Author Topic: better realism - physics  (Read 2816 times)

Offline Noir

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5964
better realism - physics
« on: August 16, 2012, 08:18:47 AM »
The game could use a boost in realism, a few examples often related to physics:

 - Gvs have no weight - IE 40 ton tanks flipping like a coin
 - Plants can't be destructed and stop any shell, any tank.
 - The water is equivalent to concrete, and its perfectly flat, no waves.
 - When CV's sunk, the animation is much to fast, and the "block" you sit on just disappears.
 - Explosion blasts are unimpressive, the graphics are laughable. Explosions should push objects from the center of the explosion to the outside, like if you doped a bomb in the center of town all kinds of bits would come flying, and your ears   whistling from the air pressure. Another thread on explosions http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,337951.0.html
 - The damage/collision model needs improvement.
 - Could use a few ambiance sounds related to your location (wave sounds while camping on the beach in your tiger)

I'm sure there is more examples, thank you for reading  :salute
now posting as SirNuke

Offline Tracerfi

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1938
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2012, 08:25:01 AM »
The game could use a boost in realism, a few examples often related to physics:
 - The water is equivalent to concrete
:rofl Its true
You cannot beat savages by becoming one.

He who must not be named

Offline titanic3

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4235
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2012, 08:33:29 AM »
The game could use a boost in realism, a few examples often related to physics:

 - Gvs have no weight - IE 40 ton tanks flipping like a coin
Yes please, +1
 - Plants can't be destructed and stop any shell, any tank.
I think I remember some one saying this was impossible because trees are a part of the terrain and you can't destroy terrain, not without a major overhaul of the game, hope I'm wrong though.
 - The water is equivalent to concrete, and its perfectly flat, no waves.
Would make driving LVTs and PT boats interesting if we get waves. Only near shores though so the CV doesn't get knocked around like a washing machine.
 - When CV's sunk, the animation is much to fast, and the "block" you sit on just disappears.
New animations would be awesome. Complete explosion, roll over, break in two, etc etc. +1 to the second part of the wish too but I think the code for CV would have to be re written all over.
 - Explosion blasts are unimpressive, the graphics are laughable. Explosions should push objects from the center of the explosion to the outside, like if you doped a bomb in the center of town all kinds of bits would come flying, and your ears   whistling from the air pressure. Another thread on explosions http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,337951.0.html
+1.
 - The damage/collision model needs improvement.
Damage model, yes. Collision model, I don't think it can be any more improved, although it still does suck when you're on the receiving end of it.
 - Could use a few ambiance sounds related to your location (wave sounds while camping on the beach in your tiger)
Yes, +1, radio chatter, birds, trees rustling, waves, wind, guns off in the distance. Of course, make it all adjustable so if you don't like it, turn it off.
I'm sure there is more examples, thank you for reading  :salute

  the game is concentrated on combat, not on shaking the screen.

semp

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2012, 08:42:48 AM »
When was the last "real" graphics update? July of '09 right? When the Brewster was introduced? A little behind the curve? http://youtu.be/XFRM4Wmvmm4
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline Noir

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5964
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2012, 12:48:20 PM »
well the current graphics engine came with aces high II...

- vehicles being hit should bulge, depending of the impact and the vehicle's weight
now posting as SirNuke

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2012, 12:53:03 PM »
I also feel that, after a base capture, the streets in town should should be littered with rubble, empty wine bottles and garters.  :rock
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline 100Coogn

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3930
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2012, 01:16:07 PM »
I also feel that, after a base capture, the streets in town should should be littered with rubble, empty wine bottles and garters.  :rock

Sounds like a successful party right there. 

 Coogan  :cheers:
Quote
From Wiley: If you're hitting them after they drop, that's not defense, that is revenge.
Game Id's:
AHIII: Coogan
RDR2: Coogan_Bear
MSFS-2020: Coogan Bear

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18287
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2012, 04:45:35 PM »
The game could use a boost in realism, a few examples often related to physics:

 - Gvs have no weight - IE 40 ton tanks flipping like a coin
 - Plants can't be destructed and stop any shell, any tank.
 - The water is equivalent to concrete, and its perfectly flat, no waves.
 - When CV's sunk, the animation is much to fast, and the "block" you sit on just disappears.
 - Explosion blasts are unimpressive, the graphics are laughable. Explosions should push objects from the center of the explosion to the outside, like if you doped a bomb in the center of town all kinds of bits would come flying, and your ears   whistling from the air pressure. Another thread on explosions http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,337951.0.html
 - The damage/collision model needs improvement.
 - Could use a few ambiance sounds related to your location (wave sounds while camping on the beach in your tiger)

I'm sure there is more examples, thank you for reading  :salute

While I understand these kinds of wishes, I think it would be easier and maybe cheaper to buy your own WWII airplane and go fly it.

