Game physics

[meio_maluco 1]

I think that fisics like that should be optional for pll that have the PPU hardware.

For example 64Bits CPU users in Farcry have new and upgraded effects that 64bits CPU supports, But Normal Cpu users can play with them in internet.

So if we could have something like this for ppu in ofp2 would be great. Also i think ofp2 should have full 64bits support.

[Bordoy 0]

Think abit more weight (or mass ) should be added to the units. Like if a HEAT round lands rignt next to me, would i go flying like you do in the game? I'm asking because i've never been hit by one in real life.

[FatNinjaKid 0]

I know that realistic penetration has been requested multiple times, but has somebody also provided some formulae, tables and even applications doing all the calculation?

Don't think so, so here you are:

WWII penetration tables

Guns'n Armor (combinedfleet.com)

Formulae

from globalsecurity.org

[Scorpio 0]

Not sure if this has been raised before, but I realised that the player's in-game interaction with objects is very important for realism and I'd just like to outline it.

What I'm refering to is not the way the player interacts with the game, but rather how the player's actual in-game character figure interacts with objects.

For example, what we currently have in OFP:R is characters's just appearing/jumping out of vehicles instead of opening the door can getting out. This certainly would have raised some eyebrows when first seen by players, and not in the good sense. It's stupid, especially with large vehicles such as tanks.

So more custom and random animations for each action on an object would be needed. However, I think this might increase file sizes a tad, but that's only from experience of OFP:R custom anims...so OFP2's outlook might swing to a bright side.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Not sure if this has been raised before, but I realised that the player's in-game interaction with objects is very important for realism and I'd just like to outline it.

What I'm refering to is not the way the player interacts with the game, but rather how the player's actual in-game character figure interacts with objects.

For example, what we currently have in OFP:R is characters's just appearing/jumping out of vehicles instead of opening the door can getting out. This certainly would have raised some eyebrows when first seen by players, and not in the good sense. It's stupid, especially with large vehicles such as tanks.

So more custom and random animations for each action on an object would be needed. However, I think this might increase file sizes a tad, but that's only from experience of OFP:R custom anims...so OFP2's outlook might swing to a bright side.

There is a photo from OFP2 of a solider who's exiting a 5t truck in a realistic way.

[Scorpio 0]

Cool...well, I'd like to see that; I couldn't find it anywhere in the press release pics - would you mind posting that?

Anyway, regarding these animations, maybe they would make random ones aswell, or faster ones when in combat/slower ones when at ease.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Here it is:

[funnyguy1 0]

Isn`t it ArAs?

Besides, he could just jump out this truck...

The only thing  changed I think is that the door is open.

[Scorpio 0]

Isn`t it ArAs?

Quite frankly, I don't have a clue what's the difference between them. Thanks Ti0n3r, by the way.

Anyway, another couple of things I'd like to point out (sorry if already stated), and I'll make it quick:

Vehicle physics - tanks being able to rotate their chassis and turretsvery rapidly needs to be fixed; Car handling/turning - some vehicles, especially the HMMWV, tend to "stick" when trying to make even fairly sharp turns.

Vehicle equipment/instruments for diagnostics and status - no HUDs please...would be nice to see more instruments, especially in aircraft, to view vehicle status and armament.

This would especially nice also in a M1A2 where it has high-res flat panel screens for diagnostics.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

I dont think that is ArAs. That solider model seem to be the same as in OFP2.

Edit: A hint, look at the vest.

[Rommel 2]

In OFP, there is a big problem with friction: I mean the vehicles, chopper, cars, planes, tanks, etc... will slide down the hills too easily, like they where covered with soap (even if the hill is not very steep. Too often, you've to run after you chopper when you disembark, because it is sliding down the hill.

I hope this will be corrected in OFP2.

Dont you hate it when your spectaculary landed SpecOps Piper on a cliff as if vertical landing, just slides off and into the ocean...........

[bravo 6 0]

Not sure if this has been raised before, but I realised that the player's in-game interaction with objects is very important for realism and I'd just like to outline it.

What I'm refering to is not the way the player interacts with the game, but rather how the player's actual in-game character figure interacts with objects.

For example, what we currently have in OFP:R is characters's just appearing/jumping out of vehicles instead of opening the door can getting out. This certainly would have raised some eyebrows when first seen by players, and not in the good sense. It's stupid, especially with large vehicles such as tanks.

