Tanks must crush those wooden barriers
- Thread starter ozgurak87
- Start date
I like this idea. But making say parts of the fence breakable would be nice. Say a Panther drives through a fence. Why make the whole thing collapse instead of just the section that the tank drove through. Could take a little extra work but it would be nice. I don't think fences should provide cover from fire either. So much fun on the [5.SS] Server where they have the bullet penetration. Russians hide behind the fence and a single spray from an MG42 kills them all.
Upvote
0
Yeah sorry i was being general... I meant unreal 2 series or something i guess.
I'm aware the engine has moved on a bit from its first release.
My thoughts basically are.. yes games have used deformable terrain- its normally their 'showcase' , like say red faction (not unreal engine i realise). But it must cause a performance hit , and therefore limit the game in other areas?
Ro has extra features many other games don't that must hit on performance too- like the bullet physics and count (someone mentioned that MG's actually fire every bullet they should which is outrageous if true).
Even the magazines everyone carry (differing amounts in each), body location damage , Voip- they must each add to the burden.... and i imagine all this has pushed the engine near the limit of it's capabilities?
If we can have deformable landscapes, even in the most basic form, applying to all RL destructable objects in maps, without significant playability penalty or removal of other features the i'm all for it.
But many folks seem to say it can be done so there you go.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I still maintain that having the terrain feature still standing- but passable- is preferable to having an impassable feature that is obviously out of place. Seeing a tank roll through a picket fence- which afterwards appears unscathed- is no more of an 'immersion-breaker' than having that same picket fence stop a tank dead in its tracks! (Note the big difference boils down to who does the passable/impassable status affect more- the person watching the fence being rolled through undamaged, or the tanker who can't roll through it at all?)
As for sandbags and low stone walls, I'd say all sandbags could be rolled over/through, but make some stone walls passable as noted and others still impassable.
As for sandbags and low stone walls, I'd say all sandbags could be rolled over/through, but make some stone walls passable as noted and others still impassable.
Upvote
0
You cannot be serious.
So a little ****ty picket fence stopping 45 tons of steel is the non-plus-ultra of immersion, or what do you wanna say? Even stone walls will not stand the crash.Ok, the engine cannot handle this, it's not realistic, and so on. The problem is, everyone is to some extent right. Why not just put all these "troublemaker" away from any map containing tanks? There are other posibilities to provide concealment for those pesky AT soldiers...
Upvote
0
I'd much rather having a tank rolling through a fence then wamming into it at 30kmh and stopping dead, that's a bit more of an immersion killer
Upvote
0
Worst case senario...
I would suggest
Changing all those weak looking fenses to
Super Cement Armoured Walls
However, I would really love to see tanks go thru some objects
I would suggest
Changing all those weak looking fenses to
Super Cement Armoured Walls
However, I would really love to see tanks go thru some objects
Upvote
0
Variable objects on maps = bad lag = never gonna happen unless that's sorted
Even if it is just a 2 state system
Even if it is just a 2 state system
Upvote
0
That's why some of us are saying simply make some of them passable (Granny Fences, clumps of shrubbery, sandbags, etc.) and others remain impassable (stone walls, some trees, etc.). If some large bushes can be made passable, why not Granny Fences? I'm no coding wizard (not even an apprentice!) but it doesn't seem like that much of an issue to assign a 'passable' code to an oject and be done with it.
We're not saying that every object has to be 'destructible' or whatever, just that it's the lesser of two evils to have some of the more obvious objects passable by vehicles but the object remain 'undamaged'. Some stone walls *might* stop a vehicle, but there's not a picket fence in the world that has, to date, stopped a tank.
We're not saying that every object has to be 'destructible' or whatever, just that it's the lesser of two evils to have some of the more obvious objects passable by vehicles but the object remain 'undamaged'. Some stone walls *might* stop a vehicle, but there's not a picket fence in the world that has, to date, stopped a tank.
Upvote
0
I would rather have a fence stop a tank than have the tank just stroll through it with no damage to the fence.
