It's the best war simulation out there, but...

[S_Z 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 16 2002,12<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said, the OPF engine doesn't have a collision detection problem at all. It is as good as the geometry lod in the models defines it to be.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm, I’m not sure I buy that. How can you be so sure the collision detection works 100%? I have not seen the GLOD models of any vehicles but how is it possible for two cars(or trucks) to go straight through each other if the collision detection/response is working correctly? There must be something very wrong with the GLOD model of those cars.

I still thinks the collision detection/response part in OFP is not done in very a good way. Yes, OFP got a large environment but its not very detailed compare to other games with smaller environments like GR or BF1942 for example. BF1942 can take up to 64 players running/driving/flying around on pretty big maps and it handles collision detection/response a lot better than OFP.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (S_Z @ Nov. 16 2002,14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, I’m not sure I buy that. How can you be so sure the collision detection works 100%? I have not seen the GLOD models of any vehicles but how is it possible for two cars(or trucks) to go straight through each other if the collision detection/response is working correctly? There must be something very wrong with the GLOD model of those cars.

I still thinks the collision detection/response part in OFP is not done in very a good way. Yes, OFP got a large environment but its not very detailed compare to other games with smaller environments like GR or BF1942 for example. BF1942 can take up to 64 players running/driving/flying around on pretty big maps and it handles collision detection/response a lot better than OFP.<span id='postcolor'>

How can you be claiming that someting is wrong when you clearly don't know what you are talking about?

Here an example:

Low rez GLOD:

High rez GLOD:

When you put it in OFP, for instance your rifle goes through the first one while it doesn't on the second one.

You can't blame the engine for that - as I said it only depends on how detailed the GLOD is modelled.

Here are screens from OFP:

Low rez:

High rez:

If you want to try it for yourself you can download the glod test objects here. Put it in your addon directory and you will have two objects under [Empty]->[Objects] called "GLOD Test 1" and "GLOD Test2" in the mission editor.

[S_Z 0]

Should we not blame the engine for this? If this is how it should work, having to divide a collision model of a simple cube into many small cubs then there is something very wrong(inefficient) and clearly not the best way to handle collision detection. A simple cube should only need a collision model consisting of ONE cube the same size as the original cub(the rendered cube).

You can not say that its isn’t anything wrong with how OFP handles collision detection when you keep through walls and cars go straight through each other.

I can not think of any other game handling collision detection/response this bad.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (S_Z @ Nov. 16 2002,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Should we not blame the engine for this? If this is how it should work, having to divide a collision model of a simple cube into many small cubs then there is something very wrong(inefficient) and clearly not the best way to handle collision detection. A simple cube should only need a collision model consisting of ONE cube the same size as the original cub(the rendered cube).<span id='postcolor'>

Lol, and how do you think that colision would be detected? You always have to make some form of intersection calclation on the polygon level otherwise the computer can't know if there is a collision or not. All collision detection works by subdividing the object into smaller segments on which you calculate the intersection.

What OFP does is that it doesn't do it dynamically but allows the model designer to specify it per each model. This is far more efficent then doing a complete subdivision of every object in equally small parts. This is one of the features of ofp, not a bug! It allows the designer to make a non-homogenous mesh for the individual objects, saving a lot of processing power on avoiding calculations on areas where you don't have to. At the same time you have the possibility of creating an arbitrary dense grid.

This is not a bad thing, it is a very very good thing

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> A small caliber (.223 inches) fired from one gun (the G36) does much more damage than the same bullet fired from another gun (the M16). <span id='postcolor'>

I'm not saying that's the case here but the length and type of the barrel does have an impact on the speed of the bullet.

[The Sharpshooter 0]

What I hate about OFP most is the clipping thing. Put I can name other bugs(At least I think they are bugs)

When you hate a pilot in the helicopter, he doesn´t die instantly. It´s kind of waiting for the animation to end then it does the dying animation. I hate this so much.

Also, sometimes when you hit someone in the head he won´t die. I think every shot in the head it´s a sure kill.

Or when you are hit in the Motorcycle, you are ejected automaticaly wait like 1 sec and then you die.

And other thing is the armour penetration, I think grenades won´t do anything against a tank but in OFP they do very little but they progressibly damage it.

Hope I have expressed myself correctly, sorry for my bad English

[S_Z 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 16 2002,19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lol, and how do you think that colision would be detected? You always have to make some form of intersection calclation on the polygon level otherwise the computer can't know if there is a collision or not. All collision detection works by subdividing the object into smaller segments on which you calculate the intersection.

What OFP does is that it doesn't do it dynamically but allows the model designer to specify it per each model. This is far more efficent then doing a complete subdivision of every object in equally small parts. This is one of the features of ofp, not a bug! It allows the designer to make a non-homogenous mesh for the individual objects, saving a lot of processing power on avoiding calculations on areas where you don't have to. At the same time you have the possibility of creating an arbitrary dense grid.

