Game physics

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I like the OFP controls as they are for players. Especially being able to look around in first person, very handy when you are prone and looking round corners.

I still have trespasser; great game

Well... great because the physics allowed you to do cool things, like use planks, steel bars, rocks etc as weapons, or to make huge rocks roll down hills, or balance stuff on top of other stuff, or run up to a T-Rex and slap it on the nose (favourite)

Storyline/ planned gameplay was v. weak though.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

More realism on the AFVs and IFVs... in fact, everything..... would be great IMO

[SilverB1rd 0]

I'v played paintball, and I can run with my gun almost on target not like in ofp where you can shoot a guy running along side you when your runing becuase the guns is swinging all over the place. there is a difference between moving fast and sprinting. Look at AA 3 differnt movement modes slow normal and fast.

[NAA_Us_Marine 0]

How about dynamic wind physics and better aircraft physics with all that fun stuff like jet washes make stalling a reality. so your plane will just drop like a rock if you stall it out make a windstream and make it so your plane wont ride as if it was perfectly flying with no turbulence or wind causing any side movement and shaking of the aircraft. uhh ohh im almost at a flightsim I better stop while im at it.

[peanuckle_00 0]

I'm going to mention the physics that actually play an essential part in combat. Let's talk about how when you sprint it takes about three seconds to slow down rather than coming to a (very unfair in mp games) complete halt, lest you stub your toes on the insides of your boots. Let's talk about how when you run into a wall real fast you end up hurting yourself. Let's talk about how when a building gets hit by a tank round the house doesn't crumple like paper. See WW2 images of houses that have been hit by tank rounds. I think that the game should detect whether or not an apache or airborne something or other is about to hit a building on its way down and like in those strategy games there's a preprogrammed animation on the way down that leads the trajectory of the helo and the animation done to the house. So like the game detects where the helo will land then programs loads the animation for the thing when it hits, the explosion, who gets injured, etc. Let's talk about when two cars collide that there's usually two very messed up cars and they don't just pass through each other. Let's talk about how when an object is on top of another object and the bottom object moves the top one does too.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

say boah... are y'all some kinda preacher? Strange method of communication you have there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> think that the game should detect whether or not an apache or airborne something or other is about to hit a building on its way down and like in those strategy games there's a preprogrammed animation on the way down that leads the trajectory of the helo and the animation done to the house. So like the game detects where the helo will land then programs loads the animation for the thing when it hits, the explosion, who gets injured, etc.<span id='postcolor'>

One thing... only possible if the helo or aircraft has no pilot or no engines... because otherwise a good pilot could avoid the crash. And this is basically what happens anyway, its just that the animations aren't realistic (crumpling, physics)

[uiox 0]

Yes game physic :

Some command for have the internal value relates to OFP physic, or in the comref (gravity, wind, rubbing, air density, etc..).

Some commands for use the internal routines of OFP, why recreate if they exist?

_Range = getRange ["Heat120", velocity, theta,height]

All of this specially for addon scripter, addon with events (marvellous idea) are more powerfull and easy to script.

This example is related to M109 command view, with the getrange the scripter can give to player precise informations.

[peanuckle_00 0]

No, I'm not a preacher yet. I'm just saying that if the helo is dead and on its way down then the computer should start loading the animation for whats going to happen if the sucker hits into a building or hits into the ground and everything should change accordingly. Like, there should be an animation done to the house for when a helicoptor hits the top of it or something lands on top. If you look at strategy games the houses usually just 1. catch on fire, 2. completely crumble into a pile of rocks, or whatever based on what happened to it. I think thats how to go about a destruction animation for the buildings in ofp. Make the pc determine what happened to it then match up the correct animation for what it should look like.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peanuckle_00 @ 06 May 2003,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I'm not a preacher yet.  I'm just saying that if the helo is dead and on its way down then the computer should start loading the animation for whats going to happen if the sucker hits into a building or hits into the ground and everything should change accordingly.  Like, there should be an animation done to the house for when a helicoptor hits the top of it or something lands on top.  If you look at strategy games the houses usually just 1. catch on fire, 2. completely crumble into a pile of rocks, or whatever based on what happened to it.  I think thats how to go about a destruction animation for the buildings in ofp.  Make the pc determine what happened to it then match up the correct animation for what it should look like.<span id='postcolor'>

That could kind of work, but I would personally prefer a more dynamic system, where the damage can be diffrent depending on where the chopper hits, how fast the chopper hits etc. Also say a chopper is coming down over a building so the animation of the building been crumbled is been loaded up, then the chopper swerves and misses the building, what happens? Does the computer then cancel the animation? I think it would just be better to havea system if a shell hits a building, it gets a chunk blown out. Not computer detects shell coming towards building and loads up animation of building getting chunck blown out. That system could be quite CPU intesive. What if there are 20 shells all in the air at once? Does the computer have to load up a shell hit animation all within a few seconds? Don't know where I am going with this... If it doesn't make sense, ignore.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Thats what I meant, it doesnt make sense to pre cache the animations because its not predictable what will happen. And its already in the game, it just so happens that the animation for a helicopter hitting a building and the building beign destroyed by a shell are the same... but they dont have to be. Its not that revolutionary.

