Gore for infantry

[Mohamengina]

Woah, didn't know this thread was going to get so out of hand. I think the gore haters are missing the point that there should be an option to specify how much gore, if any you want out of the game. That's right - If you don't like it, simply turn it off. However for adults like myself that can handle simulated depictions of violence and actually find the addition a worthwhile aspect of the game, I would prefer to turn it on - providing its a realistic level and not too over the top. This thread simply regurgitates the stale narrative about the distinction between real and fantasy violence. Well, I like my video games brutal and honestly violent, and yet I hold a decent job, have healthy relationships with other people and have no record of committing real violence against anybody. I think it comes down to a matter of personal taste really. When I play a game I want to feel like I'm in it as much as possible and that includes a realistic depiction of violence. Games like company of heroes and starcraft 2 are good examples of realistic levels of gore without being too over the top like games such as fallout 3.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Mohamengina

[Conure]

You'd want gore added before compatibility with Black Shark and more features? Over new terrain and new aircraft? Why exactly DO you want gore anyway? Why not soldiers chatting, or stripping rifles and cleaning them? All of these things add realism in exactly the same was as gore does, yet you don't seem to want them....Why? Because you want to see how much destruction the cannon and bombs can deal in a realistic way, which is in many ways the whole point of the sim. Fair enough, if you're into that sort of thing.

 

But there are far, far higher priorities in the game and adding gore will not improve the sim.

 

Mohamengina, with regard to you liking video games brutal and violent that is fair enough, some people enjoy horror films and that isn't a negative trait on their personality in my opinion (though people that enjoy the Saw movies are definitely odd). The fact is, this isn't a video game ala Fear or Doom 3, it is a high quality simulation. There is simply no need for the gore.

[Jona33]

To be honest I'm all for improved effects to vehicles and a small amount of blood but this would only be in a future update for BS since lets face it how much blood are you going to see from an A-10 moving at 500kph, not a lot so it would only make sense in another helicopter or update. Personally I agree with Conure. also I think that there are more important features ED could add rather than adding blood.

[Zakatak]

I wouldn't mind fake ragdoll effects for infantry, maybe blood in cockpits for hits on the pilot, but for the love of God/Science/Allah/Kobol: this isn't Gears of War, it is a celebration of aviation.

[SmokeyTheLung]

I'm all for anything that makes the sim environment more realistic. Ragdoll physics for infantry would be pretty cool, I'd also love to be able to send a UAZ flying when I drop a bomb on it, or a tank flipping onto its side.

 

But first and foremost I'd really like to see some varied explosion effects. My imagination can fill in the rest :D

[Speed]

I'd be all for more violence against the poor saps on the ground if ED figured it didn't hurt sales and it was something very easy for them to do. Since probably neither of those are true, then I say leave the gore out. It is not vital for the simulation, in any way whatsoever, so why does one need it? Another thing is, their infantry AI and infantry animations aren't anywhere near the level for them to really justify putting gore in yet, and probably they won't be good enough in the next module either. Also... most of the time people just evaporate anyway. And finally, there already is some kind of special effects for infantry in the game. You ever noticed how they explode in weird ways? The explosion, IIRC, does in fact look a little umm.. chunky... when you hit them with a big bomb. They also leave kinda little grease spots on the ground after evaporation, but the spots aren't red. Someone could probably mod them if they really wanted too so that they were red... sicko :D

Edited July 26, 2011 by Speed

[Grimes]

Plus it could needlessly raise the game rating.

[OutOnTheOP]

Personally, I don't see the need for it. You can argue about how much system resources it would require until the cows come home; the fact is it will require SOME system resources. Personally, I don't know many people that have system resources to spare when running DCS:WH.

 

I also feel it is entirely extraneous. Even through the targeting pod, you don't get THAT close a look at your targets, and certainly not close enough to appreciate the fine details of what bits you blew off that poor sap.

 

Lastly, it's not realistic. I have been in real, live armed conflict, and have called real, live GBU38s onto a real, live AQ strongpoint building in Iraq. We checked out the building for intel the next morning. It was a mess, sure; but the individuals IN THE ROOM ADJACENT to the room the bomb had detonated were more or less intact- yes, one was missing legs, but, to spare the details, that wasn't a direct effect of the bomb, it was an effect of being in a building.

