Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Karnak on November 17, 2013, 08:31:33 AM
-
I am sure HTC has an internal fantasy list for the new terrain engine, and while I would love to know what it is that is unlikely to be revealed. That being the case I thought it would be fun for us players to post our fantasy additions.
1) Destructible trees, bushes and non-gameplay structures. I am not sure, but I think a 64bit database would be large enough to track damage to these objects. I'd suggest making it easier by not having a timer to respawn them and instead have their destruction last until the map is reset. This would also reduce network load by only requiring the client to be informed once that the object was destroyed. To prevent carpet bombing from removing them en masse trees would need to be resistant to blast effects. Bushes, small trees and buildings should be damageable by tanks running into them, hedge cutters could increase tank collision damage to bushes.
2) Higher resolution terrain mesh that allows for small hills, roads, creeks, gullies, rivers and coastal cliffs to be created as part of the base terrain mesh rather than as added objects. Roads should be drivable, no 20+ degree tilts or climbs.
3) More terrain tile types for greater variety and terrain appropriate ground surface appearance.
4) Road networks running from town to town or city.
5) Light diffusion so that shadows don't have the hard lines as though it is a vacuum.
6) Probably already in based on the tree and building shadows in the video, terrain casting shadows.
-
Repost from the other thread.
snip...when traveling over open ground or sand as well as differing sounds for each. Imagine hearing the snap crackle and pop of a tank moving through a wooded area or the clank clank clank when traveling over a road
What a cool idea. It would require an optional config file, like the defset file for eto/pto, so that the terrain builder could specify different sounds if he replaced a farm tile with a forest or desert sand tile.
-
sheep would be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.
semp
-
One non-destructible bridge.
Specifications:
Similar to the three span bridges used in my terrains (I'll furnish the source if you'd like.)
1320 feet between the toes of the two ramps so it will match city object tiles.
Three x 330 feet spans, arched Pratt type bridge
165 feet Each ramp is 165 feet long
32.5 feet Deck height
(This combination of length vs height on the ramp is pretty critical for smooth operation of GVs but there is room for variance.
It also allows 31 feet clear height under the bridge for planes.)
Guard rails on the ramps are a nice touch if you can accept the extra drawing.
-
Probably a vehicle wish instead of a terrain wish, but what the hey, it's a fantasy list.
Please add the ability to drive PT boats and LVTs under bridges. Currently they always do the crash dance that kills the engines.
Thanks
-
Bridges, destructible or otherwise, would be needed to cross rivers, streams and gullies.
-
Destructible bridges kill the fight and ruin game play!
Hence my specific request for a non-destructible bridge. Two or three bridges at a river crossing would allow choke points and some tactical maneuvering. And yes, you don't need a bridge unless the terrain builder includes rivers.
Edit: I may have misunderstood your comment. Adding rivers isn't much good if they aren't around where they can be seen and used. The availability of bridges would make bases next to rivers more likely.
-
Destructible bridges kill the fight and ruin game play!
Hence my specific request for a non-destructible bridge. Two or three bridges at a river crossing would allow choke points and some tactical maneuvering. And yes, you don't need a bridge unless the terrain builder includes rivers.
Edit: I may have misunderstood your comment. Adding rivers isn't much good if they aren't around where they can be seen and used. The availability of bridges would make bases next to rivers more likely.
Rivers where PT boats can go into? :D
-
1) Tree's, bushes, terrain in general, destructible. I agree with Karnak on that these items should stay down once destroyed until reset, but for a different reason. My reason would be is that it would give a little more immersion. That tree/barn/grain silo you shot and/or bush you ran over intentionally (or very much likely in my case, COMPLETELY by accident) 2 days ago, didn't magically go back to what it was after a little bit. It would still destroyed, and will remain so until map reset.
2) FAR more realistic road and rail networks. No random indestructible bridges. If there is a bridge, let it be for a reason (IE River, gully, etc.). No sharp turns for said road and rail as well. Connections between the towns and the fields as well as with each other EXIST, both road and rail. At the very least, a road or two that leads from the base to the town.
3) Revamp the look of the warehouse that Road Convoys and Trains come out of. Bring back the revamped warehouse that Road Convoys and Trains use to go into when delivering their supplies. Have BOTH of these destructible like the non-strat items that exist at fields, but come back up like said non-strat items. I believe their down times are a fixed 60 minutes? I've honestly forgotten. This will only be for visuals and will NOT affect game play.
