• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Destructible environments

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
Napoleon Blownapart said:
check out the Arma2 Operation Crossbow demo... i think for HoS that system will work fine... it doesn't look amazing epic.. but it works... and its not overdone in my eyes...
Click to expand...

Operation Arrowhead. :p

My bad, double post. I'm used to auto merging when you post twice in a row. (It does that on the forum that I am usually on.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#22
Extremity said:
Bringing an entire building down would be kinda lame unless its objective based
Click to expand...

yea, that would be cool!

In Stalingrad many buildings were blown up by pioneers,
Paulus demanded from Hitler a whole division of Pioneers just for the battle in the city.

...would make a great map: Axis pioneers get the objective to place 4 explosives in a building to blow it up. :D
 
Upvote 0
#24
How much damage would you actually be able to do with standard small arms? If you watch this video: YouTube - MYTHBUSTERS FIRING MINIGUN (S5E22) you of a minigun being fired at a barrel, you'll notice that although it does a significant amount of damage, it doesn't completely obliterate the object.

In most games however, you might shoot a table once and it will break in half.

I think in most cases, having implied destruction, in the form of lots of decals and particle effects, as well as physical effects on players (e.g. taking damage from flying debris) would be sufficient.

Of course, with tanks and heavy weapons, it would be a different matter...
 
Upvote 0
#25
When I first plyed Bad Company 2, I though having destructableenvironments really is a great thing.

Having played BC2 for after 2 months, you dont even notice the destructable environments anymore. Its a nuisance that comes handy when you want to sell a game.

Looking to the BC engine, it really struggles with dual and multi-cores. I think games with fullout destructable environments are really a thing for the next generation (in about 4 years?) computergames.

Allthough I may be wrong looking at Crysis. Hmm :confused:
 
Upvote 0
#26
I want "Destructible Environment" for its tactical play. It's all about the "breach", and the combat pioneers carrying explosive charges that fought in Stalingrad were there for creating them.

Assault groups (on both sides) employed these explosive charges to create breaches in walls and floors, both to storm positions, and to improve their own strongpoints once they were consolidated.

DE wants are therefore about tactical wants, and not just about pretty graphics or special effects.

Strongpoint_Diagram.jpg
 
Upvote 0
#28
I'm thinking some of the battling over game strongpoints might really benefit from the ability to create new pathing, and therefore enhance problem solving. In the context of the potential Rattenkrieg-type levels, where movement may be channelized through trenches or sewers (open areas being covered by fire), having the ability to breach could liberate players from the "ratmaze".
 
Upvote 0
#29
Galslacht said:
When I first plyed Bad Company 2, I though having destructableenvironments really is a great thing.

Having played BC2 for after 2 months, you dont even notice the destructable environments anymore. Its a nuisance that comes handy when you want to sell a game.

Looking to the BC engine, it really struggles with dual and multi-cores. I think games with fullout destructable environments are really a thing for the next generation (in about 4 years?) computergames.

Allthough I may be wrong looking at Crysis. Hmm :confused:
Click to expand...
I havent really had much of an issue with bc2 i guess it could seem like its lagging when your are inside since it seems to "grab" you when you think you should have made it out but watching building go down did seem to kill my pc.

Zetsumei said:
Which is why I hope that things like stalingradkessel mesh swapping will be possible. Creating alternate routes and firepositions brings additional diversity to the gameplay. (although it could destroy the balance and pathing of a map)
Click to expand...

stalingradkessel is exactly the map i am think for DE. There may have to be compromise for game play but i don't see why there couldn't be some out laying builds that can be completely destroyed and others that hold up.
 
Upvote 0
#30
Ender said:
stalingradkessel is exactly the map i am think for DE. There may have to be compromise for game play but i don't see why there couldn't be some out laying builds that can be completely destroyed and others that hold up.
Click to expand...

I'm not using the map as an example. But the method of destruction used to blow up the south railyard walls. By swapping a static mesh that looks like an ok wall with a static mesh that looks like a wall with a hole in it.

Pure physx based destruction is simply something that is probably not feasible net code and performance wise. While I believe Schneidzekk said that the UE3 engine can handle a lot more mesh swaps.

People with hardware physX could see a lot more smoke and mirrors when when such a hole is created. Where as people with less strong computers could see regular particle effects.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu