Partly destroyable buildings

[Lockheed Martin-ch 0]

My point wasn't that you will end up with a building with 84 polies.  It was that the polycount will increase like 5 to 10 times.  Good luck on your project.

Yes, firstly this and with every brick of wall having simulation="thing", lag is caused very fast...

Imagine a city made out of buildings which are destroyable and you're not going to shoot only one building with your tank but bombing the whole city

[fasad 1]

Could someone with the full version of ArmA be nice enough to find out how the rubble pile is created (is it the same object ID?), and if it can be damaged. It might be possible to have say ~3 different stages of destruction for each building which is enough to keep me very happy!

[deanosbeano 0]

My point wasn't that you will end up with a building with 84 polies. It was that the polycount will increase like 5 to 10 times. Good luck on your project.

Yes, firstly this and with every brick of wall having simulation="thing", lag is caused very fast...

Imagine a city made out of buildings which are destroyable and you're not going to shoot only one building with your tank but bombing the whole city

lol the none believers

i wish you good luck with your project chaps, Arma is made for the type of scenario you are describing,i only hope you dont get al the negativity i did ,sometimes it can drain your ideas, especially when they talk of ofp classes in arma threads.

you will only need a monitoring script for your buildings and arma will do the rest with its new building destruction anims.

maybe a detructable upper floor and indestructable lower floor is absolute minimum requirement just replace upper floor with your detructed jagged edge model .?

anyway i wish you best of luck and any help or questions pls ask

i dont profess to be an expert in this field but i have many 100`s of hours invested in this scenario.

yours

DB

[Chris Death 0]

Could someone with the full version of ArmA be nice enough to find out how the rubble pile is created (is it the same object ID?), and if it can be damaged. It might be possible to have say ~3 different stages of destruction for each building which is enough to keep me very happy!

I guess it's just a new destruct type or an altered destruct

type for buildings.

Like before when damage was set to tree it was falling down

or damage: no meant that it can't get destroyed.

You will not easily be able to change it since it's hardcoded

into the engine (if so).

And DB - your previous way of doing it in ofp will not gain

anything from the changes of destruct type being made

for ArmA in that case - the technique would have just been

the same u used before.

Well maybe i'm wrong at all with my guess then you can

forgive me if you're nice.

~S~ CD

[Al Simmons 0]

The tools have not been released yet.

Making this stuff is possible with the old tools

only thing missing are normal maps

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well maybe i'm wrong at all with my guess then you can

forgive me if you're nice.

Of course i can forgive, But i will just add two things, in ofp i used buildingdestruct type , the brick would crumple.

In arma the brick will give a puff of dust and fall to fround in linear animation (so there was much to be gained by that technique in arma .

The most misunderstod thing of my own project is ,it concerns cqb small maps and differs greatly from the scenario above.

anyway by tomorrow all will be able to try it because tonight i release. so i hope you will try and give me as much critique tomorrow with a fully informed prospective ,because you will have opened up arma and actually played with the brick

[NeMeSiS 11]

Could someone with the full version of ArmA be nice enough to find out how the rubble pile is created (is it the same object ID?), and if it can be damaged. It might be possible to have say ~3 different stages of destruction for each building which is enough to keep me very happy!

I guess it's just a new destruct type or an altered destruct

type for buildings.

Unless..

We put lets say.. 4 building objects at the exact same place, all 4 resemble the same building but each version is in a different state of destruction, the buildings in a bigger state of destruction should be a bit smaller for every state, otherwise they get hit before they should (and they may need more 'armor' because of the area damage).

So everytime a building gets destroyed, it does its linear 'falling down' animation and it reveals the building behind it, which is in a bigger state of destruction.

Its alot of work to make all these buildingtypes, but i guess its less work then cutting buildings apart and piecing them together in a .wrp editor, and i think that the end result may look better too

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]We put lets say.. 4 building objects at the exact same place, all 4 resemble the same building but each version is in a different state of destruction, the buildings in a bigger state of destruction should be a bit smaller for every state, otherwise they get hit before they should (and they may need more 'armor' because of the area damage).

So everytime a building gets destroyed, it does its linear 'falling down' animation and it reveals the building behind it, which is in a bigger state of destruction.

Would stacking them work? Even though the geometry may be smaller, what about secondry damage from the explosion?

If your going to go to the trouble of building four seperate objects. You may as well delete the object with scripts once it's destroyed and replace it with the next the object that displays the current level of damage.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quote[/b] ]We put lets say.. 4 building objects at the exact same place, all 4 resemble the same building but each version is in a different state of destruction, the buildings in a bigger state of destruction should be a bit smaller for every state, otherwise they get hit before they should (and they may need more 'armor' because of the area damage).

So everytime a building gets destroyed, it does its linear 'falling down' animation and it reveals the building behind it, which is in a bigger state of destruction.

Would stacking them work? Even though the geometry may be smaller, what about secondry damage from the explosion?

If your going to go to the trouble of building four seperate objects. You may as well delete the object with scripts once it's destroyed and replace it with the next the object that displays the current level of damage.

Cant delete objects that have been put directly in the .wrp

(+imagine having scripts running for a complete city/island..)

The partly desctructed buildings should have a higher armor rating because they have already been hit by the area damage, its going to be a bitch to find out the right values i guess, but it has to be done only once

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]Cant delete objects that have been put directly in the .wrp

you can if only the base of the building is placed in wrp and the other floors are placed via a custom logic using the new worldtomodel command

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quote[/b] ]Cant delete objects that have been put directly in the .wrp

you can if only the base of the building is placed in wrp and the other floors are placed via a custom logic using the new worldtomodel command

For a whole island? Placing objects on/over each other still sounds easier to me..

