User talk:Bomb Bloke:Firing Accuracy - Revision history

Kyrub: /* Stuff from the code */

2012-03-05T16:52:40Z

Stuff from the code

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 5 March 2012
Line 249:		Line 249:
	:I checked vertical divergence and it uses the very same dispersion effect (based on RNG (distance_factor * dispersion) ), only, it is halved (weaker). --[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)		:I checked vertical divergence and it uses the very same dispersion effect (based on RNG (distance_factor * dispersion) ), only, it is halved (weaker). --[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)

	:: On the second thought, the vertical divergence is significantly weaker than that (4x weaker) because of the extra doubled factor for longer x or y distance to target.		:: On the second thought, the vertical divergence is significantly weaker than that (4x weaker) because of the extra doubled factor for longer x or y distance to target.--[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:52, 5 March 2012 (EST)

	<br clear="all">		<br clear="all">

Kyrub: /* Stuff from the code */

2012-03-05T16:52:09Z

Stuff from the code

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 5 March 2012
Line 247:		Line 247:
	: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )).		: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )).

	:I checked vertical ~~dispersion~~ and it uses the very same dispersion effect (based on RNG (distance_factor * dispersion) ), only, it is halved (weaker). --[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)		:I checked vertical divergence and it uses the very same dispersion effect (based on RNG (distance_factor * dispersion) ), only, it is halved (weaker). --[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)

			:: On the second thought, the vertical divergence is significantly weaker than that (4x weaker) because of the extra doubled factor for longer x or y distance to target.

	<br clear="all">		<br clear="all">

Kyrub: /* Stuff from the code */

2012-03-05T16:47:19Z

Stuff from the code

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:47, 5 March 2012
Line 247:		Line 247:
	: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )).		: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )).

	:I checked vertical dispersion and it uses the very same dispersion effect (based on RNG (distance_factor * dispersion) ), only, it is halved (weaker).		:I checked vertical dispersion and it uses the very same dispersion effect (based on RNG (distance_factor * dispersion) ), only, it is halved (weaker). --[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)
	--[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)

	<br clear="all">		<br clear="all">

Kyrub: /* Stuff from the code */

2012-03-05T16:46:56Z

Stuff from the code

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:46, 5 March 2012
Line 247:		Line 247:
	: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )).		: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )).

	I checked vertical dispersion and it uses the very same dispersion effect (based on RNG (distance_factor * dispersion) ), only, it is halved (weaker).		:I checked vertical dispersion and it uses the very same dispersion effect (based on RNG (distance_factor * dispersion) ), only, it is halved (weaker).
	--[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)		--[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)

Kyrub: /* Stuff from the code */

2012-03-05T16:46:36Z

Stuff from the code

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:46, 5 March 2012
Line 245:		Line 245:
	:: You may recall that the game goes through COS.DAT and SIN.DAT rather than C sin() and cos(); angle units are 1/8th of a degree, rather than radians. I bet the graph will work much better that way. -- [User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni], 00:25, 4 March 2012 (CST)		:: You may recall that the game goes through COS.DAT and SIN.DAT rather than C sin() and cos(); angle units are 1/8th of a degree, rather than radians. I bet the graph will work much better that way. -- [User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni], 00:25, 4 March 2012 (CST)

	: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )). --[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)		: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )).

			I checked vertical dispersion and it uses the very same dispersion effect (based on RNG (distance_factor * dispersion) ), only, it is halved (weaker).
			--[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)

	<br clear="all">		<br clear="all">

Kyrub: /* Stuff from the code */

2012-03-05T16:39:44Z

Stuff from the code

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 5 March 2012
Line 245:		Line 245:
	:: You may recall that the game goes through COS.DAT and SIN.DAT rather than C sin() and cos(); angle units are 1/8th of a degree, rather than radians. I bet the graph will work much better that way. -- [User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni], 00:25, 4 March 2012 (CST)		:: You may recall that the game goes through COS.DAT and SIN.DAT rather than C sin() and cos(); angle units are 1/8th of a degree, rather than radians. I bet the graph will work much better that way. -- [User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni], 00:25, 4 March 2012 (CST)

	: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )).		: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )). --[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:39, 5 March 2012 (EST)

	<br clear="all">		<br clear="all">

Kyrub: /* Stuff from the code */

2012-03-05T16:39:17Z

Stuff from the code

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 5 March 2012
Line 244:		Line 244:

	:: You may recall that the game goes through COS.DAT and SIN.DAT rather than C sin() and cos(); angle units are 1/8th of a degree, rather than radians. I bet the graph will work much better that way. -- [User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni], 00:25, 4 March 2012 (CST)		:: You may recall that the game goes through COS.DAT and SIN.DAT rather than C sin() and cos(); angle units are 1/8th of a degree, rather than radians. I bet the graph will work much better that way. -- [User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni], 00:25, 4 March 2012 (CST)

			: I still am doubtful about your whole angle approach, BBloke. As it seems to me (from the code, but it's not very clear area, I admit), there is some sort of a complicated distance factor, which is afterwards taken quite simply as RNG [divergence * distance factor]. The result is added to X (or Y) coordinate of the target. Also, be aware that the firing seems to take dispersion differently when the shot is not along straight lines (delta_x > 0, delta_y > 0). For delta_x > delta_y, dispersion along X axis is doubled (2 * delta_x -1), and vice versa. ( BTW, Note, that this probably causes the vertical shot bug. When delta_x = delta_y = 0 (e.g. unit is standing just above), the dispersion becomes an automatic 2* 0 -1 = -1. ((Now, since this bug is reported only in CE version, we really should check DOS version because it may have different approach to determining accuracy!! )).

