DUST Search - Gallente SI set known issues.

All Channels

Outposts

Gallente SI set known issues.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 18 post(s)

CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 779	Posted - 2013.09.06 00:24:00 - [1] - Quote I want to get a list of the known issues consolidated here. Please feel free to have me add to the list if it is relevant. This includes all the supporting sockets and the large outpost. We want actual bugs. Research Facility (Large Socket) -Top of both sets of stairs under the main research building is just a dead end. (Funny thing this. Artists forgot to put fake doors up there, we also intended to block those stairs off with infamous crates) Reactor Core (Medium Socket) -Turret is falling underground. (Unknown why this is happening. I believe it is a code issue, but we are looking into it) Landing Pad (Medium Socket) -None yet. Power Core (Small Socket) -None yet. Security Scan (Small Socket) -None Yet Satellite Launch Pad (Small Socket) -None yet. Relay Station (Small Socket) -None yet.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 779	Posted - 2013.09.06 02:25:00 - [2] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: Research Facility (Large Socket) -Top of both sets of stairs under the main research building is just a dead end. (Funny thing this. Artists forgot to put fake doors up there, we also intended to block those stairs off with infamous crates) I was drastically fond of this being a sniper point. Please don't block it off. Most likely, the biggest change would be addition of some doors at the top so it doesn't look silly. This wouldn't be published until we push a content update again either.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 780	Posted - 2013.09.06 05:23:00 - [3] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: LOD road bumpers just murdered my LAV before they rendered. :( According to the environment team it's because LAV's are moving so fast the LOD does not have enough time to swap the LOD in quick enough. It will get sorted out one way or the other in the future. It is a known issue.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 880	Posted - 2013.09.12 07:30:00 - [4] - Quote Gren Fox wrote: Not that its specific to this map, but characters are still rendering on the wrong side of cover from far away. Or if you are high up enough, the fall through the texture and can be shot but disappear. What you are probably experiencing is the low LOD. The cover they are using is probably just not rendering.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 889	Posted - 2013.09.15 05:05:00 - [5] - Quote Valeryy Igunen wrote: Something is wrong with the Supply Depot in the Security Scan socket... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDj2K5dg78s But it couldn't save the heavy ;) Oh, and i love this socket. It's great for scouts, good job! Thanks, Another known issue we resolved internally. Don't know if it will be in hotfix or 1.6 (as 1.5 is already locked down)


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 898	Posted - 2013.09.16 00:28:00 - [6] - Quote Oceltot Mortalis wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: Gren Fox wrote: Not that its specific to this map, but characters are still rendering on the wrong side of cover from far away. Or if you are high up enough, the fall through the texture and can be shot but disappear. What you are probably experiencing is the low LOD. The cover they are using is probably just not rendering. It's not that it's not rendering, it's rendering in the wrong place. Ever since 1.2, where things render at is different from where they physically are from far distances, which makes soft spotting a hill way off in the distance possible, and counter sniping him impossible. That isn't anything Level Design can do something about. That is a rendering issue none the less. I advise you put it in the general feedback / bug reports forum.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1106	Posted - 2013.10.11 00:03:00 - [7] - Quote Iskandar Zul Karnain wrote: Reactor Core has glitched rails on the bridge that cause your merc to run faster than normal if moving against them. We are aware of this issue and have been investigating it. Thanks. Gorra Snell wrote: If you call in a vehicle (well, I've only tried this with LAVs) from the ground on the Landing Pad, it gets delivered to the top floor...which is both inconvenient to reach, and as far as I can tell, impossible for the LAV to drive off of. I'd rather just get an 'inaccessible location'... We are aware of this issue as well. I have in the meantime placed an entity that should force vehicles to land to the road now. However, this has not been delivered to the players yet.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1112	Posted - 2013.10.15 00:28:00 - [8] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: Gorra Snell wrote: If you call in a vehicle (well, I've only tried this with LAVs) from the ground on the Landing Pad, it gets delivered to the top floor...which is both inconvenient to reach, and as far as I can tell, impossible for the LAV to drive off of. I'd rather just get an 'inaccessible location'... We are aware of this issue as well. I have in the meantime placed an entity that should force vehicles to land to the road now. However, this has not been delivered to the players yet. Does this also force dropships to be delivered away from the landing pads? Unfortunately yes. It tells where the RDV to drop all vehicles. I will start putting in a request for a solution to this. It would be nice to be able to have both DS land on a pad and ground vehicles land on ground.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1114	Posted - 2013.10.15 08:29:00 - [9] - Quote ugg reset wrote: Not sure how realistic the is from a Dev stand point but I would like to place a rally point down where I want the RDV to drop in and then the RDV AI could work it out from that location. Where I am isn't alway where I want my ride. Ill mention it to the game design team tomorrow in our meeting. I will let you know if anything comes from it. Though I will say the chances of something like that happening (if it does at all) would be a ways down the road.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1118	Posted - 2013.10.16 02:21:00 - [10] - Quote ugg reset wrote: Not sure how realistic the is from a Dev stand point but I would like to place a rally point down where I want the RDV to drop in and then the RDV AI could work it out from that location. Where I am isn't alway where I want my ride. So I brought this up with Game Design. Their are discussions happening but no decisions made. Primarily it has to do with not just RDV's, but what the RDV's use. A navmesh, and what its future is. So the idea does exist, but no idea if / when it will happen. Just wanted to update you on that. I wouldn't expect any results quickly. You can expect some kind of change in the future though.



CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1123	Posted - 2013.10.17 01:46:00 - [11] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: A nav mesh. On maps that size it must be one hell of a spider's web u got their, explains why we can't drop inside sockets though. Here was me thinking u used dynamic waypoints :-D Well and just think of this, the sockets changing as well. Compiling a navmesh is time consuming because for each terrain it needs to load every possible socket combination and rotation and build the navmeshs for them then stitch them with the ones in terrain. This is a reason why the RDV some times freaks out (my technical term) on some sockets.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1123	Posted - 2013.10.17 01:47:00 - [12] - Quote Valto Nyntus wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: Gorra Snell wrote: If you call in a vehicle (well, I've only tried this with LAVs) from the ground on the Landing Pad, it gets delivered to the top floor...which is both inconvenient to reach, and as far as I can tell, impossible for the LAV to drive off of. I'd rather just get an 'inaccessible location'... We are aware of this issue as well. I have in the meantime placed an entity that should force vehicles to land to the road now. However, this has not been delivered to the players yet. Does this also force dropships to be delivered away from the landing pads? Unfortunately yes. It tells where the RDV to drop all vehicles. I will start putting in a request for a solution to this. It would be nice to be able to have both DS land on a pad and ground vehicles land on ground. Why don't you make the landing pad an installation? I am not sure what you mean, or what you think this would do to fix the solution. Care to explain more?


