It's an important question, because it tells us what to expect with regard to the magnitude of Tracking Penalty.

 

For example, let's say I'm using basic Quad Laser Cannons. They have a Firing Arc of 24 degrees and a Tracking Penalty of -1.5%/degree.

 

Let's say I'm attempting to shoot something at the edge of my firing arc circle.

 

If the Firing Arc is the diameter of the circle, then it means I'm shooting 12 degrees off center, and I'm suffering -18% accuracy Tracking Penalty.

 

But if the Firing Arc is the radius of the circle, then it means I'm shooting 24 degrees off center, and I'm suffering a -36% accuracy Tracking Penalty.

 

As far as I know, we've never gotten a solid answer on this, nor am I sure how we players could derive the answer on our own...

 

UPDATE: Thanks to Kuciwalker, we are fairly certain Firing Arc is diameter, after all.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Nemarus

It describe the angle from directly infront of you to the edge of your firing arc

My guess is diameter because the sensor components state radius/diameter.

 

edit: I said something different at first, hit submit, and then realized it was wildly inaccurate. Drinking coffee now, sorry.

Edited May 21, 2014 by JeepWithGuy

It describe the angle from directly infront of you to the edge of your firing arc

 

I suspect that's the case, giving how quickly Tracking Penalties seem to stack up, but I don't think we actually have any proof or confirmation of that.

 

And traditionally, a "firing arc" covers the whole arc, not just one half of it.

I'm 99.9% certain that the arc reported in the tool tip is the diameter of the firing circle. As evidence, I use the "Improved Kill Zone" crew member passive. It's described as adding 2 degrees to the firing arc and when you use it with, for example, quads your reported arc goes from 24 to 28. This means you gain 2 degrees more deflection but 4 more degrees on your total arc.

It's an important question, because it tells us what to expect with regard to the magnitude of Tracking Penalty.

 

It's also one that's trivial to verify with visual inspection...

I'm 99.9% certain that the arc reported in the tool tip is the diameter of the firing circle. As evidence, I use the "Improved Kill Zone" crew member passive. It's described as adding 2 degrees to the firing arc and when you use it with, for example, quads your reported arc goes from 24 to 28. This means you gain 2 degrees more deflection but 4 more degrees on your total arc.

That's the exception. All weapons upgrades, when indicating a 2 degree improvement, will increase the firing arc value by 2. Only Improved Kill Zone will grant 4 while listed as 2.

 

But whatever, it giving 4 instead of 2 doesn't make a proof whether the firing arc indicated on weapons is radius or diameter at all.

 

Only valuable proof would be comparing the surface of disks drawn on screen before and after upgrades, then compare their ratio. Improving a radius or diameter by the same amount will result in different ratios.

That's the exception. All weapons upgrades, when indicating a 2 degree improvement, will increase the firing arc value by 2. Only Improved Kill Zone will grant 4 while listed as 2.

 

But whatever, it giving 4 instead of 2 doesn't make a proof whether the firing arc indicated on weapons is radius or diameter at all.

 

Only valuable proof would be comparing the surface of disks drawn on screen before and after upgrades, then compare their ratio. Improving a radius or diameter by the same amount will result in different ratios.

 

True, this is why I'm not 100% certain. Assuming that adding 4 degrees isn't a bug, the description only makes sense if the firing arc on the tool tip is the diameter and the +2 is to the radius.

It's also one that's trivial to verify with visual inspection...

 

Can you please explain to me how you trivially verify this, given we don't know anything for sure about the viewing frustrum GSF uses, and given that the game uses a third-person camera?

 

Also keep in mind that the "degrees" we see in tooltips may not represent an actual degree as we understand it. Certainly, GSF's use of "m" for distance does not refer to real-life meters--otherwise most starfighters would be the size of Godzilla.

 

Also, have you looked at a protractor recently? Go to this site and look at what 19, 38, and 76 degrees looks like. I don't know about you, but when I think of a BLC Scout with a 38 degree firing arc, and what it looks like to target a ship at the edge of that arc, I find it far more plausible that the full diameter represents 76 degrees, and that center-to-edge represents 38 degrees, not 19.

