Dynamic destruction, who needs it anyway?

[funnyguy1 0]

I was wondering what's so great about the dynamic destruction, and do I really need it. Well, maybe when 100% of buildings will be enterable, and the AI will own in CQB. And it's not gonna happen in ArmA 2 I think.

from the arma 2 - building destruction blog entry

Hard to do and CPU demanding:

 

Quote[/b] ]AI reacting to changed environment

Solution for multiplayer

Technology optimized enough so that it could be used extensively in large environments

A building creation pipeline which would allow us to create such destructible buildings efficiently

What they did for ArmA 2:

Quote[/b] ]We did some redesign, learning from the problems we had, and after that the building destruction system for ArmA 2 should look like this:  

Based on ArmA destruction

Buildings having multiple parts collapsible independently

Physical simulation used for falling debris / wall parts

No permanent debris left

So, if they added static debris after the destruction, and gave the AI ability to recognize it, it'll be a perfect alternative for dynamic destruction.

Quote[/b] ]We think a solution like this will bring most of the benefits of the dynamic building destruction to the game, but will be a lot easier to implement (and prepare data for), will require a lot less CPU power for simulation and will be friendly to both AI and multiplayer.

In other words, if they'll tweak this system for ArmA 3, they'll have more cpu power to use on physics and AI. Besides It's kinda like with the enterable buildings. I bet the majority of gamers wouldn't have their rigs ready to enjoy playing in a dynamically destructable environment, and personally, I preffer having a 3/4 of buildings being destructable the arma2-way, than 1/8 of them being destructable dynamically.

What I'm trying to say is that we don't need the dynamic destruction yet. I mean, it's not that necessary. What we do need is a decent (dynamic maybe?) destruction of vehicles, proper simulation of human body injuries and better physics.

[AWDrift 0]

I don't mind it not being there. It's not a common enough feature for me to miss it when I start up ArmA after playing other games.

[bravo 6 0]

if your looking for realism i think its important. No doubt about it.

[dslyecxi 23]

if your looking for realism i think its important. No doubt about it.

"Realistic" dynamic destruction of structures is ridiculously more complex than what you see in any games currently around, unless you think that "realistic" dynamic destruction means that a single grenade will take huge chunks out of buildings as in some games.

Lets not throw the r-word around so casually - even doing something as simple as having a single brick wall that reacts appropriately to the full range of munitions, from handgun to grenade to tank shell to bomb, is far, far from trivial. Doing that to an entire building, let alone an entire city, is asking a hell of a lot. If you think a small independent developer even has a snowball's chance in hell of doing that kind of full-blown simulation-level dynamic destruction, or that it would work over multiplayer in the current day and age, you are simply mistaken and have expectations that cannot be met by reality.

[funnyguy1 0]

Exactly...ppl used to talk about how hl2 was realistic in terms of dynamic destruction, then what else, crysis or something...that's neither fully dynamic nor necessary imho.

[AWDrift 0]

Even in Hl2 & Crysis Destruction was limited. Crysis didn't have destructible cities or even large destructible buildings for the most part. HL2 just didn't let you destroy much other than wood planks.

The only fps games I can think of that really let you tear up everything are Red faction and Battlefield Bad company.

[smellyjelly 0]

Even in Hl2 & Crysis Destruction was limited. Crysis didn't have destructible cities or even large destructible buildings for the most part. HL2 just didn't let you destroy much other than wood planks.

The only fps games I can think of that really let you tear up everything are Red faction and Battlefield Bad company.

I thought BF: BC was supposed to also use the predefined destruction, the same as Arma II?

[stakex 0]

Even in Hl2 & Crysis Destruction was limited. Crysis didn't have destructible cities or even large destructible buildings for the most part. HL2 just didn't let you destroy much other than wood planks.

The only fps games I can think of that really let you tear up everything are Red faction and Battlefield Bad company.

I thought BF: BC was supposed to also use the predefined destruction, the same as Arma II?

BC is going to use staged destruction, not dynamic destruction. They are going to call it "dynamic" or "totally destructable" environments.... but its all spin. Its the same thing BIS/BIA showed off in VBS years ago with better graphics and particle effects. Thats all.

Dynamic Destruction will become more important as time goes on. The system BIS originally prototyped for Game2 will likely be the norm for games 5-10 years from now. Perhaps not so much in multiplayer, but at least in single player. Id personally take DD in single player with no/limited destruction in multiplayer. A fully DD system could be used in single player and a second, ArmA2 style system used for MP. Sure its going to take a lot longer to do, but it would be worth it for the copies of the games you would sell from such a feature. And as internet speed improves, and PC's get better, such features will become much easier to pull off.

However, the only issue I really buy from the BIS blog is the online problems. I don't buy that such a talented team couldn't make AI react to the destruction, or that a pipeline for building said destructable buildings was so hard to come up with. If it takes you an extra 3-6 or even 8-10 months to model out the buildings and make them destructable.... its worth it. I could also see it being hard to pull off for very large environments, but it COULD be done with proper scaleing and debris removal and static debris... I just think BIS didn't want to really push for it becuase of the time it would take.