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1123	Posted - 2013.10.18 03:01:00 - [13] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: steadyhand amarr wrote: A nav mesh. On maps that size it must be one hell of a spider's web u got their, explains why we can't drop inside sockets though. Here was me thinking u used dynamic waypoints :-D Well and just think of this, the sockets changing as well. Compiling a navmesh is time consuming because for each terrain it needs to load every possible socket combination and rotation and build the navmeshs for them then stitch them with the ones in terrain. This is a reason why the RDV some times freaks out (my technical term) on some sockets. I'm don't no the tech terms so I'm going armchair dev words lol. But would not collision boxes be better the rdv simply goes from a to b and if it hits one of the walls it paths around it. I understand I'm vastly over simplifying the problem but nav meshes only really work when u know what ur dealing with and due to sockets and diffrent map types it complicates the problem. Giving the A.I very basic navigation tricks rules instead seems like a better option for dust. But I'm not a dev sssooo.... :-P So navigation points / navmeshes typically take collision and solid walls into account. What is causing problems with our is when the compile has to "stitch" together the navmesh between a socket / component and the main terrain. It in the least technical terms freaks out at times. So this is why I mentioned its a topic being discussed. Valto Nyntus wrote: The idea about the launch pad becoming an installation is simple, you just call a vehicle with the console nearby and it sends it there.is this do able in dust now or at least the near future?(I'm not sure if it solves your problem, but I thought I'd say it) I don't know.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1125	Posted - 2013.10.21 01:29:00 - [14] - Quote steadyhand amarr wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: steadyhand amarr wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: steadyhand amarr wrote: A nav mesh. On maps that size it must be one hell of a spider's web u got their, explains why we can't drop inside sockets though. Here was me thinking u used dynamic waypoints :-D Well and just think of this, the sockets changing as well. Compiling a navmesh is time consuming because for each terrain it needs to load every possible socket combination and rotation and build the navmeshs for them then stitch them with the ones in terrain. This is a reason why the RDV some times freaks out (my technical term) on some sockets. I'm don't no the tech terms so I'm going armchair dev words lol. But would not collision boxes be better the rdv simply goes from a to b and if it hits one of the walls it paths around it. I understand I'm vastly over simplifying the problem but nav meshes only really work when u know what ur dealing with and due to sockets and diffrent map types it complicates the problem. Giving the A.I very basic navigation tricks rules instead seems like a better option for dust. But I'm not a dev sssooo.... :-P So navigation points / navmeshes typically take collision and solid walls into account. What is causing problems with our is when the compile has to "stitch" together the navmesh between a socket / component and the main terrain. It in the least technical terms freaks out at times. So this is why I mentioned its a topic being discussed. Valto Nyntus wrote: The idea about the launch pad becoming an installation is simple, you just call a vehicle with the console nearby and it sends it there.is this do able in dust now or at least the near future?(I'm not sure if it solves your problem, but I thought I'd say it) I don't know. I hate phones limits how much I type lol My issue with nav mesh is it does not react to changes events which is why u have stitches problem and rdv freak out. My thought was to simply allow the rdv to plot their own paths as they are spawned in rather than rely Oon predefined paths that could end up crashing into each other. Will make a bigger post when I get home lol Technically it does plot its own path. It uses the navmesh to know "where its safe to plot a path". The problem is the navmesh doesn't always create the best options for the RDV because of the stitching. The navmesh looks like a giant web of interconnected points. It's not just lines that we draw. Its job is to tell the RDV where it "can go" and "can not go". The RDV picks its options from all those possible path lines.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1126	Posted - 2013.10.22 00:36:00 - [15] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: Technically it does plot its own path. It uses the navmesh to know "where its safe to plot a path". The problem is the navmesh doesn't always create the best options for the RDV because of the stitching. The navmesh looks like a giant web of interconnected points. It's not just lines that we draw. Its job is to tell the RDV where it "can go" and "can not go". The RDV picks its options from all those possible path lines. Given your experience in level design, would you say that it's operating less than, equal to or greater than your expectations? Honestly, considering the complexity of it, from a design standpoint it sounds amazing that it works as well as it does. Less than of course. It really should not be bumping into buildings, or dropping vehicles on top of buildings when it should go on the ground. I believe if we stick with the current method the level designers need to be given more control of certain circumstances. I have suggested in the past that we can use volumes that tell the navmesh not to be built in certain places so the RDV just completely ignores the area (like an entire building, or a pit, things like that). To answer another question I saw, one suggestion that was brought up ( I don't believe any decisions have been made, this was just a suggestion from a Game Designer) is that they just spawn right above you or nearby and drop it straight down rather than flying some distance. However the argument for that was it takes away from the immersion. Either way, we are clearly aware of some of these issues and are discussing how to best resolve them.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1130	Posted - 2013.10.23 00:25:00 - [16] - Quote crazy space 1 wrote: Another question for feedback. Right now we call them in but don't really know where they will land to be honest. We have zero control over it. Would it be possible to throw a flare and have the RDV drop off at that exact location? Or at least close nearby to it? So could space out the drop-off spots to be more careful, at least as a temp ban-aid fix. I suppose that doesn't fit into the current system of picking it from a menu... you could have the flare appear in your hand once you choose what you want called in? That is basically the kind of idea that was brought up here.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1130	Posted - 2013.10.23 02:36:00 - [17] - Quote Evicer wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: CCP LogicLoop wrote: Research Facility (Large Socket) -Top of both sets of stairs under the main research building is just a dead end. (Funny thing this. Artists forgot to put fake doors up there, we also intended to block those stairs off with infamous crates) I was drastically fond of this being a sniper point. Please don't block it off. Most likely, the biggest change would be addition of some doors at the top so it doesn't look silly. This wouldn't be published until we push a content update again either. I dont see a problem with it currently.Its a good spot for uplinks as well. I don't think it will be blocked off. It will probably just get the fake doors added at the top. However I don't even know if they will do that right now due to time constraints.


CCP LogicLoop C C P C C P Alliance 1133	Posted - 2013.10.24 04:19:00 - [18] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Yeah, I was surprised the turret on that small socket wasn't fixed last patch, but I figured it was cuz y'all were busy getting us a Caldari socket set ready. Well the turret fix better be in on next content release (1.7). Doors at top of research stairs, that one is a low priority, so it may not happen.