ok.

what should we discuss?

thanks for your contribution, I misclicked the [+] symbol, sry for that

ok what should we discuss? did you ever think about this ISSCHJUE? share your cool story, bro

I have big difficulties to actually aim where I want to aim in those situations and dunno if I should move my mouse to aim, should I dodge-aim, ..?

oh, now i get it. ischju is australian for issue.

ischju is the phonetic writing of the word 'issue'.

my bad then. i jumped to conclusion since t1e is, like noctis, an australian.

do you realize that it's almost a tischju?

yes.

practice practice and it will come naturally

wat

To hit your target, aim at it and press the fire button.

you will usually locate the fire button on the left side of your mouse.

Do you have such a problem with this? Honestly the only problem I have is that the target is smaller and can move in 4 directions, not my aim. I normally rely on flicks in those situations, and I hit fairly often.

that's what I'm afraid might indeed be the case.. thinking about the issue and avoiding it prly didn't help me at all, more practice and getting used to the muscle memory recalling similar situations? sounds good enough of a theory to me

Load up quake 3, play anarki on nightmare, old t4. Try to get as many frags as possible in 15 minutes.

My record is 143 to 1.

(The reason why I am saying this is that a large amount of the frags would be firing down on the opponent.)

On that, I suppose it will only take a few hours to make a map where you can sit up high somewhere and fire down on bots you spawn, like that old aim map, but that was on an equal level.

Id like to see a screenshot of that.
Granted q3 was 15min matches, but 143 frags is a frag every 6.3 second. With bot spawntimes of 2-3sec?
Having to find the bot and restock ammo.

I did it in 2002, so I might have some difficulty with the screenshot, I will have a look though, I do have a demo of me beating it 138 to 0, once again, I'm not sure where that is. But, that's nothing, Ph4ntom got 159 to 0.

I've had a look around and couldn't find it, I can probably get it off one of my old drives, but they are all IDE, and I don't have a pc that can use that :/

It has been previously uploaded to esreality, however it was pre-2005, when there was that weird crash and a lot of files went missing or were deleted.

Well I just looked trough my screenshots, seems this is the highest I ever got against someone who I guess was afk lol.. but probably possible on t4 where you dont have to run around in weird corners looking for your enemy spawnpos.

Well i just reinstalled OSP and tried to do it again (8 years later) And the highest I got was 90 to 0. However, I felt like I was playing a perfect game, the only thing I can think of is that the later versions of OSP changed the bot spawn times. I always thought the bots spawned instantly, in the game I played the bot would sometimes take 5 seconds to spawn. I could definitely do it again though, under previous conditions, my aim is much better than it was back then.

You have to do it in OSP for the spawn positions, I don't know about quakelive or cpma. I've attached the 90 frag one I just did, which shows the general method.

Basically:
4 mg, 1 rail
2 pl, 1 rail
1 rl, 1 rail

Once you are out of ammo, 2 rails. (You need to keep your position)

EDIT: The demo I JUST recorded has disappeared. I think there is something screwy with my quake 3 installation and/or osp, it kept being jerky when I was playing too, which is weird.

Hehehe, <3 osp spawns.

Just get used to it, no other way...

raise m_pitch ?

apparently not, it's about m_yaw at high vertical angles

wrong

m_pitch only changes vertical mouse movment speed, has nothing to do with horizontal mouse movment.

So with higher m_pitch you heads up/down quicker, but when you move mouse sideways at high vertical angles it is still 'slower' than at low vertical angle. +ian's explanation says it all. On the other hand, m_yaw controls how fast your horizontal angle changes, at high vertical angle, same distance = more horizontal angle change.

My suggestion is using strafe to aim at high vertical angle, and train yourself to get used to it. That's all.

dont say ians post proof this because it proofs actually not what you say

if you you look down and want to shoot at a moving target, you use theta (yaw) and phi(pitch) to reach the point you want to. its about both.

example: you have phi = -90 = completely looking down. your target 5 meters straight in front of you. what you do? right, change phi (pitch affected).

Well, I think we are discussing horizontal movment at different vertical angles here... At least, the two images from t1e aren't about vertica movment.

sure , yaw does it in that case :D

The problem is you're approaching one of the two vertical antipodal points in the cylindrical coordinates that the mouse movement uses.

In this link, horizontal aiming changes theta, vertical changes phi. If phi = 0, which means you're looking straight up, then it doesn't matter how much theta changes, your crosshair won't move (well it will just rotate). http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalCoordinates.html

There are ways to get rid of this. One alternative would be to use euler rotations to change your view instead. Some flight games, like Wing Commander, handle flying with euler angles. It's pretty cool for flying. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerAngles.html

This gets rid of the coordinate singularity at the vertical antipodal points. The problem is it's not very intuitive in a FPS. You would end up turning your viewpoint upside down, having it be rotated by a weird angle, etc. It has another degree of freedom. Quake has pitch and yaw; the 3rd euler angle would be roll. Your shit would probably be looking at that red armor sideways.