But I do agree the ArmA2 system will work fine for now, and I totally agree with needing dynamic destructable vehicles and better physics. BIS originally promised DD vehicles too... and I wonder why they have been removed as well? Ok it might be very hard to do for buildings right now, but why not at least keep it for vehicles? It should be much easier to do for vehicles since they won't have as many physics objects, and don't need to sync in MP since you don't pick the pieces up... Sure beats the vehicles just turning brown and catching on fire.

[Chip360 0]

lol it's at 19-1-19

haha, Sorry for evening it up guys

[NeMeSiS 11]

lol it's at 19-1-19

haha, Sorry for evening it up guys

When i went to bed yesterday it was at 5-1-17 (Now21-3-20), does that mean that the US want dynamic destruction while the rest of the world doesnt care/thinks the current form of destruction is enough?

[bravo 6 0]

if your looking for realism i think its important. No doubt about it.

"Realistic" dynamic destruction of structures is ridiculously more complex than what you see in any games currently around, unless you think that "realistic" dynamic destruction means that a single grenade will take huge chunks out of buildings as in some games.

Lets not throw the r-word around so casually - even doing something as simple as having a single brick wall that reacts appropriately to the full range of munitions, from handgun to grenade to tank shell to bomb, is far, far from trivial. Doing that to an entire building, let alone an entire city, is asking a hell of a lot. If you think a small independent developer even has a snowball's chance in hell of doing that kind of full-blown simulation-level dynamic destruction, or that it would work over multiplayer in the current day and age, you are simply mistaken and have expectations that cannot be met by reality.

I really don't know if your trying to convince of something..

.. or if your putting words in my mouth that i did not said.

Tough i feel your don't have enough fate on BIS about this subject.

Last year Marek said they want to be ambitious about ArmA2.

I like their spirit.

[Heatseeker 0]

I_dont_care.

OPF, Arma or Arma II are not Crysis, we have very large towns and structures compared to a few shacks and huts.

A dynamic destruction model is more physics candy than an important gameplay feature.

We are many years away from HW that can handle DD in a open, dense and large scale 3D environment.

It would require many years for any developer to apply DD in a open, free and large scale 3D environment.

There are much more important aspects of the game/engine to upgrade over DD (priorities).

For example, full implementation of underground structures and caves .

I believe that having destructible doors and windows should be possible in ArmA II (shoot some glass), in buildings that have interiors that is.

[liljb15 0]

I don't exactly want dynamic destruction, but I would like "realistic" destruction. I mean it doesn't have to be that complicated, It's just when I see an AT soldier miss with his RPG and it hits a building I would like to see some type of destruction. It always annoyed me that in Arma a tank can hit a building in paraiso but when the dust settles the building's still in perfect condition.

[dm 9]

Tough i feel your don't have enough fate on BIS about this subject.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well there will be some improved destruction in ArmA2:

ARMA 2 Building Destruction

Lets hope AI will find the best path to go through and use it for ambush etc.

[lt.chris 0]

i dont mind the current destruction they have

to be honest i just say let BIS do as they desire, i mean its going to be a great game regardless if there isnt any massive fancy features

We will just see what they turn up with

[froggyluv 2130]

I would love DD but it wouldn't make or break my decision to buy Arm2. I think similar to Ragdoll, players want to feel the power of their destruction on the battlefield. I think much of this could be achieved with top-notch audio effects ie. when a building goes down -it go BOOM! And when a plane crashes, it makes a sound, any sound  

[mrj-fin 0]

I would prefer dynamic destruction over graphical echancements. I loved T72 Balkans on Fire buildings destroying models sabot make small hole to wall and the HE does alot of more damage. I am assumed that with current HW its more than possible to have all buildings with this feature. They should somehow do it that only the houses that are close of player on some radius have activated special model. Even not possible in chernarus I would like to see possible that we can make small maps (400m x 400m) where we dont need to care of too much overall computed calculations and have terrain deformations such of dig foxholes etc...

[-duke- 0]

Personally I'd love to see some form of dynamic destruction where segments of the building collapse instead of the entire building coming down all at once. Of course I do understand that it's not as easy as one would think but that's really not the question of this topic (unless I misread it).

I do acknowledge however that dynamic destruction in a non scripted, non-linear and open ended environment is a bit much to ask for but it would certainly add to immersion IMHO.

Just out of curiosity could a PhysX card be utilized to take the burden from the CPU? I don't have a physics card so don't roast me for the question, I'd just like to hear some response.

