Change the building-models)

[mr.g-c 6]

Hello BIS Developers, as you already confirmed, you are building these new destroyable-buildings in.

This is not bad but there is one point which will let it look very ugly - the old x-times recycled OFP-VBS1 Building-Models.

I hope that the building we saw so far in your public-made video, are only there to don't show your competitors (like OFP2) how the Game really will look like when its finished.... I Really hope so and of course im not awaiting any confirmation on that,

Mainly im bringin you here 6 suggestions for the Next-Gen-Buildings.

1. Houses should be Modernized, well textured with higher quality textures, more detail inside (furniture) and outside (downspout's and different shaped+clored roof-tiles).

Please look at this picture from 2005 showing GAME2:

I hope some Buildings like this will come into Arma2 instead of the ones you presenting in the already public videos.

2. ALL houses should be enterable. There is no reason why to make this odd way of enterable and non-enterable buildings. I always questioned myself why to put-in two different kinds of buildings.....

3. All Windows in this new buildings should consist of "real glass" which you can shoot into pieces (realistic please) and which should fall into pieces when a explosion is happening near.

4. The roof of Houses should sometimes Start to burn when hit by certain types of ammunition like larger Tracer-rounds (50cal+) or HE-Rounds

5. No Matter how much hits a building got, it should not always collapse totally like in ARMA1, instead a more and more damaged and even burnt Ruin should remain. I think this fits good with your destruction plans.

6. Regarding to Building Destruction: Sabot-Rounds or also known as "kinetic-energy penetrator" from Tanks Main-Battle-Guns should not make such huge holes into the Building like in your public made videos - this is very unrealistic! Instead they should fly through all Walls and just loosing a bit speed and direction.

Instead only HE-rounds(high Explosive) from Tanks Main-Battle-Guns should make such large holes in it with further shrapnel destruction behind.

Also depending on Size of a Tanks gun, the Holes should be variable in size. So a 30mm HE-Runs should make a small Hole than a 125mm from a Tank/Howitzer for example.

Regards, Christian

[mr.g-c 6]

According to the most recent screenshots appeared in (online-)magazines, the ugly recycled buildings are still in.

I don't know if you (BIS) are really planning to replace them, but i can only advice you to do so...

Due to the new screens which shows how beautiful the overall landscape, the sky and the models look, the current buildings DO NOT fit into this.

They are really really ugly.....

And what a luck, im not alone with this opinion... many subscribers of the german "pc-games" called the buildings (after they saw the recent screens) as "catastrophically ugly" and "absolutely un-fitting" into the beautiful rest.

So please, even if its not on your roadmap - change those models! Or "just" give them clear windows and modern textures.

Please its a important point for the overall look of the game.

Regards, Christian

[InqWiper 0]

1. I agree to an extent but there is a limit to how much detail you can put in before the computer starts crying.

2. Unenterable buildings are less detailed and are therefore less demanding on the computer. If all buildings were enterable in Porto with tables, chairs, paintings, rugs, glasses, china, paperrolls, magazines, newspapers, working lightswitches etc. it would be crazy.

3. Can you imagine dropping a big bomb in a town full of houses with this type of glass windows, or calling in artillery on it? Have you tried throwing a handgrenade in counterstrike source in the market on cs_italy? Its not a good idea IMO. I would like to see it if it worked obviously but I dont think its realistic. If you get your shattering glass would you then want the furniture to have realistic destruction and carpets to be able to catch fire? I think you generally demand way too much detail and if you got your way playability would go out the window (perhaps without shattering the glass  ).

4. Im not sure how realistic this is because most buildings have a rooftype that doesnt seem to be able to catch fire that easily. Its either concrete or those cheramic tiles or whatever you call them. Maybe if it penetrated the tiles it could set fire on the insulation, I dont know. This seems very much like something I would not want to divert manhours into.

5. In ArmA as it is now I dont think its completely destroyed 100%. If it takes too much damage it falls down into a pile of rubble. I think buildings should be able to be damaged to the point where they do collapse like that but there should be some levels of destruction between a pile of rubble and undamaged which I think is what they are already working on.

6. I agree that sabot rounds should not make big holes. I would like to see them penetrate the wall and most likely the whole house (depending on calibre and house type) and kill/damage anything that comes in its path inside or behind the building. I would like it if the sabot round left a smaller hole in the building but more realisticly I would prefer if it left no hole at all as opposed to a big hole which is likely what will happen. Maybe after a few sabot hits in the same general area it would create a larget hole. I think this could be solved if there was a system where HE makes more damage and sabot has more penetration. A part of the building could then have a set amount of hitpoints and you only have to fire a single HE to destroy that part of the building but you would need several sabots to reach the same amount of damage inflicted. Maybe it would actually be the same amount of shots fired to create an equally big hole straight through the building for both HE and sabot since the HE needs one shot per wall and the sabot goes through maybe 5.