This is not a bad thing, it is a very very good thing <span id='postcolor'>

I do know how, in fact 3D engines are a pretty big interest of mine. Though my main interest are culling algorithms like portals/BSPtree (PVS)/octrees I do have collision detection in my own engine but its very basic. It checks polygons against the player(ellipsoid) that are in the same octree node as the player. Though its far from the fastest way to it works pretty well so yes I know the math that are involved in collision detection . Its one of the few times I actually have found use of the math(plane equations and stuff like that)  that I learned in school (KTH in Sweden)

What I don’t see is why you need to divide a simple model like a cube in to many small ones to be able to get good collision detection. If its some complex object then of course you have do divide it up in to many small cubes but why do need to do it with a simple cube, seams very inefficient.    

There are more then one way of handling collision detection you know and I just cant understand how you can defend the way collision detection/response is done in OFP when its clearly not working very well.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (S_Z @ Nov. 16 2002,20:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Its one of the few times I actually have found use of the math(plane equations and stuff like that)  that I learned in school (KTH in Sweden)

What I don’t see is why you need to divide a simple model like a cube in to many small ones to be able to get good collision detection. If its some complex object then of course you have do divide it up in to many small cubes  <span id='postcolor'>

Lol ok. I took the "Avancerad grafik och interaktion" myself two years ago (also at KTH)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> but why do need to do it with a simple cube, seams very inefficient.  <span id='postcolor'>

It is no more inefficent then to calculate the intersection between your polygon and a point in the plane. Dividing a box into smaller elements is the same as having one box and having the resolution of the points that you check for interesection to be equal the distance between the subdivided elements. It's exactly the same thing. The difference is that in the first case you check the intersection of two planes and in the second the intersection of a plane and a line.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are more then one way of handling collision detection you know and I just cant understand how you can defend the way collision detection/response is done in OFP when its clearly not working very well. <span id='postcolor'>

My point is that there is nothing wrong with the engine and that you can get as good collision detection as you want - you just have to make a dense GLOD.

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 16 2002,12:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said, the OPF engine doesn't have a collision detection problem at all. It is as good as the geometry lod in the models defines it to be.<span id='postcolor'>

While I appreciate you are defending our collision detection, I am afraid in your defense is not correct. Sorry.

Many users playing OFP know there are some problems with collisions it the game, especially when soldiers are moving inside of houses or when vehicles crash in high speed. Users are (understandably) not much interested if this is due to collision detection, collision response or due to bugs in geometry definition. Many players simply call this "clipping problems" (which is quite confusing for me, as clipping as I understand it is a part of rendering pipeline and it has no effect on simulation). No matter how you call it and by what part of game it is caused, the problem is there.

Your example of big cube represented as one big cube or many small cubes seems misleading to me. It suggests collision is not tested on volumes, but on vertices - which, if it would be true, would be a sign of badly designed collision detection. Actually collision is tested and detected on volume level and even in the case of the big cube collision is detected - problem is "only" the game engine does not respond correctly.

I can agree with your claim "OPF engine doesn't have a collision detection problem at all". I think most problems are not with collision detection, rather with collision response. This is probably due to the fact that instead of using simple sphere for player collisions, as most games do, we decided to use more complicated geometry. This decision made collision response for human entities very difficult to maintain. On the other hand it makes things like crawling under tanks possible.

We will definitelly try to improve our collision response in our future games.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @ Nov. 16 2002,21:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">While I appreciate you are defending our collision detection, I am afraid in your defense is not correct. Sorry. <span id='postcolor'>

It's a fair cop Well, I made my conclusions after some brief testing in O2 that were apparently not correct. What I observed was that objects collide and don't pass through if you have a sufficient polygon density in the geometry lod.

Well, thanks for explaining it

[S_Z 0]

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @ Nov. 16 2002,213)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We will definitelly try to improve our collision response in our future games.  <span id='postcolor'>

Im very glad to hear that!

[The Sharpshooter 0]

I don´t like that "try to"

You can/should/must do it BIS  

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @ Nov. 16 2002,21:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We will definitelly try to improve our collision response in our future games.  <span id='postcolor'>

More information, pleeeeeeeease!!!

[dayglow 2]

I think my biggest grip is the ai. Although tatically sound it lacks what I like to call a 'fear for life'. Basically close shots don't rattle the ai at all or cause it to really find cover. This really limits tatics such aws mg suppressive fire. Imagine raiding a position where you mg guy keeps the head down of the enemy while another squad flanks them. Also you guys don't act defensive enough for me. This why I have never really finished the Resistance campaign. I need to keep these guys alive, but they seem willing to run headlong into their firey death. It just lost interest of me because I kept having to reload battles that didn't go right. I'd love to be able to tell a mg guy or 203 man to suppress a group while I move and fire. Other than that I love the game.

