Still no destroyed models

[icebreakr 3138]

As we can see from the latest movies of Arma2, one destroyed APC looks like someone stole its wheels, but structure remains intact.

Is it so hard for BIS to incorporate

Quote[/b] ]if setdamage 1 switchmodel stryker_destroyed

?

If you guys are working mostly on eye-candy, please fix that issue that continues to roll up from OFP 1.00. Its quite ironic that such old game has better models of destroyed armor:

[sandzibar 0]

In this thread the OP fails to hear Maruk state "this is work in progress and will be improved"

and it was a LAV not a Stryker.

this constant whining over unfinished demos is becoming tedious.

edit: actually its not the things you lot are complaing about.. its the way you do it..

"BIS cant be bothered"

"Is it soo hard for BIS"

"BIS dont know what they are doing"

No wonder the BIS guys in the videos sound annoyed/frustrated when mentioning this community. Youre mostly a bunch of whining ungrateful over expecting children.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

I think he said as it was shown in the vid that this was still WIP.

Edit: Sandzibar got there first.

[icebreakr 3138]

Hey, i was reffering to OFP-A2WIP state, thats a 7 year span

hopefully (since its a WIP state) things will get done right now. Because I know I'll get an heart-attack when if I'll see a destroyed chopper bouncing off the tree in A2 :]

I'm a game developer too and one thing I learned is that devs need to listen, too :] if you take a closer look, you'll see that OFP-ARMA-VBS2 has same flaws. My team-member already sent constructive ideas to Maruk a year ago, but all we hear in this WIP demos is about the eyecandy and new stuff like we can already see in Arma1 mods done by community members for free (dragging wounded, Osprey etc). I'm suprised to see no movies about realistic balistics of bullets, support for artillery etc?

[The Masta 0]

I'm suprised to see no movies about realistic balistics of bullets, support for artillery etc?

Maybe they don't want to show it to us yet, maybe we will get a big suprise, who knows?

[Kristian 47]

There still are people wich dont want to DL a freaking mod to carry a comrade, now ArmA 2 has it by default. and the Arm Aosprey (no offense to you, gnat ) but it has the uh60 cargo and its not "too good" its awesome to fly but ArmA 2 has visually better chopper/plane thats the truth we have to face, no we CAN face

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Agree with the points above, but as you said the drawback with addons, is that in multiplayer you severely limit your player-base to folks who have those specific addons, AND have them loaded up already when browsing for a session.

Many will not or cannot do so.

Unless better mod-and-addon-handling can be added into ArmA2 itself (to make it simpler for folks to join an addon or mod mission), then the more content and core functionality is already in the default installation the better.

We already know of the destruction models for buildings that are being developed for ArmA2, it's probably safe to assume that this functionality will cover or at least could be easily extended to vehicle destruction too - the class-heirarchy may support this already?

[kavoven 4]

As we can see from the latest movies of Arma2, one destroyed APC looks like someone stole its wheels, but structure remains intact.

Is it so hard for BIS to incorporate

Quote[/b] ]if setdamage 1 switchmodel stryker_destroyed

?

If you guys are working mostly on eye-candy, please fix that issue that continues to roll up from OFP 1.00. Its quite ironic that such old game has better models of destroyed armor:

Thats a aspect I never cared about. As soon as the thing is smoking I don't watch it anymore at all!

I think there are better ways BIS can spend their time on.

[The_Captain 0]

Destroyed models are their own LOD, unlike OFP1, so there's really no limit to what BIS can do with destroyed meshes (blown out parts, etc) as long as the vehicle stays in one piece. It seems BIS tends to keep the geometry of the destroyed model mostly the same as the intact model, but they could be more elaborate if they wished.

I would think most vehicles being 'destroyed' IRL would simply catch fire or cook off ammo/fuel inside and burn, esp if the kill was a heat warhead or sabot (or even missile), and not blow into a dozen pieces. True, with one piece models turrets won't fly off, but as has been said, once the vehicle is destroyed and smoking that's mostly what I'm interested in.