So more custom and random animations for each action on an object would be needed. However, I think this might increase file sizes a tad, but that's only from experience of OFP:R custom anims...so OFP2's outlook might swing to a bright side.

There is a photo from OFP2 of a solider who's exiting a 5t truck in a realistic way.

Here it is:

Would be nice if that realism exists.

That picture dont show anything as you reported.

I dont see him getting out of truck. Hes just standing there next to open door.

Maybe the truck have option to open doors like some BAS Choppers.

OR maybe that truck is an object like the Ural wrecked (object) we have in OFP ( example )

That Pic Doesnt prove anything.

Dont take this criticize the wrong way.

Im a person that thinks critiques are good for evolution of OFP Community.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Anything is better than the teleportation crap. Even if the only change is that they actually open the door before they teleport to the driver post.

The mods will kill you for quoting that picture.

[Hauk 0]

Hmm, I also think that picture proves nothing. I look forward to seeing the driver of a truck disembark properly from the 5T.

But here's another suggestion. Say the truck is shot up in an ambush, and confusion is running rampant, I don't think a soldier/driver is going to calmly open the door to get out of the truck, he'll shove the door open and fall to the ground straight away.

What I'd like to see is maybe three animations depicting Safe/Combat/stealth, modes of getting into a truck. It'd be good for combat as it'd add realism to a firefight.

Hauk

[Chopper_Dave! 0]

shoot,physics thats easy for me to say

Ragdolls.

And since alot of people are complaining about CPU issues that could come out of this, then i say include the ragdolls, but for people that have a CPU issue they could turn the ragdolls off

Postal 2 did this.

Devastation did this.

MOH:PA sorta did this.

[bravo 6 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.

i agree, ... and how about to change when a chopper (little bird) gets upside down so easly..

I hate when that happens so easly and chopper stays intact..

if your good enough you can take off with an upsidedown chopper, Isn't that just ridiculous

[SpecOp9 0]

It would be so funny being in the midst of a "get in truck" animation, and then getting shot at and the soldier just plops off the seat on the floor... ohh man

[bravo 6 0]

<ul>why Trucks don't have flat tires? (only jeeps have)

Why dont Trucks/jeeps blow when cross mines?

Jeeps/Trucks could have spare tires for the eventual ocasion if needed

also jeeps with sand bags could help reducing the damage on the jeeps when they cross a mine

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]also jeeps with sand bags could help reducing the damage on the jeeps when they cross a mine

Aha. And I always thought that mines are placed on the road or surface. So packing sandbags on the jeep is rather useless, isn´t it ? Vehicles with separate independant armoured passenger cell have bottom armor, side armor, armoured glass and a vehicle bottom that is formed to guide off the blastwave.

You pack sandbags on vehicles to have certain cover of shooters and splinters but not to minimize mine damage....

Quote[/b] ]Why dont Trucks/jeeps blow when cross mines?

It´s in the nature of mines....

Most of the older ones are constructed for weight activated ignition. The covering plate only gives in if a certain weight rolls over it. This way you don´t waste mines on soft targets in a convoi that can be taken out with infantry weapons, while armoured targets can´t be cracked with regular infantry weapons and therefore the weight of the vehicle makes the target. In case of HMMV and mines it´s about the vehicle class the HMMV is in. As it provides slight armour ingame it has been put under the armoured section that fires off mines.

There are billions of minetypes. Maybe we will see a broader selection of them in OFP 2.

The rest of your post is crossposting from this thread:

Quote[/b] ]

-about mines: it should exist mines for armor/light vehicles such as tanks/jeeps.

In OFP it ridiculous when a truck touch a mine and doesnt explode but a hummer does explode.

realism thread

[bravo 6 0]

Quote[/b] ]also jeeps with sand bags could help reducing the damage on the jeeps when they cross a mine

Aha. And I always thought that mines are placed on the road or surface. So packing sandbags on the jeep is rather useless, isn´t it ? Vehicles with separate independant armoured passenger cell have bottom armor, side armor, armoured glass and a vehicle bottom that is formed to guide off the blastwave.

You pack sandbags on vehicles to have certain cover of shooters and splinters but not to minimize mine damage....