It describe the angle from directly in front of you to the edge of your firing arc

 

a good question, hopefully eric or the GSF team will take pity on us and offer some insight.

my best guess... (just expanding on Ryuku-sama's post).

 

assuming the target is directly in front of you that would be 0 degrees. from that point it would be 24 degrees in any X Y (up/down left/right) direction. another way to put it is 24 degrees off center. which again could be in any X Y direction.

 

example: I'm strafing a defense turret at a sat and am lined up perfectly (0 degree firing arc) and a mine or drone is sitting close to it (lets say 10 degrees off my current center) at that point the tracking and accuracy penalties will kick in (by 10 degrees) if I change target to the mine or drone and until I adjust my trajectory to match the new target.

 

if trying to hit a moving target the 0 degree is still directly in front of you and it's a constant effort to bring the target as close to 0 as needed to hit it.

 

edit:

basically, wherever the nose of your ship is pointed that will be the 0 degree point. your targets position is always relative to that 0 degree point. the firing arc is the circle around that 0 degree point so radius (center point of circle to edge (target)) would be the correct answer.

 

hope this helps (and hope I'm even close to being correct)

Edited May 21, 2014 by magecutter

Can you please explain to me how you trivially verify this, given we don't know anything for sure about the viewing frustrum GSF uses, and given that the game uses a third-person camera?

 

Being third-person doesn't matter since the point of view is constant.

 

Just measure how long the diameter is on your screen or how much pixels it is, before and after a firing arc upgrade. Do the ratio after/before and keep it at hand.

 

Now hard maths :

sin (half-angle) = radius/distance

sin (improved half-angle) = new radius/distance

 

new diameter/diameter = new radius/radius = sin(improved)/sin(base)

 

Now you can fill half-angle values to your convenience according to your theories, then see which matches empirical values.

 

P.S. : half-angle here means "cone half-angle", the angle from center to the edge.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Altheran

Can you please explain to me how you trivially verify this, given we don't know anything for sure about the viewing frustrum GSF uses, and given that the game uses a third-person camera?

 

...

 

We know the sizes of objects and we know the distances to objects. That's all you need.

 

Or you can just eyeball it. Right angles are easy to see. 45 degrees is easy too, just by halving. Etc.

 

Also keep in mind that the "degrees" we see in tooltips may not represent an actual degree as we understand it. Certainly, GSF's use of "m" for distance does not refer to real-life meters--otherwise most starfighters would be the size of Godzilla.

 

No, that's ridiculous. 90 degrees is a right angle.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Kuciwalker

Think: have you ever played a driving game (Mario Kart, GTA, whatever)? Have you had any difficulty identifying that intersections are right angles? Would you have difficulty mentally bisecting one of those angles? Even with no information about the camera? Edited May 21, 2014 by Kuciwalker

...

 

We know the sizes of objects and we know the distances to objects. That's all you need.

 

Or you can just eyeball it. Right angles are easy to see. 45 degrees is easy too, just by halving. Etc.

 

 

I'm not sure I follow. What would a 90 degree or 45 degree firing arc look like in GSF? A big circle yes ... but how big? Angles between two lines are only easy to eyeball if you are observing them from a third dimension, not from the same plane as both lines...

 

Think: have you ever played a driving game (Mario Kart, GTA, whatever)? Have you had any difficulty identifying that intersections are right angles? Would you have difficulty mentally bisecting one of those angles? Even with no information about the camera?

 

I assume you mean, if I am sitting slightly above the vertex (corner) of an intersection, I can eyeball if that intersection of the streets that meet at that corner is 90 degrees or not. Yes that's true. But how is that at all similar to what's going on in GSF?

 

In GSF we are sitting at (not above) the vertex of an angle with vectors we cannot see. There are no streets to eyeball. Even if there were, they'd be in the same plane as us (since we are at the vertex), so they'd always look like this:

 

-------o-------

 

What is the angle between those two vectors in the z-dimension, Kuci? Can't you just eyeball it?

 

All we are given is a circle indicating the flat end of a cone with unknown length. Imagine the firing arc circle were a flat disc that existed in space, floating perpendicularly in front of you. Now draw all the lines from your POV to the edges of that disc--that is the cone of fire. The problem is that the angle of that cone is entirely dependent on the distance of that imaginary disc.

 

If that disc is very far away, the cone is very long and the angle is very small. If that disc is very close, the cone is short and the angle is very large. BioWare picked some set distance to draw those arcs, and that distance is likely based on the view frustrum (or more disturbingly, it could be based on the maximum range of the weapon--that's something we can test).

 

So I ask again, what would a 90 degree or 45 degree Firing Arc look like in GSF? What would a 120 degree Firing Arc look like in GSF? A circle, right? How big? Would it clip the sides of my screen?

 

Maybe you should just admit you're bad at trigonometry.

 

Being third-person doesn't matter since the point of view is constant.

 

Just measure how long the diameter is on your screen or how much pixels it is, before and after a firing arc upgrade. Do the ratio after/before and keep it at hand.

 

Now hard maths :

sin (half-angle) = radius/distance

sin (improved half-angle) = new radius/distance

 

new diameter/diameter = new radius/radius = sin(improved)/sin(base)

 

Now you can fill half-angle values to your convenience according to your theories, then see which matches empirical values.

 

P.S. : half-angle here means "cone half-angle", the angle from center to the edge.

 

What is the "distance" you're referring to? You could use a collaborating enemy ship (that you can target) to get distance vectors, but they'll always be in GSF-meters, and there's no way I can think of to convert those to the "pixel-length" that you'd measure the radius with...

Edited May 21, 2014 by Nemarus

What is the "distance" you're referring to?

 

Distance is rather a mental representation than an actual distance.

 

The firing arc circle represent the area where you can fire at a given distance. The actual distance is unknown. But since in this test you use the same weapon with different firing arc options, it's safe to assume that the distance that area stands from us is unchanged, and so can be simplified at will when doing that ratio. Only matters that radius... And since its a ratio, it can be measured in IG meters, inches on screen, or pixels (number of pixels lined horizontally or vertically from edge to center), though pixels will probably be the most accurate .

 

(By the way, I made a mistake it's not the sin function but the tan function)

 

The only source of possible inaccuracy is if the point of view isn't taken from the tip of the cone. But since firing arc aren't know for oddities about being inaccurate at some range, it's safe to assume we are at this perfect spot, or very close.

 

Personally, I'd try on Proton Torpedo since it's a weapon with high arc variance : 12 degree min, 20 degree max. Though, I may be wrong that it may be the best choice, as I have a doubt.

 

One thing to be careful of : some calculators only accept angles in a 2Pi format.

 

I guess it would be easier if I'd do it myself since its unintuitive.

 

EDIT : after taking a look at the ratios tan(20)/tan(12) and tan(10)/tan(6), I fear we won't have the necessary accuracy.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Altheran

Nope... distance is constant.... therefore you can negate it

 

Radius or diameter of your base firing arc = x1

Radius or diameter of your upgraded firing arc = x2

Distance = d

Base angle = a1

Upgraded angle = a2

 

x1/d=tan(a1) x2/d=tan(a2)

x1/tan(a1)=d x2/tan(a2)=d

x1/tan(a1)=x2/tan(a2)

x1=(x2/tan(a2))*tan(a1)

x1/x2=tan(a1)/tan(a2)

x1/x2=tan(a1/a2)

tan-1(x1/x2)=a1/a2

 

So a1/a2 is your relation between the base and upgraded firing arc angle.

 

a) Calculate the relation between each base/upgraded firing arc using a standard distance to calculate x1 and x2

b) Measure the diameter and the radius of your firing arc the unit doesn't matter at all...

c) Calculate a1/a2 for the diameter and the radius

d) Use your brain, I'm too lazy to do it

Edited May 21, 2014 by Ryuku-sama

EDIT : after taking a look at the ratios tan(20)/tan(12) and tan(10)/tan(6), I fear we won't have the necessary accuracy.

 

Use the method I just posted... it's far mor accurate

I'm not sure I follow. What would a 90 degree or 45 degree firing arc look like in GSF? A big circle yes ... but how big? Angles between two lines are only easy to eyeball if you are observing them from a third dimension, not from the same plane as both lines...

 

I assume you mean, if I am sitting slightly above the vertex (corner) of an intersection, I can eyeball if that intersection of the streets that meet at that corner is 90 degrees or not. Yes that's true. But how is that at all similar to what's going on in GSF?