From a scripting standpoint, destroyed units don't scatter persistent debris or break into multiple parts, so a simple setdamage 0 can get them back in working condition. Plus, the only real network traffic needed from the engine is the damage state: once it hits 0, switch to the destroyed LOD on the client. Fairly efficient and it does not remove the vehicle from gameplay as engines which break up a unit and replace it with client-side only physicalized parts might.

My cents.

[icebreakr 3138]

k@voven, you like things simple don't ya? How many times you've been blown to pieces in APC because of a single RPG hit? I've read numerous books and heard stories what happens in RL in that situation... usually in RL you get KIAs/WIAs, but that is not necessary as in current A1. Exploding vehicles when damage trigger reaches 1.00 is just a no-go for a hardcore sim.

Not to mention that vehicles in A1 have hitpoints and for example machinegunners can blow up BMP or even a tank if they're persistent enough with small-cal fire. One more thing I hope NOT to see in A2 is that a squad will shoot AI Shilka/BMP in tracks and crew will jump out and stand around the vehicle in order to get slaughtered.

It would be great if devs will be able to fix that stuff until the release in 2009 *grin*.

[stakex 0]

In this thread the OP fails to hear Maruk state "this is work in progress and will be improved"

and it was a LAV not a Stryker.

this constant whining over unfinished demos is becoming tedious.

edit: actually its not the things you lot are complaing about.. its the way you do it..

"BIS cant be bothered"

"Is it soo hard for BIS"

"BIS dont know what they are doing"

No wonder the BIS guys in the videos sound annoyed/frustrated when mentioning this community. Youre mostly a bunch of whining ungrateful over expecting children.

Well first of all, the "Its a WIP" argument is fine, if BIS actually said they planned to fix what the person is complaining about, but its not done yet. I have not seen one mention of this specificly by the devs (if it has been, then thats diffrent) as being something thats going to be fixed, so theres nothing wrong with mentioning it. The OP have a very good point, and theres no reason to jump down his throte.

Anyway, most of the times people say "Its WIP!", they are saying it in reference to things that are almost certainly NOT to be in the game... so it gets just as annoying to hear suck ups throw that phrase around any time someone has some feedback from the videos.

So back on topic, this isn't anything improtant to be done anyway... spending time adding wildlife to shoot and such, is far more important then fixing something that had been wrong with the game for 7 years. Thats a far better way for BIS to spend that time...

Yea... right.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

k@voven, you like things simple don't ya? How many times you've been blown to pieces in APC because of a single RPG hit? I've read numerous books and heard stories what happens in RL in that situation... usually in RL you get KIAs/WIAs, but that is not necessary as in current A1. Exploding vehicles when damage trigger reaches 1.00 is just a no-go for a hardcore sim.

Not to mention that vehicles in A1 have hitpoints and for example machinegunners can blow up BMP or even a tank if they're persistent enough with small-cal fire. One more thing I hope NOT to see in A2 is that a squad will shoot AI Shilka/BMP in tracks and crew will jump out and stand around the vehicle in order to get slaughtered.

It would be great if devs will be able to fix that stuff until the release in 2009 *grin*.

Couldn't give a bass wazoo about damage models for ArmaII. Like K@ven said once its smoking, it doesn't matter.

But I think the rest of what your saying here is more relevant, and would be good to see improved where possible.

[4 IN 1 0]

i would agreed if the static model of damaged vehicals is improved instead of a simple texture change(which failed in MP most of the time) would be better, however anything more then a better model which can be ID more easily would more likely be a waste of time if they have more important things to fix, as k@voven said: we wont care much when the tank get busted

[sandzibar 0]

In this thread the OP fails to hear Maruk state "this is work in progress and will be improved"

and it was a LAV not a Stryker.

this constant whining over unfinished demos is becoming tedious.

edit: actually its not the things you lot are complaing about.. its the way you do it..

"BIS cant be bothered"

"Is it soo hard for BIS"

"BIS dont know what they are doing"

No wonder the BIS guys in the videos sound annoyed/frustrated when mentioning this community. Youre mostly a bunch of whining ungrateful over expecting children.

Well first of all, the "Its a WIP" argument is fine, if BIS actually said they planned to fix what the person is complaining about, but its not done yet. I have not seen one mention of this specificly by the devs (if it has been, then thats diffrent) as being something thats going to be fixed, so theres nothing wrong with mentioning it. The OP have a very good point, and theres no reason to jump down his throte.