4) Ports that are not half into a landmass. Terrain editor will automatically adjust so that piers and docks are actually in water. The same with bases that are half into water. Editor would automatically readjust so they would be completely on land.
5) Area's where water would be shallow, have GV's be able to go through these shallow bits. Water depth is what I'm getting at.
-
Volron,
Your reasoning also occurred to me. It is crucial for the war effort to get the hangars back up, rebuild the radar and put the factories back together so respawning those makes sense not just from a gameplay perspective, which is why it happens so fast, but also from a realism perspective. Farmer Grover's house, not so much, low priority and he can rebuild it on his own. Trees simply don't grow fast enough to matter much over the course of a war and thus don't get replaced by other trees.
-
Good point about the supply system road bridges Volron.
Even though the old river tracks were removed, the bridges and their hills still remain.
I'm another that would like to see all those bridges and hills removed and replaced by grade level crossings. There can't be that many occurrences when a train would hit the trucks and it would rarely be seen if it happened.
As for terrain clutter, with a current limit of 50,000 destructible objects in a terrain, it will likely be decades before you see destructible terrain clutter like trees and buildings. Can you imagine the size of such an indexed list of objects!
-
Objects that can burn with flames and smoke, then look burnt after fire goes out.
And.....maybe some flamethrower vehicles to set those objects on fire. :D
-
Trains, river barges, staff cars, aircraft parks, tank depots, training aircraft (AI), transport aircraft (AI), subs, V-1s, marshalling yards and mountain goats.
-
Just to bring up a point about dynamic terrain destruction.
I can see a player (1) in a tank taking out a tree to get a clear view of another player (2). Player 2's computer has not gotten the update about that tree being blow up and is still blocked from player 1. Meanwhile player 1 fires a round at player 2 because has a clear view of the player.
Meanwhile, player 2 sees a round coming through a tree and blowing him up.
We get a phone call or an email, or both from a very pissed off player who just lost his perk tank to a round coming through a tree, and he has a film of the cheater doing it!
Whenever you think of real time damage, being done in a not-so real time environment there is almost always some tradeoffs and compromises. How long have we been explaining the collision model and how many still get angry about it and think it is wrong?
-
Something easier to implement for HTC but yet powerful:
- Allow to embed non-default skins to the terrain, so you can give a list terrain specific skins independently of MA skins.
Stuff for TE:
- Undo please
- List of favorite objects so you don't need to scroll entire list from filed to town and back when you add fields
- Predefined set of different small airfields from basic grass strip with rearm pad, map room and few guns and so on. Small GV fileds with and without map-room.
- And last but not the least... please, make TE more stable software that does not crash too easily
-
I can see a player (1) in a tank taking out a tree to get a clear view of another player (2). Player 2's computer has not gotten the update about that tree being blow up and is still blocked from player 1. Meanwhile player 1 fires a round at player 2 because has a clear view of the player.
Meanwhile, player 2 sees a round coming through a tree and blowing him up.
Hmm. I am skeptical that the update would ever take longer than the reload time, or even close to it. What is the update rate for objects in AH at a range of up to, say, 3000 yards?
I can see a very narrow window of, at the extreme outside, a quarter second or so where a third GV gets the update before the target GV does and has a round loaded and is already pointing its gun at exactly the right place and is able to react to the tree's destruction and get the shot off. That is a lot of things that need to line up right for any issue to happen.
Even if we limit ourselves to two GVs and the first uses his pintle MG to destroy the tree (trees should be tough enough to make that take awhile) he would still have to know exactly where to point his main gun when the target was out of sight so I still don't see that as a likely scenario. If the target is close enough to use rough aiming then he should notice the MG fire, if the shooting GV doesn't just shoot part of his tank that is not hidden by the tree.
-
Stuff for TE:
- List of favorite objects so you don't need to scroll entire list from filed to town and back when you add fields
That would be good and more specifically how about a button that restricts the objects shown to just those that HTC allow to be used in an MA terrain?
-
- Undo please
:aok
- List of favorite objects so you don't need to scroll entire list from filed to town and back when you add fields
See the shpfilter.txt file in Hitech Creations\Aces High Editors\ahiiterr.
Each entry hides that item.
-
I'll add this here as well so everything is in one place.
Please provide documentation for the ac3d plugin, htcac3d.p, or maintain the current backwards compatibility for ac3d objects converted with Object Editor 2.15 Patch 3.
Thanks
-
That would be good and more specifically how about a button that restricts the objects shown to just those that HTC allow to be used in an MA terrain?
It could tab through up to nine versions of the shpfilter.txt file, ie shpfilter0, shpfilter1, shpfilter2... shpfilter9.