[wipman 1]

Hi, sometimes in the real life when you need a quick entry/scape

route to a house and you've armoured support, you tell the tank's

commander to shot at whatever house's wall so you can enter or

exit from/on that house; this serves for exapmle to catch entrenched

enemy troops, snipers in buildings with fire support in the lower

floors and many more things. You can also do this with the entire

squad firing at the same point of a house or wall. If you can't do

this... then you're forced to use a different (and much more dangerous

and exposed) tactic to advance or retreat and you're entire squad

could fall down much more easy just for not using this so helpfull

advance/retreat method. That's why i agree on that yes, a dynamic

damage method on walls and buildings is very very needed if what

you want is to recreate the conditions of a battlefield and apply

real tactics on the battlefield. Let's C ya

[dslyecxi 23]

Hi, sometimes in the real life when you need a quick entry/scape

route to a house and you've armoured support, you tell the tank's

commander to shot at whatever house's wall so you can enter or

exit from/on that house; this serves for exapmle to catch entrenched

enemy troops, snipers in buildings with fire support in the lower

floors and many more things. You can also do this with the entire

squad firing at the same point of a house or wall. If you can't do

this... then you're forced to use a different (and much more dangerous

and exposed) tactic to advance or retreat and you're entire squad

could fall down much more easy just for not using this so helpfull

advance/retreat method. That's why i agree on that yes, a dynamic

damage method on walls and buildings is very very needed if what

you want is to recreate the conditions of a battlefield and apply

real tactics on the battlefield. Let's C ya

The same effect can be achieved doing what they are doing now - any given wall may have several different pieces that can be blown out, which allows for the tactics you cited.

The difference between what they're doing, and "full dynamic destruction", is very small in terms of gameplay, and MASSIVE in terms of developmental resources, system resources, and online complications. The path BIS is taking on this particular topic is the best one to take, easily.

[funnyguy1 0]

Kinda weird, but this topic clearly shows that some ppl simply don't know what a trully dynamic destruction is.

[stakex 0]

Hi, sometimes in the real life when you need a quick entry/scape

route to a house and you've armoured support, you tell the tank's

commander to shot at whatever house's wall so you can enter or

exit from/on that house; this serves for exapmle to catch entrenched

enemy troops, snipers in buildings with fire support in the lower

floors and many more things. You can also do this with the entire

squad firing at the same point of a house or wall. If you can't do

this... then you're forced to use a different (and much more dangerous

and exposed) tactic to advance or retreat and you're entire squad

could fall down much more easy just for not using this so helpfull

advance/retreat method. That's why i agree on that yes, a dynamic

damage method on walls and buildings is very very needed if what

you want is to recreate the conditions of a battlefield and apply

real tactics on the battlefield. Let's C ya

The same effect can be achieved doing what they are doing now - any given wall may have several different pieces that can be blown out, which allows for the tactics you cited.

The difference between what they're doing, and "full dynamic destruction", is very small in terms of gameplay, and MASSIVE in terms of developmental resources, system resources, and online complications. The path BIS is taking on this particular topic is the best one to take, easily.

Thats really a bold statement since we actually haven't seen the new system in action. All we have seen in a brief prototype video showing what the general idea will be... that is (hopefully) not represenative of the system we will actually see in the game. Becuase if that video IS exactlly what the system will be, your statements will probly be wrong for most cases. For all we know, the new system might not turn out to be anywhere near as good as alot of people think/hope... we really can't tell untill there is a video of the current system in action other then the prototype video.

In terms of gameplay, a fully dynamic destruction system (original Game2) and a static destruction animation system (ArmA2) is actually a lot bigger then you think. It would be totally diffrent playing in a 100% destructable environment, as opposed to an environment where the destruction is repedative animations, and static. It would be like playing two totally diffrent games.

[anoik 0]

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=79

Quote[/b] ]Destructible environment

The VBS2 environment can now be made to destruct in a realistic fashion, including destructible buildings (an example destructible terrain area is provided).

Deformable terrain

The VBS2 terrain can be deformed in real time and will deform as a result of explosions.

Breaching

The capability to breach wire, doors, walls and windows has been added via a range of new action menu items, and interaction with urban areas in general has been greatly improved.

[dslyecxi 23]

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=79

Quote[/b] ]Destructible environment

The VBS2 environment can now be made to destruct in a realistic fashion, including destructible buildings (an example destructible terrain area is provided).

Deformable terrain

The VBS2 terrain can be deformed in real time and will deform as a result of explosions.

Breaching

The capability to breach wire, doors, walls and windows has been added via a range of new action menu items, and interaction with urban areas in general has been greatly improved.

Don't assume that something you read about VBS2 has anything to do with ArmA2 or will show up in it in any capacity.

Quote[/b] ]In terms of gameplay, a fully dynamic destruction system (original Game2) and a static destruction animation system (ArmA2) is actually a lot bigger then you think. It would be totally diffrent playing in a 100% destructable environment, as opposed to an environment where the destruction is repedative animations, and static. It would be like playing two totally diffrent games.

I doubt it. In any case, it's too time-consuming and difficult of a thing to implement to expect in the ArmA2 timeframe. There are better things that could be done with that time, effort, and money, things which would have a larger impact on the overall experience.