced lead in RO2 is not artificially large when compared to its real life counterpart. I am saying that lead is required in both. Its mho that he who can compensate has the upper hand and better technique (skill).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
at last, someone else with my same problem.
I am at the very same position as you, echoblack, and the netcode for this game has been the sole reason ive stopped playing it. I love playing bolts, and having to lead differently, taking ping into account for each different server i join feels retarded. Close players have an obvious, blatant advantage over my ridiculous slow moving bullets.
Im a good shot, there was a time when we had one or 2 servers here in argentina when i could test this game with 40 ping or so, and i know i am leading well. On 190/250 ping servers, its a whole different story. The game should be making this calculations, not the shooter. Id rather be shot after turning a corner than calculating how much my bullet is going to take to leave the barrel after i pull the trigger.
I am at the very same position as you, echoblack, and the netcode for this game has been the sole reason ive stopped playing it. I love playing bolts, and having to lead differently, taking ping into account for each different server i join feels retarded. Close players have an obvious, blatant advantage over my ridiculous slow moving bullets.
Im a good shot, there was a time when we had one or 2 servers here in argentina when i could test this game with 40 ping or so, and i know i am leading well. On 190/250 ping servers, its a whole different story. The game should be making this calculations, not the shooter. Id rather be shot after turning a corner than calculating how much my bullet is going to take to leave the barrel after i pull the trigger.
Upvote
0
Ballistics is not the source of the lead problem, it's only hiding it from people who don't look closely enough. As an example, look at the shot with the PTRS in the linked Italian video at 10:56, where he's forced to lead a target at 46 meters. This weapon fires a round that flies at over a kilometer per second. At that range, it should hit its target in 40ms, which, even assuming a fully laterally sprinting target (which it wasn't) is, at most, 24cm of lead, which is less than the width of the torso. A shot at the right shoulder should still hit the left. Instead, he has to lead by over twice that much, and that's on a server he's got a really good connection to.
Adding to the problem is that the latency delay is totally independent of range. It's added to the ballistics delay for the total lead you have to take, but the networking is such a giant percentage of that, especially close-in, that it makes the total lead completely lose any relation it's supposed to have with reality. Here's an example diagram: black is the lead you have to take to compensate for the networking, grey is what it's supposed to be like (and would be, with client-side hit detection):
The difference can get pretty huge.
Adding to the problem is that the latency delay is totally independent of range. It's added to the ballistics delay for the total lead you have to take, but the networking is such a giant percentage of that, especially close-in, that it makes the total lead completely lose any relation it's supposed to have with reality. Here's an example diagram: black is the lead you have to take to compensate for the networking, grey is what it's supposed to be like (and would be, with client-side hit detection):
The difference can get pretty huge.
Upvote
0
I didn't watch the whole video. I only watched the first couple of minutes as they were repetitive and I don't speak Italian (And I don't know what values TW uses for the PTRS ballistics.) Btw, no need for the innuendo. I've been around the block a few times. If you want to swap loads, shooting match scores or battle stories....
In your calculations, you're not adding reaction time. ie. The time between when brain says pull the trigger, the finger pulls the trigger, and the hammer falls on the primer, the powder ignites and the bullet actually leaves the barrel . Now you've missed your torso.
But none the less, whether one has to lead the target 6cm or 6m, its still having to lead. Same principle applies. Apparently some are better at deciphering what that lead should be than others. I tend to figure the lead required for latency just as I would if I were at the range shooting long range targets with a stiff cross wind. ( I mean after all, while in RO2 wind is not factored into the ballistics, but surely you see its effects on objects in the game? Paper blowing, bushes swaying, etc. So its not really that big of a stretch.) I just 'dial in' my latency.
And yes latency lead is constant for a given value whether the target is up close or far away. Once a player gets that through his head, it no longer becomes an issue. If your enemy is 5m in front of you, you'd still better figure in that latency. But I, like everyone else, as a rifleman get frustrated with the 'zig-zag and lag syndrome' as I call it. That is, the rambo smg'er or semi-auto that comes storming through the room guns blazing. No one does that irl. A bit gamey for my taste. But I used to get even more frustrated when I would inexplicably die after running safely into cover. In a game that will kill you after you've reached safe cover, one almost has to play on a server with a killcam on to keep their sanity. Not somthing I care to do.....
I think once server optimaztion is completed and the average player's ping on a full server is sub-100, the play will improve.
In the end, I suppose its all a matter of personal preference. Personally, I like the challenge of being the master of my own shots.
Its a dead horse and I'm done beating it....
(And I don't know what values TW uses for the PTRS ballistics.) Btw, no need for the innuendo. I've been around the block a few times. If you want to swap loads, shooting match scores or battle stories....In your calculations, you're not adding reaction time. ie. The time between when brain says pull the trigger, the finger pulls the trigger, and the hammer falls on the primer, the powder ignites and the bullet actually leaves the barrel . Now you've missed your torso.
But none the less, whether one has to lead the target 6cm or 6m, its still having to lead. Same principle applies. Apparently some are better at deciphering what that lead should be than others. I tend to figure the lead required for latency just as I would if I were at the range shooting long range targets with a stiff cross wind. ( I mean after all, while in RO2 wind is not factored into the ballistics, but surely you see its effects on objects in the game? Paper blowing, bushes swaying, etc. So its not really that big of a stretch.
) I just 'dial in' my latency. And yes latency lead is constant for a given value whether the target is up close or far away. Once a player gets that through his head, it no longer becomes an issue. If your enemy is 5m in front of you, you'd still better figure in that latency. But I, like everyone else, as a rifleman get frustrated with the 'zig-zag and lag syndrome' as I call it. That is, the rambo smg'er or semi-auto that comes storming through the room guns blazing. No one does that irl. A bit gamey for my taste. But I used to get even more frustrated when I would inexplicably die after running safely into cover. In a game that will kill you after you've reached safe cover, one almost has to play on a server with a killcam on to keep their sanity. Not somthing I care to do.....
I think once server optimaztion is completed and the average player's ping on a full server is sub-100, the play will improve.
In the end, I suppose its all a matter of personal preference. Personally, I like the challenge of being the master of my own shots.
Its a dead horse and I'm done beating it....
Upvote
0
And, as a high ping player, I ask that I'm allowed to be the master of my own shots (as it would be realistically) without an artificial disadvantage.
Trust me. I've got it through my head. CQB is almost impossible with 150ms+ in Red Orchestra 2.
Excuse me while I go and play Battlefield 3 with my American mates on a West Coast US server, and have it feel like the server is actually in my backyard. I've been a fan of RO since the initial release, but I thought they would have advanced their obsolete netcode since then. I'll still play the game -- I'll even play it competitively, and I'm no scrub with a 250 ping let alone a 50 ping -- but I'll remain plagued by something that, with today's coding, should not even be an issue.
Wally
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Just to put this into perspective for the other side (which I favor), I feel that being allowed to be master of my own placement is as it would be realistically. (and I've had several times where in CQC I swear 'i should a nailed that dude with my PPSH.. wtf', but I've also been in situtations on other titles where I felt I was solidly behind hard cover and all the sudden die and was like 'wtf'.
If the game had bullet prediction / client-side-hit-detection / or whatever you want to call it, people would say they don't want it (as they did on BF:BC2). Since RO2 doesn't have it, people are wanting it. I see it a just a coin with two sides, and no side is 'correct'.. it's just preference.. and someone is going to be displaced in either setup. Either way, the majority of people play or don't play a game as it is. *shrug*
if TWI has spare cycles to impl an either/or solution, sure, I think that would be ideal.. people wanting it one way could have it that way, etc.. but I think rewriting a working-in-most-cases system when they have other bugs probably higher on their TODO just now might not be wise.
That said, this'll be my last post regarding this topic, so carry on.
Upvote
0
Amen. It's a simple thing to implement and has no tangible downside in a game with the deliberate pacing of RO2.
You don't have to look far in this forum to see complaints that would be solved by this. There are complaints about unacceptable latency, often defining unacceptable as low as 100ms, an amount which should be trivial for a modern game to mask almost imperceptibly. There are complaints about hit detection when TWI can't find a hit detection bug, because it's the overloaded servers and the disconnect between what's seen and what actually happens that's the source of the problem. There are complaints about run & gun gameplay, which is at least as attributable to the huge lead needed under this networking as it is any other design decision, as it makes players far better off charging someone wildly while spraying instead of actually trying to take an aim that probably won't hit anyway.
It's a counterproductive design decision for a game like this, even more so than the one that had RO1 trying to create realistic field combat with an unchanging 90 degree FOV. That design mistake at least had the excuse of requiring whole new maps to correct; this one, on the other hand, can drop right in painlessly.
Last edited:
Upvote
0