PS dont be a preacher, they are evil evil creatures.

[Skul 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">dont be a preacher, they are evil evil creatures.<span id='postcolor'>

What about a philosopher?

[Romolus 0]

Changing the physics of planes and choppers would be nice.

I understand that OFP will never be a flightsim and that the handling of planes and choppers should be possible for everyone.

But it wouldn't hurt if planes and choppers don't behave that different from their real counterparts.

Like beeing able to steer the chopper while ascending and not just beeing able to slow the chopper down with turning or flying up to the moon.

For planes it wouldn't hurt if turning doesn't slow the plane down too much and if you don't have to pull the stick all the time just to keep the plane airborne.

Those things don't make the handling harder for beginners but will help ppl alot that are used to flightsims.

A good solution in my eyes would be to make much more of the variables editable for addons that control how vehicles behave.

[bn880 5]

My view on this is work on simulation as much as possible and add it to the difficulty settings.

[1B1KSniper 0]

I just want some semi realistic water effects, like having water at multiple altitudes. I mean, who wouldn't have fun blowing a dam and running from the ensuing 100 foot wall of water suddenly rushing downstream...

Or just simple things like streams and stuff.

IMO, a decent engine like the RF one for terrain damage would also be good, it wouldn't have to be too realistic, just show some minor craters and stuff.

[Necromancer- 0]

There is one thing that is not yet mention in this thread....

If you blow a mobile object with about 24 satchel charges, such as a Jeep, it should not turn into a wreckage and fly high into the sky then crash somewhere where the wreckage is still intact....... such as Jeep tossing.

Instead it should just blow up in pieces and/or vaporize.

[1B1KSniper 0]

That's a very good point. Or, if you shoot a jeep with a tank, it would have an enormous hole in it.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ 08 May 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is one thing that is not yet mention in this thread....

If you blow a mobile object with about 24 satchel charges, such as a Jeep, it should not turn into a wreckage and fly high into the sky then crash somewhere where the wreckage is still intact....... such as Jeep tossing.

Instead it should just blow up in pieces and/or vaporize.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it is actualy possible to vapourise something in OFP1. A long time ago for fun I laid lots and lots and lots of satchel charges next to a vehicle (Abrams I think). When I set off the stachel charges (there was something like a 100 of them) the vehicle dissapeared, and I didn't see it again. Either it went so high so fast I didn't see it, or it was obliviated.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

It went so high you couldnt see it / went off at an angle so far you couldnt see it. Things dont vapourise in OFP.

[Othin 0]

Things flying 300 up to the air after being hit is quite annoying. This ties back to the orginal topic of this thread. Nothing in OFP has weight. The only thing that seems to really matter is intertia.

I'm not sure why things don't vaporize either, wouldn't it actually make mp games faster if a plane that was shot down was deleted and a few random "mechanical gibs" were created instead? Add a directory to the pbo where the addon maker throws burnt tires, bent sheetmetal, and whatever other pieces that would be called when the orginal plane or object is deleted.

The only question to this is what would determine an explosive kill? Kill values? If a rocket has a kill value of 1500, and a jeep has a overall armor value of 500 there would be an overkill of 1000 and it would delete the model and call the gibs maybe. I'm not sure I'm happy with that either though since we'd like to see more realistic armor values implemented.

Kind of OT, but I would also like to see a ragdoll implemented. Nothing takes away from the realism of a mission like seeing a dead enemy soldier flying through the air with his rifle floating a few inches away from his hand only to land headfirst in the ground like an arrow. If a body dies the weapon they were holding should immediately be dropped. Just like the vehicles, there should be a degree of damage that a body takes before it's utterly destroyed and gibed in some way (think LGB falling on a platoon).

[Col. Kurtz 0]

I definetely agree that things should be able to be vaporised. Nose diving into the ground at about 600km/h in a plane resulting in the plane bounding around and flying up into the air is not right. It should just explode into a fireball and all that would be left would be chared remains. And yes, LGB landing ontop of soldiers...

[peanuckle_00 0]

I'd like the BIS team to go more into detail about the human body's ability to perform under injured conditions. I'd like there to be more damage specific zones such as getting hit in the chest, arm, and so on. I'd also like the medic's job to be more complex. At least it could look more complex based on the wound. I'd also like BIS to research geo mod technology, or at least pay the guy who created it and capitalized off of it. Or who didn't capitalize off of it and let the secret out. Poor guy.

[ntstlkr 0]

Cheers All,

Speaking of physics and inertia, how about the ability to move within a moving vehicle? No more cargo positions. Being able to carry a vehicle in a C-130, and not have the thing sit there when the aircraft moves (same for all the ships like the aircraft carriers being worked on.)

This would also allow you to drop ramp and walk off the back end for a true HALO jump.

Thinking of that, how about increasing the allowable heighth/altitude limit. We have tons of high quality aircraft (ironic for a ground action based game) restricted to flying in the same altitude level.

NSDQ!!

[ntstlkr 0]

...and another thing..