[mr.g-c 6]

Well thats why its called "suggestions" and not "have-to's" or "must's"

No seriously, i would be pleased by option 1 and 6, means they are a must if they should fit into the ARMA2 look and features.

And as already discussed and mentioned here:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....1219447

The building on this pic in the first post isn't very high detailed and would most likely not consuming much more resources than the current ones.....

[stakex 0]

Ok well, to carry the disscussion over from the other thread...

I just fail to believe everything else in the game has come so far since OFP... but yet, the buildings still have to be this ugly. I mean, we don't need furniture becuase that would in fact be very load heavy... and the actual glass windows would be nice, but not needed either. But better textured, more detailed building models should be very possible in ArmA2.

In ArmA, the quality of buildings drasticlly changed from building to building. The hangers at the airport were of a high quality, while some of the buildings on the northern island were old OFP buildings being reused. But over all most of the buildings were either recycled OFP/VBS buildings.

That was fine in Arma becuase it wasn't suppose to be a totally new game, just an in-between... but ArmA2 is suppose to be a totally new game, and it needs all new buildings that fit the quality of the rest of the game. As was said in the other post... characters/trees/vehicles/grass they all look really good in the new ArmA2 shots. But the buildings just kill the look of the game, and since most modern wars are fought in urban environments..... perticular attentions should be paid to making these areas as detailed as possible.

[funnyguy1 0]

We've barely saw couple of buildings that could be placeholders from ofp/arma...Besides, I don't think this thread will change anything...

[mr.g-c 6]

I already written it in the other thread (press coverage), where i posted the site of the german PC-Magazine....

In the Article they say something like this "We will bring CQB (Close quarters battle/combat) inside cities more into focus of the player".

As i read this sentence i just could shake my head....

I hope they are not so serious and trying to put CQB into focus with non-enterable buildings

I mean, for a CQB you must be able to hide everywhere and of course in every building.

Regards, Christian

[funnyguy1 0]

Let's face it, not every building will be enterable. I think that 50% is enough to have a nice fun. It's a pure speculation though. If AI is gonna use them properly, there will be user created maps filled only with enterable buildings sooner than you think. Besides, look at my previous post.

[-Total- 0]

The more buildings that are enterable, the greater the performance hit in the end.

Maybe some buildings with stairway access to the roof and smaller ones with a room or two.

I do agree with the 50% (or less) having access.

[stakex 0]

We've barely saw couple of buildings that could be placeholders from ofp/arma...Besides, I don't think this thread will change anything...

Saying "I don't think this thread will change anything" is far from productive considering this is BIS's own Suggestion forum. You could say that about EVERY suggestion thread then, or any ideas you have every put forth for that matter. But whats the point of there being a suggestion forum if not for this very purpose?

Back on topic... if you actually look, several of the very ugly buildings are not from OFP/ArmA at all. They appear to be new, ugly buildings. And in my opinion, I think most people drasticlly over state just how much of a performace hit the game would suffer with better buildings. Lets not forget, we are going to need dual cores for ArmA2... so that does give the devs the ability to add more detail since min requierments are not going to be THAT low.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ] if you actually look, several of the very ugly buildings are not from OFP/ArmA at all. They appear to be new, ugly buildings. And in my opinion, I think most people drasticlly over state just how much of a performace hit the game would suffer with better buildings. Lets not forget, we are going to need dual cores for ArmA2... so that does give the devs the ability to add more detail since min requierments are not going to be THAT low.

Right, thats the same what i actually was thinking about.

But i looked at the recently appeared screens and i think if they would "just" spend some transparent windows instead of those ugly metal-shader covered window-places it would look definitely better.

I marked a few of the buildings in the picture here, although it seems that ALL of them in this pic have metal-shader windows...

I really hope that these buildings are "just" early placeholders...

Imagine a real CQB at the place showed in this picture, a real infantry battle in the city... with this current model-configuration its bad as you can't hide in any buildings nor shoot out of the windows...

Regards, Christian

[stakex 0]

Yea CQB's would be terrible in that city. It would be like having a battle around a bunch of squares.

[paragraphic l 2]

I don't necesarrely need indoors as long as there are places to hide in or between or underneath

Just played a MP Co-op and we where surrounded from all sides, 6guys vs at least 6groups of 5men. We had to make a run to some houses which where enterable, that really was what saved us because there was no other cover at all, no cars, bushes, trees, fences etc.

I think you would have a great Close Quarters location if you would just place lots of scenerie like the above. Offcourse places like the QG radiostation are great aswell, but the way I play ArmA I only use them AFTER having gone through the entire city from building corner to the next, and I only 'need' to enter the objective building

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ] if you actually look, several of the very ugly buildings are not from OFP/ArmA at all. They appear to be new, ugly buildings. And in my opinion, I think most people drasticlly over state just how much of a performace hit the game would suffer with better buildings. Lets not forget, we are going to need dual cores for ArmA2... so that does give the devs the ability to add more detail since min requierments are not going to be THAT low.