I like it.
Oh, and the first line of each file might be displayed in or next to the button so each file could come with a name, ie MA list, Default list, myterrain list, etc.
-
Just to bring up a point about dynamic terrain destruction.
I can see a player (1) in a tank taking out a tree to get a clear view of another player (2). Player 2's computer has not gotten the update about that tree being blow up and is still blocked from player 1. Meanwhile player 1 fires a round at player 2 because has a clear view of the player.
Meanwhile, player 2 sees a round coming through a tree and blowing him up.
We get a phone call or an email, or both from a very pissed off player who just lost his perk tank to a round coming through a tree, and he has a film of the cheater doing it!
Whenever you think of real time damage, being done in a not-so real time environment there is almost always some tradeoffs and compromises. How long have we been explaining the collision model and how many still get angry about it and think it is wrong?
When the tree is fired upon and plummets to the ground a large amount of debris flies up everywhere on impact and gradually settles . This occurrence masks player 1's view for the period of update. The same effect as smoke clearing.
-
When the tree is fired upon and plummets to the ground a large amount of debris flies up everywhere on impact and gradually settles . This occurrence masks player 1's view for the period of update. The same effect as smoke clearing.
The player that destroyed the tree could have been doing it to fire at the remote player and would not wait for anything to clear. To artificially restrict firing until everyone got the update would be frustrating as well.
-
Why not simply allow GV's to fire through trees/bushes/barns just as aircraft can?
-
Why not simply allow GV's to fire through trees/bushes/barns just as aircraft can?
Would cause even more problems than we have to deal with now. Not to mention trees would have to be re-designed to allow rounds to go through them. If they can't make trees or certain terrain features destructible, then leave things as they are now.
-
Preview of the new terrain looks great :aok
-
new objects submarine Pen and Rail yard!
-
new objects submarine Pen and Rail yard!
Oh yes please! :x
-
You know what....
HTC, please, forget the terrain engine...
Please fix the Terrain Editor...
It is horribly, horribly bugged...
- Filed zones are changed without being requested.
- It crashes randomly for various reasons.
- Now I discovered that about 2/3 of all the fields I added to the map are gone (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356215.0.html) due to files corruption.
Guys... I really like your team and you are doing great job.
But you can't give tools like that to your community if you respect them. Seriously...
What you have done if your compiler or IDE was crashing/get stuck every hour? What would you do if you would loose your work accidentally? You guys are programmers... Bugs in basic tools should drive you crazy.
Please don't do it to us.
-
You know what....
HTC, please, forget the terrain engine...
Please fix the Terrain Editor...
It is horribly, horribly bugged...
- Filed zones are changed without being requested.
- It crashes randomly for various reasons.
- Now I discovered that about 2/3 of all the fields I added to the map are gone (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356215.0.html) due to files corruption.
Guys... I really like your team and you are doing great job.
But you can't give tools like that to your community if you respect them. Seriously...
What you have done if your compiler or IDE was crashing/get stuck every hour? What would you do if you would loose your work accidentally? You guys are programmers... Bugs in basic tools should drive you crazy.
Please don't do it to us.
I'm sure they will get around to making a better terrain editor. And they obviously care for us as a community since they are doing something that has been requested before. Aka, new terrain. This new terrain will most likely add many more things that map editors can finagle with. I do agree that the map editor should be more.. user friendly and not need a PH in Hitechnecs to use it. But the terrain comes first.. then everything else :aok
-
One non-destructible bridge.
I'd like bridges added to the MA as well, it would give an added dimension to map design. There is a problem with putting them on an MA map however. Someone playing with detailed water turned off would see the bridge but no river. A narrow strip of water like a river just vanishes with the game in this state, but driving into the invisible river will still stop the GV.
One solution would be to add river bank objects either side of the bridge or turn it into a bridge V base tile with river banks and a river coded in as objects. The other would be to make coastlines a non-removable graphics option in the game, so turning off "detailed water" would turn off the pretty wave effects but leave a flat blue water area with sharp coastlines. I'm not sure how much of an FPS penalty this would impose on a very slow system however.
-
I'm sure they will get around to making a better terrain editor... I do agree that the map editor should be more.. user friendly
I'm not asking new features, I'm not asking anything... I'm asking that a program would work as it expected to do.
I'm a programmer.
