This is real modeling

[Maschine Pistole-38]

It was a true statement applicable for suggestion forum. Not only for this thread, so it's a QFT.

Also, I don't understand why are you insulting with no apparent reason. Your post has been reported to mods.

The only true part about his statement was just normal flame bait.

I pity people who think an idea is good just based on a half dozen 'I like' replies. The only way to make an idea 'good' is to break it down to its core with a logical argument. Something I have yet to see, also I fail to see how this is a even a great suggestion. It just seems like a link with 'Make RO like this because 2.5% of the population said so'

 

[SgtThompson]

Nothing like taking down a server in a single shot eh?

 

[jedinstven-o crni Wuk]

That's why the physics cards for

but they are still far away from beeing a "real" standard.

i woud only wish a "bit" more improvements in the tanks/infantry, no need for a super high realistic real life calculation. Semi-realism is ok, but in some circumstances, the tanks do not even give that.

so just some fixes, woud already here do the deal. No reason, to rebuild the game from begining.

 

[radix]

The hitpoint system is good enought if it will be not cummulative.

Lets say an IS2 has 200HP armour/frontal poly.

If HE is hitting that poly is for sure not penetrating and let's say that a HE make a 80HP damage.

-> there will be no damage to the tank but the new HP of the poly should *NOT* be 200-80=120. The HP should be again 200.

Let's say that an AP has 40 HP.

If an AP hit that poly and the penetration computation result is that the projectile *should* penetrate and hit some vital parts the HP will be 40 + 1000 = 1040

-> tank will be destroyed.

If the projectile deflects the HP of poly will still remain 200 or 190 (fracturing?).

The tracks can sustain like 30 HP.

So a quick (and dirty) solution to fix the tank sys would be to reset the tanks HP after each hit.

At the moment you can destroy an Tiger with HE rounds :/.


P.S. The numbers should be adjusted according with real data

 

[Vakichev]

The only true part about his statement was just normal flame bait.

I pity people who think an idea is good just based on a half dozen 'I like' replies. The only way to make an idea 'good' is to break it down to its core with a logical argument. Something I have yet to see, also I fail to see how this is a even a great suggestion. It just seems like a link with 'Make RO like this because 2.5% of the population said so'

No it's actually more like: Make RO like this because it would be REALISTIC. And realism is what RO is based around.

 

[Elvis]

No it's actually more like: Make RO like this because it would be REALISTIC. And realism is what RO is based around.

Halleluja, can I get witnessuh?

 

[Avron]

WW2OL This is not the ueber top-notch simulation some might expect. There are far advanced methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis


But the question is how doing things effective, not 99,99% accurate. Of course there is still a long way for RO.

 

[Maschine Pistole-38]

No it's actually more like: Make RO like this because it would be REALISTIC. And realism is what RO is based around.

Isn't that something, you think it will make it 'more realistic' when you have no idea what it would take to make it work? Red Orchestra could have every single artery, vein, organ, and bone modeled. Would anyone notice the difference between that and what we currently have? I wouldn't think so, besides isn't it nice to see fancy high number calculations when something happens? But all it does is bog down resources and all you had to do was give the appearance of what happens in real life.

 

[Rameusb5]

The technical reason WWIIOL was able to do those physics calculations was because it ran on a large dedicated server, as most MMOG's do.

Actually, all of the physics calculations performed by WWIIOL are clientside. The client calculates the tragectory of your bullet when you fire, and also whether or not it penetrates, and what damage is applied. It then sends that damage information to the server, which passes it along to the targets client. So you end up saving a lot of resources because only the firer's computer peforms the calculations for bullets that miss. That information isn't passed along to the server (or anyone else) other than the fact that a bullet was shot (and then performs the animation on everyone else's computer).

This also causes a significant problem because it makes "simulkills" a frequent occurance on the server. You will often shoot someone, and in the second or so it takes the server to pass the "kill" message to your target, he can shoot you. While this is acceptable for planes and tanks who either have a lower rate of fire (tanks) or are rarely in a situation to exchange gunfire (fighters), it is the absolute suxxors for infantry play.

The other outcome of this is that 3rd person bullets (bullets fired by other people) never land exactly where the bullets are actually landing, because, again, the firer's computer is performing the exact tragectory calculations, while everyone else is just seeing an animation that approximates the event.

This is typically not a major issue, although it causes wierd issues where an enemy tank appears to be missing you, while in fact he is not. It also makes artillery spotting pointless.


I don't see any reason why RO can't use WWIIOL's physics calculations. Just keep in mind that the second issue I listed might still occur (the first issue is due to client side calculations. I believe RO uses server side for trajectory and damage.)

 

[[5.SS]Strother]

Isn't that something, you think it will make it 'more realistic' when you have no idea what it would take to make it work? Red Orchestra could have every single artery, vein, organ, and bone modeled. Would anyone notice the difference between that and what we currently have? I wouldn't think so, besides isn't it nice to see fancy high number calculations when something happens? But all it does is bog down resources and all you had to do was give the appearance of what happens in real life.

Here, let me requote something a DEV said in this very thread

Wilsonam-"You can achieve the same effect with far less mad calculation"

He is saying that we can have almost the EXACT SAME THING, but in a much simpler, easier way. Then why the hell don't we have it? A lot of people are posting the exact same thing wilsonam said, except in a longer, more boring way, so please stop and come up with some new content.