GVs have weight, but your looking to get away from the flipping of vehicles (remember, ask for what you really want, HTC knows already and you ain't fooling nobody). As stated the bushes and trees are part of the terrain and are not destroyable. What makes this game great is the active world we all play in. The towns have destroyable objects. These have to be destroyable EVERYWHERE at the SAME TIME, not just those few in front of you on your screen, because there are players playing everywhere at the same time. I don't know how many building are in a town, but it's over 75, and with 100 towns thats over 7500 destroyable objects that have to be created, maintained, and monitored 24/7 to keep our little perpetual world rolling along.

This doesn't even take in the hangers, ammo bunkers, fuel tanks and so on. Now you want to add a few billion trees just to make things a bit more realistic so that you don't have to avoid a tree of bush as well as just blowing it up if it's in the way. How much data do you think would have to be transmitted back and forth to keep our little world updated to everyone player with a few billion things that have to be "maintained" like that? Are you going to buy everyone super computer to be able to run this stuff?

I'm sure that a lot of things "would be cool", but to keep the game playable to the widest possible audience there will have to be some compromises. After all, HTC is in this to make money. 

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17425
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2012, 05:02:27 PM »
fugitive perhaps a better explanation would be this.

I am lucky to have a good computer. it plays aces high with shadows at 4096 all eye candy on and the fps sometimes goes down to about 55.  only one time i had it going down to 40 and that was due to the vtards bringing 20 sets of lancs to destroy a base.  there were so many buffs on fire and what not that my puter could keep up with it but at 40 fps,  but I heard on the chat that some people were having problems.

now having said that I barely get about 40 to 45 fps when playing wot.  now there you can destroy buildings and whatever.  but sometimes my fps goes all the way down to 5 to 10.  and that world is only about the size of one of our towns.  imagine if wot was the size of the maps we have where they gotta keep track of which trees have fallen over on every base just because I may jump from base to base.  it would be the end of aces high, as I dont think i could play it.


semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline Tracerfi

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1938
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2012, 05:12:29 PM »


now having said that I barely get about 40 to 45 fps when playing wot.  .


semp
ON WORLD OF TANKS THE HIGHEST FPS A GOT WAS 4
You cannot beat savages by becoming one.

He who must not be named

Offline Eric19

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 591
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2012, 05:33:18 PM »
semp I'm lucky to get 20fps with all eye candy turned on in here and on WOT now that they have a better rendering system I can maybe get it up to 35fps but before that update I only got maybe 25 at the most
so bud your computer is way ahead of mine lol and mine wasn't cheap
Proud member of the 91ST BG (H) The Ragged Irregulars

Offline GuyNoir

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2012, 06:17:09 PM »
I think it'd be cool if, after getting destroyed, the CV coasted to a stop and settled down into the water before rolling over or going down or whatever...  While it was sinking, the last few pilots could up from the dying carrier for a final push.    :)

Offline titanic3

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4235
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2012, 06:18:04 PM »
Wait...GuyNoir....Noir... :huh Whut?  :headscratch:

  the game is concentrated on combat, not on shaking the screen.

semp

Offline Noir

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5964
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2012, 02:33:00 AM »
See rule #4
« Last Edit: August 17, 2012, 09:54:39 AM by hitech »
now posting as SirNuke

Offline hlbly

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1013
Re: better realism - physics
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2012, 03:24:41 AM »
 Really do need to update the gv's  . Hitting a wall flips the tank . I understand why terrain cant be more realistic , now . Good explanation Fugitive . How ever there has to be something better . When I was at Ft. Benning in the mid 80's they were tearing down Harmony Church . It was the name of the area that was used by the 2nd Training Brigade . Composed of WW2 era "temporary barracks" .They brought in an M728 CEV to doze some of the buildings . The guys were having a blast . Hitting these old brittle wooden structures at 20 mph or so . Until they hit one that had a vault inside . Irresistible force meets immovable object in the most classic sense . Result's ? Minor damage to the CVE . In here the tank would flip . Instead of climbing up bushes or trees or remnants of walls . Why not just have the tank stop . Slowing you down or stopping you seems penalty enough .