Game physics

[ejik 0]

I think the aim should be worse after running, and not unlimited "fastrun" when you go forward/strafe at the same time.

[Baphomet 0]

The aim is worse after running if you notice. The cursor bobs up and down just as if you were wounded in some cases. However yeah. That diagonal running thing works well when going up steep inclines too.

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]10). Weight and space based equipment space. Not slot based one.

This would allow us to take for example 2 assault rifles at once, or assault rifle and machine gun, but less ammo. Additional cargo space (like backpack) would allow soldier to carry more equipment. Same things regarding vehicles.

Only planes and helicopters should have slot/weight based equipment space

after thinking about that, you could possibly implement it like Neverwinter Nights did... ie, weight: after carrying so much you could only walk not run, then after that only walk slowly. this would also work well with a revamp of the current way you pick up ammo and load them in vehicles. instead of making 6 journeys between the bodies and the vehicle just to load their rifles, you could do it in 1 or 2... if you see what im saying

HIdden and DAngerous 2 impliments this type of loadout configuration *almost* perfectly.

It's space/weight which determines how much a solider can carry, and the more eqipment a solider carrys the slower he will be able to run. Also, the less weight the soldier is carrying, the longer he will be able to sprint before tiring out and slowing to a jog. THe time a soldier can sprint is very low (2 seconds or so) if he is carrying 50 lbs of gear, while, if he is carrying no gear, he can sprint for several seconds before tiring out. Also, you can jump in hidden and dangerous but only if you are not tired. SInce it's so easy to get tired, jumping is not a factor during MP firefights. (NO BUNNY HOPPING!)

You can't magically whip out a grenade if it's in your backpack. You have to go to your inventory and move it from your backpack to your pouches, before you can access it. YOur pouches consist of 12 'slots' for in which you can put various items..heavier items sometime take more than one slot (like large first aid kits and explosives). You can carry two weapons of any kind. One in your hand and one over your shoulder. Depending on your soldiers strength rating, if you have two weapons, you might not be able to fill up your backpack and pouches.

Again, OFP2 should try and emulate and/or improve on the Hidden and Dangerous 2 method of configuring soldier loadouts. It's simply fantastic.

[Goeth 0]

I agree, hd2 has perfect system and bis should really consider implementing something similar to ofp2.

[TheManWithManyIdeas 0]

An obvious fault in the OFP physics was the falling and slope reactions. Although it wasnt wholly important, in order to further explore the possibilites of OFP2 then these should be repaired.

[esti_the_big 0]

Personally, My gretest wish is to implent a good base of physics in the code...

Especially including better physics for all vehicles, and better physics for humas. Ragdoll might not be gameplay important, but in todays gaming it's simply standard that must be achieved by high quality games such as OFP, as well as inverserse kinematics that allow realistic recoil effects for gun shots and bullet hits.

Then theres realistic damage system. War is terrible, it's about death and destruction. Death was included more than enough in OFP1, now they also gotta think about destruction. A small town after a battle must look like it experienced the most terrible time ever. Meaning i don't want strangely distorsed buildings but realistic damage visuals, such as realistic explosions and fires and destroyed buildings. same for vehicles, they gotta look like they were destroyed by some terrible force. It's not always realistic seeing a small car distorsed a little after the impact of a massive bomb. The car must be ripped apart by the force, debris lying around everywhere, same for other vehicles (planes shouldn't be able to be recognized as planes anymore after a ground crash with 1500 kmH, tanks should be more destroyed-looking). A dynamic physics system implenting this would be great.

And about terrain deformation...

This IS something that can bring gameplay up to a new level. Terrain deformation for realistic cover taking etc, and shooting holes in buildings. if OFP2 includes enhanced indoor combat, real-time deformation of buildings is a must-have, especially in a large scale war sim such as OFP, where the war isn't only inside the building, but outside as well, which can strongly influence indoor fighting (where a misplaced bomb crashing into a building can open up completely new hiding and camping possibilities...)

All the other stuff mentioned would be logical developments that can be achieved physically correctly using these physic rules that should be implentet in the source. Weight management, jams etc is all a thing of scripting etc...

[Pathy 0]

This has probably been raised, but i'd like to stand freely in a moving C-130 and not fall out the back end/floor of it....if BIS could make the physics as such that it would be possible to walk around inside a plane, then imagine the parachuting possibilities (no more "eject", suddenly appearing in the air....)

ive kinda done this with a non moving aircraft (an-12 with ramp down i think it was, put 1000 feet in the air, then use a HALO style script)....

[TexMex Leprechaun 0]

It would be great if you could crash land your planes, and chopers. I hope BIS will make the damage much more realalistic, like broken glass, and even broken landing gears.

[FragMASTER 0]

I would like to have realistic chopper flying, kinda like in x-plane but maybe they dont have to do torque effect. I would want to be able to do barrel rolls and inverted spins maybe even a split-S, just something other than upright flight all the time. I can get inverted sometimes but it's a hard thing to do.

I have nothing against planes as I can invert them whenever I want and stay inverted, and do a lot of aerobatics.

[KJAM 0]

Quote[/b] ]Commanding a platoon through its interface is simple.

(from the PC GAMER revier guy)

you silly person........you cant command THAT many people.

overall i think he was milked on arcade shooters

oh and great suggestions guys im sure BIS will surprise us

yeah i'd like to see a bit more spectacular helo maneuvers too

Quote[/b] ] I can get inverted sometimes but it's a hard thing to do.

i can do that easy.........sometimes not on purpose.........but then i kinda crash LOL

[Phleep 0]

I have probably been playing Trial Bike too much but I think an additional weight related function should apply to the motorbike vehicle class.

