Information from Digitex!

[Zander 0]

All that ppl complaining about huge island and no ragdoll animation - change your point of view and take some tactic lessons. OFP/ArmA isn't corridor gameplay with tunnel vision.

If you only want shoot'n'scoot, run'n'gun and similar go getsome of countless unreal shooter elsewhere.

arma is so realistic...no need to add proper physics right

[Zander 0]

enough about the ragdoll, it has been discussed to death many times. it will not work will with ArmA much less with ArmA II.

both these games are far too big for ragdoll to be implimented properly and with good performance.

all we need is more death animations, and a means in which the game can pick the best animation to match the last action of the soldier (no more crouched dude standing up flailing his arms around and spinning befor dropping like some overly dramatic bad actor).

as for what they should do about players who are hit by explosions and large caliber projectiles, simple.. GIB.

not only would it look better than the "flying manikin" we have now. it would also mean alot less polygons on screen, and better performance. what to do about the gear from a gibbed player? remove it, if the player was ripped to bits, then you can be sure most of his gear went with him.

i asked some years ago how to script guns so they fire textured objects to simulate tracers, "scripters" told me it could not work because of performance, some months later someone "had the idea" to make such a script...

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Apparently COD4 has a mixture of ragdoll and animations, making the deaths very realistic and almost chilling (a reviewer said this, so it's probably unbiased).

[Dynamax 0]

All that ppl complaining about huge island and no ragdoll animation - change your point of view and take some tactic lessons. OFP/ArmA isn't corridor gameplay with tunnel vision.

If you only want shoot'n'scoot, run'n'gun and similar go getsome of countless unreal shooter elsewhere.

arma is so realistic...no need to add proper physics right

i would hardly call ragdoll "proper physics" when it comes to simulating a dead body.

every game that i have played that has ragdoll physics makes the dead look just as the name implies.. they look like ragdolls, they have no mass, looks fake and take away from the immersion that a well animated character gives to the game.

some of you need to stop watching all them action movies and sit down and look at real life combat footage of real poeple and how they react.

[Johnnie_Walker 0]

MP. Far Cry which is almost 3 years old had quite realistic Ragdoll that was synchronized very well in MP.

Far Cry/CryEngine 1's ragdoll effects were calculated clientside (I worked on an mp shooter licensing the far cry engine), as are most if not all MP games with ragdoll. Most games drop carried weapons at the spot of death and calculate ragdoll effects on the client. Bodies can end up in different positions on different clients, but as the weapons to pick up are all dropped in the same spot (which is synchronized), there is no need to interact with the bodies, and thus, clientside ragdolls are ok. Arma needs bodies to end up in exactly the same spots on server and client, because all clients need to interact with the bodies themselves. This makes clientside ragdolls undesirable, and serverside/synchronized fully physicallized ragdolls impractical (as the server has to send the bone position of the ragdoll, not just an animation state flag, to all clients).

One workaround could be a hybrid of animation/ragdoll, like Killzone 2, where the bodies play an animation but are physicallized during the animation (clientside) to behave slightly differently, even though they end up in the same end location (thus not causing transfer problems). This would need to be a local client effect, and only displayed on nearby characters to not have a noticable performance hit (rather like how animations for far off infantry are simplified).

Pretty nice explanation of the problems involved using ragdoll physics (or clientside hybrid animation/ragdoll) on a game like Arma/Arma 2.

Thank you.

Imho I would like my precious cpu time being used on things more important.

[Average Joe 0]

I personally enjoyed the size of ofp Islands such as everon, malden etc alot more then sahrani, they wern't too small and not too big therefore you could utilise the space alot better and end up waisting alot less....who can say they fought over every piece of Land on Sahrani? Too much is left unused whereas I got so acustomed to the size of ofp maps that I felt the battles alot more worthwhile and memorial then I ever could on sahrani, who could forget the epic fights over montignac?

BIGGER is not always BETTER

[Shadow NX 1]

Somehow i think proper ragdolls are a must have in a combat sim that seems to be released 2008.

Along with walking in vehicles this will add a lot, like dead gunners hanging out of their turrets, still moving if their vehicle moves of a bump or something.

Personally i would really love to see that.

But im already happy when they at least work on this crazy HDR system they use.

[simba 0]

if I had to choose between better destruction or ragdolls, it would clearly be the first.