I had written lots of software of different kind, from UI to low level hard core computing and physical simulation. There is one important principle: Fix bugs before writing new code (see: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html)
Having multiple bugs in TE causes major problems to the terrain developers. I had just lost an entire work day I spend on a terrain due to corruption of a file. And I lost about 2-3 work hours on various bugs (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,355716.0.html) so I needed to fix things or find workarounds. And I had only started working on a new terrain!
So how many work hours the community members had lost due to bugs?
Of course I'm not trying to tell HTC how to develop software. I just ask for something that works as expected. AH2 is very stable and high quality software. But the tools around aren't. And not because they miss a feature or so, it is because they just don't do what they expected to do (a.k.a. have bugs... many of them)
-
Tree foliage that is not impervious to ordinance........ would be my prime wish even if the tree trunk etc was its old uber hard self I think the game play tactic of hiding in plain sight behind a couple of trees using the canopy of same trees as a revetment is old old now......
Still not up to speed with Skuzzy's logic re the effects of lag during a player destroying an object for a better view.......... I see the initial argument but cannot see how a graphically enhanced delay would not even stuff out........ if player 1 is destroying the object (tree) for a better view then he is not sighted until the object is destroyed.... hence upon firing at the object he would have to...... 1)wait for dust to settle 2) whilst re arming 3) sight & range onto target 4) fire
this whilst the target may have been given notice of Player 1's presence by the wanton destruction of habitat.
That this would all use up resource to sap either the server or the FE or both I can understand
actually its the same for town buildings now...... (kill one and the object remnant is soft and can be seen thru)
Bridges are Gud. I don't mind if the are destructible or not. I think the problem with destructible bridges is linked to the local terrain design as a whole. If the bridge is the only route then its poor. If its the shortest of several routes then it's "interesting". Also the distance from spawn points (defending and attacking) make a difference IMO.
I can see scenario's where the bridge enables a spawn closer to the target field. If the bridge is destroyed then this spawn is lost but there must still be a an alternative. That's if the new terrain engine still keeps fixed spawn points!
-
Tree foliage that is not impervious to ordinance........ would be my prime wish even if the tree trunk etc was its old uber hard self I think the game play tactic of hiding in plain sight behind a couple of trees using the canopy of same trees as a revetment is old old now......
Still not up to speed with Skuzzy's logic re the effects of lag during a player destroying an object for a better view.......... I see the initial argument but cannot see how a graphically enhanced delay would not even stuff out........ if player 1 is destroying the object (tree) for a better view then he is not sighted until the object is destroyed.... hence upon firing at the object he would have to...... 1)wait for dust to settle 2) whilst re arming 3) sight & range onto target 4) fire
this whilst the target may have been given notice of Player 1's presence by the wanton destruction of habitat.
That this would all use up resource to sap either the server or the FE or both I can understand
actually its the same for town buildings now...... (kill one and the object remnant is soft and can be seen thru)
Bridges are Gud. I don't mind if the are destructible or not. I think the problem with destructible bridges is linked to the local terrain design as a whole. If the bridge is the only route then its poor. If its the shortest of several routes then it's "interesting". Also the distance from spawn points (defending and attacking) make a difference IMO.
I can see scenario's where the bridge enables a spawn closer to the target field. If the bridge is destroyed then this spawn is lost but there must still be a an alternative. That's if the new terrain engine still keeps fixed spawn points!
If one or two bridges were the only 'passage' across a river (was thinking of mini-rivers in towns :devil) then the way to repair said bridge would be cargo via m3/251. Bridge would take a few rounds at least, or only take damage from.. say SAP/AP bombs (making them used more).
Just a thought.
-
How about some better lighting, HDR, bloom?
Please respond.
-
I'd like bridges added to the MA as well, it would give an added dimension to map design. There is a problem with putting them on an MA map however. Someone playing with detailed water turned off would see the bridge but no river. A narrow strip of water like a river just vanishes with the game in this state, but driving into the invisible river will still stop the GV.
One solution would be to add river bank objects either side of the bridge or turn it into a bridge V base tile with river banks and a river coded in as objects. The other would be to make coastlines a non-removable graphics option in the game, so turning off "detailed water" would turn off the pretty wave effects but leave a flat blue water area with sharp coastlines. I'm not sure how much of an FPS penalty this would impose on a very slow system however.
I'm expecting that the option to disable Detailed Terrain will be removed. If I'm right, you'll only be able to remove Detailed Water, and its associated Water Reflections, but you'll still see all the shorelines as you can now. Detailed Terrain will show the riverbanks, and the removal of this option has been a needed change for a long time now.
