Walking On Moving Vehicles

[BraTTy 0]

I risk and see that this topic may be closed,I'm chancing it.I just want to say something.

I see Placebo close a topic and say it was already being discussed,I don't see where.

I am confused about the statement that I saw that walking on moving vehicles is not possible in ARMA.

I really don't care if we can't walk around in the back of a 5T Truck and shoot your weapons (Altho check out this pdf that says that in VBS1 you can do this) http://www.virtualbattlespace.com/vbs1_improvements.pdf

With my extensive testing in OFP:Resistance I know that you can walk on moving vehicles and fire your weapon.Its when you stop walking you fall thru.

My Kaga Aircraft Carrier experiments along with moving platforms I know you can do this.(invisible roadways setvelocity (maybe it is setpos as you can only setvelocity vehicles) matching the carrier)

You can take off and land a plane also.

I believe using only geometry rather than the roadways it has opposite effect.(You stay when not moving,fall thru when the host moves)

I have tried several solutions including trying to keep the soldier moving and even forcing animations and messing with animation settings ,but to no avail.I believe it all has to do with keeping the object active.

Of course the vehicles could be parked somewheres when they stop.But the soldiers you don't want to work like that

Can't this be looked at again? It is very important because I really need Aircraft Carriers

[DaSquade 0]

Before this get closed (i hope not, but something tells me it will )...Why nobody asked (in the interviews etc) the question if the ArmA geo/fire etc lods will have bigger working space then the one currently in OFP (the famous 60-65m limit). This is one of the limites that caused a lot of projects to fail and lots of work-arounds.

Hope we could get an answer on that aswell, before the game hits the shops.

[chipper 0]

I read in an interview that LODs in ArmA have smooths transitions instead of instant switching ones in OFP.

Don't know if this will help anything though because I know little about LODs n modeling stuff.

[bravo 6 0]

they said in an interview that it was not going to be in ARMA.

edit: if you were able to walk in the vehicles im sure you also be able to fire from them.

[aus_twisted 0]

You cant walk on vehicles and shoot while it's moving in VBS1, BIA did post some information and a video about it but the module was never released. I guess it will be in VBS2.

[nephilim 0]

its been released withing hte convoy module.

however this was a specific build.

i think one reason y that patch/md wasnt released is that

all of the existing modules would have to be updated for the community and thats a pretty hard task.

specially encrypting all the modules for 800+ users...

[Journeyman 0]

It is actually a very interesting topic and I think more clarification from BIS would be useful mainly with regards to slow moving vehicles such as ships and aircraft carriers. This is the only area that I would like to see this feature working. IRL it is not usually practical to walk around and shoot off the back of a speeding truck anyhow! But ships for sure we need this and for mod makers waiting to start ships and carrier addons more info is needed as to whether the new engine will be more workable in this area!  

[shinRaiden 0]

Before this get closed (i hope not, but something tells me it will )...Why nobody asked (in the interviews etc) the question if the ArmA geo/fire etc lods will have bigger working space then the one currently in OFP (the famous 60-65m limit). This is one of the limites that caused a lot of projects to fail and lots of work-arounds.

Hope we could get an answer on that aswell, before the game hits the shops.

The question I've got is why in those same interviews was there so much techno-spamming of Placebo that imho it bordered on abuse. Does he sit around all day writing code or programming the engine? Is it reasonable to expect that he would know the requirements for programming custom materials data to meet the requirements of and be compatible with the engine shaders? Isn't that asking him questions that in all fairness he's not likely to know the answers to?

Right now task #1 is to arrange publishers. For that, they the publishers don't give 2 cents for a rat's arse about anything techy. There's only two questions, 1) is it finishable and 2) will it make us lots of money. Placebo's got two options, he can either spend all day squeezing Ondrej for esoteric engine data, or he can do what he's supposed to do so that esoteric engine data sees the light of day.

When BIS has organized data formated for release, it will show up on the Community Wiki. I presume, given BIS's sponsorship, that that is the intent and purpose of that site. There's also a Special Page for tracking recent changes as well. Let's see the game fly off the shelves, then let's talk about the mindnumbing technical details that the community has a fetish for.

[wamingo 1]

The question I've got is why in those same interviews was there so much techno-spamming of Placebo that imho it bordered on abuse. Does he sit around all day writing code or programming the engine? Is it reasonable to expect that he would know the requirements for programming custom materials data to meet the requirements of and be compatible with the engine shaders? Isn't that asking him questions that in all fairness he's not likely to know the answers to?

Placebo knows whether or not he's about to get pummeled by tech questions when he accepts an interview.

He could just chose the interviews that are about the plain surface of arma (ign, magazines, etc); what kind of game is it, what makes it different, what vehicles can we use, what's the theme, what kind of community, and so on. Those are the questions that a public-relations person can answer. Not tech questions.

So when he accepts to air on tigershark's show full of ofp-veteran techsavvy vultures - he is kind of asking for it...

[armandobronca 0]

I agree about the interviews.

I understand Placebo isnt a programmer and he havent an answer for some kind of tech questions.

But this is not an interview, Suma is a very active member of forums, and he can answer this question.

[deanosbeano 0]

hmm ,i thought the tiger shark interview was very good, as for the e-sports i think that was probably to soon after the wedding and he kinda forgot the basics .

overall i am glad he can practice on those shows ,because had that been publishers asking the questions, it would have had bigger consequences.

[GBee 0]

I'll quote my day old opinion -

Quote[/b] ]If you stand in the back of a truck and it accelerates, you will fall over. If if turns a corner you will fall over. If it brakes you will fall over. Now how would BIS model and animate that? Should you suffer injuries or even death if you're stupid enough to be standing? This was the biggest problem from the VBS concept videos - they were extremely unrealistic.

