Since we're getting close to mudmoving...

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well...crew protection is paramount in armored vehicle design. We do see lots of flame though, don't we? ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Maybe you have the next unabomber in that class...

 

Maybe. :icon_axe:

[Yellonet]

Well...crew protection is paramount in armored vehicle design. We do see lots of flame though, don't we? ;)

Indeed ;)

[bSr.LCsta]

man you guys are a couple of highjackers :P

this was an important topic IMHO.

[192nd_Erdem]

man you guys are a couple of highjackers :P

this was an important topic IMHO.

 

What he said.

 

Please.

[Guest IguanaKing]

man you guys are a couple of highjackers :P

this was an important topic IMHO.

 

 

How so? The original post said that tanks don't burn, when I have personally witnessed just the opposite. Maybe I should have mentioned that. :p

[192nd_Erdem]

No the original post isn't about that,you guys just talk about what you want to understand.

 

This is the third time I'm saying,the original post is about vehicle damage modelling,and how to make a helicopter sim more interesting.

 

About that "not burning" thing,I didn't say that,tanks DO burn depending on how they're hit.I just mentioned the current "burning" modelling is exaggerated and not realistic.I suggest reading my posts over and over :)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well...you used the video as "proof" of your opinion that tanks don't burn...when they do if they have ANYTHING inside of them in the way of fuel or ammunition. I agree the shapes are somewhat primitive, but the overall effect is realistic. Besides...no attack helicopter pilot is going to get close enough to his target right after killing it to give a hoot about the shape of the explosion. If anything, the vehicle fires in LOMAC don't last long enough, and if they did, they'd need to be improved for subsequent overflights because they ARE a little blocky. :D

[Yellonet]

man you guys are a couple of highjackers :P

this was an important topic IMHO.

Sorry, but we were discussing the video that you posted... and it got out of hand. And yes this topic is important.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Don't apologize, Yellonet, we were discussing the reality of one particular aspect of the post in question. I'm still not quite sure how that meant we were somehow lessening the importance of the thread. The interest of this thread is to make things more accurate, so healthy, scientific debate should be encouraged...not dismissed as hijacking.

[ARM505]

Even if a warhead hits an AFV and starts a raging inferno inside the vehicle, that fire can only be visible if it gets outside the actual vehicle, ie a fire burning inside a tank is not visible from the outside. It's results quite possibly are, of course - smoke etc, and possibly small flames coming from openings made by the warhead, or hatches blown out by internal overpressure. So, the current effect is not realistic. Whats burning - the tanks paint?!? I'm aware that some metals can burn, but thats not whats happening here. Turrets can be blown off, with a fire coming out of the hull, or smoke can come out out hatches, something like that. I believe the shots of the Vikhr hitting the APC were relatively true to reality. Lots of dust and some small flames, but essentially the vehicle is still intact and not a raging bonfire.

[Guest IguanaKing]

One design feature of modern MBTs, AFVs, and IFVs is the upward release of explosive power from cooked off ammunition and fuel. The goal is to spare the lives of the crew inside, and yes, it DOES make an impressive fireball that is quite visible to the outside world. :D

[ARM505]

Yes. I've seen a video of one specific compartmentalised design being tested, and it is an impressive bang. But, not every hit would induce this. And there are no engulfing flames covering the entire vehicle. Doesn't a killed tank look pretty tank-like still? I believe that occasionally hits should just result in the tank/AFV stopping dead, and maybe smoking a bit. It's killed, but without the silly column of temporary black smoke that we currently have. Maybe they should just use the effect they use currently just before the tank blows up, where it trundles to a stop smoking a bit, with a little flame. Just skip the ensuing explosion. Just a thought, use it, don't use it.....

[Guest IguanaKing]

Yes...you've seen video. Enough said. :D

[Yellonet]

Another thing that is important now that we're really getting down to earth is that the trees must become objects... now that will be a real FPS killer... or maybe they'll do it like in IL-2 that the whole forest is one "collision zone" and you die as soon as you go down in the trees.

That would be a shame though as you should be able to hide among the trees.

And as it works now you can't as at range the trees aren't visible, but you are :icon_neut

[SUBS17]

I think they might be doing something for the trees in 1.2 someone mentioned something about it in one of the threads.

[MBot]

ED commented that they are reworking the tree system for 1.2. So they influence LOS of sensors and weapons. And I guess a better graphical representation ( realy needed if you want to hover behind them ).

[bSr.LCsta]

maybe they could implement more than 1 damage model. At least it wouldnt look soo bad when you have just killed a culoumn of tanks (all smoking exactly the same).

Would it be possible to have different damage models for different vehicles, or based on the type of weapon used?

[Yellonet]

maybe they could implement more than 1 damage model. At least it wouldnt look soo bad when you have just killed a culoumn of tanks (all smoking exactly the same).

Would it be possible to have different damage models for different vehicles, or based on the type of weapon used?

They could have a few different fires and wrecks but they should be in groups so that if you kill a tank with a GP bomb you would see effects A, B or C randomly, and if you kill a tank with a cluster bomb or AT weapon you would see effects D, E or F randomly... and so on.

And we need more dust and soil in the explosions :)

[Whisper]

Another thing that is important now that we're really getting down to earth is that the trees must become objects... now that will be a real FPS killer... or maybe they'll do it like in IL-2 that the whole forest is one "collision zone" and you die as soon as you go down in the trees.

That would be a shame though as you should be able to hide among the trees.

And as it works now you can't as at range the trees aren't visible, but you are :icon_neut

Razorworks didi it the same way with EEAH/EECH. You can keep forest edge with individual trees, though, and individual trees at some place, etc... to make the forest "block" only reachable from above, this would solve the "can't hide among the trees" issues. You couldn't hide in the middle of a forest, that's all (and that's realistic ;) )

[192nd_Erdem]

What about something more complicated than just random explosions?Like tanks taking damage depending on which part of tank is hit,which weapon did that and proper damage calculations for weapons type?

 

But it still be okay with random explosion effects if devs don't have time and resources for that.

[Yellonet]

Razorworks didi it the same way with EEAH/EECH. You can keep forest edge with individual trees, though, and individual trees at some place, etc... to make the forest "block" only reachable from above, this would solve the "can't hide among the trees" issues. You couldn't hide in the middle of a forest, that's all (and that's realistic ;) )

Depends on the forrest, and with BS's addition of forward airbases you should be able to put one in a forrest somehow...

[Yellonet]

What about something more complicated than just random explosions?Like tanks taking damage depending on which part of tank is hit,which weapon did that and proper damage calculations for weapons type?

 

But it still be okay with random explosion effects if devs don't have time and resources for that.

Of course that would be the best... but maybe that would add too much CPU time... LockOn is already all processors nightmare ;)

[wsoul2k]

IMHO trees will be a problem.....at low at we all wanna bether trees.....we wann get in a hill and hide fly very low and etc etc...i really dont know how do that with a big FPS hit..

 

About the models i think new LOD levels to ground units will help a lot off course we need new DAMAGE models ...

 

infantry units are desirable..but i dont think we will get then on 1.2

 

I dont know if this is possible...but this can help a lot to avoid a big hit in performace......can we have dofferent textures based on the choosed flyable ??

 

I mean with the chopper a bether texture to ground Units and ...we really dont need a higth texture so AIM-120 or whille in a chopper.....

 

Well i reallu dont know ..but something heve to be done

 

PS: After reading my post...i can guarante im not helping ...so i will just be quiet and wait lol :tongue:

[Yellonet]

I don't even think that ED them selfs know why LockOn is so extremely demanding :p (runs away).