 

In GSF we are sitting at (not above) the vertex of an angle with vectors we cannot see. There are no streets to eyeball. Even if there were, they'd be in the same plane as us (since we are at the vertex), so they'd always look like this:

 

-------o-------

 

What is the angle between those two vectors, Kuci? Can't you just eyeball it?

 

All we are given is a circle indicating the flat end of a cone with unknown length. Imagine the firing arc circle were a flat disc that existed in space, floating perpendicularly in front of you. Now draw all the lines from your POV to the edges of that disc--that is the cone of fire. The problem is that the angle of that cone is entirely dependent on the distance of that imaginary disc.

 

If that disc is very far away, the cone is very long and the angle is very small. If that disc is very close, the cone is short and the angle is very large. BioWare picked some set distance to draw those arcs, and that distance is likely based on the view frustrum (or more disturbingly, it could be based on the maximum range of the weapon--that's something we can test).

 

So I ask again, what would a 90 degree or 45 degree Firing Arc look like in GSF? What would a 120 degree Firing Arc look like in GSF? A circle, right? How big? Would it clip the sides of my screen?

 

Dude. We can see objects that lie on the surface of the cone. We can estimate the distance to those objects visually (or via the HUD if they are targetable). Bam, you just eyeball the angle between the two objects.

 

this. is. not. hard. In real life you could do it 100% of the time, unless you are just spatially challenged. Look at two objects in the distance and you can estimate the angle between them.

 

Mentally draw a line from yourself to object A, mentally draw a line from yourself to object B, imagine yourself standing over the scene, eyeball the angle. Bam.

 

Maybe you should just admit you're bad at trigonometry.

 

No, I'm not. Not only do I have various professional certifications implying my strong competence in grade-school math, I am also a functioning human being with depth perception (binocular and monocular) and spatial awareness.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Kuciwalker

Use the method I just posted... it's far mor accurate

 

That's just the same calculus...

But your additional step turning tan(a1)/tan(a2) into tan(a1/a2) is no-good.

Just test yourself : tan(20*)/tan(12*) = 1.83 while tan(10*)/tan(6*) = 1.79 although 20/12 = 10/6 (* with obviously due degrees conversion)

 

And as you can see, the level of measurement accuracy needed to sort whether it's closer to 1.83 or 1.79 is a bit...

Edited May 21, 2014 by Altheran

By the way, if y'all want an algorithm that doesn't involve comparing two radiuses, just measure the diameter of a satellite in game-meters (using the HUD-reported distance to a turret on the other side), then find the distance to the satellite in game-meters (again by targeting a turret) at which the reticle perfectly circumscribes the satellite.

 

Bam. Done.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Kuciwalker

By the way, if y'all want an algorithm that doesn't involve comparing two radiuses, just measure the diameter of a satellite in game-meters (using the HUD-reported distance to a turret on the other side), then find the distance to the satellite in game-meters (again by targeting a turret) at which the reticle perfectly circumscribes the satellite.

 

Bam. Done.

 

It would work... but the first measurement would need to be taken in action, with the said turrets attacking you. (And inaccurate at it since distance are shown in hundreds)

Edited May 21, 2014 by Altheran

Dude. We can see objects that lie on the surface of the cone. We can estimate the distance to those objects visually (or via the HUD if they are targetable). Bam, you just eyeball the angle between the two objects.

 

this. is. not. hard. In real life you could do it 100% of the time, unless you are just spatially challenged. Look at two objects in the distance and you can estimate the angle between them.

 

Mentally draw a line from yourself to object A, mentally draw a line from yourself to object B, imagine yourself standing over the scene, eyeball the angle. Bam.

 

 

Bam?! Read what you just wrote. You think you can take our first person perspective and mentally rotate that (so that you're looking down at it) and tell me whether a firing arc is 17 degrees or 34 degrees?

 

If you can do that, then you should be able to do the inverse, right?

 

We can all imagine looking down at a right angle... so it should be simple to just rotate it into first person, right?

 

Okay, then draw me a 90 degree Firing Arc circle.

 

You still don't understand that, depending on the distance the circle represents, it could be drawn to any size. Without having any idea what that distance is, and without knowing the details of the game's viewing frustrum and field of view, you can't trust any of your "eyeball" intuition in this case. 3D game viewports, despite appearances, are NOT similar to your real life field of view.

