We can only guess.

However I guess that since the calculation happens on server side, it may measure the angles internally, not caring about how it is displayed on client side.

It would mean that the zoom should not have any implication whatsover. Only the position of the target and the direction you're facing would determine the tracking penalty.

But again, it's a guess. Only a dev can confirm or not.

As I zoom out with a rail gun, my target moves relatively closer to the center of the targeting reticule. Conversely, as I zoom in, my target moves further from the center. Does anyone know if zooming affects the tracking penalties with a rail gun, or are the penalties just determined by the default zoom when you enter the rail gun scope mode?

... how would zooming affect anything? Tracking penalties are functions of the angle between your forward axis and the target. That's an objective feature of the world independent of the camera.

... how would zooming affect anything? Tracking penalties are functions of the angle between your forward axis and the target. That's an objective feature of the world independent of the camera.

This.

And we don't need a dev to confirm this- it's obvious that's how this works after enough shots.

Now, there COULD be some confusion between server and client about the fine points of an angle, but if a target is on a satellite and you are zoomed out 14k away, that angle between your central line (the line going from your tip to tail) and him is the angle, regardless of zoom.

And we don't need a dev to confirm this- it's obvious that's how this works after enough shots.

Actually, the game could "believe" the client, and the client could determine angles "on screen", and we wouldn't notice it.

An increase of misses as zooming in could be mistaken with the target moving so much faster (thanks to the absence of "miss" text) and Rails themselves aren't exactly test friendly because of he few shots it does...

Actually, the game could "believe" the client, and the client could determine angles "on screen", and we wouldn't notice it.

Those words each individually have meanings but when arranged in that particular order do not describe any logically or geometrically coherent idea.

Those words each individually have meanings but when arranged in that particular order do not describe any logically or geometrically coherent idea.

if

Angle on screen = angle for the client

and if

angle for the client = angle for the server and RNG value (no server side verification)

then

previous statement = false

and

us = not able to notice any difference

Angle on screen

This is not a thing. Two objects, projected onto the camera, are not separated by an angle.

This is not a thing. Two objects, projected onto the camera, are not separated by an angle.

I know. It's a concept where same projection = same angle. For far distances (low angles) it's a quite common assumption, and barely wrong. Obviously it's geometrically wrong in GSF, but it doesn't mean the game can't use that assumption.

But bringing that makes me think that this (geometrically illogical) possibility I mentionned (for the mere concept of the existance of at least one other possibility that we can't refute) may actually be correct (game-wise not geometrically),and that the game seems to not use "real" angles at all.

Why ?

Because if our firing arcs on-screen are the angle at max range, we should not be able to hit or lock things near of that circle at lower ranges. Yet we can.

Alternatively, if the circle is the angle somewhere half-way to the firing arc, we should be able to hit and lock things beyond that circle at max range, and yet we can't.

I know. It's a concept where same projection = same angle. For far distances (low angles) it's a quite common assumption, and barely wrong. Obviously it's geometrically wrong in GSF, but it doesn't mean the game can't use that assumption.

 

But bringing that makes me think that this (geometrically illogical) possibility I mentionned (for the mere concept of the existance of at least one other possibility that we can't refute) may actually be correct (game-wise not geometrically),and that the game seems to not use "real" angles at all.

 

Why ?

Because if our firing arcs on-screen are the angle at max range, we should not be able to hit or lock things near of that circle at lower ranges. Yet we can.

Alternatively, if the circle is the angle somewhere half-way to the firing arc, we should be able to hit and lock things beyond that circle at max range, and yet we can't.

This was a misconception I had earlier about the firing arc circle. It does not represent some disc floating in space at some distance in front of the fighter. We are inclined to think of it this way because the game is third person, and we imagine that the lasers really emit from a focal point of our ship. In that case the only way to make sense of the firing arc circle is to imagine it represents the valid firing arc drawn at some fixed distance in front of the ship.

But Kuciwalker proved in an earlier thread that is not correct. And we know from other evidence that the ships and lasers are all illusions drawn on top of the real battle--the real battle which happens exclusively between the chase-cameras.

Think of the firing arc circle as being painted directly on the lense of the chase-camera. And not only is the chase-camera a camera--it's also EVERY gun and missile launcher on your ship. All vectors used to determine whether your target is within the firing arc and within LOS are drawn from the chase-camera to the target. In that case, the firing arc circle defines the boundary--regardless of range to target--between where your shots can hit and where they can't.

Is there a slight chance that zoom effects tracking penalty? Maybe ... if tracking penalty is weirdly determined by client mouse offset from center, instead of angle between shooter course and target bearing ... but it would be a bug in the design. That being said, the fact that they allow zooming at all, even though zooming in is entirely detrimental to firing, indicates they missed some things...

Think of the firing arc circle as being painted directly on the lense of the chase-camera. And not only is the chase-camera a camera--it's also EVERY gun and missile launcher on your ship. All vectors used to determine whether your target is within the firing arc and within LOS are drawn from the chase-camera to the target. In that case, the firing arc circle defines the boundary--regardless of range to target--between where your shots can hit and where they can't.

Actually, think this isn't true. It is effectively true for anything 1000m out or more, but once you start pushing 500m or less I think a lot of the seeming anomalies people see are from the fact that the chase camera isn't located in the center of your ship. Thus something 500m away from you and at the edge of your firing arc may be outside of it entirely, or much further out than you thought, explaining why only BLC ever seems to hit at those ranges.

None of which applies to gunships in sniper mode, because then the camera really is in the center of your ship.

(In our earlier discussion we were talking about ranges in the tens of thousands of kilometers, at which point the few-hundred-meter offset of the chase camera is irrelevant.)

I actually suspect that firing arc calculations are done relative to the chase camera but tracking penalty calculations are done relative to the position and vector of the ship.

This is the simplest and least offensive way of calculating the firing arc (just test if the cursor is within the circle - you would NEVER want the firing arc test to fail if the user sees his cursor inside the circle) and also the simplest way of calculating the tracking penalty (no need to figure out camera trig, just calculate the angle between two vectors and done).