Flipping tanks on bushes and trees

[groundfeeder]

I agree with the "flip issue" funny part is when they had the sheep... smack one at 40 mph and stop ya cold! 

[guncrasher]

This is a game, different rules apply. Look at collisions. Should a tank be able to drive THROUGH another tank? 

Not really and it has been requested for it to be fixed too.  people want to have a realistic game as possible and being flipped by a bush is not, and actually you should be able to shoot right thru bushes, but that is for another thread.

semp

[Magnus]

Would be nice to see the tank flipping on bushes fixed. At the same time maybe fix or add, some trees to break off and others to pushed to the sides when a tank is pushing through a forest. I do agree some trees are just to big for a tank to run over, but not every single tree.  

Here is what the scene would look like: I am in a tank or plane. as I look out and see the trees moving. Ah! There is the enemy tank location.

Shoot or bombs away.

It would look more realistic graphics in a game.  

Trees and bushes to run over and push a side (+10)

[Kenne]

See Rule #4

[viking73]

OK so instead of them having infantry carrying bazookas and throwing "sock bombs" and laying mine fields they have brushes that "simulate" those things. Easier to coad than all that other stuff. What do you think?

Like I said, I think ya'll should just learn to drive, or is just too much of a challenge to use the rudder to turn while your sitting in a gun? 

lmfao   'killer bushes'

[Panzerace]

See Rule #4

[OOZ662]

There is no fix. You get it one way or the other.

1. Objects are solid. They stop things. Tanks, jeeps, bullets, shells. Everything.
2. Objects are not solid. Anything can go through them. In this case, there is no cover at all on a battlefield.

The bouncing problem is due to lack of elasticity. Everything is an entirely solid object. To compensate for that, when two objects interact, they push against each other with equal force. Problem is when you manage to shove enough of your polygons inside of something else's polygons; each one responds with equal force which builds into a massive reaction, hurling your vehicle.

I've flipped two tanks in just as many years. Don't drive into things.

[Dr_Death8]

I think you have to also consider the game engine and the mechanics and programming which would have to be done to get some trees to be run over (vs passing through) and some which stop you cold. When you are marketing to the general public such as in this case, too much of a good thing, graphics and gameplay wise, can remove possible customers due to computer issues.

In other words, stopping a GV dead or passing through the object is probably the choices feasable to work with the masses computers. (steps off of the soap box) 

[Kev367th]

OK so instead of them having infantry carrying bazookas and throwing "sock bombs" and laying mine fields they have brushes that "simulate" those things. Easier to coad than all that other stuff. What do you think?

I think (know) your are wrong!

Doesn't simulate ANYTHING.

Been explained plenty of times why it happens (do a BB search). It's also the reason why there are no GV on GV collisions.

[edit] OOZ662 explains it pretty well.
What he missed out - Without the coading to 'bounce' objects apart, there would be a chance that two objects would become interlocked with each other.

[Sperky]

I think (know) your are wrong!

Doesn't simulate ANYTHING.

Been explained plenty of times why it happens (do a BB search). It's also the reason why there are no GV on GV collisions.

[edit] OOZ662 explains it pretty well.
What he missed out - Without the coading to 'bounce' objects apart, there would be a chance that two objects would become interlocked with each other.

Just to clarify...are you indicating that there are not GV on GV collisions due to, intentional or not, a lack of coding?

[OOZ662]

Just to clarify...are you indicating that there are not GV on GV collisions due to, intentional or not, a lack of coding?

GV-on-GV collisions are disabled because of system lag. Imagine every whine you hear about aerial collisions now taking place in the ground battles. Moving vehicles can be displayed in a location hundreds of yards apart on the two player's separate systems if the lag and latency is large enough.
One player seems himself do a glorious T-34-esque ram into the front of that evil Panzer.
The Panzer sees the T-34 come to a dead stop 100 yards in front of him. Bang.

HT describes and answers all of these problems in the 2003 convention Q&A session, if you'd like me to cut them out for you.

[The Fugitive]

I think (know) your are wrong!

Doesn't simulate ANYTHING.

Been explained plenty of times why it happens (do a BB search). It's also the reason why there are no GV on GV collisions.

[edit] OOZ662 explains it pretty well.
What he missed out - Without the coading to 'bounce' objects apart, there would be a chance that two objects would become interlocked with each other.

 

I "know" why it's as it is, but explaining to some people is like trying to explain why there are caps on the arenas and why the collision model is as it is.

When I GV I use those limitations as part of the game. I was putting it in those terms to maybe help other to see it in that light and not get so worked up about it.

Congratulations ! you have now completely wiped away any illusions and these sorry people will now wallow in misery "knowing" that it will never be fixed.   

[Sperky]

GV-on-GV collisions are disabled because of system lag. Imagine every whine you hear about aerial collisions now taking place in the ground battles. Moving vehicles can be displayed in a location hundreds of yards apart on the two player's separate systems if the lag and latency is large enough.
One player seems himself do a glorious T-34-esque ram into the front of that evil Panzer.
The Panzer sees the T-34 come to a dead stop 100 yards in front of him. Bang.

HT describes and answers all of these problems in the 2003 convention Q&A session, if you'd like me to cut them out for you.

Great explanation, thanks!  It might be helpful to have a link to that convention Q&A though...  Saw that you mentioned splicing in another thread, but couldn't find anything else in the first few pages of search.  Thanks again!

[OOZ662]

Great explanation, thanks!  It might be helpful to have a link to that convention Q&A though...  Saw that you mentioned splicing in another thread, but couldn't find anything else in the first few pages of search.  Thanks again!

I'm actually not sure about the copyright on this, so I think I'll upload them as a whole. Cutting out the attribution or even just distributing them in less-than-whole condition could be a bad idea.

The relevant part of the Q&A starts at 63:15 in the first section of the session. The full session can be found here (you may need to click "Show Description/Tags" in the list to the left).

[Ack-Ack]

Not really and it has been requested for it to be fixed too.  people want to have a realistic game as possible and being flipped by a bush is not, and actually you should be able to shoot right thru bushes, but that is for another thread.

semp

It's not a bug.

ack-ack