-
Artik, the current Terrain Editor works very well when used exclusively with its' GUI. That said, its' core documentation and functions are very dated. Had you accepted my PM'd suggestion for a Skype meeting back in October, it would have saved you most of this grief. :uhoh
The Skype offer still stands and I think there's still a short window of time to put your terrain into play before the new game engine puts a halt to uploading new work.
-
How about an under water environment with terrain and objects that can be fixed or move under water?
Would be great for expansion later if not already included.
-
Artik, the current Terrain Editor works very well when used exclusively with its' GUI. That said, its' core documentation and functions are very dated. Had you accepted my PM'd suggestion for a Skype meeting back in October, it would have saved you most of this grief. :uhoh
The Skype offer still stands and I think there's still a short window of time to put your terrain into play before the new game engine puts a halt to uploading new work.
Thanks for the offer. Really... I hand't forget it and I really appreciate this/
Finally working with wiki gives me good results. I have no major/unresolved problems with the functionality itself. Maybe it sometimes not intuitive or user friendly, but that is not the thing I'm complaining about. Also I'm not talking about small annoying bugs/unexpected behavior (that I can live with them)
The problem is that TE crashes, freezes, and what is even worth corrupts my data: sample 1 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,355716.0.html), sample 2 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,356215.0.html).
In the second case, I lost lots of work because it corrupted the file. Learned from the experience, now I put all the data under source control (git) and commit it every few steps, so if something bad happens I can trace back at what exact point it started and recover for future freezes and loose at most 10-20 minutes of work rather than many hours between the backups.
How would you feel if a Photoshop or GIMP was crashing every hour and was unexpectedly corrupting your files?
-
How would you feel if a Photoshop or GIMP was crashing every hour and was unexpectedly corrupting your files?
That's exactly what will happen with GIMP 2.6.x if you don't have enough memory when working with an intense waterd file. It happened to me about every 20 to 30 minutes. There are situations when building terrains require better hardware then the actual game! I'm not saying your hardware is at fault. I'll look at your examples and see if I spot anything obvious but this isn't the forum for an answer so I'll reply in a PM.
-
The player that destroyed the tree could have been doing it to fire at the remote player and would not wait for anything to clear. To artificially restrict firing until everyone got the update would be frustrating as well.
I can't see how that is more frustrating than a bush stopping/flipping a king tiger at 30Mph, or tanks using trees as walls. Destroyable trees is a killer feature that would really enhance the game.
A few milliseconds of display lag and sometimes weird situations can be dealt with (we deal with warps all the time), we are not pro gaming in here.
-
Since a new terrain engine is in development. Perhaps an idea I mentioned a few months ago would be beneficial.
Instead of making all the trees destructible. Why not make certain areas of trees destructible? Since the trees we have now are 'coaded' as indestructible (part of the ground terrain), why not make a few tree models that are made to be destroyed? These would be in populated-only areas. Not in the boonies were even b29s wouldn't have a need to be at.
3k around GV spawns and on the way to towns/around towns and bases (up to 4k around bases and 2k around towns including inside the town).
If you think it is possible to do this, then do it. If not, I think most of us understand why.
As an example.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/10nb12d.jpg)
Red dot is my wirble.
Area in the blue lines is the 'spawn point' all the trees in this area would be destructible, all trees outside of this area, wouldn't be.
All trees in the green area would be destructible also and again, only in the green/blue areas. So the trees on the mountains in the background.. would be the titanium trees.
Would it be possible to copy the tree (or make a few models of trees) and make them destructible? Then put em everywhere near spawns and bases/towns (perhaps some ON the bases (if they had them, because I don't know) ), if it's possible.
-
:rofl :rofl
Skuzzy has got to be wishing he'd used the company line on this one.
427* destroyable trees and man made objects per square mile x 512 x 512 miles equals 111,935,488 destroyable objects. That's almost 112 MILLION objects to track on your FE in real time. I can imagine what would happen if everyone in the arena decided to simultaneously start killing trees and buildings. Oh, the humanity!
*The count is take from ntt0005.til
Tinkles, imho this would need to be all or nothing because the terrain builders would need to manually do what you're asking, and you don't even have Detailed Terrain active now! At least, that's how that jpg looks to me.
-
:rofl :rofl
Skuzzy has got to be wishing he'd used the company line on this one.
427* destroyable trees and man made objects per square mile x 512 x 512 miles equals 111,935,488 destroyable objects. That's almost 112 MILLION objects to track on your FE in real time. I can imagine what would happen if everyone in the arena decided to simultaneously start killing trees and buildings. Oh, the humanity!
