Deformable terrain - Do you guys want it?

[mr.g-c 6]

Hi, as some of you might now, the current engine is already capable of handling deformable terrain.

The Problems with it in the current engine-stage are:

1. Grid-Size is to big that it looks ugly like hell (screenshot below)

2. Blast-Damages or fragmentations need to be changed/better calculated so that holes in the ground could be used as cover from them.

3. To less animations for the human model currently, the 3 (stand, crouch, prone) are not optimal for it (i already suggested some sort of a step-less animation from crouching to standing a while ago, possibly by using multiple single animations connected together.)

4. Video-Settings should be set-able completely by the mission-designer and/or the server-admin so that people with lower resolutions don't have an advantage from it.

Pic from current engine handling it (VBS2):

This Pic is a good example, as it really shows that deformable terrain (in this case after impact of artillery) can have really a strategic implication - a destroyed Runway means unable to start Planes.

So it would be very nice if BIS would consider this and add it to Arma2 (even when its through any further Arma2 patch).

It seems to be really do-able with the smaller grids in Arma2 (If the other points would be considered too)

What do you guys think? Please vote in the Poll if Deformable terrain is important or not, and let us discuss it here.

Best Regards, Christian

[dslyecxi 23]

That's a nice screenshot. Perhaps you could counter-balance it with a screenshot showing what kind of wacky things can happen when the terrain lowers and some object or building does not? Balance out the "golly gee, look at what VBS2 can do!" whiz-bang screen with a "golly gee, look at how it can cause issues!" one that more clearly shows that all is not sunshine and happiness in VBS2 feature-land.

I would rather see effort go towards any number of other avenues. Terrain deformation in that fashion is a lot of energy spent towards something that has very, very little impact on gameplay and introduces a slew of other issues. 3d craters are much better than the actual terrain deformation, and I'd support those being added long before terrain deformation.

Quote[/b] ]This Pic is a good example, as it really shows that deformable terrain (in this case after impact of artillery) can have really a strategic implication - a destroyed Runway means unable to start Planes.

Two points:

1 - That screen does not show the 3d craters

2 - That kind of terrain deformation will likely not stop a plane from taking off. The 3d craters, however, will.

[mr.g-c 6]

Hi, what do you mean with the 3d craters? Can you show us a example here or at least describe further what they are, what advantages they have over deformable terrain and so on.?

Best Regards, Christian

[shinRaiden 0]

1 - Grid size has to do with the map, supporting extremely high density grids would put an unacceptable load on the engine for balancing. You get large areas or high detail, but not both.

2 - Same as point one. The terrain modeled is deformed as much as is practical. If the grid is 10m, how do you propose to model a 1m feature to only occupy 1m and not spread out across a 10m radius?

3 - Sure the animations could be overhauled in an ideal world, that's been requested ad nauseam.

4 - Just because settings could in theory be set doesn't mean that they actually would be by the mission 'designers'.

[dslyecxi 23]

Hi, what do you mean with the 3d craters? Can you show us a example here or at least describe further what they are, what advantages they have over deformable terrain and so on.?

Best Regards, Christian

3d craters are exactly what they sound like. Instead of being a decal applied to the terrain, they're an actual physical crater that sits above the ground. They are not magical craters that scoop out the ground, but the end gameplay result in very similar.

[stakex 0]

That's a nice screenshot. Perhaps you could counter-balance it with a screenshot showing what kind of wacky things can happen when the terrain lowers and some object or building does not? Balance out the "golly gee, look at what VBS2 can do!" whiz-bang screen with a "golly gee, look at how it can cause issues!" one that more clearly shows that all is not sunshine and happiness in VBS2 feature-land.

I would rather see effort go towards any number of other avenues. Terrain deformation in that fashion is a lot of energy spent towards something that has very, very little impact on gameplay and introduces a slew of other issues. 3d craters are much better than the actual terrain deformation, and I'd support those being added long before terrain deformation.

Quote[/b] ]This Pic is a good example, as it really shows that deformable terrain (in this case after impact of artillery) can have really a strategic implication - a destroyed Runway means unable to start Planes.

Two points:

1 - That screen does not show the 3d craters

2 - That kind of terrain deformation will likely not stop a plane from taking off. The 3d craters, however, will.

Well golly gee, deformable terrain has been request by the OFP community long before the VBS2 shots showing it came out. So just because the VBS2 DT was used as an example to prove that yes, while not really polished, it can be done with the engine.... that dosn't mean its a "oooo VBS2 has it, I want it" post.

DT really isn't high on my personal want list... but since it can be done, it really should be. Yes, the VBS2 system has issues, and isn't really polished... but who says it has to be? Have you ever played OFP/ArmA??? Neither of them were very polished quite frankly, and its quite unlikely ArmA2 will be either. If the current VBS2 system was touched up a bit, and some of its bigger issues fixed... it would fit into ArmA2 quite well.