	<br clear="all">		<br clear="all">

Kyrub: /* Stuff from the code */ , strange X-Com RNG

2012-03-05T16:24:45Z

Stuff from the code: , strange X-Com RNG

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 5 March 2012
Line 227:		Line 227:

	:If 2a is always positive and 2b always negative, does that mean x = aFA is treated as a failure?		:If 2a is always positive and 2b always negative, does that mean x = aFA is treated as a failure?

			:: (checked) x = aFa is treated as a failure. But RNG chooses 0 as well, so no problem. BUT, as it seems, X-COM has a strange world (strange RNG, should I say) where 100% means actually more than 100%, because RNG (100) generates ['''0''',1,2... 99, '''100''']. 101 numbers. If aFa is displayed as "13%", it will actually mean that [0....12], e.g. only (13/101) = 12,87% shots get the low "dispersion effect". ((come to think about it, I guess many of non round %% acquired through testing all over wiki are probably due to the strange X-com RNG setting...)). Well well well. --[[User:Kyrub\|kyrub]] 11:24, 5 March 2012 (EST)

	:An interesting observation is that you've got a one-in-a-hundred chance of x + 10 = aFA, so long as aFA is from 10 to 109 (getting it higher makes it impossible to achieve, given that x will be ranging from 0 to 99). When this happens DF = 0. This shot SHOULD always hit, as it will take the perfect angle with no deviation - no terrain will block it, because if there were anything in the way of this particular shot, the game wouldn't let you attempt it in the first place.		:An interesting observation is that you've got a one-in-a-hundred chance of x + 10 = aFA, so long as aFA is from 10 to 109 (getting it higher makes it impossible to achieve, given that x will be ranging from 0 to 99). When this happens DF = 0. This shot SHOULD always hit, as it will take the perfect angle with no deviation - no terrain will block it, because if there were anything in the way of this particular shot, the game wouldn't let you attempt it in the first place.
Line 244:		Line 246:

	<br clear="all">		<br clear="all">

	===Vertical Error vs Horizontal Error===		===Vertical Error vs Horizontal Error===

Zaimoni at 06:26, 4 March 2012

2012-03-04T06:26:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:26, 4 March 2012
Line 240:		Line 240:

	:Scratching my head a little over what the vertical angle formula might be. I was thinking it might be the same, only using an eighth of a radian instead of just half a one; doesn't match up at all when I graph it though. But I don't think I've been able to log enough data in that area to compare the results properly. Might have to design another map for that, assuming you can't spot any more related code. ;) - <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke\|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke\|Contribs]])</span> 00:01, 4 March 2012 (EST)		:Scratching my head a little over what the vertical angle formula might be. I was thinking it might be the same, only using an eighth of a radian instead of just half a one; doesn't match up at all when I graph it though. But I don't think I've been able to log enough data in that area to compare the results properly. Might have to design another map for that, assuming you can't spot any more related code. ;) - <span style="font-size:xx-small"> [[User:Bomb_Bloke\|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke\|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke\|Contribs]])</span> 00:01, 4 March 2012 (EST)

			:: You may recall that the game goes through COS.DAT and SIN.DAT rather than C sin() and cos(); angle units are 1/8th of a degree, rather than radians. I bet the graph will work much better that way. -- [User:Zaimoni\|Zaimoni], 00:25, 4 March 2012 (CST)

	<br clear="all">		<br clear="all">

Bomb Bloke: /* Rated Accuracy Vs Angle Range */

2012-03-04T05:01:27Z

Rated Accuracy Vs Angle Range

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 == Rated Accuracy Vs Angle Range ==
+===Empirical Results & Discussion===
 [[image:BBFiringPointTest4.png|thumb|200px]][[image:BBFiringPointTest5.png|thumb|200px]]Just a few results before I go off camping for the weekend. First off, note that [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=5805 the logger] used on this occasion is one I wrote up a year ago. It's not entirely accurate, and needs to approximate values (this is because I can only get it to think in terms of angles between tiles, as opposed to angles between points - as a result you see "steps" in the line graphs provided here). I've thought up some improvements for it (like sticking a roof in the map used so I can get some decent vertical angle stats), but even if I implemented those it'd still never be "accurate".
@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 : There might be some additional weird "random drift" that makes 100% and higher accuracy still miss. *Shrugs*. - [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 11:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
 :: I am absolutely convinced that there is no "was shot accurate?" check. If there was one, I reckon it'd be apparent on the graphs here. I could be wrong, but I believe I've seen no data that supports the theory. No, finding that a certain accuracy rating "seems right" when firing from a certain distance is not supporting data, in that this is the case regardless of whether an "accurate shot" check exists. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 11:25, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
 : Despite the fact it will make your life even harder, I have to remind you that there is also PARTIAL COVER to factor into the tests... what happens when the target is behind a window (modded to be indestructible?), behind a hedge, only his head is visible poking out through the floor (bug here lol)... sometimes a shot will go THROUGH a window, sometimes it will HIT the window... - [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 11:07, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
@@ Line 211: / Line 206: @@
 : Just realized that the targeting center should be (8,8) (all of the [[LOFTEMPS.DAT]] templates used by units are centered there).  -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 20:19, 30 December 2010
 <br clear="all">