*The count is take from ntt0005.til
Tinkles, imho this would need to be all or nothing because the terrain builders would need to manually do what you're asking, and you don't even have Detailed Terrain active now! At least, that's how that jpg looks to me.
Well, you'd only need to keep track of the ones you can see. What's ground crud render distance? 4 miles? Just for simplicity's sake, make it square, so 16 square miles of constantly changing terrain under your aircraft. 16*427= 6832 objects that would need to update their status of whether they're up or down at all times when you're close to the ground.
They'd each need a unique identifier which would need to be able to handle the 112 million or more count, so an integer, positive means up negative means down... That's still 2 bytes per object, 13,664 bytes that would need to be updated several times a second to be playable.
It's a significant amount of processing/data transfer.
Wiley.
-
Well, you'd only need to keep track of the ones you can see. What's ground crud render distance? 4 miles? Just for simplicity's sake, make it square, so 16 square miles of constantly changing terrain under your aircraft. 16*427= 6832 objects that would need to update their status of whether they're up or down at all times when you're close to the ground.
They'd each need a unique identifier which would need to be able to handle the 112 million or more count, so an integer, positive means up negative means down... That's still 2 bytes per object, 13,664 bytes that would need to be updated several times a second to be playable.
It's a significant amount of processing/data transfer.
Wiley.
or the server could send info only about the trees that are down, as the server and client both have the map file.
-
or the server could send info only about the trees that are down, as the server and client both have the map file.
Doh... good point. Based on the way people act in most online games I've seen the terrain would be pretty much leveled most of the time anyplace people are busy though.
Wiley.
-
and if the tree has more than 1hp you will need to be able to transmit the damage value
-
and if the tree has more than 1hp you will need to be able to transmit the damage value
If it were me I might be inclined to make it so if it's in the bomb/rocket/cannon/HE round blast or hit directly by any cannon shell it's down, otherwise it's up, rather than have an HP system for them. Gives you the efficiency without having guys in Hurri 1's buzzing down foliage.
Wiley.
-
Yes, all that works great in a Battlefield 3 environment, but seriously, you can't tell the difference?
:bhead
-
:rofl :rofl
Skuzzy has got to be wishing he'd used the company line on this one.
427* destroyable trees and man made objects per square mile x 512 x 512 miles equals 111,935,488 destroyable objects. That's almost 112 MILLION objects to track on your FE in real time. I can imagine what would happen if everyone in the arena decided to simultaneously start killing trees and buildings. Oh, the humanity!
*The count is take from ntt0005.til
Tinkles, imho this would need to be all or nothing because the terrain builders would need to manually do what you're asking, and you don't even have Detailed Terrain active now! At least, that's how that jpg looks to me.
That's why I said if possible :)
Also, it provoked information that skuzzy hadn't given yet. Further enlightening the overall situation. I knew it would be a task either way. Just giving benefit of the doubt to the possibility of destructible trees. But I understand that it would be literally too much information going about for many computers to handle, let alone play in.
-
My request for terrain engine would probably go hand-in-hand with the graphics engine. I would like to see an improved rendering of objects on the ground (in the air as well) at long distances. For example in War Thunder, you can see roads and trees for many miles away but in Aces High, you have to keep your detail range turned down; else the game consumes massive amounts of resources and overall performance decreases.
Other thoughts on destructible objects in terrains:
1. When a client is connecting to one of the arenas, during the loading screen, include a fast-check of destroyed objects reported by the server. When the client is finally connected and in the arena, all of the data has been loaded and only needs to be rendered when the client is within visual range of the object.
AND/OR
2. Each client will only request updates from the server of destroyed objects that are within 4K range (or at any given range) of the location that the client is on the map.
Also another beef I have is that the sun sometimes shine through mountains. Also if you are flying behind a mountain with the sun on the other side, your plane/cockpit should be darker as there is less light.
-
How about just scraping the whole idea of blowing up the trees and make tanks able to knock them down..... run them over..... you see & hear a tree crashing to the ground... ya might wanna check for a tank.
-
I am reminded that long ago in a galaxy not so far away we had tree clutter as "could be destroyed" on a scenario terrain. AH1 Okinawa IIRC.
It worked..... But then there were no forests of dense canopy.
I would like terrain tiles to be capable of rendering wet, dry, hard, soft, or more accurately
Does/ does not leave vehicle tracks
Does/ does not make dust clouds with vehicle passage
On the subject of destroying trees I wonder if a simple approach may be a compromise.
