I did read the post. I also have personal experience with many of the major engines available to date.Woefulmonkey wrote: »@Merlin13KAGL
So I hate saying this because people seem to get upset when I question if the actually read the thread.
But, did you read even my original post?
I specifically describe 'static' objects in the and how they are used to reduce calculation requirement as well as many other techniques to even get close to an ability to handle object collision detection in a real time game of any kind.
Eliminating the need to calculate for gravity for every object is actually the first improvement I describe.
So yes, I do understand that as well as the many other ways that you address movement and collision in the game to 'cheat physics'.
I am not going to re-explain the entire original post here, however here are the key take always.
Even after you take all those reductions into account the 'best' you can do is reduce the number of calculations required for collision detection to N where the number of objects you can possibly interact with in a single move fame. If you do anything less that that you cannot determine proper object movement and sliding and you 'will' have major game play issue.
If, N is the number of causation you must perform in movement cycle, you then need to know what the maximum time you have to perform calculation in 1 cycle. Well in order to have smooth fluid movement you need to be able to do 10 move calculations per second (This is not the same as FPS, you can still render at 60 FPS but your moves are likely only calculated at 10 Moves Per Second).
So, if you have to calculate all collisions in every Move how many object can you support if it take only 5 milliseconds in order to have no performance issue?
N = Max Frame Time / Calculation Time
Which is
N = 100 millsec / 5 millsec = 20
So, what does that mean?
It means that as soon as you start going over 20 object very close together that you player can possibly collide with in one move frame you start having performance issues.
Now just because you have 40 objects does not mean performance goes to crap.
However I guarantee you will start to notice the 'slow down' as soon as you get to 100 object if you are an observant player and even if you are a unobservant player you will notice when the count gets to 200.
If you manage to get up to 600 poorly placed objects you are talking to each move frame taking 3 seconds to complete. The game may still function at that point but it will be very hard to play and you will start to have risks of catastrophic game failure occurring.
I have posted a 'test' you can perform several times on this thread if you don't believe these calculations and want to see what I am talking about in a 'real' scenario.
As for 'instancing' I also speak about that in length in the original post and you are right house are instanced.
They are almost certainly instanced on 'Your' hardware not any Zos game servers. Again I have explain the reasons I believe that to be true in many placed on this thread if you are interested in more background.
However, even if they were instanced on Zos hardware that does not matter.
The problem lies in how close objects are placed to one another not how many objects are on the map in total.
The problem with houses is that 'you' control where objects are place not Zos. For the game and dungeons Zos controls all object placement and they ensure that objects are not placed in a way that least to catastrophic game failure.
When 'you' control object placement it means you can cause such a failure. So Zos has to limit what you can do so they can limit that risk (Notice I say limit not eliminate).
You can already do bad things they just try to ensure odds of you doing such bad things is small and that even if you do they can handle them without causing catastrophic failures.
You've seem to have taken my responses as a personal affront or an attack on your credibility. Mine is not the first you have indicated you presumed to be a 'troll' post and intend to cease reply. That's fine.Woefulmonkey wrote: »@Merlin13KAGL
This will be my last response to you as it is clear you are not bothering to read more than a few lines of what I post which makes it basically pointless to try to carry on a meaningful conversation on a forum.
You continue to repeat things that have already been covered not only in the first post but in many responses since, and rather than responding to anything in the thread you just appear to what to 'show' the knowledge that you DO have.
Your goals appear to be to belittle other peoples ideas and opinions in an effort to elevate your own. That is an unworthy objective, especially when you don't need to use that tactic.
Woefulmonkey wrote: »My comment about 'trolls' was directed as a specific poster. For the most part the community has been much less toxic than I have experienced on other forums. However occasionally you get someone who clearly just want to 'taunt' someone into a name calling contents and I find it is best not to engage when them. If you don't feed the trolls they eventually move on.
Some posters are just angry (which I get) and some just really don't care about understanding the issue since they know what would work for them and it 'seems' easy so they don't want to hear anything that contradicts that view. To be clear they are entitled to have that attitude, I just don't agree with it. I still try to respond to those posts, because sometimes they will actually read a direct response and I try to make it clear I am not saying that item limits are not an issue that needs to be addressed in some way.
Woefulmonkey wrote: »Sorry I am not meaning to be disrespectful and you are right saying 'you did not read the post' is a passive aggressive way of taking a dig a someone so I apologize for that.
You indicate two decades of software experience. It is not reasonable to 'user proof' every possible scenario. People push limits (which is fine, it's part of what creativity is) and will try to use things in ways not originally intended.However, almost none of them are 'good' for tools targeting 'players', because many of the solutions provided put significant restrictions on player behavior just to allow for more objects to be placed and some remove existing feature customers are accustom to, which are not good trade offs.
You also use the 'who cares about stupid users' argument which is not a good approach to developing tools for any customer base.