 

Most injuries are going to be from fragmentation, not from the blast overpressure. You'd be amazed how resilient the human body is to blast; we had, on at least three occasions I can think of, individuals within 10 yards of the point of detonation of over 500 pounds of ordnance (two suicide car bombs and one very large bomb hidden in the sewers) who, due to the geometry of the terrain were not hit by the fragmentation. Other than disorientation and some hearing damage, they were good to go. Concussions all around, I'm sure, but they certainly weren't blown into little pieces. One of those individuals was on foot at the time, the other two were out air guard hatches on vehicles. Long story short, unless you drop a Mk82 right in someone's lap, you're not going to blow them into Quake-style giblets.

 

Personally, I'd be more than happy with a couple decent "falls over dead or seriously injured" animations. Preferably at least one staggering/wounded and one "Dead Right There" sack-of-potatos drop.

 

THAT SAID, what COULD certainly be improved upon, and is large-scale enough to be regularly noticed by the player, is tbe vehicle damage and destruction animations. Tanks and IFVs should cook off ammunition and burn for HOURS. It should be possible for tanks to throw tracks, or for turrets to lock up. T-72s and similar tanks with unprotected ammunition storage should occasionally pop the turret a couple hundred feet in the air (another good reason not to get too close on a strafing run!) Engine kills should be possible. Killing the TC (and disabling the AA MG) should be possible. Secondaries. Good lord, please give us BIG OL' secondaries for ammunition trucks (at least those attached to artillery units).

Edited July 27, 2011 by OutOnTheOP

[Frostiken]

Personally, I don't see the need for it. You can argue about how much system resources it would require until the cows come home; the fact is it will require SOME system resources. Personally, I don't know many people that have system resources to spare when running DCS:WH.

 

Not doing something because a minority refuse to upgrade their aging systems is absurd. That's what consoles are for - holding back progress and innovation for people who can't afford to buy something better, or are too confused by upgrading, etc. etc. etc. Basically I look upon the 'my 7 year old PC couldn't handle it' arguments with *GREAT* disdain.

 

I also feel it is entirely extraneous. Even through the targeting pod, you don't get THAT close a look at your targets, and certainly not close enough to appreciate the fine details of what bits you blew off that poor sap.

 

Lastly, it's not realistic. I have been in real, live armed conflict, and have called real, live GBU38s onto a real, live AQ strongpoint building in Iraq. We checked out the building for intel the next morning. It was a mess, sure; but the individuals IN THE ROOM ADJACENT to the room the bomb had detonated were more or less intact- yes, one was missing legs, but, to spare the details, that wasn't a direct effect of the bomb, it was an effect of being in a building.

 

There's a video right up there of softies getting hit with what I assume is a GBU. One guy is clearly torn in half and several others are salsa-fied. I've seen plenty of our videos from Afghanistan of pod video and yeah, you see all kinds of devastation. What makes it particularly visible is you're looking at them in FLIR, so all the squishy bits show up much brighter.

 

Most injuries are going to be from fragmentation, not from the blast overpressure.

 

One of our strategies in Afghanistan is to drop a GBU-38 into the dirt, so the Talibs, who are hiding, come out since fragmentation and blast pressure is minimized. We follow up with an air-burst GBU-31 that turns everyone's lungs inside-out for about 300 yards. The physics behind battlefield injuries isn't as cut-and-dry as you suggest.

 

 

Immersion isn't about doing things because you can, it's things happening because you expect them to happen. When immersion is broken it's because something didn't behave naturally. Nearby explosions of 500-lb+ GBUs is expected to throw people around and tear them to bits. Sure, some people are going to think that everyone should explode into pieces, but the fact is that extremely close and direct gun hits on infantry as well as close bomb detonations are going to do more than have the infantry slowly lean over to the ground, which they do now, which looks like total crap. There's a lot of room for compromise here, and I don't expect super-realistic handling here, but as I said, simple ragdolls would be a great improvement to the fact that hitting someone in the face with an AGM-65 appears to make them simply faint.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Frostiken

[EtherealN]

"Simple ragdolls" aren't "simple", though, not im implementation and not on system resources. We're talking a major effort to implement it, effort that can be better spent on more important things.

[Yo-Yo]

Having some gore would add to the immersion a lot. Its a bit strange having infantry simply fall over after being hit by a 30mm cannon or explosives. Also an ability to turn this on or off would be a bonus as some players don't find gore that appealing.

 

Did you ever see badly wounded people close to you? Did you see their blood on the clothes or on the ground?

 

If so I do not understand why do you want gore in the game.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Yo-Yo

[Frostiken]

...effort that can be better spent on more important things.