Upvote
0
A soldier SEEING the 'rolled over and undamaged fence' has only a brief time of it, and it doesn't affect his gameplay a bit, other than realizing (quite correctly) that no longer can he rely on a picket fence for protection against a 50-ton tank rolling over him. He can even be shot at THROUGH the picket fence, as even a real one would not provide a bit of cover from even small arms fire- the big advantage of the fence (or shrubbery, or what have you) is that it still provides (again, quite correctly) CONCEALMENT. There's not a soldier in the world who will tell you he's comfortable behind a fence or bush when tanks are roaming about- but as long as that tank isn't bent on crushing him (or even sees him) he knows he can HIDE from it and other enemy forces.
OTOH, for the tanker or halftrack driver and crew the realism is stopped cold when that same picket fence or shrubbery brings their mount to a crashing halt, when in reality they wouldn't even notice whether or not the fence or shrubbery was even being ground beneath their tracks!
Making the fence/shrubbery/widget 'passable' to vehicles accomplishes a number of advantageous things, not the least of which is providing a more realistic behavior of that terrain item; so the soldier sees a tank roll through a fence or bush and the bush is undamaged- so what? What's 'left' of it (the still-standing mesh) still provides concealment- the original realistic function of the item anyway! We already have plenty of 'passable' terrain features on the maps- why such resistance to applying this logically to other items?
We are also dealing with unrealistic 'indestructible' stone walls and such- and houses that should be pounded into dust after one artillery barrage are left as pristine as the day they were built- why not rationally and logically alter what CAN be altered to make the game more realistic, and yet not affect the already high server load?
I know the server load goes wayyy up when you include 'destructible' items on the field- I'm not advocating that at all. I'm just saying- along with others- to make the items passable (realistically) to begin with and be done with it. No extra server load, no 'destroyed state' meshes, and ultimately more realistic and playable games with less 'loss of immersion' to the people it really affects.
OTOH, for the tanker or halftrack driver and crew the realism is stopped cold when that same picket fence or shrubbery brings their mount to a crashing halt, when in reality they wouldn't even notice whether or not the fence or shrubbery was even being ground beneath their tracks!
Making the fence/shrubbery/widget 'passable' to vehicles accomplishes a number of advantageous things, not the least of which is providing a more realistic behavior of that terrain item; so the soldier sees a tank roll through a fence or bush and the bush is undamaged- so what? What's 'left' of it (the still-standing mesh) still provides concealment- the original realistic function of the item anyway! We already have plenty of 'passable' terrain features on the maps- why such resistance to applying this logically to other items?
We are also dealing with unrealistic 'indestructible' stone walls and such- and houses that should be pounded into dust after one artillery barrage are left as pristine as the day they were built- why not rationally and logically alter what CAN be altered to make the game more realistic, and yet not affect the already high server load?
I know the server load goes wayyy up when you include 'destructible' items on the field- I'm not advocating that at all. I'm just saying- along with others- to make the items passable (realistically) to begin with and be done with it. No extra server load, no 'destroyed state' meshes, and ultimately more realistic and playable games with less 'loss of immersion' to the people it really affects.
Upvote
0
I'm not an expert on destroyable meshes or movers as they are both referred to technically. But I'd guess you could make the fences destroyable, BUT.....you would have to sacrifice some movers already in the level such as eliminating alot of openable doors and breakable windows. I think that would offset the load enough. I mean Stalingrad Kessel has alot of destroyable meshes, 2 doors + about 6 or 7 areas on the railyard wall. Krasnyi Oktober (I don't know the spelling I don't play it too much) has alot of doors/breakable windows and it runs ok. I think making fences destroyable could be done and still keep the performance up but like I said some things would need to be sacrificed. I personally wouldn't put upright wooden fences in a map with vehicles without making them destroyable, or just have them laying flat on the ground like they already got run over.