This is kind of a drawback, but the benefit to euler angles is that you never get that weird behavior near antipodal points. If you move 10 degrees in one direction, it will be the same for theta or phi, and will take the same amount of space on the screen.

the eular system is better for controling free-floating object, that's why it's used in flight simulation games or things like that (e.g. freespace 2).

Yeah, no doubt. Could be interesting to try though.

euler rotations cause poles

Where? I think it depends on how the rotations are defined. In the context of a flight simulator or fps game, you can always move your view to any point by just increasing or decreasing theta and phi. The psi (roll) angle isn't really needed except to get back to the horizontal in a normal way.

There aren't ever situations where you need the extra 180 rotation to get around a small point. You can use the 3rd angle to roll at any point though.

im probably wrong, since its actually nothing i really know alot about.

but i thought i read somewhere that quaternions are used to determine rotations, because other methods (using 3 dimensions) cause poles.

Actually I looked into it and you're right, but the singularity for 2d rotations (like here) comes up because people sometimes fix the reference coordinate axes and then get the same problem when looking straight up that happens with spherical coordinates. It's called gimbal lock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock

If you use each rotation to redefine your axes (like Wing Commander) then you won't get that effect because you'll always be able to do a full 360 along either of the two angles. The drawback being that your view can end up upside down and so forth.

can't you nerds just learn to aim?

You're just an esr troll... lol.

I'll take that as a "yes".

You're an esr troll... chances are you don't even play quake. Feel free to prove us wrong.

I'll duel you and h3artless on thunder any day.

Do you actually mean CA 1v1?

no

euler rotation makes your model do backflips?

I had the same train of thought but you put it very nicely

with the alternative viewing model there ofc come some (minor?) problems, model animation, it's not used in any traditional fps iirc, people might have it hard to get used to it, ..

adding the opponent dodge to this calculation, it becomes near impossible for me to actually aim in those situations

You trying to take over for injx? :P

altho the op specifically posted asking for an explanation on the mouse stuff, i sort of feel its not really that relevant to the horizontal vs vertical aim discussion. obviously it has an effect but with practice u can get around it. (for instance u just change ur orientation 180 degrees on the horizontal plain). to me the basic difference between vertical aiming, more specifically aiming downwards on someone whos on a floor/platform is essentially that they can dodge in any direction on the plane and they make a smaller target (someone already mentioned this), as opposed to aiming horizontally when more or less the person ur aiming at is restricted to the horizontal line.

so really i think calling it vertical aim is incorrect. for instance its much easier to aim from rg to someone at ra on ztn. theoretically they can move along any direction in a half plane but u know their movement is restricted since theres no floor and they have to cross a gap.

I see your point, and I agree that extra/reduced movement options play a big role in making those situations easier or harder to aim in, but I think the mouse thing is valid too. Aiming vertical really is different than horizontal, and not just because of gameplay. It's also due to the coordinates used.

The problem is, 2D mouse position cannot represent 3D rotations group, and it's not really solvable without using a 3D controller.

I get it that it is really hard to rail vertically in comparison to horizontally. However, it is really not just a matter of practice. You know, a some player change their pitch/yaw i.e. changing the pitch (vertical mouse movement value?!) to higher values could help you to compensate for your "larger" movement.

Just check out noctis' config and you see he has changed the default values.

But then again, it is really just practice - just knowing how you have to move your mouse. Maybe you should play t4 to get more accustomed to these angles. Or just spam nades, or flick rockets downwards instead of railing to force him to take the teleporter.

coller pitch yaw: minus means invert mouse btw.

seta m_pitch "-0.018"
seta m_yaw "0.01400"

I'm aware of the possibility to alter m_pitch/m_yaw but I don't see winning much by that - I think the problem more likely lies with the small movements b4 actually hitting and even predicting the opponents moves

Well nonetheless, after having a higher horizontal sens for some while and now being at the standard settings 0.022 for both values, I might actually give it a try..

just practise, practise, practise. Get a mate and and let him stand below at rail and practise the angles - let him dodge, jump, shoot as well etc. It is really not that hard. However, it is really hard to "explain" how you actually have to do it.

yes, see my reply to tb0ne, it's a good hint I'd assume

The annoying part of this practice is finding someone who has the same goal as you who has time to waste standing below dodging and shit. It's kind of a tradeoff really. You could say whilst you're practicing vertical rails/rockets/whatever he's practicing dodging and then you switch, but in an ideal world, the bots would just have better AI and you could set where you want them to spawn.

When I practiced aim against bots in other games the AI was retarded, but at least you could set where they spawned and where they moved. Saved so much time and hassle

simple math: the angel for ro you swipe is still the same.

in a way you can say that in both pics you drew the projection of an objekt moved on the edge of the sphere on the xy plane.

the projection reaches maximum for phi = 0 deg and minmum = 0 for phi = 90/-90 deg (if you look straight up/down).

you can heavily increase you rocket aim by setting up m_pitch seperately from yaw. cooller rockez hello

The antipodes do screw things up a lot. Going from linear motion in cartesian coordinates to cylindrical is what's important for aiming. For a very small motion near the antipodes you can be forced to make a 180 degree rotation that will take 10-15cm or so, whereas near the horizontal that never happens.