If you can pull back on the handle bars or push them to control your pitch whilst airborne it would guarantee a few less "face plant" landings and make the class of vehicle more attractive. Mouse look would be fine for controlling this.

Also, when the suspension bottoms out or you don't land on your wheels you should sustain damage in any vehicle class - and since there should be locational damage in OFP2 this should start by ruining the suspension and buckling axles.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you can pull back on the handle bars or push them to control your pitch whilst airborne it would guarantee a few less "face plant" landings and make the class of vehicle more attractive. Mouse look would be fine for controlling this.

Also, when the suspension bottoms out or you don't land on your wheels you should sustain damage in any vehicle class - and since there should be locational damage in OFP2 this should start by ruining the suspension and buckling axles.

Remember, at its heart OFP is a combat sim, not a racing sim.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Nonetheless, in combat a tank that drives over a cliff (too fast) is in trouble.

[Phleep 0]

Quote[/b] ]If you can pull back on the handle bars or push them to control your pitch whilst airborne it would guarantee a few less "face plant" landings and make the class of vehicle more attractive. Mouse look would be fine for controlling this.

Also, when the suspension bottoms out or you don't land on your wheels you should sustain damage in any vehicle class - and since there should be locational damage in OFP2 this should start by ruining the suspension and buckling axles.

Remember, at its heart OFP is a combat sim, not a racing sim.

True, but it would increase the opportunity to drive vehicles appropriately in given environmental conditions - regardless of how many mortars are raining down on you.

How many of us have driven jeeps down cliff faces to get somewhere in a mission?

How many of us have lost control on a bike merely because of an uncontrollable nose dive?

To encourage people to take the smoothest route in multiplayer - instead of bypassing bottlenecks with insane driving stunts - you need a penalty for driving on nasty terrain. A damage bar is just not the same.

Punctured tyres, ruined shocks and suspension, buckled axles or wheels, bent chassis. There are heaps of ways of making it more exciting to survive on the battlefield.

Anyway, detailed vehicle damage has been discussed amply already. We just haven't listed all the ways it can be caused.

[KJAM 0]

speaking of damage i hope the models will have changed from the "origami" look when they are destroyed that just looked plain stupid, and also planes should be able to slide across the ground depending on how well you make an emergency crashlanding, wings rip off (maybe) if you leave the gear down that gets ripped off etc

Quote[/b] ]How many of us have driven jeeps down cliff faces to get somewhere in a mission?

yup ive done than, and strangely somehow i managed to get the jeep to become an amphibious vehicle managing to cross the river in nogova near Davle (or wherever the bridge is)

[Gollum1 0]

LOL Kjam "origami" is a fitting way to put it.

But yes, rougher terrain and penalties for going off-road would really count, in MP everyone always go the straightest route.

[Baphomet 0]

I don't necessarily agree with higher terrain penalties in some cases. I think the cars when going offroad for example were rather pathetic. I've been in a few "offroaded" cars in my day and you can still go fast over dirt or grass... it's just you can get suck really easy and you slide around a lot.

You do however have to punch the accelerator hard and that usually can cause you to spin out when doing a sharp turn.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Yes, but you must remember that when you are driving off-road its probably been fairly flat grass or mud. IRL it could be marsh, severe 'babies heads' (whatever they are called - the big lumps of grass that are a pain to walk over), rocky outcrops, heather, etc.

Also bear in mind that the 'rocky' texture on the hills can br driven up no matter how steep it is (when it should be a cliff)

[InqWiper 0]

It would be really nice with a way to climb over obstacles like in Hidden and Dangerous 2. That feature was REALLY sweet

[kdog 0]

I kind of like OFP's limited movement. It puts the focus on the bigger picture, rather than micro-managing the body of your computer charachter through some clumsy interface..

kdog

[Friedchiken 0]

yeah, but an extra climb feature (not jumping) does wonders and maybe the action "menu" interface should be streamlined. And maybe an option for mod-makers to create new key-bindings for new features.

[Sid 0]

Why not use "Havok" physics?

I mean, it's a cheap enough module to purachase and incorperate into a piece of software, and the physics are totally customizeable, and include believable collision detection and the lot.

Thanks for your time,

-Sid

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why not use "Havok" physics?

I mean, it's a cheap enough module to purachase and incorperate into a piece of software, and the physics are totally customizeable, and include believable collision detection and the lot.

Thanks for your time,

-Sid

And when it comes to realistic weapons and vehicles and stuff?

The havoc engine seems to FPS (not framrate) to me, it would be worse than BF 1942

[Sid 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why not use "Havok" physics?

I mean, it's a cheap enough module to purachase and incorperate into a piece of software, and the physics are totally customizeable, and include believable collision detection and the lot.

Thanks for your time,

-Sid

And when it comes to realistic weapons and vehicles and stuff?

The havoc engine seems to FPS (not framrate) to me, it would be worse than BF 1942  

Ouch.

Well - upcomming titles (Such as HL2) - have very convincing Physics, using Havok.

[FW200 0]

I would love to see rockets turn with you.

This is a bit of a fuzzy description so I will explain it with a pic:

http://aa.domaindlx.com/FW200/Fokkerturn.jpg

I am using a rocket model with 2 modeled tracers to simulate multiple guns firing using the "zuni" principle. However , as you can all see , when I turn the rockets ("tracers") remain horizontal. I would like to see that the rockets turn with the same angle as the plane