Author Topic: Who said damage model... (Read 340 times)

R4M · « **on:** February 16, 2002, 02:08:19 AM »

Who said that an in-depth damage model is not possible in a MMOL simulator?

http://www.targetware.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000322.html

Mate does that thing look great!

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2002, 08:23:48 AM »

Quote

20020214 17:57:32 4 STRIKE: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Left Wing Fuel Tank: pen 58.2 kJ
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Left Outer Wing: pen 2.0 kJ, 2.9 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Left Inner Wing: 8.0 kJ, 1.5 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Right Inner Wing: pen 1.8 kJ, 3.1 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Right Outer Wing: 0.6 kJ, 5.5 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Left Horizontal Stabilizer: 1.0 kJ, 4.2 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Right Horizontal Stabilizer: 0.8 kJ, 4.7 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Vertical Stabilizer: 0.8 kJ, 4.5 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Fore Fuselage: 1.2 kJ, 3.8 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Aft Fuselage: 4.3 kJ, 2.0 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Main Engine: 4.3 kJ, 2.0 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Forward Fuel Tank: incen 4.1 kJ, 2.0 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Aft Fuel Tank: pen 8.0 kJ, 1.5 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Left Wing Fuel Tank: 16.9 kJ, 0.7 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Right Wing Fuel Tank: 2.2 kJ, 2.8 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Left top gun: pen 0.6 kJ, 5.4 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Left Center Gun: 0.6 kJ, 5.4 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Left Lower Gun: pen 0.6 kJ, 5.4 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Right top gun: 0.5 kJ, 5.6 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Right Center Gun: 0.5 kJ, 5.6 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), Right Lower Gun: 0.5 kJ, 5.6 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), left airbrake: 4.6 kJ, 1.9 m
20020214 17:57:32 4 EXPLOSION: F-86F-30 Sabre (8), right airbrake: 2.7 kJ, 2.5 m

I'm trying to see what new and unique thing is modeled there. I don't see it.

I do love embelished explanations:

Quote

so stig dropped a big cannon round smack into frfx's left wing fuel tank. the kinetic energy alone was pretty devestating, but the follow on explosion looks like it was more than the plane could take. the delivered energy values wouldnt have taken the plane down, though - it probably exploded either due to the fuel in the left wing fuel tank exploding, or due to the fire that was started in the forward fuel tank (check out the incendiary effect during the explosion). its also possible that the "pen" (penetrating or "golden bb" effect) on the left lower gun caused an ammunition cook off. or even a combination of all of the above, hehehe.

LOL! I guess they may be modeling ammo "cooking off", but me thinks someone is actually talking out his ass. The above all happened simultaneously, and he tries to use really cool sounding effects that should have had some kind of delay.

BTW... simulating "ammo cooking off" or "fuel tanks exploding" is not anything that has been brought up here. All of the strike points and damage points are the same (by looking at damage report). Its just a matter of modelling a bigger boom if something is hit.

I don't believe that is exactly what people were expecting when crying about the damage model here.

The other great inovation:

Quote

a pure white smoke is probably a fuel leak. if its kind of greyish, you may be looking at engine smoke - if its darker, or black, its almost certainly engine smoke. however, every
plane can have its *own* particle effects designed for it. so a zero may not smoke or catch fire the same way an F-86 does. Right now, all the planes use the same effects, but i suspect some of the local artists may mess around with that a bit, hehehe.

Wow.. this is so innovative.

My suggestion in regards to TK: Wait until they actually release something. This beta test is turning into one of the longest in recorded history.

The original post shows a single 37mm round damaging every surface of an aircraft. The authors play it off like "I meant to do that" using explanations that don't quite fit. I somewhat expect them to post a "we fixed the bug that caused a single 37mm bullet to..." post in the beta forum (well out of public eye) some time in the near future.

Yep. I always love to see someone singing the praises of another game based solely on what was read in thier message forums.

