Vehicle Entrance Animations?

[chops 111]

I can't see how the "oh we don't need animations, because gameplay is more important" argument stands up.

They are not mutually exclusive. It's not a matter of animations or game play. It would be fairly simple implement and add a lot of immersion to the game.

[maddogx 13]

I can't see how the "oh we don't need animations, because gameplay is more important" argument stands up.

They are not mutually exclusive. It's not a matter of animations or game play. It would be fairly simple implement and add a lot of immersion to the game.

They're not necessarily mutually exclusive, but creating those extra animations would add a lot of extra work for the developers. You should be aware that making normal animations like walking, running etc. is hard enough, but creating animations that show a character interacting with other objects is even more difficult. Considering that the gains of this would be purely cosmetic (i.e. very low), I can understand why the devs would decide either not to do it or give it a very low priority. Gamplay comes first.

Obviously I would love to see better "get-in" and "get-out" animations too, but I can understand if they are left out.

[chops 111]

...but creating those extra animations would add a lot of extra work for the developers...

Isn't that what developers do? Develop games?

If it can be modded into OFP by the community, I can't see how it's beyond the scope of developers who by definition, are developing the 3rd incarnation of the game.

The lower expectations the community has of the developers, the happier they'll be to oblige.

[maddogx 13]

Isn't that what developers do? Develop games?

Oh, sure. If you'd like to wait until 2015, I'm sure BIS could include any number of cosmetic enhancements and polish the game to perfection, creating AI that will think three steps ahead of even the smartest players and then teabag them after every masterful victory.

Unfortunately, developing games costs time and money.

[chops 111]

...and then teabag them after every masterful victory...

Perhaps there's a role for you at BIS, in the motion capture studio, lying on your back in one of those black gimp outfits.

[mr burns 132]

Personally, i´d be happy waiting another year for ArmA2 if the outcome was a more polished and worthy successor to OFP:CWC.

BI are doing good so far. But they could aswell do alot better!

I think that´s the point in the whole "gimme this & gimme that for ArmA2" debate. They´re simply not pushing themselves anymore it seems, and users who love the game cannot understand why :(

[DrBobcat 0]

Any company must always balance the quality of its products and the time it invests to improve upon said quality. More time means more wages to pay and more technology to purchase. And, last time I checked, capital is a finite resource.

Cut BIS some slack and don't contribute to rumors,

- dRb

[maxter 10]

If BI would postpone the game until it included everything the fans want, it would never be released.

[maddogx 13]

Considering that vehicle animations are not exactly gameplay-defining, they could easily be modified later if necessary. Either by BIS or by the community.

[-Apples- 10]

I can't see how the "oh we don't need animations, because gameplay is more important" argument stands up.

They are not mutually exclusive. It's not a matter of animations or game play. It would be fairly simple implement and add a lot of immersion to the game.

totally agree.

[max power 21]

How is it simple to implement, please? Please explain the simpleness of the implementation in detail.

[sparks50 0]

Definitely not a simple implement. Not with mocap at least. For each vehicle a rough real-scale model would have to be built, unless they have the combat vehicles casually lying around.

And how would vehicles with a large number of seats like the Blackhawk be handled? And how will the motion capture people find out how every tank, or vehicle is entered in individual doors/hatches, by trained crewmen?

Its a huge task no matter how you look at it, or attempt to simplify. For strictly eye candy/coolness, I don't see it being worth doing, with so many more pressing gameplay issues at hand.

Edited April 27, 2009 by sparks50

[Stimpak_Addict 0]

How did BIS get the sounds for the vehicles?

[sparks50 0]

By recording them? a microphone is mobile, a motion capture studio is not.

[mr.g-c 6]

That depends largely on how detailed you want to make it...

Lets analyze our current situation in Arma1, or judged by the preview-footages about Arma2:

- It seems to be ONE Single animation in which the person looks like he is climbing-up to something, besides some MBTs, is totally unfitting for the majority of the ~150 Vehicles.