3 standards of tree hardness
1. Small bushes have very low hardness. Impart little if any damage on vehicles crashing into them and offer no impediment.
2. Small trees have medium hardness. Impart some damage component on to the vehicle (factored from speed and weight of vehicle ( speed x k factor to give energy) and the effect of any damage derived from the existing damage model of the part of the vehicle under impact). The same damage is imparted to the tree but this only destroys the tree if it's hardness is exceeded. Hitting a tree twice has no cumulative effect. Impediment to vehicle speed would be also influenced by the ratio of energy imparted to energy used to destroy the tree.... Slowing the vehicle whilst passing over the tree.
3. Big trees would have high hardness. Rinse and repeat above...... Hitting a big tree with a jeep at speed would now impart damage on the jeep ( no more bumper cars!) it may even be fatal damage. Hitting a big tree with alight tank may also impart the sort of damage best avoided. Hitting a big tree with a medium tank may cause the tree 's demise but also impart damage that makes it slightly more vulnerable to the enemy. Hitting a big tree with a heavy tank just leaves tank tracks where the tree used to be.
That's fine for the FE but how would the server handle and record all these trees? I would suggest its uses the tank tracks to model a path behind the vehicle such that the data sent is the track record not the tree status. Then the FE renders the track path and destroys the trees appropriately. If a jeep has not destroyed a tree then it's path has not passed over it.
-
Yes, all that works great in a Battlefield 3 environment, but seriously, you can't tell the difference?
:bhead
Not trying to be obtuse, but what is the difference? The system only needs to worry about what you can see, not the entire map at once.
Wiley.
-
BF3 and it's ilk: Small temporary environment that resets to pristine condition every half hour or so. When you enter, everything looks new and shiny.
AH: Large environment lasting from ~24 hours to a week.
Do you really want to play in a wasteland after all the effort to make it beautiful by adding trees and buildings and other ground clutter to the environment! Are tank battles going to be fun when all the cover is blown out of the battlefield! That makes no sense to me so again...
:bhead
-
BF3 and it's ilk: Small temporary environment that resets to pristine condition every half hour or so. When you enter, everything looks new and shiny.
AH: Large environment lasting from ~24 hours to a week.
Do you really want to play in a wasteland after all the effort to make it beautiful by adding trees and buildings and other ground clutter to the environment! Are tank battles going to be fun when all the cover is blown out of the battlefield! That makes no sense to me so again...
:bhead
Why wouldn't they set it up so they respawn like buildings on a timer?
Wiley.
-
Do you really want to play in a wasteland after all the effort to make it beautiful by adding trees and buildings and other ground clutter to the environment! Are tank battles going to be fun when all the cover is blown out of the battlefield! That makes no sense to me so again...
:bhead
that would be a hell of a lot better than the iron trees. it would force people to change tactics and make the ground battle a lot more dynamic.
-
that would be a hell of a lot better than the iron trees. it would force people to change tactics and make the ground battle a lot more dynamic.
seriously I don't see the point of redoing the train just to have indestructible trees again.
-
seriously I don't see the point of redoing the train just to have indestructible trees again.
what does the train have to to with the trees? :headscratch:
:D
-
ok the terrain I meant.
-
HiTech was nice enough to clarify some things for us:
The current stuff I am working on has a 660 Foot vertex res, AH currently has 2480 res. I doubt will will go denser then this.
The new system has 16 + 4 base texture types the 16 are base types like rock grass snow ext.... the 4 types are higher res and are things like fields small towns excreta.
There is also a color per vertex that is blended with the terrain textures, along with a detail mask type like rows, rock excreta that is blended in as you get closer to the terrain.
The terrain does cast shadows. I devolved a new system for doing this that is extremely fast. Ill try post a screen or film later today.
There will be a converter for existing terrains , but some clean up would add a lot to the terrains.
Water will be change to have full 3d wave effects.
We are dropping support for fixed pipeline, and will require shader version 3.0 minimum. On last count before we started this, I saw less the 20 accounts that have played in the last year that did not support 3.0 shaders.
Clouds will have a small rework that will improve frame rate because we can depend on shader style implementation.
The terrain editor will remain basically the same for implanting objects. But for the look of the terrain features,textures and tree type features, it will make much more use of image editing tools.
I very much doubt trees will be destructible. Simple math of approximate 3000 objects per square mile and 512 x 512 miles creates over 1 gig of objects. This creates many issues with both memory and speed on displaying the status on all front ends.