<span style='color:blue'>( 1st )</span>

Quote[/b] ]Why dont Trucks/jeeps blow when cross mines?

It´s in the nature of mines....

Most of the older ones are constructed for weight activated ignition. The covering plate only gives in if a certain weight rolls over it. This way you don´t waste mines on soft targets in a convoi that can be taken out with infantry weapons, while armoured targets can´t be cracked with regular infantry weapons and therefore the weight of the vehicle makes the target. In case of HMMV and mines it´s about the vehicle class the HMMV is in. As it provides slight armour ingame it has been put under the armoured section that fires off mines.

There are billions of minetypes. Maybe we will see a broader selection of them in OFP 2.

<span style='color:blue'>( 2nd )</span>

The rest of your post is crossposting from this thread:

Quote[/b] ]

-about mines: it should exist mines for armor/light vehicles such as tanks/jeeps.

In OFP it ridiculous when a truck touch a mine and doesnt explode but a hummer does explode.

realism thread

<span style='color:blue'>( 1st )</span> the sandbangs on jeeps are to protect passengers from mines explosions.

<span style='color:blue'>( 2nd )</span> you didnt get what i ment with last post. More type of mines should be implemented. Armor mines and also mines for light vehicles

maybe you should read better before post

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]( 1st ) the sandbangs on jeeps are to protect passengers from mines explosions.

This is complete bullshit.

Of course I could turn into a fortune teller oneday, who knows, but your "suggestion" was:

Quote[/b] ]Why dont Trucks/jeeps blow when cross mines?

It´s not us to imagine what you want to tell you with it. Maybe you should be more clear and precise and elaborate your ideas so that we can actually "imagine" the reasoning behind it.

I can only read what you write. If you write a very short sentence on a complete issue and then complain that you got misunderstood, you should rethink your posting but not my reasononing based on that little sentence.

For me it looks like you´re simply trolling around with little content trying to boost your postcount in little time with minimum amount of typing work. That´s what it looks like.

Do a reality check on sandbags on vehicles...jeez.

Do you apply the sandbags under the bottom ?

[bravo 6 0]

Quote[/b] ]( 1st ) the sandbangs on jeeps are to protect passengers from mines explosions.

This is complete bullshit.

..bullshit?!

maybe you should get better informations about sandbags in jeeps.

For me it looks like you´re simply trolling around with little content trying to boost your postcount in little time with minimum amount of typing work. That´s what it looks like.

Do a reality check on sandbags on vehicles...jeez.

you should look at my numbers and yours. (i dont care about number of posting, that comment was completly unnecessary and stupid)

instead of spamming about me plz comment about the topic

anyways..

an explosion by a mine in a jeep without sandbags should be different from one with sandbags. Also the effect on the passengers.

\edit: sandbags are in and out the jeep, under the seats and feet not under the jeep it self, ill try to post some pics.

[Fork122 0]

anyways..

an explosion by a mine in a jeep without sandbags should be different from one with sandbags. Also the effect on the passengers.

I really doubt that you could fit enought sandbags in a jeep to protect the crew from a landmine or IED type device.

This site (I found it on google, still checking information) suggests that a bullet could only penetrate 15 inches of sandbags.

Quote[/b] ]Research by the British Army suggested that a typical bullet used in the First World War would only penetrate fifteen inches into a sandbag.

I assume the British Army would have done their research with their Lee Enfields back then ( I think it was SMLE Mk.III?).

So if WWI small arms fire can penetrate 15 inches of sandbags, how can sandbags piled into a jeep stop the effects of a roadside bomb? The only real purpose would be to stop small arms fire directed at the crew of the vehicle.

[hellfish6 7]

Sandbags limit the amount of damage from shrapnel and debris. The US has used sandbags in humvees for years - when I was overseas we put sandbags in our humvee because we were worried about UXO. The idea was that sandbags are additonal protection against a blast than the aluminum floors of the vehicles. That said, it doesn't actually make the blast weaker, but gives the passengers a few more percentage points in their chances for survival.

[jakerod 254]

Actually I think he is right about it. I think they put it under the seats to protect against small mines. It probably wouldn't do much but it might slow down sharpnel just enough to save your life. It is placed ontop of the engine block to protect that from small arms fire though I know that for sure.

EDIT: I guess Hellfish beat me to it