COLINMAN

[GAMEER_77 0]

My biggest problem is that when you die, your eyes are still open (Of course, i ain't ever seen a dead man in real-life. )

PEACE

[Placebo 28]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GAMEER_77 @ Nov. 17 2002,14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My biggest problem is that when you die, your eyes are still open (Of course, i ain't ever seen a dead man in real-life.   )<span id='postcolor'>

You've never seen it on a movie or tv show where somebody dies and then a friend or comrade or whatever comes along and closes their eyes?

[S_Z 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GAMEER_77 @ Nov. 17 2002,15:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My biggest problem is that when you die, your eyes are still open (Of course, i ain't ever seen a dead man in real-life.   )

PEACE<span id='postcolor'>

Is THAT you biggest problem with OFP??!    

[PiNs_Da_Smoka 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @ Nov. 17 2002,14:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the other hand it makes things like crawling under tanks possible.<span id='postcolor'>

DAMN RIGHT!!! Although it can be a little choppy in certain places, thats one of the more minut things in the game that just make ya smile when you do it

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Nov. 17 2002,15:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GAMEER_77 @ Nov. 17 2002,14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My biggest problem is that when you die, your eyes are still open (Of course, i ain't ever seen a dead man in real-life.   )<span id='postcolor'>

You've never seen it on a movie or tv show where somebody dies and then a friend or comrade or whatever comes along and closes their eyes?<span id='postcolor'>

So now instead of "Hide Body" we should put "Close Body's eyes"

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STS_SolidSnake @ Nov. 18 2002,13:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So now instead of "Hide Body" we should put "Close Body's eyes"<span id='postcolor'>

Ugh! Who wants to touch them! "COVER WITH BLANKET" would be more dainty.

[GAMEER_77 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ Nov. 17 2002,14:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GAMEER_77 @ Nov. 17 2002,14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My biggest problem is that when you die, your eyes are still open (Of course, i ain't ever seen a dead man in real-life.   )<span id='postcolor'>

You've never seen it on a movie or tv show where somebody dies and then a friend or comrade or whatever comes along and closes their eyes?<span id='postcolor'>

No, i always thought that when you died your eyes closed.

But i discovered that wasn't true during one particular episode of Eastenders when that bald headed guys wife was hit by the car (Not steve )

What if your blinking then you get shot?

PEACE

[FallenPaladin 0]

I`ve seen a lot of bodies on photo or in the teaching videos we had to watch when we got our medic training in the Bundeswehr. I can`t remember any of them with closed eyes, that may be because of the way you die in war. Death can be terribly instantly, e.g. many of the dead german soldiers from Stalingrad, that I`ve seen in a book even had their arms put in the air or the legs like they were still running. They were killed instantly and because of the cold they stayed like in the moment when they were hit. A picture that really burned itself in my mind was that of a german soldier who was shot when he was walking to get his meal. His face was still showing signs of surprise, shock and pain.

And even if you die not instantly in war you suffer until you die. Your wounds may be so bad that you`re screaming and shaking all time until you take your last breath. And when you are dead then your face still has this look of pain and agony, eyes open. In vietnam it was common to close the dead`s mouth by binding the chin up.

Death comes very rarely with closed eyes, most times maybe when you die asleep. Don`t take the smooth easy way of dying granted you saw in the old western movies.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Sorry for getting offtopic with my post above.

As long as the gameplay and the atmosphere is great in OFP, noone should care how the bodies look like. It`s only a simulation and playing should result in feelings of joy or thrill, not in terror because of real looking dead people!

[Azz -GUN- 0]

heres my $ 0.2

Well a lot of my freinds are playing Battlefeild 1942 so i decided to bite the bullet and buy it so i could play with them.

well hum...

I dont see why people prefer it from OFP.

it's a bit easyer to learn. than OFP you can learn BF in like 10 Minutes.. and OFP Takes a lot longer.

the only optics it has are on sniper rilfes it seems.

and all the other aiming is done with a crosshair. not exactly rocket sience. you just appere in and out of vehciles in seconds. no actuall in and out action... uhhh

i could go on moaning all day about it actually.

it has some strong points however. grenades bounce....if you throw one in to a wall in BF it bounces back at you and you have time to run like hell and get away.

and i was in a tank and a jap threw a potato masher at me and it bounced off and you heard it . it was kinda cool.

the actuall terrain is more detailed. but i doubt it is much more detailed than OFP at full whack.

i would think online it's faster paced than OFP..but hell if i had the choice what i wanted to play it would be OFP.

I played it for 2 hours...got a bit sick of it and then decided to play some OFP.

[FallenPaladin 0]

BF is a mix of UT2003 and CS with a WW2 background and vehicles. I have it too, it`s nice with good graphics, but far away from being a threat to OFP. Even OFP TDM is way better than anything in BF