Upvote
0
are you volunteering to make all the changes to these maps because I'm not every destroyable has to be uniquely named. So like in Berezina there would be alot of fence changes to make. You do realize that one long fence is actually 20 or so 1piece sections just put together next to each other right?
Upvote
0
No, I'm not volunteering (volunteering just ideas). Using existing meshes in too small lengths would be undoable. You'd have to simplify (make your own custom) fences into like 15 or 20 feet sections so you hit one piece and a whole 15 foot swath of fencing goes down etc. When you think about the way fencing is made IRL it's attached so one part gets run over it pulls more portions down with it usually.
Upvote
0
Ahhhh how true- but then again, when you do that you also cause the 'loss of immersion' as well, even though it's well intentioned.
A village, for instance, will naturally direct the gameplay and channel vehicles between buildings and such...but a Granny Fence or Aunt Tilly's Rosebush that stops a tank is just way out of place and shouldn't realistically be there unless it's passable. Players will have been given their missions; they will know where to set up and defend/attack. BUT having obviously out-of-place features encourages the exploitation of those features, whch is one of the reasons we're having this thread of conversation in the first place.
On the various Orel maps, for instance, there are a number of places where tanks can ford the river- completely unrealistically, of course, and this 'exploit' is used by almost everyone who knows about it. At the same time, there are those flimsy-looking fences that just stop a tank dead in its tracks- and those are exploited just as much as the river crossings. Ivan- and Otto- know they can duck behind such-and-such fence and not a thing in the world can touch them...is a player NOT going to hide there because it's an obvious exploitable feature?
I still maintain my earlier postion of coding obvious items as 'passable' (not necessarily 'destructible') and be done with it. No server load, and the greater good is served.
In the earlier posts, there was mention of having to place each destructible fence section one by one- of you simply make them passable just like certain bush features and be done with it. IRL, even if the fence were knocked down it would still provide concealment for anybody behind it, and having it standing isn't going to alter gameplay a bit (except for not being a roadbloack for vehicles- realistic- and continuing to provide concealment for troops- again, realistic).
A village, for instance, will naturally direct the gameplay and channel vehicles between buildings and such...but a Granny Fence or Aunt Tilly's Rosebush that stops a tank is just way out of place and shouldn't realistically be there unless it's passable. Players will have been given their missions; they will know where to set up and defend/attack. BUT having obviously out-of-place features encourages the exploitation of those features, whch is one of the reasons we're having this thread of conversation in the first place.
On the various Orel maps, for instance, there are a number of places where tanks can ford the river- completely unrealistically, of course, and this 'exploit' is used by almost everyone who knows about it. At the same time, there are those flimsy-looking fences that just stop a tank dead in its tracks- and those are exploited just as much as the river crossings. Ivan- and Otto- know they can duck behind such-and-such fence and not a thing in the world can touch them...is a player NOT going to hide there because it's an obvious exploitable feature?
I still maintain my earlier postion of coding obvious items as 'passable' (not necessarily 'destructible') and be done with it. No server load, and the greater good is served.
In the earlier posts, there was mention of having to place each destructible fence section one by one- of you simply make them passable just like certain bush features and be done with it. IRL, even if the fence were knocked down it would still provide concealment for anybody behind it, and having it standing isn't going to alter gameplay a bit (except for not being a roadbloack for vehicles- realistic- and continuing to provide concealment for troops- again, realistic).
Upvote
0
Just one little thing to add here (by the way, I completely agree with K. Rohm): if the Granny fences are rendered passable to vehicles, they should still exact a movement penalty on said vehicles. Of course, the Granny fence won't slow down a Tiger, Panther, or IS2, but armored transports barely weigh a few tons (the BA probably not even that much), and I cannot imagine them barelling through a Granny fence with total impunity. As such, light vehicles and maybe some lighter tanks should be slowed down (not much) while "crossing" fences.
The fact that not all vehicles are equal in respect to knocking down fences is basically what I'd like to remind everyone of.
The fact that not all vehicles are equal in respect to knocking down fences is basically what I'd like to remind everyone of.
Upvote
0