- It is not true that you need Mocap for everything... you "just" need a Software called Maya, a good animation artist with proper table and equipment (BIS has that cool blond, long-haired guy, who apparently made the boar walking animations just like that).

- Look what people like Teacup or SLX can do animation-wise and they also havent used any mocap studio at all, teacup for instance uses Maya for that and he told me with much time and attention you can make kick-ass animations with it. He is also the guy who has written a Arma Animations Plugin for Maya.

On top of that Teacup showed once in the old ACE forum what he is able to do animation-wise... let me explain it briefly (i have it still on my PC :p its pure awesomeness):

- You move to a tanks back like M1A1 and then press "Spacebar", then a kick-ass animation starts, in which you are climbing to the back of the tank.

Then you can walk on it and you walk to the Turret and also climb on the turret of the M1A1... then you walk to the depending hatches you want to get it, press actionmenu-entry for like "get-in as gunner", and the hatch opens and your guy moves in it, in a kick-ass animation i never saw before.

On top of that it was also working for AI.... they were climbing on the back but then teleported to a hatch and then same "hatch-open, get-in" animation was triggered.

So this was the super-detailed way and indeed much much work to do for each vehicle type, but still no mocap needed, "just" skills in modding and animation making with Maya + time.

- What would be a very good in-between solution for BIS and Arma2, would be a combination of door/hatch/entrance opening animations (rather easy, see SLX sample models), combined with a more-or-less general get-in animation based on vehicle-type.

- So for each vehicle type wheeled, smaller like civillian cars, Humvees, UAZs, etc. etc. you have to create one kind of get-in animation in which your guy jumps in it.

- Then you make one kind of Tanks, one Kind for planes and so on....

It doesnt have to be perfect, but combined with openeing of doors, its everything a hundred times better than the current "One animation for all combined with no opening of doors" solution. :D:p

[chops 111]

It seems the argument is not whether animations should be included or not, but whether doing so would be possible, given the time BIS have given themselves to release Arma2.

If it's possible for get in animations to be modded into OFP, by a player of the game, I fail to see how it's beyond the scope of the professionals at BIS to do the same, for what is now their third version of the game.

I doubt Solus, creator of the SLx mod, had a motion capture studio, I doubt he needed complete mock-ups of every vehicle with these animations in his OFP mod.

He managed to create far better get in/out anims for OFP than are currently shown to be in Arma2.

See for yourself.

It's ridiculous to suggest that BIS can't do better than what was modded into OFP, for the 47 vehicles they have in listed in Arma2. Many of which I imagine would use the same animations.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Chops
added "...47 vehicles..."

[maddogx 13]

Of course BIS could do it better. Maybe they already have made some new vehicle animations. We'll see when the game comes out.

But if they haven't, considering the few weeks remaining until release, you can be pretty sure they won't have the time to focus on stuff like that right now. Making good animations takes time. Making good animations that interact seamlessly with other objects takes fucking ages. Right now I personally hope they're working on more important things like AI. You know, things that could totally screw up gameplay if not done correctly.

I totally agree that detailed get-in/out anims would be pure awesomeness and if they're in the initial release, then woohoo! (*insert dancing banana here*). Fact is, arguing about how much time it would take and whether or not they should try to squeeze it in before release is rather pointless right now.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i'll be more worried about be able of take cover with the door of (what BIS call) HMMWV

or with the back doors of the LAV-25 or the top's hatches (if we could fire from vehicles)

than be worried about the enter/exit anim; it's for sure possible, but... what will make more

the difference?, be able of enter a vehicle, opening the door, putting a foot inside and then

push the rest of the body inside...? or just be able of use the doors and hatches for take cover?.

Because what we'll need a specific anim to enter in X vehicle... if we can't walk by it's

cargo space?, don't you see that's pointless to ask for such thing if we can't walk inside

the vehicles?; what you're asking for, seems to be to dissapear once the whole body it's

inside the vehicle and then spawn (like always) as a "magic thing" in our seat, with the belt

and everything well attached. I'll vote for be able of cover with the vehicles doors and

hatches more than have a specific anim to enter in X vehicle to then spawn like always

in the seat that the rest of the units leave free for my ass. Let's C ya

[chops 111]

Well, to be able to take cover behind open vehicle doors, those doors have to be animated to open and close and if that's the case, why not simply add the get in/out animations as well?