[NoRailgunner 0]

I've seen ragdoll "physics" in games - they were false and closer to action movies then to realism. Most of the kids believe those urban myth that bullets penetrates body affect backward move or this sniper shot through optic sight in "James Ryan" or shooting at car/truck will result explosion, fire, smoke etc.

Walking in vehicles will be nice but transport vehicles like ships, planes aren't made by BIS and imho they will never do this. I don't know the reasons why BIS refuse - its feels unreal to have some heavy MBT's at islands and no proper transport unit.

[TrunkzJr 0]

I've seen ragdoll "physics" in games - they were false and closer to action movies then to realism. Most of the kids believe those urban myth that bullets penetrates body affect backward move or this sniper shot through optic sight in "James Ryan" or shooting at car/truck will result explosion, fire, smoke etc.

Walking in vehicles will be nice but transport vehicles like ships, planes aren't made by BIS and imho they will never do this. I don't know the reasons why BIS refuse - its feels unreal to have some heavy MBT's at islands and no proper transport unit.

True, but is it much more realism for a dead body to lay flat on the ground, and watching it slide down a hill without even rolling lol or blowing one up and watching it fall to the ground like in a cartoon :P sure Ragdoll isn't that close to what realism really is, but its sure better then what arma has.

[Deathstruck 375]

arma is so realistic...no need to add proper physics right

"no need to add proper physics ? "

Quote[/b] ]needs ragdoll and a better sound engine.

This is what you writed up there, pretty confusing mate

[Shadow NX 1]

I've seen ragdoll "physics" in games - they were false and closer to action movies then to realism. Most of the kids believe those urban myth that bullets penetrates body affect backward move or this sniper shot through optic sight in "James Ryan" or shooting at car/truck will result explosion, fire, smoke etc.

Walking in vehicles will be nice but transport vehicles like ships, planes aren't made by BIS and imho they will never do this. I don't know the reasons why BIS refuse - its feels unreal to have some heavy MBT's at islands and no proper transport unit.

Well i take a body that adapts his pose to the objects he lays on anyday over the current system of soldiers always spooling down their same ballet like dances.

If i think of how a soldier gets shot near a wall and then lays in front of it back to the wall instead being in the wall with his head then i think this will add and look more real.

Also i may say that asking for ragdoll isnt the same thing as saying oh i wanna see bodys flying around after each shot and such.

At least i would find it very odd to release a 2008 game that has a thing not included that is kinda standard today.

Also if BIS does at they say and this time makes multicore CPUs useable i dont see why they shouldnt add it, it could be switcheable in the options for those that like the ballet dances

[SaBrE_UK 0]

Well BIS seems to have achieved a lot feature-wise in ArmA2 during quite a short time (although I suppose they have worked on it for a while before we saw an y info). Maybe in the entire year they have left they'll revamp the engine quite a bit, perhaps including ragdolls or a new animation system. A year is quite a while.

[simba 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well i take a body that adapts his pose to the objects he lays on anyday over the current system of soldiers always spooling down their same ballet like dances.

If i think of how a soldier gets shot near a wall and then lays in front of it back to the wall instead being in the wall with his head then i think this will add and look more real.

Also i may say that asking for ragdoll isnt the same thing as saying oh i wanna see bodys flying around after each shot and such.

At least i would find it very odd to release a 2008 game that has a thing not included that is kinda standard today.

Also if BIS does at they say and this time makes multicore CPUs useable i dont see why they shouldnt add it, it could be switcheable in the options for those that like the ballet dances

Arma II is our last chance to ask for features, we must now think deeply before asking for something, do you really really think shadow that ragdolls will add anything to gameplay ?

because that's were lies the probs in Arma imo...

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Quote[/b] ]Also i may say that asking for ragdoll isnt the same thing as saying oh i wanna see bodys flying around after each shot and such.

Exactly. That's what I hate about this forum.. Some people are just too narrow minded to actually realize that ragdoll physics can be implemented in a very realistic way.

If everyone thought that way we'd still be playing pong.

[simba 0]

Could anyone explain what's so exciting about ragdolls ?

I sometimes too get all sweety in my bed for let's say... lock on like heat exhaust,

but with a bit of distance it's just the kind of thing you totally forget when playing.

