Micro Destruction

[djfluffwug 10]

What is this Game2 everyone talks of?

[mr_centipede 31]

Game 2 was a project that was supposed to be Operation Flashpoint 2 before BIS & Codies got divorced and what is now known as ARMA 2

[Wen 10]

I believe ACE fixes some of the penetration issues, to a degree at least.

[Daniel 0]

What is this Game2 everyone talks of?

Game 2.

[Fox '09 14]

It's called procedural destruction, never heard of "micro destruction". It should be possible with physx, but as far as multiplayer goes i'm not sure how that would work with the current system.

[slatts 1978]

just i seem to remember a PC gamer story about Game 2 with a sub-article called "Bringing down lego land" about how single bricks could be taken out

same issue as BF2 review

[paragraphic l 2]

You guys want something like this?

eDJU0WQof7E

cq_E7ea61lU

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=14604

[NeMeSiS 11]

You guys want something like this?

eDJU0WQof7E

cq_E7ea61lU

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=14604

Yes, but on everything, and not just 1 painfully handcrafted wall. ;)

[paragraphic l 2]

I guess everything has to be painfully handcrafted then, right? This is only possible if the models are made out of multiple small parts. Physx could take over the actual damage effect I recon, but the models have to allow this kind of detailed destruction.

deanos has more vids on his account showing different objects, not just bricks, in some vids he made bigger parts, they still allowed positioned destructions, just not as small. Which I actually thought looked better.

[PuFu 4600]

I guess everything has to be painfully handcrafted then, right? This is only possible if the models are made out of multiple small parts. Physx could take over the actual damage effect I recon, but the models have to allow this kind of detailed destruction.

There is no need to manually create buildings from smaller parts.

Surely, the poly-count would increase drastically, but one can either create the building and automatically generate the bricks on the surfaces, or just randomly cut/break apart those surfaces.

Anyhow, while this is possible, the amount of work needed (even when it is generated in an automatic fashion) and the huge increase in polycount would most likely render this useless on a larger scale (size and number)...

[Bee8190 10]

I can only assume if the micro destruction make it to arma3 but physX being supported by CPU only, I have my doubts tbh

would be awsome though

[Sealife 22]

The engine is capable of it , however its the Ai that will struggle and will need a further script.

with peneteration files and damageHide and Drop command and RTMS already capable of being used in Arma everything wished for here is already possible.

However as the above post says Polycount and AI pathfinding does not make it plausable.

however it is already possible as seen in those videos , My guess is BIS have enough problem to keep a nice MP smooth gameplay without added complication .

Rtm would be best way as it also move geometry so its permanent damage and is cocnsistant for gameplay and keeps nice desync :0 if i knew how to export from C4d then i would do it myself :)

http://nitro4d.com/blog/nitrobake-review/

this tools is good try it on arma1 mlod :)

http://nitro4d.com/blog/freebie/xbreaker/

maybe the easiest way one day will be thrausi , this guys tools are very good to cut up anything into _x pieces ,however after that its a hell of a lot of work :)

XdlOY629xsI

Edited January 2, 2012 by Thromp

[dmarkwick 261]

Guys, physics on this scale is purely for the SP experience you realise, anything other than rather basic destruction simply cannot be transmitted across MP clients in realistic terms. It's OK for ragdoll, where only the torso needs to be synced, but for thousands of discrete objects, it'll be either client-side eye-candy only, or SP only.

[batto 17]

Guys, physics on this scale is purely for the SP experience you realise, anything other than rather basic destruction simply cannot be transmitted across MP clients in realistic terms. It's OK for ragdoll, where only the torso needs to be synced, but for thousands of discrete objects, it'll be either client-side eye-candy only, or SP only.

Hi. I'm not really into that stuff, but if every computer generates same result of destruction (eg. no randomness), does everything need to be transmitted?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Guys, physics on this scale is purely for the SP experience you realise, anything other than rather basic destruction simply cannot be transmitted across MP clients in realistic terms. It's OK for ragdoll, where only the torso needs to be synced, but for thousands of discrete objects, it'll be either client-side eye-candy only, or SP only.

Of course. Though to be honest i would be pretty happy with the current ArmA2 desctruction brought up to BC2 standards. Basically the same, but it looks nicer with a 'house collapsing' animation when the house is completely destroyed. Maybe add some synchronized large debris pieces instead of just deleting the destroyed part of a building. (And maybe for niceness more unsynchronized very small pieces)

And having this type of destruction added to small objects like walls/fences like in BF3.

[dmarkwick 261]

Hi. I'm not really into that stuff, but if every computer generates same result of destruction (eg. no randomness), does everything need to be transmitted?

I think it depends hugely on the methods used, for really complex destructions, even similar starting conditions on the same computer can yield different results, with the result that some objects end up in different places. As a lot of physics calculations are being made using timings & intertias, things like slightly different FPS, slight MP lag for other objects, different distances to the same event etc can all impact, and that's just the stuff I can think of. I'm no expert I only dabble in this stuff occasionally.

[frostwyrm333 1]

They did procedurally generated destruction for Game 2 but then they realized it will "never" be possible.

Problem with Arma as always is scope.

IMHO it is not impossible, its basically the same thing as in A2 but buildings would need to have much more segments, and since lots of buildings don't have them at all, it is ignored. There wouldn't have to be that much lot of them. 1x1 meter would perfectly suffice with entire wall collapsing after few got blowned up. Razed buildings could even eliminate need to store this data. Lots of optimization options. How much data exactly would this need, its just a few dozen booleans paired with some client generated garbage.

I guess that since they are implementing physx so they will definitely have to make changes because. Not doing changes like walls/fences/trees falling in one direction would be crazy.

