Why aren't the wreck models used as "destroyed" models?

[barakokula31 10]

So, I was just looking at something in the editor (Dev build) and I found these:

http://i.imgur.com/bCZILvT.jpg (375 kB)

http://i.imgur.com/4ZyXLCM.jpg (327 kB)

http://i.imgur.com/IlzvA00.jpg (410 kB)

And I wondered why aren't they used as "destroyed" models for vehicles? They look beatiful. :D

[Smurf 12]

Because they're static and a even worst representation of what happened.

Problem is: everything explodes, from smal arms firing to just crashing = explosion. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=6699

[barakokula31 10]

So, why can't they be used?

[Boomotang 10]

They COULD be. But it wouldn't be realistic if a Comanche's rotors got destroyed, and then the "damaged" model was used to represent the destroyed Comanche, because the "damaged" model has the rotors still there. It wouldn't meet the standards of ARMA 3.

But these models ARE great for decorating a warzone that has happened before. Or for a crash site you're supposed to go to.

[barakokula31 10]

OK, the Comanche and the ofrroad aren't that good, but the Hunter would be a really great "damaged" model. Look at it.

[ZoneTrooper 10]

The prob is that ARMA 3 has no damage system for Vehicles,so that means they just explode thats it.Some pieces fly around cause of the impact of rockets or grenades,and then the vehicle blows up and burn until its just a wreck.They designed them like that,so to change that,they have to rework the entire models for all vehicles and that would take alot of work.Yes its true,the visual destruction model of ALL VEHICLES in ARMA 3 is just a bad joke,because they have all unrealistic behavior like shots from Rifles or grenades.I guess they dont change anything of it,maybe after the release.I mean say it is a realistic right? a military simulator? in my eyes there are ton´s of things that they have to do to make the game a realistic Military Simulator.But i guess nearly all hardcore ARMA 3 players are just waiting for the ACE Modification for ARMA 3.

[Boomotang 10]

OK, the Comanche and the ofrroad aren't that good, but the Hunter would be a really great "damaged" model. Look at it.

The same principle applies to any type of 3D model, whether it's a vehicle, building, tree, whatever. Replacing a working model with a predefined "damage" model when destroyed will never look right. Even if the "damage" model looks sweet.

[bad benson 1733]

yea and a fully roasted black model without any tires and doors totally looks better :rolleyes:

sorry but who cares about those details. if the heli is in a state of damage where it gets replaced by a wreck, every part of it will be at 100 % damage. so no inconsistency there. the damaged commanche could use a more damaged texture but other than that it's better than what is used right now in any case. just go ingame and look at the wrecks again and then tell me that damage to certain parts is really relevant, when every vehicles is 100% destroyed after that secondary/fuel explosion anyways.

it's just a typical case of something ugly being missed over and over again (arma 1 and arma 2). probably no one noticed or for some reason the project lead thinks that it's not worth the effort.

you could even have special effects of doors flying away for each vehicle with custom 3d particles (the actual doors or turrets for tanks). it just has to be done.

the only reason could be performance but there is certainly a middle ground between silly roasted black wrecks and something very detailed.

[maturin 12]

Because it hasn't been implemented.

Current wreck models are still vehicles, with physics and everything.

Those nicer wrecks are basically just boulders shaped like tanks.

It would take a fair bit of work, and then the results would be inconsistent with other units.

[bad benson 1733]

Current wreck models are still vehicles, with physics and everything.

Those nicer wrecks are basically just boulders shaped like tanks.

use another base class to inherit from, et voila. takes 2 minutes or less to give them physics.

the question isn't why models that are designed as static objects aren't used as wrecks exactly as is. the question is why there aren't better looking wrecks, while there are obviously resources spend on making models that are almost exactly what is needed. the fact that they would need slight modifications doesn't need to be pointed out since it's not relevant unless you're trying really hard to find reasons why making something simply ugly look better is not a good idea.

saying that giving a simple dead object some physics is a lot of work is not true. making deformed models from already existing ones with generic damage textures (from already exisitng ones) isn't either. period.

yes there's some amount of work involved. but it's small compared to other stuff. that it's the kind of work devs do, so...it's a decision they made like many others. it's not a task that is too big to be realized. let's not act as if that's not the case and all BI reasoning is perfect reasoning. there are a lot of parts in the game that are stuck in 2001 tech wise. it's time to upgrade so they don't drag the otherwise nice look of the game down.

but hey. i'm not expecting anything to be honest.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Bad Benson

[progamer 14]

Because it hasn't been implemented.

Current wreck models are still vehicles, with physics and everything.

Those nicer wrecks are basically just boulders shaped like tanks.

It would take a fair bit of work, and then the results would be inconsistent with other units.

It would be nice not to have vehicles having an explosion model when they should have a different damage model. Though the exploded damage model would still be needed for when an explosion has occurred.

[Polygon 11]

use another base class to inherit from, et voila. takes 2 minutes or less to give them physics.

the question isn't why models that are designed as static objects aren't used as wrecks exactly as is. the question is why there aren't better looking wrecks, while there are obviously resources spend on making models that are almost exactly what is needed. the fact that they would need slight modifications doesn't need to be pointed out since it's not relevant unless you're trying really hard to find reasons why making something simply ugly look better is not a good idea.

saying that giving a simple dead object some physics is a lot of work is not true. making deformed models from already existing ones with generic damage textures (from already exisitng ones) isn't either. period.

yes there's some amount of work involved. but it's small compared to other stuff. that it's the kind of work devs do, so...it's a decision they made like many others. it's not a task that is too big to be realized. let's not act as if that's not the case and all BI reasoning is perfect reasoning. there are a lot of parts in the game that are stuck in 2001 tech wise. it's time to upgrade so they don't drag the otherwise nice look of the game down.

but hey. i'm not expecting anything to be honest.

Your approach is workable and simple, but not on the scale BIS / other studios operate where diff. departments must communicate with each other constantly and QA approve an outcome of a feature X/Y added. Surely all these "officialities" slow down actual development and idea generating for any dev.

[Smurf 12]

What I would like to see is, when (IF! with this "no promises" policy...) they add back doors and stuff back, explosions like this, even if these props stay just for few seconds just for the "wow" factor on explosions:

Falic figures are a bonus. Ignore the nice tire exploding effects and the fire thing.