Near the horizontal (phi = 90), small movements are roughly linear. For motion around the poles you need to change theta much more. In the limit of phi -> 0 you get d-theta -> infinity. (From eq 97 in http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalCoordinates.html and d-theta = -sin(theta)/rsin(phi) * dx + cos(theta/rsin(phi) * dy ).

Consider tracking someone who goes directly over you. For motion on the sphere and above the y axis, theta = 0. To exactly track this without changing your position you need to increase phi to look up, and then when they're directly above you, rotate theta by 180 degrees, and then decrease phi to continue tracking.

Doing this with other coordinates, like euler angles, means all you had to do was increase phi. (Although your view would end up upside down). It's obviously easier to track something that goes in a straight line if you don't need to add in an extra 180 degree turn.

okay, i used definition phi = 0 when r is in xy plane.

so thats my fault because the sketch defines it different :)

taking your definiton, why are they at 90 roughly linear?

i fully agree with what you said about the shit that accours around the poles .

well,,,, honestly how do you wanna control the view in euler coordinates. i mean just take the opposite horizontale wise when overcoating 0/180 deg for phi?:D

we would alle puke if you wag over these 2 thresholds fast

Ha yeah, I don't think euler angles would really work too easily.

But to see it's linear near the horizontal: Using 97 in http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalCoordinates.html again and picking out the individual equations,
d-theta = -sin(theta)/rsin(phi) * dx + cos(theta)/rsin(phi) * dy
and
d-phi = cos(theta)cos(phi)/r * dx + sin(theta)cos(phi)/r * dy - sin(phi)/r * dz.

On the horizontal phi = 90 (and just setting r = 1), so cos(phi) = 0 and sin(phi) = 1, then

d-theta = -sin(theta) * dx + cos(theta) * dy
and
d-phi = - dz.

The eq for d-theta is the normal coordinate transformation for a rotation in the plane. If it starts out at theta = 0 (pointing along the x axis) then d-theta = dy, and for theta = 90 gives d-theta = - dx (since any change in theta will decrease x). So d-theta is just a linear combination of dx and dy. (I guess to technically show it's linear you need to show it satisfies f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) and f(k*x)=k*f(x).)

The d-phi equation d-phi = - dz means that increasing phi decreases z, and they're 1 to 1.

As a side note, I guess if you imagine a person looking up to point at something or aim, we don't really have that issue with the poles in the spherical coordinate system because of how the rotators in our shoulders work. You can move your arms a little past vertical before you have to turn around. Also, you tend to lean back if you point straight up, and that helps too. However if you lift your arm straight up and then move it sideways back down, your arm gets rotated, and that's what happens to the view with euler angles.

I guess the most realistic way to have quake aim would be to use some combination of the spherical and euler schemes where you could aim past the vertical by using the theta and phi euler angles, but when you returned to the horizontal your view would roll to smoothly return itself to normal. I guess the key point is that the small motions should be approximately linear to make aiming easier, since the stuff near the vertical is more difficult (which actually makes a height advantage less useful) otherwise. Not sure if this would be more confusing than spherical though.

so point and click yeh?

This is about how to make you feel better for 'point and click'...

Anyways, as I mentioned, A. practice and get used to it; B. use strafe and forward/backward to help.

lol

I guess the most realistic way to have quake aim would be to use some combination of the spherical and euler schemes where you could aim past the vertical by using the theta and phi euler angles, but when you returned to the horizontal your view would roll to smoothly return itself to normal.

It's all fucked up by gravity and universal "up"/ "down" directions that it implies. Everyone expects moving mouse up to correspond to turning POV "up", but it's impossible to define consistent "up" vector from every direction your crosshair can point.

it`s an optical illusion, the white lines are actually the same length

no way! its like saying travelling around the world on the equator and on the height greenland is the same distance.

lol, thats just silly

.

I usually +/- speed a lot in case I need to be very close to the border.

Vertical rails are extremely easy for me.

You are either using too high of a sensitivity, too high acceleration, or both.

Most vertical rails will have to be flick rails, or you have to predict movement. If you fail at the second, you can still do the first.

Not being able to rail from RA looking down seems to indicate you just have poor overall rail aim (and your sensitivity/accel is too high or too low or just wrong).

lay down on your back and shoot

people..this isn't a science..juzst a shooter..make some frags and enjoy

Oh damn give it awhile and we can bend the beam with these equations

Or bend ik so it curves back in time hitting you 10 secs before

just pointing out the obvious, which everyone seems to have missed

the white lines are only different length because they're at a different distance :p

you might as well draw a horizontal white line thats further away, and it would be smaller.

basically: practise practise practise, and it'll all come naturally. then again, it shouldn't be that hard to point and click anyway.

The distance at where he plotted the line is the same.

Think of moving a point on globe at the equator 45 degree's left, the line (distance travelled) would be it's longest. Now move a point near one of the poles 45 degree's the left, its line woud be alot shorter.