Also brings lots of options for addonmakers.

[PRiME 1]

I was thinking wall damage could be made more accurate by having like 30-100 proxy points on a object and linking it in with the damage system. Could be done in ARMA2 now but I think there is a limit. In the end that is what's happening in BF3, just lots of proxy points so when bullet or whatever hits object it detects closest proxy points on model and calculates damage, then adjust model at those points.

Thought I am not sure if it replaces model with suitable damaged one or simple does a ingame polygon trim of that area in a realistic fashion, I am guessing the later.

If BIS Wanted too they could add that in to arma3, I don't see why it would be hard, the issue is adding in all those proxy points and linking it in with the damage system, the idea is simple but the work involved may be too much to do it too all objects, so I advise BIS experiment with just doing it with basic cover objects and walls.

For example it would allow you to use a very high calibre rifle or rocket/grenade to blow out the middle of a wall section in a realistic fashion without having to knock over a entire a wall section which is what arma does atm and is unrealistic.

As for segments for very low poly objects, they can be adding in as a damage model segment once the wall is damaged, ie, wall has 6 sides and is 1polygon, very basic, but ones hit with enough force or receives enough damage the game changes model to identical object but with 6 sides but perhaps 8-20polygons that can then be culled off and filled with basic destructive fill on the open plane of the polygon segments removed.

Wish I knew more about it or was able to product a video demo to illustrate what I mean, will see if I can find something. The concept is pretty simple really because it isn't 100% realistic as its still a approximate, just a very good one that is all.

PS. You could do away with proxy points by just using vextices of the object, still not really clued up on this, just gotta factor in which side of the vertix the projectile hit on as to get better approximate damage zone and perform modelswap, segment cull, empty plane fill

Found something that helps explain the use of proxies to manipulate polygon objects. Some will laugh, BIS may go pfft.. But it just shows that you can have a base object then manipulate points on it, this is the premise to making cover damage possible and also allowing the damage to appear to be occurring in the area you are shooting at. The more points the better accuracy, and again for flat single poly walls you can do model-switch to a high proxy wall point, this would save performance ALLOT vs having such high proxy objects existing at the beginning of the game, as many will not experience damage so wasted processing is occurring.

Edited January 3, 2012 by PRiME

[maturin 12]

Yeah, I would be fine with leaving buildings and trees the way they are but make walls destructible.

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

Yeah, I would be fine with leaving buildings and trees the way they are but make walls destructible.

Ever dropped a 500lb bomb into the forest? Normally you would expect all the trees in a certain radius to be either knocked down or damaged. As it currently is, that is not the case. I'd love to see some more improvements in this area.

http://www.sammcgowan.com/BombCrater.jpghttp://www.sammcgowan.com/BombCrater.jpg

Ok, maybe using a BLU-82 wasn't a fair example, but it makes the point

Edited January 3, 2012 by Stang69

[maturin 12]

Ever dropped a 500lb bomb into the forest? Normally you would expect all the trees in a certain radius to be either knocked down or damaged. As it currently is, that is not the case. I'd love to see some more improvements in this area.

You would expect that bomb to do even more to a jeep. But all it gets is a blackened texture and a low poly wreck model.

I doubt there's going to be much in terms of improved destruction, so let's ask for the things that affect gameplay, like knocking holes in walls.

[dm 9]

You would expect that bomb to do even more to a jeep. But all it gets is a blackened texture and a low poly wreck model.

People would only complain about "vanishing model bugs" if soft vehicles and people were correctly vaporised by direct-hits from HE weapons... :j:

[Pulverizer 1]

People would only complain about "vanishing model bugs" if soft vehicles and people were correctly vaporised by direct-hits from HE weapons... :j:

Should we hold on to misconceptions instead of correcting them, because someone might get confused?

[PRiME 1]

BIS has been long time struggling with making their engine, the latest attempt in Take-On Helicopters shows how they are struggling. I doubt the game engine can simulate proper destruction like you guys are describing, probably need to wait for a complete engine remake or a new engine adoption like using outerra (whenever its ready for devteams that is).

I think it would be a good idea for BIS to add proper destruction to trees/vehicles/walls/buildings and also character models but I doubt they have the time or expertise to do so, it simply requires a far more advanced engine then what they have been showing us with the ARMA series, best we can hope for is more detailed use of proxy hit-zones and section damage. Even that is asking allot from the poor old arma engine.

[djfluffwug 10]

BIS has been long time struggling with making their engine, the latest attempt in Take-On Helicopters shows how they are struggling. I doubt the game engine can simulate proper destruction like you guys are describing, probably need to wait for a complete engine remake or a new engine adoption like using outerra (whenever its ready for devteams that is).

I think it would be a good idea for BIS to add proper destruction to trees/vehicles/walls/buildings and also character models but I doubt they have the time or expertise to do so, it simply requires a far more advanced engine then what they have been showing us with the ARMA series, best we can hope for is more detailed use of proxy hit-zones and section damage. Even that is asking allot from the poor old arma engine.

The RV engine could simulate destruction easily I would assume with Physx.

All it would have to do is have a building with various small colliders for building pieces, calculate the damage radius, then whichever colliders are within the blast radius, break into smaller pieces using a variety of building piece prefabs, apply the correct amount of force using Physx and there you have destruction of buildings.

What you need:

• Colliders.... Check
  
• Physx.... Check
  
• Maths.... Check
  

I am sure RV Engine supports all three of them. It's not really a matter of a bad engine, it's just a matter of nice visuals vs processing power vs development costs.

As for trees, it may be a little harder and require some basic mesh deformations.

As for vehicles, RV engine could also support that as far as I know.

It's again the nice visuals vs the rest.