[baddo 0]

Well... ragdoll could fix one very ugly looking thing in OFP/ArmA... when a soldier dies, he stays in the position of the last frame of the death animation. This means that the soldier can have his feet or hands high up in the air, right after receiving a headshot. I personally don't think that a dead body will get cold and stiff so fast... it should adjust itself to the terrain. This is one thing in ArmA in which ragdoll can help. But this is not a major thing, it would only bring better eye-candy and a better feeling of realism, but wouldn't change the actual gameplay much. Fixing this particular point with ragdolls would affect more the feeling you would get, not the actual way you play. But can't ragdoll bring so much more than just this?

Edit: I must add that the animations in ArmA can look very robotic... there is for example a scene which plays when you are in the main menu... a close look at a soldiers head. The head of the soldier turns in a very very robotic way, I can't see anything human in that. It looks like a mechanical robot which turns an arm from one extreme to the other. This problem with the animations certainly needs improvement. Is it micro-animations or what. Add random variation into the movement of body parts. Add damping to the joints (simulate muscles restricting the movement). Et cetera.

[simba 0]

Hi Baddo, how are you mate ?

if ragdolls is only about fixing those "bad dead man position", it doesn' sound very exciting...

About real gameplay/look improvements I don't see much either,

of course shooting with a shotgun at close range could be cool, and seing bodies falling from roofs too,

or medics dragging bodies and you could see the limbs being pushed by the stones and branches,... but it ain't much.

Just a question Baddo, in this list what's the order of priority for you ?

- ragdolls ( as seen in other games)

- deformable terrain. ( explosions digging holes, or placing trenches from editor)

- improved destruction and penetration effects. ( holes in walls, cutting trees,...)

- true FLIR ( each vehicle would have it's own radar signature)

- better AI ( shooting from corners, hiding behind objects, covering fire,...)

[Guest Ti0n3r]

I'd say all 5

[simba 0]

^ you cheater

The thing is BIS won't be able to do all of them properly, as you know...

imo that's what happend for Arma, and things weren't done properly because they didn't have enough time for polishing or getting deeper in dev.

examples ?

- multi turrets don't work properly for planes (who wants a B-17, AC-130H sory can't be done properly)

also making the turrets closer to hand held weapons should have been done (recoil, shell ejection,...)

- according to maruk, AI was exctensively reworked, anyone feels a big difference compared to ofp ?

- new destruction are very simple, the bridge destruction is done via .rtm anim file, it's safe to say that nearly no work has

been done to improve destruction, appart from impelementing .rtm for non human

units and making the buildings sink into the ground.

- HDR implementation is also partial, the blur effect only works when aiming or using camera,

it should work as soon as anything is close to player's face.

- now a little icon appears when close to ammo crate or vehicle, this is nice, but they should have found a real alternative to

action menu.

- new anims are very nice, many people seem unsatisfied with them, more testing could have outlined the flaws prior to release.

- ...

Now I'm happy the way they did it, even if there are some glitches left.

For Arma II, I don't wan't to have semi done destruction engine or too few new gameplay features

just because a part of the team has been dispatched for ragdolls.

[TrunkzJr 0]

Cartoon Animation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKCTwwAFTZM

Ragdolls no matter how you look at it, would still be better then what ArmA is using now. Adding a few new death animations isn't gonna help the game, maybe be a nice thing as a patch for ArmA, but to have ArmA2 with the same stuff only small extra stuff here and there, isn't enough to sell the game like they did ArmA.

[simba 0]

^

there won't be a ragdolls patch for Arma.

Well you can talk as much as you want about ragdolls but I doubt this is a priority for BIS anyways.

[dmitri 0]

Still prattling on about ragdoll?

I want simulation, overheating MG barrels and LAW backblast. Enough with the eye candy features.

[funnyguy1 0]

Still prattling on about ragdoll?

I want simulation, overheating MG barrels and LAW backblast. Enough with the eye candy features.

Hell yeah. I want the ragdoll debate to be stopped right now. Ragdoll this, ragdoll that. Who needs it anyway?

If the AI was good enough (and it isn't...yet), I would buy the game even if the bodies disappeared after death.

[operation madman 0]

You guys know that there is a better Death enimations then ragdolls and it is new but exclusive and i think you need to pay alot of money for the people to allow you to use it in a game.

It looks like ragdoll but with no errors!! It is extremely close to real life physics!

But arma of course wont put this in so who cares.

I agree we need realism not eye candy. Aswell as a diffrent feel and better peformance.

What i dont get is that they can release arma 2 very very fast and make all of us really satisfied. And that is to take 1/10 or 1/20 of the features/ addons in VBS2 and boom DONE!!