 

And your binocular vision does not magically penetrate a 2D screen to help you out.

 

And honestly, even if you are trusting your "eyeball" intuition, doesn't the firing angle of upgraded BLC's feel a lot closer to 76 degrees than it does to 38? 38 degrees is a tiny sliver well under 45 degrees. I don't think BLC's feel that constrained. How am I able to hit targets <500 "meters" away when they are at the very edge of my screen?

Edited May 21, 2014 by Nemarus

It would work... but the first measurement would need to be taken in action, with the said turrets attacking you. (And inaccurate at it since distance are shown in hundreds)

 

In order to distinguish between radius and diameter we only need accuracy within an order of magnitude.

Bam?! Read what you just wrote. You think you can take our first person perspective and mentally rotate that (so that you're looking down at it) and tell me whether a firing arc is 17 degrees or 34 degrees?

 

In real life? Absolutely yes. In GSF? Only slightly more difficult because our depth perception is worse.

 

If you can do that, then you should be able to do the inverse, right?

 

We can all imagine looking down at a right angle... so it should be simple to just rotate it into first person, right?

 

Okay, then draw me a 90 degree Firing Arc circle.

 

It is way harder to do with still images, since parallax is a huge part of depth perception. Let me look for a good screenshot on Google, or make one later in-game.

 

You still don't understand that, depending on the distance the circle represents, it could be drawn to any size. Without having any idea what that distance is, and without knowing the details of the game's viewing frustrum and depth of field, you can't trust any of your "eyeball" intuition in this case. 3D game viewports, despite appearances, are NOT similar to your real life field of view.

 

No, it cannot be any size. In addition to failures of imagination, you keep making blatantly false statements about the relevant geometry.

 

There are two constraints on the circle, and those constraints are neither over- nor under-determined, but rather uniquely define the circle: every object depicted inside of the circle is within the firing arc, and every object depicted outside the circle is outside the firing arc.

 

There is only one circle on the HUD that has that property.

 

And your binocular vision does not magically penetrate a 2D screen to help you out.

 

Depth perception is not just binocular vision, which anyone with two functioning eyes can verify. Close one eye and you can still estimate distances pretty well.

 

So, not only are you getting basic geometry wrong, you also apparently lack familiarity with normal human faculties like "vision". You're failing the Turing Test hard.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Kuciwalker

No, it cannot be any size. In addition to failures of imagination, you keep making blatantly false statements about the relevant geometry.

 

There are two constraints on the circle, and those constraints are neither over- nor under-determined, but rather uniquely define the circle: every object depicted inside of the circle is within the firing arc, and every object depicted outside the circle is outside the firing arc.

 

There is only one circle on the HUD that has that property.

 

 

Yes, the circle for a particular firing arc can be only one size for a given field of view. And we can estimate what proportion of the field of view the firing arc circle takes up. But as we do not know the game's field of view (measured in degrees), we cannot know the size of the firing arc in degrees. This is what I meant when I said the circle could be drawn at any size, though I admit I put it poorly and put the cart before the horse in some respects.

 

In real life, humans have a field of view of roughly 180 degrees. Most first person shooters, on the other hand, have a field of view of 80-100 degrees. As far as GSF, it's hard to guess what the field of vision is. It feels like it's higher than you'd have in a first person shooter, and objects definitely become skewed as they approach the peripheral, but I can't say for sure.

 

We can probably just measure the diameter of a Firing Arc as a percentage of the width of the screen and infer from there.

 

Looking at this screenshot from the tutorial... http://www.containsmoderateperil.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/SWTOR-Galactic-Starfighter-Tutorial-1.jpg, the diameter of the firing arc of the Light Lasers seems to be just about exactly one third the width of the screen.

 

If the Firing Arc (28 degrees for LLC's) is diameter, this would mean the field of view of the game is ~84 degrees. If Firing Arc is the radius, this would mean the field of view is 168 degrees.

 

84 seems low given the peripheral vision we have in GSF, but 168 seems a bit high.

 

In other words, Idunnolol

 

Either way, it's been a fun thread. Yes, you too Kuci