ability to destroy firearms

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

What part of 'Collision detection is the most cpu intensive thing the engine has to do' is unclear?

[Norris 0]

I don't think it's the collision detection that puts the most strain on the engine. I believe it has to be the AI as it is constantly computing.

[bedlam 0]

now that is making sence.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I don't think it's the collision detection that puts the most strain on the engine. I believe it has to be the AI as it is constantly computing.

And you're wrong.

Collision detection is usually done dozens of times PER FRAME (OFP is slightly different - but its still the highest CPU use.) I really wish people would get off their lazy arses and find out about a subject before opening their mouth and speaking whatever is floating through their heads.

[Frisbee 0]

Think about it. Every split second the location of certain coordinates of points on the models are compared with *all* the other "hitpoints" of *all* the other models around them.

If hitpoint A comes into contact with hitpoint B, compare their speed, mass, material, etc. And then calculate what happens to these hitpoints, and conversely their models, and then do it again if that change affects another model in any way.

And btw, createvehicling is just a retarded test, try it in the way it would be under normal circumstances, not some artificial conditions.

Have two 400 man strong groups open fire on eachother and see if it lags.

[Gollum1 0]

Ability to destroy firearms = pointless.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Have two 400 man strong groups open fire on eachother and see if it lags.

Will you please explain why bullets are needed for collition detection. Soldiers falling from the sky have to be checked if they are colliding with eacother or anything else on the island just as bullets right?

If i placed 400vs400 soldiers that would be 800 soldiers + 800*X bullets. When you have 2 groups with 400 soldiers firing at eachother there is active AI that targets and engages and decides whatever they decide. To be honest I think 400 falling soldiers have more to do with collision detection than soldiers shooting at eachother. If you have AI then AI will take CPU and you dont know how big the collision detection part is and how big the AI part is.

Again, please tell me why you need bullets for collition detection, it makes no sense to me. To me it seems like every object that can collide uses collision detection.

And as I said the 400 falling soldiers were lagging more than the 400 LGBs (do you count these as bullets?), maybe because the soldiers wiggle alot in the air and the bombs dont.

Stop telling me to use AI because AI has nothing to do with collision detection, they just lagg as hell. The FPS went down to 30 already with 10*8 soldiers so dont say AI doesnt lagg (when they wer just running).

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Waaahhh I dont understand this and I cannot be bothered finding out how it works!

You don't understand it. Others, not just me, do. Would you accept that and either learn about it or just shut up about it?

[Madus_Maximus 0]

The LGB's WILL explode though, (unless you somehow stop them with a script or whatever). BUT, the soldiers may not die when they hit the ground, thus it needs more CPU time to detect if their damage is sufficiant to kill them. Also bullets are used as each shot isn't a 100% garentee'd kill so the engine has to detect if they've recieved enough damage to be destroyed.

P.S.

AI infantry laggs more because each one individually has a process and an animation to play.

[Fork122 0]

I think destroyable weapons would be cool, like in Black Hawk Down when the guy gets his M16 shot out of his hand. But I don't think it's as cool as some other things that could take the place of it in game, like if there were tanks with really cool textures and models etc, that'd be higher in priority, I believe, than this.

I think what people are trying to say is that the AI need to be trying to shoot each other because thats the kind of game that OFP is, a game where people shoot each other. And to be a true test they need to be calculating all the other processes that involve how the AIs engage and destroy the enemy. It'd work great if OFP was a game where we ran marathons and fell from the sky.

That's just what I think people are trying to get to though. I don't know much about how OFP runs either.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think what people are trying to say is that the AI need to be trying to shoot each other because thats the kind of game that OFP is, a game where people shoot each other.  And to be a true test they need to be calculating all the other processes that involve how the AIs engage and destroy the enemy.  It'd work great if OFP was a game where we ran marathons and fell from the sky.

I didnt see anyone say the AI needs to be shooting eachother and not the weapons  

The test was to see how much more lagg it would be with extra hit areas. The test had nothing to do with how much an army of AI would lagg. If you dont understand what people are talking about, try not to comment on it until you do.  

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I didnt see anyone say the AI needs to be shooting eachother and not the weapons

The test was to see how much more lagg it would be with extra hit areas. The test had nothing to do with how much an army of AI would lagg. If you dont understand what people are talking about, try not to comment on it until you do.

And try not making up tests which don't test anything to do with the subject in hand if you don't understand the subject

[InqWiper 0]

I didnt see anyone say the AI needs to be shooting eachother and not the weapons  

The test was to see how much more lagg it would be with extra hit areas. The test had nothing to do with how much an army of AI would lagg. If you dont understand what people are talking about, try not to comment on it until you do.  

And try not making up tests which don't test anything to do with the subject in hand if you don't understand the subject

The test was about how much more lagg you would get if there were more areas on the soldier to hit (the weapons). Because I can not add more hit areas on the soldiers I add more soldiers. The problem is that you think collision detection is only active when you have a bunch of AI shooting at eachother. Since you think AI is needed and you think bullets are needed I feel no point in arguing with you because you clearly have a view on what collision detection is that I dont understand.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

The test was about how much more lagg you would get if there were more areas on the soldier to hit (the weapons).

