Gore for infantry

[159th_Viper]

I will vehemently oppose any attempt to introduce 'gore' into any DCS module :disgust:

[winz]

There's not some sort of alien technology you have to implement, you need a physics engine and models with the appropriate bones and joint limitations. Last time I checked, this engine had a supposedly robust physics engine, did it not?

It does not. This sim got a very narrow oriented physical engine, that focuses solely on things that matter for the simulation. It is deep, but that is not robust.

Last time I checked, the physical engine for ground troops was virtually non-existing. Check how tanks and other ground vehicels behave on ground slopes changes. All units are glued to the ground.

It doesn't even have proper structure to support skeleton and joints in models.

 

I don't believe that additing a simple switch that does nothing, execept showing something on the hud can be compared with building the ground physical engine for ground troops up from the ground.

[thaisocom]

You know...we won't be able to see it from our cockpit anyway. The gores, I mean.

[Headspace]

Then you'd have realized that being a beta tester lends zero weight to your argument, since technical expertise and programming skills have never, ever been a requirement to be a beta tester or doing software QA. Playing unstable versions of a game to find bugs != programming experience.

 

I did respond... To just about all of them. I don't think I can take another page of being told I'm a stupid sophomoric baby-killing sociopath because I have this power to draw a line between fiction and reality and actually understand what happens when you employ PGMs against infantry, so I'll take a rain check on this one.

Frostiken: I'm a software developer and I have worked on realtime simulation and assorted other projects of the game and non-game variety for the past ten years. Just because Ethereal is in the QA department doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

What you are talking about has far more to do with graphics and object modeling than the physics engine per se, and if you look at the object granularity in DCS engine it doesn't take a programmer to note that it probably isn't set up to do what you guys are asking for. It might be possible, but why bother? Look at some of the discussions in the Lock-On modeling forum about vehicles, LODs, and destruction models for vehicles. Flight simulators have never aimed for that level of detail as a design concern and it makes absolutely no sense from a business standpoint to reduce (or increase depending on how you view it) your ESRB rating to an M while simultaneously embarking on development work which offers little to no return on value for a flight simulator and may introduce certain marketing liabilities.

 

I don't think anyone's calling you a sociopath for wanting gore, it's just ancillary and there are a lot of other features most of the community would like to see.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Headspace

[Haggart]

To throw in my two cents: the "I don't want to see any gorram gore in this flight simulation" makes me kinda angry. I AM against going into gore specifics in DCS - but mainly because it's not necessary and would use up much needed dev ressources. Wanting to see no gore in this simulation means closing the eyes infront of the things simulated in my opinion. Nothing you do IS friendly, after all. Yeah, you're in 2000 feet and climbing for sure. But the switches you flipped and the buttons you pressed HAVE an impact on someone on the ground, in the air, or wherever, and most time, it's a deadly impact (no pun intended). And with that conscience, I fly. Like I would kill real people instead of pixels, because in the end, if I'd fly for real, it would be that way, and closing the eyes about consequences of my switch-flipping is the wrong thing to interact with this moral questions. It's the same thing why I'd be interested in a proper simulation of nukes in DCS - because they exist and they kill people like the GBU you drop, just... more at a time and in a more cruel way. Don't call me maniac for all that wooly thoughts - I'm just trying to remind in the end we simulate killing of humans, and closing the eyes about that fact is something wrong to me.

[snwboardn]

I think we may have to wait for DCS:nighthawk for nuclear payloads... I would much rather see accurate effects on ground vehicles... Or deformable terrain... My script that blows a hole in a runway 50 feet under the ground, leaves a pretty miserable hole, one which the runway that used to be there still flashes whenever you look at it from a particular angle... So I would say that is much higher on my want list, than russian giblets...

[SmokeyTheLung]

I'm for ED modeling everything in as realistic a way as possible (Both in terms authenticity and development constraints :))

Here's a clip from a targeting pod showing the impact of a 500pounder on a car and a few dudes (Warning Graphic!). If you look carefully you will notice that not only are the individuals on the ground not "vaporized" but a few of them run away after the impact. The car also does a nice backflip.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c74_1232550018

 

^^^That's the real deal right there. No real blood and guts to speak of, from the pilots view anyway.

 

I think given EDs track record thus far it would be safe to say that they would love to simulate all these things with full fidelity. With any luck, a few modules down the road, they will be able to pull it off

Edited July 30, 2011 by SmokeyTheLung

[leafer]

My butt still hasn't fully recovered from the gang rape, from the mods, last time I mentioned ragdoll physics and flying limbs. Doctor told me the bright side is taking a dump has just gotten a lot easier. :D