Of course they do. That is ultimately the deciding factor in any feature, change, or upgrade.Further they do not appear to be 'cheap' to or even 'moderately expensive' to implement in an already delivered produce like existing housing system.
Development has costs, it is not free, and just because you can conceptualize something doe snot mean it is 'easy' to implement.
Woefulmonkey wrote: »This thread is about the 'difficulties' in extending item counts from a technical perspective not a claim that item limits are not restrictive and causing problems with housing especially for very large homes.
The reason I said you had not read the post is because I try to make that very clear several times even in the post header. I even discuss possible solutions that 'can' extend house item limits. I just don't thinks those 'solutions' are 'good' for all users and that 'better Items' is a more viable universal solution.
While I appreciate the prospect, I am neither here to troll, nor to entertain.Don't let my lack or response stop you from posting here either, I will probably still read your posts as they do contain some interesting information.
Woefulmonkey wrote: »@RedGirl41
To be clear I 100% agree that Zos should be doing more to solve this issue.
If their plan is to provide 'better' objects that allow users to do more with the slots they have, then they need to start spending some money on artist to create more content specifically for houses instead of just re-using existing resources.
If they have something else in mind they should at least give us an idea of what they intend to do and how long they think it would take.
Tommy_The_Gun wrote: »Sorry OP... Wall of text... with math equations... Nuff said...
Woefulmonkey wrote: »@MornaBaine
First let me be clear I don't think Zos is doing enough about this issue.
However, Zos has done 'something' and recently. Just a month ago the added a bunch of large floor and wall sections as well as several fully populated book shelves and tables with food on them. They even added a fireplace you can embed in a wall.
These objects alone lowed me to create much nicer looking environment and reduce my slot usage by 50 slots. And I was not one of the players who was even close to reaching their slot limit.
The problem is that all the objects were the same 'style' so they don't fit well in every house and it was still not nearly enough to deal with the vast set of specific issues players face when trying to decorate.
Worse it does nothing to help 'Guild Houses' who need to dedicate hundreds of slots just to place crafting tables and mundus stones.
The best message you can send to Zos is not spending money on houses you simply can't decorate.
Now, that is not going to give them the ability to wave their hand and give you unlimited slots, but it may get to put more resources on solving the problem.
This is 'solvable'. It may not come in the forma of unlimited slot count or even just doubling the existing counts, but their are definitely ways to address this issue.
The real key here is not 'rewarding' them for doing nothing, and continuing to try to give them a clear description of the problems you actually want to solve.
1. ) Guilds not being able to both provide all service objects that make a guild house valuable to the guild.
2. ) Not being able to decorate both the inside and outside of your house fully.
2. ) Having to use hundreds of slots to segregate rooms and create doorways
3. ) Having to use ugly planks to reach 'hidden' areas of the house map.
4. ) Having to waste dozens to hundreds of slots to populate a library room or Kitchen since you have to manually place every fing nichnack as an individual object.
5. ) Having to use hundreds of blocks to create simple structures in exterior areas.
Not sure if its possible, but if a whole set of items could be 'merged' to create one item, that may solve issues... Though that suggestion may be impossible for all i Know
If consoles are holding back the limit in any way - I say tough shite. Let PC players have whatever limit PC affords us and console players will have to deal with the fact that their chosen platform is limited in what it can handle.
MornaBaine wrote: »If consoles are holding back the limit in any way - I say tough shite. Let PC players have whatever limit PC affords us and console players will have to deal with the fact that their chosen platform is limited in what it can handle.
I really do believe that trying to add consles to their platforms invariably "dumbs down" the PC version of the game. Which is reallllly not fair. There genuinely should be TWO versions of the game, similar, sure, but wherein PC is not held back because consoles can't handle something PCs can. I didn't support this game from beta and buy 5 copies of the Imperial Edition just to see it stunted so ZOS could make a few quick extra bucks.
AlboMalefica wrote: »MornaBaine wrote: »If consoles are holding back the limit in any way - I say tough shite. Let PC players have whatever limit PC affords us and console players will have to deal with the fact that their chosen platform is limited in what it can handle.
I really do believe that trying to add consles to their platforms invariably "dumbs down" the PC version of the game. Which is reallllly not fair. There genuinely should be TWO versions of the game, similar, sure, but wherein PC is not held back because consoles can't handle something PCs can. I didn't support this game from beta and buy 5 copies of the Imperial Edition just to see it stunted so ZOS could make a few quick extra bucks.
The entitlement is strong in this one! You should be thanking console players for making the game much bigger than it would be otherwise, as console players should thank pc players for helping make this game as great as it is today. I would love more furnishing slots for the Pariahs pinnacle I purchased when it first came out (been playing since launch on console btw) but I would never dream of being this toxic towards a sub community of this grand community because I can’t get what I want!
Finally, I know you feel buying 5 copies of the imperial edition makes you special, it does but not in the way you believe