And at that, it fails, because you don't understand how it works.

Quote[/b] ]

Because I can not add more hit areas on the soldiers I add more soldiers. The problem is that you think collision detection is only active when you have a bunch of AI shooting at eachother.

When have I ever said that? I suggested you should have them shoot at each other as well, but I've never said that was the only part of collision detection - but then, I understand it a lot better than you.

Quote[/b] ]

Since you think AI is needed and you think bullets are needed I feel no point in arguing with you because you clearly have a view on what collision detection is that I dont understand.

Since you have no clue how collision detection actually works, nor how much work it is for the engine, I think you should stop posting crap about it.

[Jinef 2]

I say that if it is plausible then implement it, if it doesn't get in the way of anything else that is. You have to take in to consideration the different engine of OFP2 and more powerful PCs etc. I'm sure BIS could do it if they wanted to.

[bedlam 0]

thx jinef lol

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Let me make this clear:

It COULD be done. It WOULD put a lot more strain on the engine, having to do loads of extra collision detection, which is the MOST intensive thing in the engine in terms of CPU time.

And I've yet to see a decent reason for wanting it in; something that will add much to the game.

It would be nice.... but it's not needed, and it 'costs' too much.

Miss this?

[bedlam 0]

how about if the soldier have taken a massive damage  like a explosion the weapons on him is destroyed randomly?

destroyed = removed.

thus not needing more hitpoints.

[Friedchiken 0]

Maybe instead of the weapon being broken, how about having the gun-holding (right-handed?) arm being shot with a regular bullet (not shrapnel), and then the limb is disabled. I just figure that from all the books I read, you can't shoot with a broken arm. (well, make it a random effect because I heard in WWII people were so motivated that there were many who fought decently with shot limbs.)

This effect might also be cool for non-lethal scenarios like capturing an armed officer for bonus points...

[sputnik monroe 102]

Actually weapons are destructible right now , though not when some one is holding them.

  Here is a quick way to test it,

1. Put a any soldier on desert island (under your control)

2. place an ammocrateII

3. Preview the mission, once in the mission get a satchel from the crate.

4. go drop your rifle then put the satchel charge on or near it it.

5. go a safe distance and detonate the charge.

6. Go back and exam your destroyed smoking weapon that you are no longer able to use. Works with any weapon even addons.

  It also works on rocket launchers.

[maddogx 13]

Do you guys realise that your entire discussion has been completely pointless?

1. Yes, destroyable weapons would be cool

2. Yes, collision detection is the most CPU-consuming aspect of the game

3. NO, weapon destruction would not cause much more 'lagg' as you call it, if any at all

Did you ever notice that certains parts of soldiers are especially vulnerable? Like a head shot causes instant death, a leg shot impairs walking capability, arm shot decreases accuracy. When a soldier is hit the game already detects which part of him was hit! Now you might think 'Wait a minute, the gun isn't really part of the soldier!'. In theory you are correct, but concerning OFP you are not. The gun is part of every soldier's Geometry LOD, and believe it or not, the game could easily know when the gun was hit and the gun could easily be disabled without any further CPU-usage. It just hasn't been implemeted by BIS, for whatever reasons.

Quote[/b] ]Actually weapons are destructible right now , though not when some one is holding them.

 Here is a quick way to test it,

1. Put a any soldier on desert island (under your control)

2. place an ammocrateII

3. Preview the mission, once in the mission get a satchel from the crate.

4. go drop your rifle then put the satchel charge on or near it it.

5. go a safe distance and detonate the charge.

6. Go back and exam your destroyed smoking weapon that you are no longer able to use.  Works with any weapon even addons.

 It also works on rocket launchers.

This is because a dropped weapon is considered a building by the engine. Sounds strange but it's true.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote (InqWiper @ July 22 2004,14:06)

The test was about how much more lagg you would get if there were more areas on the soldier to hit (the weapons).

And at that, it fails, because you don't understand how it works.

Maybe not, but he was on the right track, as opposed to you.

By the way, those '400 soldiers' and 'it's raining men' tests completely missed the point, as Baron whats-his-name LXXVIII correctly pointed out. If you want to test extra collision detection (which, like I've already said, is completely pointless anyway) you would have to add a new part to a soldier model, I don't know - an extra arm or something, then put it in the Geometry and Hit-points LODs and then test the frame rate. I believe the difference would be negligable.

That's it. I hope I made my point.

[Mope528 0]

extra work for engine?? not really

more work if gun works than just making a clicking noise if it don't

I like the idea. but I think it should be on the difficulty menu, if ya know what I mean. so you can choose to turn it on or off, and then servers could decide if they want it on or off, and make them able to CHANGE difficulty during games, so if they accidently leave third person on, they can turn it off.

anyone played soldier of fortune, game kinda sucks but you can shoot guns out of peoples hands, I loved that. ofp2 should have that. and I wish ofp2 had all the blood and gore of soldier of fortune also. just so when you blow up, it's more realistic. and your body parts fly around.

that would give REAL military people an idea about what they gonna see if you're using this game as a training tool. it adds to the drama, so if you get to know a civilion and stuff. and you're friends,and then you see him blown into several pieces, you could go get revenge.