Vehicle secondary explosions

[nomdeplume 0]

While I like the idea, I think the implementation could be improved. Two main things:

Far too many secondary explosions. Vehicles seem to continue to explode every few minutes for hours on end. This might be justified for main battle tanks with lots of armored compartments containing explosive materials, but even then seems excessive. It's definitely ludicrous for a UAZ to be exploding again and again. Secondaries should be limited to maybe half a dozen at maximum (for tanks and such) while transport vehicles should only have one or two.

The AI doesn't understand secondary explosions. This wouldn't be such an issue if they didn't continuously occur, so fixing that would be the priority. As it is now, the AI will happily hang around right next to destroyed vehicles, getting themselves injured or killed in the process. With the first aid module this is amplified, because other soldiers will go to help them ... and get injured by the secondary explosions .. resulting in more AI going to help. So the AI really need to consider the area in the vicinity of destroyed vehicles to be extremely hazardous and to only go there when needed, and even then sprint through it.

If a vehicle happens to be destroyed along an AI group's path, then there's a good chance the entire group will be wiped out by the secondaries. This is something of a game-killing bug because of this. At least, that's my opinion.

[Mudkip 0]

Even civilian cars have this.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Those explosions are definitely a ridiculous feature. Guess that the designer(s) watched too many movies with special and postproduction effects. Sometimes less is more!

+ AI is still blind & dumb if something is going to explode and burn.

+ the AI is still shooting at empty cars and get killed by explosions.

Maybe BIS developers should be forced to test and play their game with more attention and devotion? Do they really have the spirit & soul to turn Arma2 into a unique combat simulation?

[hamis 0]

Jeeezus!:eek: This should be corrected!

[Big Dawg KS 6]

I remember when everyone wanted secondary explosions... and now everyone wants them to be removed?

This is why BIS shouldn't listen to 70% of the community, they never know what they want. :j:

[nomdeplume 0]

I don't want them removed, I just want them improved!

Maybe BIS developers should be forced to test and play their game with more attention and devotion? Do they really have the spirit & soul to turn Arma2 into a unique combat simulation?

I don't think Arma would exist if the developers weren't devoted. There are some things in the game that make me wonder how they actually play it though, i.e. why they hadn't noticed the problems and fixed them long long ago.

For example, getting AI to climb guard towers results in them floating just next to it rather than standing IN the tower, which looks pretty silly.

Or the way AI units will continue to fire on enemy vehicles that have been disabled and no longer pose a threat. This is just silly.

Gripes aside, most of the game is excellent. I just wish my soldiers wouldn't keep getting blown up by secondary explosions that they clearly have no concept of. Just reducing the number of them that occur to a reasonable number would help a lot, because after a while that destroyed vehicle would no longer be a randomly-triggered landmine. I suspect this would be a lot easier to do than make AI intelligently avoid destroyed vehicles.

[NoRailgunner 0]

People were asking all the time for plausible explosions. ;)

It would be better if vehicles have some random secondaries and burning effects not those continuously explosions.

Of course Arma2 (crew) AI should know how to run run for cover and keep the distance if something is going to explode. AI is able to do this - watch how they set satchels and run away. Why not trying similar for crewed vehicles?

[Big Dawg KS 6]

People were asking all the time for plausible explosions. ;)

Nobody ever told BIS how it should be implemented, just that it should... anyway that's not the point.

The moral here is to be careful what you wish for. Something the users here should keep in mind considering the insanely long wishlist...

[NoRailgunner 0]

Guess that explosion effects could be improved and tuned down easier than making AI smart & clever.

Imho the developers wishlist is/was long too before the release. Well lets see what they have fixed and implemented in the next patch. Cross fingers that they had some time to test and play Arma2 a bit more.

[nomdeplume 0]

AI is able to do this - watch how they set satchels and run away.

Are the AI able to use satchels on their own initiative? I thought all of that kind of thing was scripted.

[-=seany=- 5]

I have to admit it is a bit over done. To be honest though I don't notice that much when I'm actually playing online as I moving around to much switching towns often. I guess If your in one area for a while with alot of attacks going on it might get annoying.

Nobody ever told BIS how it should be implemented, just that it should... anyway that's not the point.

The moral here is to be careful what you wish for. Something the users here should keep in mind considering the insanely long wishlist...

Silly thing is that it was done about 4-5 years ago to perfection with the original ECS mod for OFP. Nice explosion plus sparks and puff of smoke and the burning sound was very nice with electrical buzzing noises also. On top of this they had a realistic time out for secondaries.

It's ok to plagiarise mods that we all loved BIS! They have done the work for you already and I'm sure they wont mind :D

Edited August 5, 2009 by -=seany=-

[cossack8559 10]

Its a bit over the top to be honest... a normal car is blown up by a T-90 then it continues to blow up again and again :eek: even though there is hardly anything left to blow up!

[IronPants 0]

First of all, secondary explosions shouldn't be the same as primary explosions. Ammo going off is not going to make an already exploded vehicle completely explode again. Secondly, vehicles without ammo should explode once. It needs some attention and polish before it will be close to believable.