Oh my god, drop is already, this argument is useless, pointless, baseless, and boring. Case in point: the last patch made a switch functional that not only most pointedly has ZERO effect in-game whatsoever, but has been stated there's no plans to ever make it functional in-game. Clearly someone disagrees with your idea on what is the best use of resources. I will argue that the only important thing left to work on is Nevada and, I guess, the KA-50 patch. You could say that half the features in the last few patches, since exactly 100% of them were *not* Nevada, could have been spent on 'more important' things.

 

If we're going to waste our time making a switch toggle and turn a light on that does nothing beyond that, what *can't* we waste our time on? This reminds me of my thread to put in switch / handle safeties and people even found a reason to argue against that.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Frostiken

[VincentLaw]

Considering that this is an A-10C study simulator, I think making every switch functional in DCS: Warthog is far more appropriate than, for example, making every switch in the ARMA 2 A-10 work.

 

Since ARMA 2 is (primarily) an infantry simulator, making infantry as 100% realistic as possible is far more appropriate than spending that time doing the same for DCS: Warthog.

 

At some point ED may come out with DCS:Corpsman or something like that, at which point I am sure they will strive in every possible way to make aspects of human injury as realistic as possible.

[Frostiken]

An A-10 study simulator.

 

Not a KC-135, or an Airbus A380 simulator, but a study simulator of an aircraft that is designed to engage infantry and armored targets and kill and destroy them. Not send them flowers, or cut their grass, or give their kids a ride to school - to maim, destroy, and bring untold destruction upon the puny heads of whoever is in front of it. Which is specifically why I said more realistic vehicle destruction would be welcome as well. In fact, everything that tears up the ground could be greatly improved - bomb impacts are pretty lackluster.

 

If you can't handle the fact that it's a war machine, there's always FSX to satiate your pacifist tendencies.

 

Let's not forget that ED had time to put in pilot walking animations and make him controllable, and then let you jump in a drivable UAZ. I'm sure you can find a reason to justify why that is more important too.

 

I understand certain opposition to the inclusion, but I do not find any of the explanations offered to substantiate the reason whatsoever. I think I've done fair enough to explain why most of these arguments are totally invalid, only to see the poster jump to another convenient half-reason why. As such I no longer find this thread worth my already mostly useless time. I know that there will never be enhanced infantry deaths, I never expected otherwise, but I think one could pony up more to the thread than hyperbole and circular arguments...

Edited July 27, 2011 by Frostiken

[EtherealN]

Oh my god, drop is already, this argument is useless, pointless, baseless, and boring. Case in point: the last patch made a switch functional that not only most pointedly has ZERO effect in-game whatsoever, but has been stated there's no plans to ever make it functional in-game. Clearly someone disagrees with your idea on what is the best use of resources.

 

Making a flip switch toggle without an associated function is... how much work? I ask you, because you seem to know? I don't know exactly how much work it is, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone made that happen for the lols during his lunch break.

 

Splatter and "simple ragdoll" on the other hand is entirely new engine components that have to either be coded from scratch and then retrofitted back into the general system, or components that have to be purchased through middleware companies and then get integrated.

 

...only THEN can they even start implementing the "simple ragdoll".

 

I'm sorry, but you just don't have a workable understanding of how the nuts and bolts work here. No shame in that, but it is a fact.

 

I will argue that the only important thing left to work on is Nevada and, I guess, the KA-50 patch. You could say that half the features in the last few patches, since exactly 100% of them were *not* Nevada, could have been spent on 'more important' things.

 

One could say that, and would be wrong. :)

 

Not a KC-135, or an Airbus A380 simulator, but a study simulator of an aircraft that is designed to engage infantry and armored targets and kill and destroy them.

 

Exactly, it's a simulator that studies the A-10C. It doesn't study intestines. It studies the aircraft and it's systems. This is a serious simulation product, not warporn.

 

Let's not forget that ED had time to put in pilot walking animations and make him controllable, and then let you jump in a drivable UAZ. I'm sure you can find a reason to justify why that is more important too.

 

Actually, those are easter eggs, not features. What you are seeing is the effect of a programmer having a loltastic idea and doing it for the lols on a lunchbreak or after-hours. They're not part of the design.

Edited July 27, 2011 by EtherealN

[Frostiken]

So anyone who thinks the weapon delivery aspect should be improved clearly isn't taking the sim 'seriously', and in the spirit of the ridiculous circular non-arguments of this thread, we've come right back to suggesting that anyone who doesn't fly the A-10 while wearing a monocle and a tux is a dirty demented sociopathic ingrate. Why not just make the age rating for the game only for old pretentious old men over the age of 55, since anyone who doesn't weep alligator tears for the magic pixel-men clearly just wants to celebrate blood and guts and only plays the game while listening to Drowning Pool.