On a side note, In my opinion... 3d craters would be the worst possible addition to the game. Not to say the 2d craters are good, but 3d craters would look terrible... worse then any possible glitches caused by a less then perfect DT system. If they are not going to bother with the BT for ArmA2, then just touch up the 2d crater system.

[dslyecxi 23]

Well golly gee, deformable terrain has been request by the OFP community long before the VBS2 shots showing it came out. So just because the VBS2 DT was used as an example to prove that yes, while not really polished, it can be done with the engine.... that dosn't mean its a "oooo VBS2 has it, I want it" post.

DT really isn't high on my personal want list... but since it can be done, it really should be. Yes, the VBS2 system has issues, and isn't really polished... but who says it has to be? Have you ever played OFP/ArmA??? Neither of them were very polished quite frankly, and its quite unlikely ArmA2 will be either. If the current VBS2 system was touched up a bit, and some of its bigger issues fixed... it would fit into ArmA2 quite well.

On a side note, In my opinion... 3d craters would be the worst possible addition to the game. Not to say the 2d craters are good, but 3d craters would look terrible... worse then any possible glitches caused by a less then perfect DT system. If they are not going to bother with the BT for ArmA2, then just touch up the 2d crater system.

I'm sorry, before we go any further, are you basing any of this off of actual firsthand usage of VBS2, or are you just hypothesizing and drawing conclusions based on second-hand info?

I can only assume the later based upon the fact that you believe that the deformable terrain would be a better system to have than the 3d craters...

edit:

Actually, even better. I would be interested to hear you name a few gameplay scenarios in which deformable terrain would matter. Perhaps that would help to illustrate to what depth you think this is currently modeled, or what your ideal model of it would entail.

[kegetys 2]

I dont feel that it is needed that much, I believe the effect on the gameplay would end up being quite small as I'd imagine the majority of the explosions you have in the game (grenades, rpgs, tanks blowing up...) do not make craters big enough to be meaningful. If it were to be made, I think it should be made properly; That means a new terrain system that isn't made of a static sized grid but uses a proper "free shaped" mesh. That would be useful for other purposes too (more detailed terrain, proper cliffs, tunnels, etc.)... The current grid approach is a bit oldish anyway.

[dslyecxi 23]

I dont feel that it is needed that much, I believe the effect on the gameplay would end up being quite small as I'd imagine the majority of the explosions you have in the game (grenades, rpgs, tanks blowing up...) do not make craters big enough to be meaningful. If it were to be made, I think it should be made properly; That means a new terrain system that isn't made of a static sized grid but uses a proper "free shaped" mesh. That would be useful for other purposes too (more detailed terrain, proper cliffs, tunnels, etc.)... The current grid approach is a bit oldish anyway.

I agree. I just spent about twenty minutes laying various artillery barrages on Sahrani in VBS2 to see how the deformable terrain would work in various situations. I don't see much gameplay value in it - the only time you get any significant effects are when you've pounded an area with loads of 155mm shells, and how often is that likely to happen in an average ArmA mission?

Again, though - the 3d craters you see are much more valuable from a gameplay perspective. 3d craters are cover and concealment that the deformable terrain simply cannot match due to the terrain grid limits. When you've blanketed an area in 155mm rounds, the net impact of the actual shell craters far outweighs the deformed terrain in sheer gameplay impact.

[shinRaiden 0]

I dont feel that it is needed that much, I believe the effect on the gameplay would end up being quite small as I'd imagine the majority of the explosions you have in the game (grenades, rpgs, tanks blowing up...) do not make craters big enough to be meaningful. If it were to be made, I think it should be made properly; That means a new terrain system that isn't made of a static sized grid but uses a proper "free shaped" mesh. That would be useful for other purposes too (more detailed terrain, proper cliffs, tunnels, etc.)... The current grid approach is a bit oldish anyway.

Yeah, what he said. My vote is for irregular terrain grid support, though moving the vertices's in the xy plane would cause what are called 'correlation issues'.

[NoRailgunner 0]

That could kick some players without high-end systems away.

Whats about cheating - with lowering your settings you will see who and where is hiding.

Quote[/b] ]Video-Settings should be set-able completely by the mission-designer and/or the server-admin..

Sorry but such an "intrusion" isn't welcome anyway. Everybody has his own (best) ingame settings...

[funnyguy1 0]

First the AI that could handle it, than the deformable terrain. I have'nt seen (apart from maybe just one short clip) the new AI yet, so...

[lwlooz 0]

Hello there,

I agree with the others.

Until they can come up with a technique that allows you to put detailed holes,firepositions,trenches and whatnot into otherwise not so detailed terrain and have an AI use it , from a gameplay perspective I would think that it would be rather an annoyance than an enhancement.

On the other hand , I don't see a harm if they supply a script command that allows you to move individual terrain grid points up and down

[Synide 0]

That means a new terrain system that isn't made of a static sized grid but uses a proper "free shaped" mesh. That would be useful for other purposes too (more detailed terrain, proper cliffs, tunnels, etc.)... The current grid approach is a bit oldish anyway.

This is the way forward from an architectural point of view.