Players and AI should really be able to shoot with personal weapons from inside vehicles, eight years after the release of OFP.

[wipman 1]

Hi.

Players and AI should really be able to shoot with personal weapons from inside vehicles, eight years after the release of OFP.

I couldn't agree more with you on that; but about the enter/exit anims... we can't shoot from

the cargo seats of the vehicles and we can't walk inside neither; as we only have a hitpoints

dammage system... don't makes sense to have APCs, MBTs or IFVs with the interior modeled

as they should for the pourpouse of see it when we enter/exit that certain vehicle, mainly

because that will consume alot of resources to have the vehicles entirely modeled instead

split 'em in parts as the ViewPilot and ViewCargo LODs. If they had to link somehow the

ViewCargo LOD to the open/close doors animation... that'll be a pain for 'em to do plus

as i've said... that will consume alot of resources. Let's C ya

[Hell_Toupee 0]

Would hardly think a vehicle interior is alot of resources, every vehicle with windows already has its interior modeled.

[sluggCDN 0]

One little thing I want to throw into the mix.

Getting out of a tank in the middle of a battle and getting out of a truck, 4x4, car are two different things.

In reality when a tank crew is disembarking a burning/damaged tank they are very vulnerable to enemy fire. It's a very important element in a gameplay in terms of realism. Right now tank crews just magically and conveniently spawn outside the tank, ready to take cover. In reality they'd have to climb out of a hatch, jump off the tank and then be more less safe; in the process they can get shot multiple times. So as some suggested maybe it would be a very cool idea for a tank crew to spawn on top of a tank, when climbing out. Then they'd have to jump off. Would be more less realistic. One animation for climbing out at a corresponding point on the vehicles hull! It's possible!!!

[wipman 1]

Hi, the problem with what you're propposing sluggCDN, is that then the tank's hull should be

made walkable and i don't know how the ArmA 2 will handle the gravity, but in the ArmA, if

fall from a height equal to tank's turret, you gonna get injured if not dead when you touch

the ground.

Hell Toupee, the cars and trucks have their interiors modeled as part of the model, but that

isn't the same with the tanks and APCs, their interior it's modeled apart and take much more

polygons than the standard cars or trucks interiors; sometimes it's even not scaled to the

tank's or APC's measures for the good of the "be in the cargo" feeling. Let's C ya

[sluggCDN 0]

Hi, the problem with what you're propposing sluggCDN, is that then the tank's hull should be

made walkable and i don't know how the ArmA 2 will handle the gravity, but in the ArmA, if

fall from a height equal to tank's turret, you gonna get injured if not dead when you touch

the ground.

Actually in my experience with ArmA jumping from tank's hull height has never resulted into injury. And we fooled alot in MP with my friends - some car stunts and acrobatics. In reality if you jump from the height of a modern tank turret you might injure yourself too. A turret's top is heigher than a hull.

Edited May 1, 2009 by sluggCDN

[wipman 1]

Hi, i use to get a bit wounded after fall (better slide) from some 2'3m tall stairs, jumping

from helos at that height and things like that, wounded or dead. Exit properly from a tank

would require specific and long animations for each tank/APC or whatever; and that will add

more problems than solutions, what will happen if the commander or the gunner gets shot

when exiting the tanks hatch?, he should fall inside blocking the loader's and in some tanks

the driver's exit path with his 85Kg of dead meat. What anim they should do for those times

then? heart finger up for the dead man and "let's get outta here"!?, i'll be happy enough

if they will make the tanks and APCs hull walkable and if we could walk inside the vehicles

and use their hatches to offer covert fire for the vehicle or be able of lay down in the ground

of a chopper and snipe from the cargo are; i'll be very happy if i could do just that. Let's C ya