Micro Destruction

[lugiahua 26]

Just wonder, anyone played Men of War before? I know it's not a FPS, but has pretty good destruction models.

[metalcraze 290]

And Bill Gates said home PCs will never need more than 40MB of storage space.

3D games don't even exist for twenty years and we've already reached BF3 levels. In another ten years, BF3 will probably seem like Doom 1 looks now.

By BF3 you mean that game where you swing a knife at a metallic fence and it breaks like a glass?

[calin_banc 19]

We all know it's just a "gameplay convention".

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Arma 3 already has decent destructible buildings. You can take out whole sections of buildings, or even the whole thing. But it takes some serious firepower to just up and move a wall.

The thing I think they could do better though is adding animations between destruction states. In essence, this is all BF3 does anyways. (Hell, even BC2 had more advanced destruction, but still followed the same concept.)

Right now, when a section of a building, or whole building itself gets destroyed, the model switches from one to the other instantly. No sound or fx. But realistically all it'd need is a good 60-80 frames between/after model swaps (if that's even how it's done in Arma 3) showing debris falling, dust billowing up and then settling, and some falling/crumbling SFX with some windows shattering peppered in. But... is this even possible with Arma 3 models?

Another possibility, (if I can call it that) would be to build "destructible" models around static models, the same way BC2 does. For instance, the little green shacks in BC2. When fully destroyed, all you'd really be left with is the frame. But the wooden panels, when their hit point were exceeded, simply played a fancy destructive animation and then disappeared.

Edited March 28, 2013 by TheCapulet

[Jex 1]

"^ This." <---That! :)

[jgbtl292 0]

i think is to many for the engine - the only for me what is a must have is a better systhem for small kalibers.

ant the chater ai ceater crying ... when the ai then can shot you behind walls :D no thanks - ist arma the most is coveringfree wasteland and then the last 5% of the map you have no more cover . ähm no its with the riflecalibers a good combomise.

the terrain details are to low ;) no place to hide only stones ^^ for that

you shot on a two-floor house its 50m long - 2 at rockets and the complete house is down ... omg the firepower from most weapons are to heavy for buildings.

40mm grenades from a gmg on the cars - 3-5 shot the half house is down .... normal you see nothing with 3-4 grenades... its 40mm mini slow flying HE with more spall than all other . this is nothing for a brig house :D

and then - a explosive satchel on a smal mettal barn - boom .. nothing ;)

more balance ^^

and What i will not see in arma 3 is - houses or other goes down by a ke penetrator from a tank ;) the old thing since ofp ^^

Edited March 29, 2013 by JgBtl292

[bad benson 1733]

kind of off topic but parallax or normal mapped bullet holes would already do a lot for me. bigger ones for big calibers and stuff. it's time to send the black dots into retirement. along with doubling the amount of destruction stages for buildings (like separating each wall from the rest) and working more on particle effects this would already be more than enough.

lots of things about convincing destruction are about presentation.

[maturin 12]

Does not a single person in this thread care about gameplay and realism?

To hell with presentation! 'Particles' has nothing to do with what happens when an RPG or a sabot hits a building.

Sure, let's get some pretty bullet holes, but then let's allow those impacts points to have cumulative effects on the penetration values of localized area of masonry. So I can take me LMG and slowly reduce the cover value of an enemy position. It's too much to ask to be able to slowly chip away at walls with bullets (even in Battlefield), but these effects can be approximated.

[bad benson 1733]

Does not a single person in this thread care about gameplay and realism?

well...

along with doubling the amount of destruction stages for buildings (like separating each wall from the rest)

i think more stages would have a huge impact on gameplay and realism since not the whole house would be gone but just the wall that has been shot at. sure what you describe would be kind of cool but it's also a bit much to ask. and i don't see how presentation and realism are opposite aspects. it's called realISM not reality. so making things look more convincing and creating immersion are big parts of it too. to me it's more "game breaking" when i shoot a house with a rocket and afterwards the AI that was inside is hiding prone in the rubble of a suddenly appearing ruin with no roof and walls than not being able to degrade walls on a scale of centimeters...

[dnk 13]

kind of off topic but parallax or normal mapped bullet holes would already do a lot for me. bigger ones for big calibers and stuff. it's time to send the black dots into retirement. along with doubling the amount of destruction stages for buildings (like separating each wall from the rest) and working more on particle effects this would already be more than enough.

lots of things about convincing destruction are about presentation.

This would be enough for me as well. I would like more, but the devs seem to have their hands full already.

Can't this be done through an addon, though? How hard is altering the current bullet hole decals (and increasing the limit to something much higher - I mean, I think Goldeneye had a higher limit of bullet hole decals before they'd start disappearing)?