Anyway, most of the times people say "Its WIP!", they are saying it in reference to things that are almost certainly NOT to be in the game... so it gets just as annoying to hear suck ups throw that phrase around any time someone has some feedback from the videos.

So back on topic, this isn't anything improtant to be done anyway... spending time adding wildlife to shoot and such, is far more important then fixing something that had been wrong with the game for 7 years. Thats a far better way for BIS to spend that time...  

Yea... right.

My rant wasnt purposely directly aimed at the OP.. just happened to be his thread that pushed me over the edge.

sure you can think of me as rude and uncomprising but after seeing loads of posts without much praise for what they have achieved with the newer engine, and lots of why isnt this feature included I got annoyed.

If Icebreaker feels ive been unduly harsh then I apologise.

BIS isnt an EA team.. it isnt valve.. they dont have limitless manpower nor money. Id say that pushes the "been wrong with the game for 7 years" argument into the same realms of your "its WIP!" one. Call me a 'suck up', thats fine. Though I prefere to see praise for stuff that people have achieved, rather than rants over what they havent. We're lucky there's still developers out there that even consider making mil sim games... and not just console-esqe Gears of War re-hashes. Look at whats happened to the Rainbow Six license for example to see the dumbing down in action.

If youd like to discuss this further i suggest you PM me stakex.

Back on topic: I feel that adding more wildlife adds a great deal to atmosphere/realism you feel when playing. One of the things I felt BIS did right in Arma was the bugs and birds added to make things feel more 'alive'. I hadnt seen that before in a game. S.T.A.L.K.E.R had a great feel to it also with the packs of dogs dragging/feeding on other animals.. and the crows circling around. If something like the 'distrubed birds flying from trees' mod was added to arma2 id be even more happy.

[NGFT 0]

No mod is good as the things BIS is making

No Community Addon is good as BIS' ones and no dragging animation/sound is that good as the developers made.

I'am tiered of the "Community made this and that";

100% of the soldier models are based on the BIS Standart ones;

70% of the soundmods took sounds from youtube or other games;

BIS is making them from scratch and they sound bomb in ArmA2.

70% of the Weapons packs for ArmA are imported from games like CS or CoD4. Guys like Vilas who is making his good models from scratch are not that good as the BIS Models.

Community is nothing without BIS.

[sparks50 0]

Armour in most cases wont be instantly reduced to a pile of rubble when struck by sabot and other things.

Its a structure of solid metal, It wont go up in dust in normal circumstances.

Under training I have seen a Hellfire missile strike a artillery wagon.

The wagon looked fully intact on the outside, apart from the small area of impact.

Inside it was wiped clean, just flames and thick smoke.

As for the the hitpoint system, I have been told that it will be away, or made so complex that it wont be a annoyance anymore.

Would be nice if someone could clarify that please.

[xnodunitx 0]

Yeah it would be nice if vehicles didn't just explode anymore unless critical things are hit such as high voltage electronics or fuel...heheh, especially fuel.

[Danickas 0]

Quote[/b] ]Guys like Vilas who is making his good models from scratch are not that good as the BIS Models.

http://www.armaholic.eu/vilas/wpnupd/nw1.jpg Latest vilas work not so good as bis right -_-?

[ryankaplan 1]

this is not a bug, it doesnt matter how many years have passed since ofp 1.00. its not a system which they build or porgramme in.

It is simply a case of modellers and artists needing to work twice as bloody hard to create a simple vehicle which you wont even look twice at after youve destroyed anyway. It is a pointlessly huge amount of work to undertake which adds bugger shit all to the game, when those modellers could go make me another 70 different vehicles, rather than working on silly damaged models...

[froggyluv 2130]

I think multiple destruction models would only add to the feeling of a 'dynamic sandbox feeling'. Maybe I'm in the minority here but I definitely like to watch the effects of armory/aircraft being destroyed either by me or AI. Part of the reason I like the SLX mod so much is you never truly know what to expect such as crew rolling out on fire or an explosion leading to a huge forest fire. Since true dynamic destruction and a robust physics model aren't really OFP/Arma's strongpoints, multiple damage models really are desperately needed.