Of the games I'ved played I would rate America's Army the best for modeling realistic body movement (ability, stance, effects on movement from exsertion).

Being able to "carry" objects in a rucksack (extra ammunition, etc).

The water thing would be nice (since so many games out there now include that; e.g. DFBHD, IGI2, VN:LOS, etc).

Ability to increase soldier armor value through body armor (flak jackets in VN).

Language translators with military background to edit/review dialogue (if you're gonna play an American soldier, talk like one).

Differing quality of night vision equipment (i.e. a AN/PVS-4 is not the same as a later model PVS-7, and generally speaking, compared to Western equivalents, Eastbloc NV equipment stank).

Thermal observation equipment mode. The biggest difference between West and Eastbloc armor (in reality) lay not just in armor value but targeting aquisition and fire control. The West had moved to thermal viewers more than a decade before the East even began experimenting with it. They are still woefully behind today. The East didn't lack for using passive NV for target aquisition, but it runs a very distant 2nd place when compared to what thermal viewers can do.

I realise, though for reasons of balanced play, they may have purposely left this off.

Oh, and how about true "indirect" fire ability. A 155mm HE/DPICM, when fired at a target 25 K's away should be hit by that 155mm.

Speaking of DP/ICM, assigning the "ammunition", like the DP/ICM round, CBU's, ALCM, etc, the ability to "carry" submunitions.

More to come I'm sure...

NSDQ!!

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ntstlkr @ 09 May 2003,16:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Ability to increase soldier armor value through body armor (flak jackets in VN).

<span id='postcolor'>

Flak jackets do not provide any protection from small arms fire, they just hold you together a bit better till you can see a medic.

[ntstlkr 0]

Cheers All,

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Flak jackets do not provide any protection from small arms fire, they just hold you together a bit better till you can see a medic.<span id='postcolor'>

Having had to wear/carry one for 12 years, you can say I am quite aware of a flak jacket/kevlar vest's limitations. That said, note that I didn't specifically say that they should make you impervious or invulnerable to small arms fire. That wasn't even their purpose.

Protection against shell splinters and fragments/shrapnel. Even then, they never specify making the wearer impervious to those effects, only that they increase the level of protection. Countless studies concerning (in those previous circumstances) causes of battlefield casualties made creating the "armored vest" a prudent investment.

Battle in close quarter & urban environments such as Hue, exemplify the utility of the FJ. Notice in historical documentation, the more US Marines wore it than otherwise when given a chance (and the operational circumstance dictated. Obviously it would be ill-suited for troops conducting a recon patrol).

That said, again, the ballistic protection afforded by a vest/jacket is determined by more than just the material it is made from. Weave of the cloth and layering is configured for what the vest/jacket is intended for. The old FJ/KV were configured for low velocity framentation as opposed to high velocity pentrators (bullets). (Then) A good bullet proof vest made a poor flak jacket, and the same the other way around.

However, as stated on the V/J, and in the accompanying manual, while not designed primarily for protection against small arms ammunition, the FJ/KV does increase the overall level of protection to the soldier and may afford enough of a ballistic barrier to mitigate SOME small arms fire.

A man with a FJ/KV is better off than one without.

It hasn't been until very recently that the level of protection has been increased to include small arms fire. Obviously improvements in manufacturing and in some of the material used can be attributed this. Improvements in material configuration also played an important part. The vests today are still made of kevlar (spectra in limited numbers), but woven and layering has been improved.

I noticed also that there has been some disparagement of the helmet to provide protection. In reality, much like the FJ/KV, the helmet wasn't designed so much to stop small arms fire but to provide protection against shell fragmentation. The old "steel pot" couldn't stop much of anything beyond a .22 cal peashooter.

However, the "K Pot" has been proven to provide protection against small arms ammunition up to 7.62 mm at medium range (at least). This was demonstrated not only by the countless trials it was subjected to but an example given in the US "Urgent Fury" operation in Grenada. A trooper from the 82nd Airborne Div was shot in the head (200-250 m distance I think?) with an AK-47. The round didn't penetrate, but was stuck in the kevlar. The shot was made dead on too, almost no angle of deflection. The troop got off with nothing worse then a ringing headache and sore melon from the blow of the impact of the round.

When I was with 1st bde, 3rd Ar Div, our S-3 went out to the qual range to test the helmet for himself. We all watched as he 6 rounds from an M16A1 into it from 100 m, then a clip from a .45 cal at 20 m. No penetration (though it was worthless by then).

The "K Pot" (also used to be known as the "Fritz") is probably the first military issue helmet to be proof against small arms.

Of course, some improvements in material have been made over the years, but suprisingly few. Spectra can't be used (as of yet) for it's unfortunate property of delaminating over time and use.

Of course, nothing yet protects against a face shot.

So where does that bring us? Besides the end of an atrociously long rant? Just that if you've been one, then you wear it like everyone else if given a choice.

A soldier in OFP, wearing body armor should have increased protection (armor level) than one who doesn't. Doesn't make him impervious, just lessons the effects of a grenade going off nearby say. The guys not wearing vest gets killed, but the guys wearing survive (wounded maybe, but alive and pulling triggers).

NSDQ!!