AKDejaVu

Creamo · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2002, 08:29:04 AM »

Ah, "The Next Great Thing, Ramassts Don't Need AH Anymore So There!"' software title has been named.

I just hope you don't jinx it like WWIIOL.

R4M · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2002, 10:31:57 AM »

hummmmmmmmmmm well DjVu...I see that log and I think quite many things...not only related with the way the things blow up (I won't argue with you, but I have a different point of view about the matter than the one you'v expressed), but also related with the ammount of individual systems modelled, and the way in they are damaged independently. There seem to be a LOT of stuff to be damaged in that sim, and the way it is damaged seems quite nice too.

AH's damage model IS simplistic. Most of you have admitted it in other threads so is pointless to argument that affirmation. The reason for being Simplistic was ,according to ppl, that online gaming doesn't allow for too much detail...well here we have a sim wich is going to be to be played in multiplayer, and wich has a well detailed damage model.

I like that, even when they are in beta they seem to have a nicely worked damage model, IMO superior in detail to the one present in AH. I wanted to share that post here to hear your opinions...so I like to hear your view on it...not smartprettythang things like this:

Quote

Originally posted by Creamo
Ah, "The Next Great Thing, Ramassts Don't Need AH Anymore So There!"' software title has been named.

frankly creamo I could tell you to piss off. But, see, I'll answer you. Is hard to have an idea of how is going TK to be just by the screenshots they post, but what I've seen so far, I've liked it. And I thought that the damage model part would be nice to be shared here.

I don't say anything else than that. If you want to read further inside my post you're free to do it. As I say "whenever you search for something you find it...regardless if it is there or not".

Toad · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2002, 10:37:22 AM »

Until it's available online for all to fly.. . no one really knows what it's going to offer. Maybe it'll be great.. maybe it'll flop. You just never can tell, can you?

Seems like only yesterday someone in this thread was telling us all how FABULOUS WW2OL was going to be and how it was just going to BLOW AWAY anything AH could ever hope to become.

Yeah, WW2OL... it's sure fabulous now that it's been around a while, isn't it?

... I'll try to remember who that was....... get back to yas later.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #5 on:** February 16, 2002, 02:30:24 PM »

Quote

but also related with the ammount of individual systems modelled, and the way in they are damaged independently.

AH models every system listed here individually also.

And you may want to note another thing about this advanced damage model... only "explosion" is listed for each item. Yep.. those exploding vertical stabs were always a problem.

And.. I didn't see anything about "ammo" exploding. Hmmmmm... maybe these are magical ammo stations that are "cooking off".

Me thinks someone saw something fishy and someone went to great lengths to make it sound as cool as possible. You seem to be pretty OK with that, so I'll let you be.

AKDejaVu

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #6 on:** February 16, 2002, 03:54:58 PM »

Why don't we all just wait till we can fly the game for ourselves online in the full version. Untill that time its pointless to comment either way.

CptTrips · « **Reply #7 on:** February 16, 2002, 06:59:34 PM »

>AH's damage model IS simplistic.

Lets see....

Left Wing Fuel Tank
Left Outer Wing
Left Inner Wing
Right Inner Wing
Right Outer Wing
Left Horizontal Stabilizer
Right Horizontal Stabilizer
Vertical Stabilizer
Fore Fuselage
Aft Fuselage
Main Engine
Forward Fuel Tank
Aft Fuel Tank
Right Wing Fuel Tank
Left top gun
Left Center Gun
Left Lower Gun
etc...

Are you claiming that AH doesn't model this level of components?

Wab

easymo · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2002, 01:32:29 PM »

I read a discription of a 15 min. dogfight on their board. This sounds like the WB lethality / damage model to me. Presumably someone hit the other guy during that fight. And it didn't do much. Imagine what would have happened if a couple of his friends had shown up to help. Gang bangers have enough advantage, in these games, without artificially dumbing down the guns. AH gives the solo player a fighting chance. If you can drop the first guy quick (think Nik) then you can prepare for the others.