[kavoven 4]

k@voven, you like things simple don't ya? How many times you've been blown to pieces in APC because of a single RPG hit? I've read numerous books and heard stories what happens in RL in that situation... usually in RL you get KIAs/WIAs, but that is not necessary as in current A1. Exploding vehicles when damage trigger reaches 1.00 is just a no-go for a hardcore sim.

I never ( ! ) drove a BMP or a M113 (or other vehicles which can be blown up with one RPG) during my whole OFP/ArmA time in real combat. Never.

In fact I'm a complete loser in driving tanks in ArmA. I was always shot to pieces, even in an M1A1. OFP is an infantry simulation, anything that drives/flys is just an addition. You simply can't make a simluator that is completly realistic in every part of the game. (Well, perhaps if you have 50 million $ and >100 people)

And yes, as a infrantry-guy I'm content when the tank is black and burning.

(Anyway, the tanks have hitboxes in ArmA. The main gun can be broken!

[4 IN 1 0]

the problem is that its almost impossible for a game company to creat an engine that works on everything, yes they can improve some area of it or even adding a few more little function, however it is just stupid to ask for having everything

remember you only pay some 20 euro for this game, not 20000

no wonder why the devs sounds discouraged when talking about "work in progress"

[Killbert 0]

Black burning tank is fine with me, but for downed choppers and planes I would except little more deformation than in ArmA1. They should break into pieces when shot down.

[SeXyWombat 0]

the problem is that its almost impossible for a game company to creat an engine that works on everything, yes they can improve some area of it or even adding a few more little function, however it is just stupid to ask for having everything

remember you only pay some 20 euro for this game, not 20000

no wonder why the devs sounds discouraged when talking about "work in progress"

What's so complicated about having a "hit" decal appear on a vehicle roughly at the point of impact (and explosion/fire/smoke appearing if the hit was very serious) and a damage/penetration model similiar to Close Combat or Combat Mission? How about infantry firefight and morale models (which btw. would have a lot of positive impact on the realism of armor engagements too)? These two are both somewhat "indie" games (in terms of money supporting them) well capable of running on 233mhz CPUs and they both have excellent vehicle destruction and infantry combat. Hell, even OFP Liberation mod managed to get armor penetration somewhat right despite having to work against the engine to make it happen. And what's so hard about having T-72/80 turrets blowing off? I mean, M1 Tank Platoon II had them, it's a little bit of physics and a simple property of models (turret can be blown off - y/n) - and saying that it would overload the MP component is simply ridiculous considering the fact that the net traffic it would require would be comparable to a 3-round rifle burst. I simply do not believe it's a case of "not enough time" rather than a concious design choice to make the game more arcade'ish (after all, wondering if the target was KO'd after a direct hit would be frustrating for some gamers, just like dealing with probability of KO rather than simple hit points). Same with morale and suppression - it would be realistic to have a long firefight without a decisive winner (or even casualties) ending in both sides withdrawing due to morale problems and ammo depletion, but it would make the game less enjoyable for casual players. The fact is that BIS most likely is not aiming for the hardcore military simulation some of us would like to see, and there would be nothing wrong about that if ArmA2 wasn't marketed as one.

And the worst thing is I'm definitely going to buy it when it comes out. Not because I believe it's really going to be good, but because there's nothing like it on the market. And then I'm going to cry for all the missed opportunities and design flaws. Basically, it's a love-hate relationship.

[wamingo 1]

the problem is that its almost impossible for a game company to creat an engine that works on everything

What's so complicated about ....

Just because someone else has done it means it's not complicated? I don't think you fully appreciate software development. If it was easy, someone would already have done it.

Besides, judging by what we've seen so far, I'd say arma2 will have a lot of new things -- maybe not all the things we could wish for, but when is that song ever going to end?

The fact is that BIS most likely is not aiming for the hardcore military simulation some of us would like to see, and there would be nothing wrong about that if ArmA2 wasn't marketed as one.

Not sure I'd call that a fact. Making the game easier for more casual players isn't the same as making the game more arcady.

ArmA was, before its release, also slated and feared for becoming less simulation-like, but the criticisms were pretty unfounded.

ArmA2, same thing.