But hey, what do i have to say, id better start learning to make a proper building first..

[deanosbeano 0]

ah didnt know you was doing the whole island.

i admire your going in the deep end attitude.

was just answering the

Quote[/b] ]Cant delete objects that have been put directly in the .wrp

anyway i can only give positive admiration and wish all involved a happy conclusion.

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Cant delete objects that have been put directly in the .wrp

As deanosbeano said, you only place the base or an invisible place holder via wrp. After that you can change them as normal.

Quote[/b] ]imagine having scripts running for a complete city/island

You don't, it's all done with event handlers. It's already been proven in OFP, with hundreds of buildings within the players line of sight and no drop in FPS.

There is a small example here, for anyone interested in this method:

NIM SDS Island.zip

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quote[/b] ]imagine having scripts running for a complete city/island

You don't, it's all done with event handlers. It's already been proven in OFP, with hundreds of buildings within the players line of sight and no drop in FPS.

There is a small example here, for anyone interested in this method:

NIM SDS Island.zip

Well i dont have OFP installed anymore so ill just take your word for it, if eventhandlers dont affect the performance (always assumed that they worked like @, checking every 0.5 sec..) then its probably better to use those, as tripling the object count for a city doesnt sound... advisable to me, even though ArmA should be able to handle so much objects.

[fasad 1]

SDS Island seems like an interesting proof of concept, although I found the glass is a bit silly if it means the building itself loses all geometry.

I noticed the ArmA demo building config refers to a different rubble model for each type of building, although it seems only the one model was actually finished/used. Unfortunately it seems the rubble is placed as a p3d rather than a class, but I can't be sure. I was hoping the perfect building could be replaced with a 25% damaged model, which when destroyed would be replaced with a 50%, etc, etc.. Several stages of destruction for each building would be a huge improvement over perfect->rubble, even if they are all generic. It's a lot of work though...

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]always assumed that they worked like @, checking every 0.5 sec

I guess they do in a way, but you have to remember BIS has already included them in the game. So you’re not adding any extra overheads, just tapping into the existing checks BIS use to capture object damage.

Quote[/b] ]SDS Island seems like an interesting proof of concept, although I found the glass is a bit silly if it means the building itself loses all geometry.

I disagree.....It's very silly O2 is not my strong point. After many days of trying to edit the original BIS building Geo LOD's, I decided to remove them all together. To include windows you would have to design your own Geo LOD's e.t.c with gaps for each window. But breakable windows was never the real objective. There just easier to model than actual building sections. But still lets us test damage across multiple objects combined into one.

[Sled88 0]

Any plans for a release here? The buildings looking good so far... Maybe a bit low-qual textures on some places... but all in all its fine...

I'd expect this question from a modelling noob who has no

experience with what is required to import models into a

game.

You should know better Sled.

The tools have not been released yet.

~S~ CD

Yes the tools have not been released so far... and as Al Simmons said... It isn't impossible... That's why I asked... I got enough experience with modelling that I can say it is possible! Anyway nice work! Looking forward to this!

[max power 21]

Apparently bringing a realistic appraisal of what to expect in terms of poligon count is being a 'non-believer'. At the time I posted my assessment, they were discussing how extensive this project would be. I was simply giving them a number they can expect.

Quote[/b] ]

The towns especially, deserve special mention. The individual buildings are a real improvement. The polygon count went from somewhere in the neighborhood of hundreds in OFP to over 60,000 per structure here.

Now, because these are obviously segmented structures, the buildings aren't going to jump from 60,000 polies to 600,000, but the increase would be significant. So doing a number of these buildings close together would be like having a number of dead bodies laying about in CTI or whatever. This should affect your *planning*. Deanosbeano, you don't encounter problems in the middle of a plan and then scrap it, do you? Do you feel drained when someone points out a technical aspect of a plan that you must problem solve for? I find the use of that rhetoric a little dismissive and unrepresentative.

[deanosbeano 0]

ah, it would seem your quote was included in the one i refferenced earlier and led you too the conclusion i was reffering to you.

my mistake i should have removed yur piece.

i was reffering to the old thing class type approach to detruction.

neither mentioned in arma by me or any other destruction mod in arma ,yet used as a refference to deter people.

DB

[max power 21]

I appologize, then

[dentist guba 0]

with the buildings being replaced by a different model would you be able to still make the damage area specific? e.g. if you shoot a building the side you shot falls down.

[simba 0]

buildings can very probably be destroyed parts by parts with nice animated sections of the building falling on the floor it's all up to the the creator talent, but don't espect buildings to be damaged bricks by bricks or anything like that, this would be feasible at a huge processing and manpower cost, there is a reason why some companies develloped special precessing units to render such complicated things.

[wipman 1]

Hi, destroy or tear down walls and the roof of buildings and houses that be walkable, will be enought for add much more tactical options, freedom of movement and reality recreation of the battle field; open (read destroy) walls to make fast entry/scape routes to a squad that may need it; tear down the roof with some M433 nades and then keep cleaning a upper building floor or let the HH60's clean up that floor with the M134 Minigun or things like that.

But do some houses and buildings (like that hotel building, but with objects in the rooms) partialy destroyable... will be really great; to destroy balconys where a sniper may hide or be and many other cases. Let's C ya

[Dingmatt 0]

The DSF Cloak can be used to simulate dynamic building destruction, unfortunately the damage would only be a illusion.

For example, you can blow a hole through a wall with a rpg, you just can't walk through it.

[dentist guba 0]

it would be good if roughly the right part was destroyed-this might even allow aircraft to actually end up halfway in a building when they crash.