I most definitely agree.

The three areas are coming together nicely across a number of gaming engines.

With 'clipmapping' techniques having been around for simply ages, but not been able to be fully utilized.

Graphics cards are now becoming quite capable of supporting glorious amounts of texture stacks with lots of really good data embeded in them.

And MS's DX10 and OpenGL extensions comming along nicely.

With all these comming together it won't be too much longer before we start seeing  linky->Deformable Body's and linky-> Texture Array Terrain as well as many other great initiatives that Texture Arrays can support and being able to manipulate them on the GPU in real time... Plus add to that Multicore and true multi-tasking and we are all starting to finally get some good stuff to play with in the land of computers...

What does the above diatribe have to do with this thread you ask?

BIS are using clipmapping currently in there engine.

To me, from the outside laymans point of view it appears that BIS will quickly be able to alter there current DX9 compatible implementation to take more advantage of texture arrays on the GPU and I'm hoping be able to start implementing some of the things hinted at in that document above.

I think BIS dev's should be able to start implementing more and more stuff like Keygety's mentioned above over the next 18 months.

By looking at there BIStudio.com developers blog one can already see they are starting to take advantage of this comming together of techniques & technology already...

Dunno, if I explained myself very well...

PS... I'd forgo having deformable terrain like what you are thinking about over having the benefit of the higher resolution information gleanable from clipmapping/texture arraying on the GPU being used for other aspects of the game.

So, I voted 'Other'...

@shinRaiden...

1 - Grid size has to do with the map, supporting extremely high density grids would put an unacceptable load on the engine for balancing. You get large areas or high detail, but not both.

2 - Same as point one. The terrain modeled is deformed as much as is practical. If the grid is 10m, how do you propose to model a 1m feature to only occupy 1m and not spread out across a 10m radius?

Both of these problems can be overcome by making use of some of the advancements in DX10 and the 8800's and taking advantage of some true multi-tasking on multicores.

Unfortunately, as you would probably point out... not in ArmA2, and i suspect there would need to be a bit more dev. time at BIS before these things start to come to fruition.

[Frank-O 0]

2 cent worth and vote.

Leave the deformation grid alone.

Add a crater "building" similar to haystack, but in donut wall config.

Add a foxhole "Building" where there's a rise in a small trench, and floor is same level as terrain.

Will that take longer than Q3 to implement?

[alan8325 10]

Anymore news on how terrain can be modified in ArmA2? Can we have trenches and foxholes as buildable fortifications?

[maddogx 13]

Anymore news on how terrain can be modified in ArmA2? Can we have trenches and foxholes as buildable fortifications?

As far as we are informed, terrain deformation is not possible. It's not in any list of features, so I would say "no".

[mikebart 1]

Just going back to the crater model's, I like the idea, (has anyone done it?) Would it be possible to have a different models spawn depending on what type of surface the blast falls on?

[maddogx 13]

Just going back to the crater model's, I like the idea, (has anyone done it?) Would it be possible to have a different models spawn depending on what type of surface the blast falls on?

In theory, yes - to a certain extent. Even ArmA1 has script commands to detect the local surface type. Creating a bunch of crater models shouldn't be too difficult either. Maybe the ACE mod team will pick it up. :)

[mr.g-c 6]

Do the crater models have real "holes"`, means do they go below ground-level, or are they just some sort of decals?

[maddogx 13]

Do the crater models have real "holes"`, means do they go below ground-level, or are they just some sort of decals?

How would you make them go below ground level without deforming the terrain? It's not possible. Essentially yes, they would be a kind of 3D decal.

[bravo 6 0]

I like the idea, but there are some aspects that concern me.

What happen if the hole is made relatively near a building?

[maddogx 13]

I like the idea, but there are some aspects that concern me.

What happen if the hole is made relatively near a building?

Or two holes close together. Or even on top of each other. Or on the roof of a building?

Would obviously all need to be figured out.

[Spooner 0]

When you get multiple 3d decals close together it would look bad as they have no way of interacting. They obviously also look a bit naff since they cannot deform the underlying terrain, but they are better than nothing.

Deanosbeano and I did some exploratory work in implementing free terrain deformation in Arma1 recently. We found that 10m cell deformation looked terrible for anything we wanted to do. 5m cell deformation looks good enough though, though the smaller the cells the better. This smaller cell size makes a massive difference to be believability of deformations...

I agree with Dyslexi that as far as craters go, unless you are using heavy ordinance, the deformation is irrelevant and definitely not worth the effort. However, although this sort of bombardment doesn't occur directly in many missions, I think there are also lots of missions where this sort of bombardment might have happened in the past. Think of all the times people fight in bombed out cities, even if the bombs aren't falling while they are fighting. Same with earthworks...even if you aren't making them in the mission, no reason they couldn't have been dug the day before!

[Sniperwolf572 758]

ECP (OFP) had 3D craters AFAIK and they looked quite believable while adding a tiny bit to the gameplay. I suggest you check them out if you'd like to see 3D craters in action.