 

[Colt .45 killer]

or basically what you could do was to say that if a round penetrates one of the compartments, either the commanders or the driver/machinegunner. then everyone in that compartment is dead. another person might however be able to get in and resume the position of the dead person; unless it was a heap round in which case the tank would be dead in the water.

 

[Vakichev]

Isn't that something, you think it will make it 'more realistic' when you have no idea what it would take to make it work? Red Orchestra could have every single artery, vein, organ, and bone modeled. Would anyone notice the difference between that and what we currently have? I wouldn't think so, besides isn't it nice to see fancy high number calculations when something happens? But all it does is bog down resources and all you had to do was give the appearance of what happens in real life.

I certainly think you would. The crew inside the tank can be killed while the tank isnt even destroyed yet. Not to mention the penetration system would function much better. Seriously that's like (using your example i believe) saying you wont notice the difference between a four and eight cylinder engine in a car.

 

[Vakichev]

Yeah that quote by elvis is so true.

 

[Dwarden]

and if You are fly simulator freak ...

You will be playing IL-2 Forgotten Battles (Aces Expansion), PE-2 expansion or Pacific Fighters ...

or all of them together as one pack ...

no problem to find 30-60 players servers ... once i saw more than 70 online ... quite sure there are some private clan servers or LAN tourneys where they fill these 100 player servers ...

simple IL-2 is top notch WW2 fly sim ...

i can't wait for that Battle of Britain with completely new engine (it's supposed to beat latest IL-2 one by folds) from same developer studio ...

 

[Vakichev]

Yeah but we were talking about adding a realistic penetration system to RO not planes.

 

[ViViD]

Whether WWIIOnline is on the extreme and wilsomam says you can simulate it more basicly, is a matter of opinion.

But as it stands now, I think on the majority feel it needs to be improved.

And because we really haven't heard from the developers if they are working on it or we have to just live with it in this game, I think we will continue to post and hope that Tripwire can produce a medium we are all happy with

 

[Eater1]

I don't see any reason why RO can't use WWIIOL's physics calculations. Just keep in mind that the second issue I listed might still occur (the first issue is due to client side calculations. I believe RO uses server side for trajectory and damage.)

I didn't know that about WWIIOL, that does explain a few things. Not a bad idea - I actually suggested client-side hit detection in another thread, and it's certainly not a new idea in game development.
However, it's not nearly that simple, because if you do client-side calculations, you're going to get one of two things:
1. Really bad lag effects on slow servers, such as getting killed by invisible enemies, or "shooting blanks" (depending on which client gets to decide tie-breakers).
2. Rampant cheating, as people learn to strategically unplug ethernet cables to get either a few moments of invulnerability, or a few moments of having their target sit still.
There was actually a mutator for UT '99 called the Zero Ping Mutator, which did just this. And while some people enjoyed how it effected gameplay (it was mostly made as a "latency accelerator" rather than to take the load off servers, though really all it was doing was hiding the latency by making all the players' pings appear as "0" and calculating all shots client-side), it had a lot of problems with abuse and eventually its use slumped off as more people discovered how to abuse client-side detection.
Not to say it couldn't be done, but it's just not that simple.

 

[Switchblade]

just a friendly " final" warning

stay on topic and do not insult each other.
If you can not discuss in a normal way without calling each other "buttkissers" this thread will be deleted and appropriate action taken

 

[Rameusb5]

I didn't know that about WWIIOL, that does explain a few things. Not a bad idea - I actually suggested client-side hit detection in another thread, and it's certainly not a new idea in game development.
However, it's not nearly that simple, because if you do client-side calculations, you're going to get one of two things:
1. Really bad lag effects on slow servers, such as getting killed by invisible enemies, or "shooting blanks" (depending on which client gets to decide tie-breakers).
2. Rampant cheating, as people learn to strategically unplug ethernet cables to get either a few moments of invulnerability, or a few moments of having their target sit still.
There was actually a mutator for UT '99 called the Zero Ping Mutator, which did just this. And while some people enjoyed how it effected gameplay (it was mostly made as a "latency accelerator" rather than to take the load off servers, though really all it was doing was hiding the latency by making all the players' pings appear as "0" and calculating all shots client-side), it had a lot of problems with abuse and eventually its use slumped off as more people discovered how to abuse client-side detection.
Not to say it couldn't be done, but it's just not that simple.

Both of those issues are problems with WWIIOL. People with faster internet connections are constantly getting killed by slower people who appear invisible because the target's client hasn't been updated by the shooter's position yet. They have something called "predictor code" which is supposed to allow the target's computer to predict where the enemy will be, which is fine for planes and tanks because they don't move erraticly. But for infantry, it doesn't really work very well.

Plug pulling is a constant issue in WWIIOL. Over there, you don't become invulnerable though. It simply logs you out, which means you can prevent your death from being logged, and thus have "uber" stats.

For invulnerablity, people tend to smash their "take screenshot" key repeatedly, which makes their computer purposely lag, which means they can perform eratic maneuvers and appear to teleport to a new location because the predictor code can't keep up. This is more of a problem for aircraft than infantry.




I think it's all well and good for people to say, wow, look at how well this or that game does something. It's completely another matter for it to work in YOUR game without major concequences.

Perhaps they (TW) can impliment the physics above for cannon rounds only, and leave small-arms calculations the same. That might be the best compromise (if it's even possible).

 

[jedinstven-o crni Wuk]

I hope that at least the majority agree, that changes are needed. If they use WWIIO'sL system, another one or just fixing the current one, is a question. But changes are needed, that for sure.