As great as it would be to be able to stand on or in vehicles, handling the cases where doing so would result in falls/injuries is a lot of work. Without such a system the whole approach would be something you'd expect from an arcade game.

However I do recognise that the original poster did say

Quote[/b] ]I really don't care if we can't walk around in the back of a 5T Truck

MODERATORS: Perhaps the topic title could be changed so that it's clear that the dicussion is about ships and boats, but NOT speed boats, ground vehicles or aircraft.

[franze 196]

I felt pretty let down when I heard that walking on moving vehicles wouldn't be supported. I figured there was only a %0.001 chance of that happening, but there was always hope.

If this is the case, then I assume it's safe to say that transporting other vehicles will have to remain as script trickery rather than actual vehicle transportation - unless of course, we can carry vehicles in the same form that we currently carry infantry. It's probably also safe to say that the geo and roadway limits are still there.

On the other hand, it's already been stated that ArmA will be "OFP 1.5", so I suppose it's useless to expect improvements like this.

[Average Joe 0]

Even Better, pin the bottom half down and allow upper body movement only, its still a step up right?

[deanosbeano 0]

nice idea joe

also with multiple gunner positions it will help. where i think moving around will help as well as just on aircraft carriers ,is in the cargo planes and the chinook for para dropping ,so we can actually walk out the back. an absolute nightmare i know for a programmer,but if we gonna (sorry for pun) do it lets aim high .other than that the ability to walk to the back of chinook whilst hovering would be nice and jump out.

[[aps]gnat 28]

MODERATORS: Perhaps the topic title could be changed so that it's clear that the dicussion is about ships and boats, but NOT speed boats, ground vehicles or aircraft.

huh ? Is it my imagination or hasn't the topic always said "Aircarft Carriers" ?

Any how, agree with many of you, walking around moving cars, trucks, buses etc is silly, especially if we get Multi-gun, I like many others would like to move about slow moving ships ....

But then again, if the GEO size limit is not fixed then theres little point, ArmA doesn't appear to be picking up a Naval set of addon and thus again any large units created by the community will be "hack-jobs" to bend the Engine rules.

A 60m "ship" is not inspiring, both problems would have to be solved before it could be viable "out of the box".

Heres wishin' ...........

[GBee 0]

Gnat @ Sep. 03 2006,04:15)]

MODERATORS: Perhaps the topic title could be changed so that it's clear that the dicussion is about ships and boats, but NOT speed boats, ground vehicles or aircraft.

huh ? Is it my imagination or hasn't the topic always said "Aircarft Carriers" ?

Small point, the subtitle shown in small print and light grey says aircraft carriers, the main topic says "Walking On Moving Vehicles". I just wanted to keep this thread on topic and not decend into the old moving on all vehicles arguments - but here I go anyway

I think the ability to move on aircraft carriers, ships etc has real merit. By limiting moving on vehicles to those which, in their config files, have a max acceleration less than X and a max pitch/roll less than Y etc you could offer moving on vehicles only where it would be realistic. I think binding the ability to acceleration/pitch/roll would be better than a config option to turn the ability on/off, that way mods can't unrealistically enable it on dune buggys etc

I'd love to be able to move around in the back of a C130 for example, but if the pilot suddenly decides to try a barrel roll what should happen to those people standing in the back? It would require new animations, new code and weeks of playtesting to remove all the bugs.

[Pierrot 0]

Walking on moving vehicles is even supported in BF1942. Is it quite difficult to implement it into simulators?

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'd love to be able to move around in the back of a C130 for example, but if the pilot suddenly decides to try a barrel role what should happen to those people standing in the back? It would require new animations, new code and weeks of playtesting to remove all the bugs.

unless we make it specific for para jump/cargo unload, ie green light = steady flightpath for x time and in this period no roll pitch etc and walk out back or side or whichever . or even moresimple chinook = hover =green light = get out of seat and ramp downand jump or even better side door.

[GBee 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'd love to be able to move around in the back of a C130 for example, but if the pilot suddenly decides to try a barrel role what should happen to those people standing in the back? It would require new animations, new code and weeks of playtesting to remove all the bugs.

unless we make it specific for para jump/cargo unload, ie green light = steady flightpath for x time and in this period no roll pitch etc and walk out back or side or whichever . or even moresimple chinook = hover =green light = get out of seat and ramp downand jump or even better side door.

That would work!

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Even Better, pin the bottom half down and allow upper body movement only, its still a step up right?

Wouldnt that be possible by simply making turned out gunner positions?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Even Better, pin the bottom half down and allow upper body movement only, its still a step up right?

Wouldnt that be possible by simply making turned out gunner positions?

The problem is getting the units weapon usable in the vehicle

[Sniperwolf572 758]

I asked Paul about that in GA interview, having in mind BF2-like shooting from vehicles (IE. Blackhawk). Then, the answer was no, but he said no to the customisable weapons, but later on, in the other interviews, answer was yes.

I had some interesting rounds in BF2, sniping from the Blackhawk with my friend piloting it nicely. I think it would be even better experience if it was possible in ArmA.

[GBee 0]

I asked Paul about that in GA interview, having in mind BF2-like shooting from vehicles (IE. Blackhawk). Then, the answer was no, but he said no to the customisable weapons, but later on, in the other interviews, answer was yes.

Don't want to go off-topic, but can you tell me which interviews said customisable weapons would be possible? I've only read ones which said no to cusomisable weapons but that there were some pre-modelled variations of weapons available - e.g. a silenced M4, M4 with M203 etc

[deanosbeano 0]

i think it was said in the tigershark radio interview that they are customisable,to what extent i cant remember .

back on topic, you can already snipe from the back of a hovering bas mh47e . seen it done on the fraghaus server, Zulu did it i think. altho moving is a no no.