Author Topic: Improved dammage modelling? (Read 398 times)

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #15 on:** February 04, 2002, 09:42:21 AM »

If you ask me if I want a new 190D11, Ta152C, submarines, spacecrafts, etc, or just a fine tuning of what we already have (damage model, flight model, gunnery model, graphic effects, etc), I'll choose the second with no doubt.

As an example, there you have the IL2. It was a stunning success after its initial launch even all we knew it had a extremely limited plane set.

IMO, we have a more than acceptable planeset, and again, IMO, improving other sides of the game would be a more efficient marketing move, and damage model is a primary key side of the game.

Midnight · « **Reply #16 on:** February 04, 2002, 12:28:31 PM »

Would be cool to see this kind of detail

Modified pic. Used on the 412th FS page for Damage Control Training.

See the whole site at http://www.brauncomustangs.org

eskimo2 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 04, 2002, 01:08:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta
Well guys, you gotta know what you're asking for.

Right now, HTC has a binary setup damage model: a thing is either on or off, and it is that based on the amount of damage it has suffered. Over a specific amount, and off it goes.

To rework the damage modelling is a science in itself. You'd have to calculate *exactly* where a round impacts, and then construct algorithms for finding out how it'd damage the plane, depending on angle (which would be new) and velocity (already in the game).

It'd require redoing the weapons too, or at least adjusting them.

On the other hand, it'd be a GREAT addition, and perhaps those pesky 20mm AP rounds would be less effective if they hit the wing or some non critical area of the plane -go right through.

Would love to see engine or aileron or anything else decrease in performance when hit instead of just falling off, but, it'll take time off the usual iterations in AH - it'd probably require a whole iteration in itself, and it would lead to a good number of more calculations being made, reducing performance (lesser concern).

I suspect HTC will work on this when they feel the strat and planeset is doing ok. The damage model we have now works, and there are more urgent issues.

Most notably rockets and more bombs for 190F8!1

Well said StSanta, my thoughts as well.
I would love to see the above ideas implemented, but I think that it would be VERY expensive in manpower resources. The big questions are; how long would it take?
A month?
A year?
At what point is it worth it?

Personally, one thing that I would like to see, that I don't think would be too expensive, would be better visuals of broken parts, particularly missing wing-tips. I would like to see jagged-twisted-paint-chipped-spar-sticken-out broken wings in stead of straight sawed-off lines. Even if it visually broke the same way each time, it would be cool-worthy.

But then again, 50ish planes times 2 wings each, Yikes, that might take quite a bit (too much) of resources as well.

eskimo

Wilbus · « **Reply #18 on:** February 04, 2002, 03:17:36 PM »

Well, if HTC gets going now we'll probarly have it in a year

If they don't get going we might never have it

Nice pic Midnight, I WANT improved DM and I KNOW WHAT I AM ASKING FOR!

I don't mind if it takes 6 months or a year, to wait a long time is better then to wait for ever.

laz · « **Reply #19 on:** February 04, 2002, 03:53:56 PM »

Midnight.. thats what your squads pony's looked like about 24 hours ago after me and squaddie kappa killed 6 of em.. By ourselves:D.. Film anyone?

janjan · « **Reply #20 on:** February 05, 2002, 01:33:32 AM »

Well, new planes and new damage model does not limit each others. Artists do the planes mostly and damage model is programming stuff. It doesn't help building new damge model by keeping artists rested.

mrsid2 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 05, 2002, 04:05:17 AM »

Damage model should also add flaps, ailerons etc. jammed to a certain position because of a bullet hit..

Another thing that needs revision is gunners on buffs. As it is now, it's pretty much impossible to take out the rear gunner on a b17 for example.. You can spray the tail and top of the buff with cannons and still see them shooting back. Often the whole tail section drops when you score enough hits to kill the gunner. In war it was a common tactic to single out the gunners of a buff first to get enough time to start picking engines out.

Buff crews need to be more vulnerable IMO even if it means the buff hardness goes up.

Apar · « **Reply #22 on:** February 05, 2002, 04:48:52 AM »

Although I'm very much in for WIlbuz's suggestion, I agree with Santa.
I'm also concerned how a very eleborated damage model will do takeing into account net lag. Damage info packages will become much larger causing extra lag with current net speeds.

Maybe HT can say something about the feasability (and possibilities) of improving the current damage model.

Fariz · « **Reply #23 on:** February 05, 2002, 04:53:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Apar
Although I'm very much in for WIlbuz's suggestion, I agree with Santa.
I'm also concerned how a very eleborated damage model will do takeing into account net lag. Damage info packages will become much larger causing extra lag with current net speeds.

Maybe HT can say something about the feasability (and possibilities) of improving the current damage model.

As far as I understand how it works network lag should not be an issue.

I think something shall be done with dammage model simply because its not in a line with overal AH quality. For examply you still can strife CV with .50 only, and panzers get sometime 10+ hits/penetration without any visable dammage.

Fariz

Creamo · « **Reply #24 on:** February 05, 2002, 04:59:22 AM »

Dont care either way, but i tend to go with what has been right, HTC.

Just stop knockin out my Dora radiator from the 6, the 9, the 6.5, the 6.75, or (add anyangle here) shot.

They got deflection modeled on steel ailerons that always ricochets and hits my steam dispenser.

Stop it already or I'll sound like a LW dipshit.

Apar · « **Reply #25 on:** February 05, 2002, 06:10:57 AM »

I don't know how it is exactly programmed Fariz.
But my guess is that a more eleborated damage model requires not only more complex calculations but also more input/output parameters and exchange of those parameters between FE and BE.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #26 on:** February 05, 2002, 07:44:20 AM »

Exchanging those parameters between FE and BE is not necessary Apar.
If you hit me, my FE will calculate and elaborate an accurate damage that will be shown to my with a lot of detail, in the other end, you will see a simplifyed damage similar to what we actually have.

For example, you hit me three times in the right aileron, my FE calculates the damage and the result is just three big holes and the aileron stuck in the up possition. The aileron is not ripped off and from your FE you will not see any visual damage in my plane, but you'll notice that I'm starting to roll to one side and that I have no aileron control at all.

Other example, again you hit me three times in the right aileron, this time I see two big holes and the other half of the aileron is just gone. The aileron effectivity is halved and what you see in your FE is my plane loosing the entire aileron aileron.

If bandwith is the problem, a system like that would work fine.

mrsid2 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 05, 2002, 08:01:56 AM »

Bandwith wise the enemy damagelevel updates could be divided to multiple variations with a set of default damagelevels.

For example system tells your enemy has damage nr1 - he has flap damaged. Damage nr 121 could be half flap missing and generally damaged right wing.. etc. So the enemy would not see actual bulletholes in the exact places where he hit but would get a far more accurate graphic information than what he gets now with wingtip or whole wing missing. It's just a matter of adding more variations to the possible damage graphics we have.

Or maybe I'm full of BS and have no idea how this thing works in AH - which is quite possible