Right, thats the same what i actually was thinking about.

But i looked at the recently appeared screens and i think if they would "just" spend some transparent windows instead of those ugly metal-shader covered window-places it would look definitely better.

I marked a few of the buildings in the picture here, although it seems that ALL of them in this pic have metal-shader windows...

I really hope that these buildings are "just" early placeholders...

Regards, Christian

One of the buildings you have marked can be found in several places in ArmA and actually is enterable. The one on the left. It can be found in several major areas. I found 14 of it on Sahrani. I think its a good building and I would like to see it in ArmA2. You also marked a building on the right which looks to be enterable at ground level if you look at the left part of it. Its hard to say from this picture exactly how many of the buildings are enterable because some might look like they arent when they actually are because of draw distance for example. Looking at the landscape it looks like video settings are on low so dont be surprised if some details of the buildings are not drawn in this picture.

The hind looks very good, the town in general looks good and I like the new building to the furthest left. Will be very nice if that one is enterable.

[JeRK 0]

Quote[/b] ] if you actually look, several of the very ugly buildings are not from OFP/ArmA at all. They appear to be new, ugly buildings. And in my opinion, I think most people drasticlly over state just how much of a performace hit the game would suffer with better buildings. Lets not forget, we are going to need dual cores for ArmA2... so that does give the devs the ability to add more detail since min requierments are not going to be THAT low.

Right, thats the same what i actually was thinking about.

But i looked at the recently appeared screens and i think if they would "just" spend some transparent windows instead of those ugly metal-shader covered window-places it would look definitely better.

I marked a few of the buildings in the picture here, although it seems that ALL of them in this pic have metal-shader windows...

I really hope that these buildings are "just" early placeholders...

Regards, Christian

You can't tell if they're enterable, they look that way cause of the LOD.

[bravo 6 0]

im not sure but i think the mentioned buildings are new, as new models. I never saw those buildings before..

The most right building have a garage if you notice.. dunno if BIS consider as an enterable building.

For CQB as BIS want for this game, i think its imperative that those buildings are fully enterable else their ambition will be failed as their purpose.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]One of the buildings you have marked can be found in several places in ArmA and actually is enterable. The one on the left. It can be found in several major areas. I found 14 of it on Sahrani. I think its a good building and I would like to see it in ArmA2.

Yes you right with that. The only position to "shoot out" of it is on the roof.

Quote[/b] ]You also marked a building on the right which looks to be enterable at ground level if you look at the left part of it.

Yes but i marked the buildings to show that they haven't any windows..... thats what is really bad i think.

Quote[/b] ]I like the new building to the furthest left. Will be very nice if that one is enterable.

Yes me too. However with open able windows it would be even better.

General:

1. Even in Arma1 it was partwise "better" because in the most enterable buildings over there, we had simply no glass/no metalshader windows at all - we just had those "window shaped holes" which is/was great for CQB i think, because you could shoot out of them...

2. I don't think they will fully throw away the buildings from the first post even if they were made for the dynamic destructiuon. They look pretty good and were a lot of work to create i guess. They could just need a few "darker" and in the Arma2-ambiance fitting textures and then they are ready to go.

Regards, Christian

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

One of the buildings you have marked can be found in several places in ArmA and actually is enterable. The one on the left. It can be found in several major areas. I found 14 of it on Sahrani. I think its a good building and I would like to see it in ArmA2.

Yes you right with that. The only position to "shoot out" of it is on the roof.

All windows in that building are made of glass and you are able to both see and shoot through them you nut  

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

You also marked a building on the right which looks to be enterable at ground level if you look at the left part of it.

Yes but i marked the buildings to show that they haven't any windows..... thats what is really bad i think.

Again. The building on the far left has real windows. I am willing to bet my copy of ArmA on it. I have shot through those windows myself. Go into the editor and see for yourself. You can find it for example in the factory about 400 southwest of Bagango. Like two of us have said now it is not possible to tell for sure which buildings are enterable and have "real windows" because of LOD.

[mr.g-c 6]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

One of the buildings you have marked can be found in several places in ArmA and actually is enterable. The one on the left. It can be found in several major areas. I found 14 of it on Sahrani. I think its a good building and I would like to see it in ArmA2.

Yes you right with that. The only position to "shoot out" of it is on the roof.

All windows in that building are made of glass and you are able to both see and shoot through them you nut

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

You also marked a building on the right which looks to be enterable at ground level if you look at the left part of it.

Yes but i marked the buildings to show that they haven't any windows..... thats what is really bad i think.

Again. The building on the far left has real windows. I am willing to bet my copy of ArmA on it. I have shot through those windows myself. Go into the editor and see for yourself. You can find it for example in the factory about 400 southwest of Bagango. Like two of us have said now it is not possible to tell for sure which buildings are enterable and have "real windows" because of LOD.

Ohh damn, i need to check that out.....

Regards, Christian