 

I'm so done with this thread. If you want to insult me, man up and be direct about it.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Frostiken

[EtherealN]

I'm not looking to insult you, I'm illustrating things you haven't understood regarding what things require what amount of work to implement and what causes what things to be made. Nothing wrong in that - programmers are special type of people just like fighter pilots are a special type of people, and it's not always easy for people who live outside of their "world" to understand how things happen.

[Frostiken]

I'm not looking to insult you, I'm illustrating things you haven't understood regarding what things require what amount of work to implement and what causes what things to be made.

 

Yet you didn't actually cite any of your own experience and in fact stated that you don't even know how much work implementing features the game already has is... so why am I to believe that you have all the answers?

 

I never said ragdolls were 'easy' to implement, but I also never said I particularly cared, and additionally you're seemingly suggesting that, in a game engine that's renowned for its physics simulation quality, that none of these physics can be applied to a model that already has been rigged and has bones. You do realize that you can make ragdolls in 3DSMax, right? 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?

Edited July 27, 2011 by Frostiken

[EtherealN]

I don't know exactly how much work is involved, but I know that MAJOR parts of what would be required simply isn't there. I have a workable knowledge of how the simulator works and what components it has, and ragdolls simply aren't there. Switch-flipping however is there.

 

As for "my own experience", I'm a tester, in case you didn't notice, and this isn't the first product I've done testing on, and I have roughly 10 years of exposure to computer game programmers and their projects professionally. (Plus a few years before that where it was mainy hobby projects.)

 

Derail finished and complete. Respond to the questions and arguments at hand or don't.

[Frostiken]

I'm a tester, in case you didn't notice, and this isn't the first product I've done testing on, and I have roughly 10 years of exposure to computer game programmers and their projects professionally.

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.

 

Respond to the questions and arguments at hand or don't

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.

[docehrenhoefer]

No offense, but: how often do we get close enough to see what has happened to the pixel soldiers? Even when strafing them with the gun, at a distance of .5 miles you hardly see anything. At least at the resolution level in this sim. So, before battling over gore and ragdoll physics, a more detailed damage model, more different kinds of explosions and more different smoke columns would be far mor interesting.

And possibly dust trails of moving vehicles.

[EtherealN]

You can zoom in enough with the TGP to theoretically be able to see details like that.

[Grimes]

I think we can all agree that the infantry in the game could use alot of work. Afterall the game sees them more as vehicles and not infantry and they lack alternative behavior from vehicles.

 

In the grand scheme of things infantry simulation really isn't that important for a flight sim. It would be nice if it was more advanced, but the graphics engine, AI, and animations really don't support it currently. Besides it makes much more sense from a gameplay perspective to add in damage modeling for tanks or other ground assets than to focus on infantry. I'd rather have the ability to disable a T-80 by killing the gunners, destroying its treads, or landing 30MM into the ammo box than to have infantry die appropriately to the weapon used.

[Headspace]

THAT SAID, what COULD certainly be improved upon, and is large-scale enough to be regularly noticed by the player, is tbe vehicle damage and destruction animations. Tanks and IFVs should cook off ammunition and burn for HOURS. It should be possible for tanks to throw tracks, or for turrets to lock up. T-72s and similar tanks with unprotected ammunition storage should occasionally pop the turret a couple hundred feet in the air (another good reason not to get too close on a strafing run!) Engine kills should be possible. Killing the TC (and disabling the AA MG) should be possible. Secondaries. Good lord, please give us BIG OL' secondaries for ammunition trucks (at least those attached to artillery units).

This. It's far more immersive to have proper vehicle destruction than infantry gore. BDU in Desert Storm was thrown off to some extent because in many cases 30mm kills to armor ended up being mobility kills and kills that were not immediately evident because tanks did not detonate violently. While it was immediately obvious the effects of an AGM-65 or AGM-114 against tanks, kinetic projectiles do not produce the same feedback outside of the vehicle.

[GGTharos]

It isn't 'our time' it is their time, and ragdoll animations and gore is something they can't waste their time on.

 

If we're going to waste our time making a switch toggle and turn a light on that does nothing beyond that, what *can't* we waste our time on? This reminds me of my thread to put in switch / handle safeties and people even found a reason to argue against that.