HiTech
-
destructible trees not gonna happen...no big deal. :)
-
Do you really want to play in a wasteland after all the effort to make it beautiful by adding trees and buildings and other ground clutter to the environment! A
Liberal Tree-Hugger
-
Do you really want to play in a wasteland
V82 (?) spawn should look like hell on earth (most days) IMO............
-
V82 (?) spawn should look like hell on earth (most days) IMO............
Well, perhaps with the new high-tech HiTech terrains, it can be made to look like that :)
-
I like a lot of these suggestions - having terrain objects able to be destroyed (even if never rebuilt until the map resets) would be nice and you would see the effects of battle over time on the various spawn areas. I definitely think that trees and civilian structures should be able to be destroyed by bombing as well.
It would definitely improve the ground war from a realism standpoint to have dirt roads, bridges across impassable streams or ponds, etc. Having different vehicles be able to get through different structures might help as well - nothing gets through trees, but a tank should be able to move through brush objects that would stop a jeep. A jeep would be able to climb hills and move through forest hexes by going round trees that would stop a tank. Streams, MUD, swampy terrain bogs down everything - and this should be included as well. If you can see a pond, you might not want to drive too close to it. All this combines to create choke points, and areas where massed tank assault might be needed to get through determined defenders.
From the terrain builders standpoint, maybe the idea is to create a set of tiles with roads and various terrain objects that can be assembled like a puzzle. If the road points and river points are standardized a bit, and then mixed with tiles that contain impassable terrain like big rocks, mountains, swamp, etc. then the number of maps and the variability of game play increases.
-
I haven't read through this entire thread, but I agree with the idea that different terrain tiles should affect GV movement differently. This would also require the addition of a more comprehensive road system, as a GV's max speed should only be available on a road. Indeed, some terrains should cause some GV's to bog down completely and get stuck, such as when a heavy tank tries to cross bogs and marshes. A jeep, on the other hand, could successfully navigate many of the same terrains, enhancing its usefulness as a scout/recon platform. Learning to read the terrain before moving across it is a basic skill for armored personnel. It would add an additional tool to the terrain designer's tool box to design more interesting opportunities for ground combat.
-
Destructible bridges kill the fight and ruin game play!
Hence my specific request for a non-destructible bridge. Two or three bridges at a river crossing would allow choke points and some tactical maneuvering. And yes, you don't need a bridge unless the terrain builder includes rivers.
Edit: I may have misunderstood your comment. Adding rivers isn't much good if they aren't around where they can be seen and used. The availability of bridges would make bases next to rivers more likely.
Good post but I see the opposite.
Destructible bridges could be re-supplied using the current model.......10 minutes reduced from rebuild time when a field sup box is dropped. If the downtime was 30 minutes.......then three M-3 could sup it and get it back up.
There can be intense GV battles around a bridge whether it is up or down. I used to play Armored Assault. Some of our best battles were during
the time the bridge was down. Tanks would line up on both sides of the gorge. When the bridge came back up tanks tried to cross that bridge. It took several tanks guarding the bridge or right on the bridge so that a tank could get across. Bridge battles can be allot of fun. They can be just as intense as when two gv spawn points are fairly close together.
I participated in some awesome bridge battles. I would really like to see them come to Aces High.
Rivers that lead way into interior of the terrain would give PT Boats access to engage low flying a/c at more air fields. The good thing about Aces High is there is something fun
for everyone.
<S>
-
Trees that can be brought down is really needed i think. When there is a will their is a way.
-
A few things I'd like to see in the next version, allowable in MA terrains:
A forward airbase: No bomber hangars, no ord bunkers, no troop barracks and no vehicle hangar. Just a couple of fighter hangars, a short runway, a reload pad, some AA, fuel bunkers and a tower. It should have a lot of temporary looking buildings (tents etc.) and maybe a pierced steel, dirt or grass strip and its own "F" designation on the clipboard map. The idea is for MA terrain builders to be able to put a defensive fighter airbase somewhere, i.e. tank town, without bringing in a bunch of bombers and jabos as well. Also, apart from the base guns the only defence against GV attack would be the three AT cannon armed aircraft, so these might get some more use.
AA or AT bunkers: There could be a heavy AT gun in a concrete pillbox, and also a variety of concrete flak towers or bunkers with one or more light or heavy AA guns etc. The terrain's creator would be able to be place these like a shore battery near to a base. There would need to be some restrictions on how many and where they could be placed. Perhaps not on the same tile as the base or town, but on flat terrain and within a certain distance. Shore battery placement currently has similar rules IIRC. In-game these emplacements would show up in the guns selection screen in the same way as the shore batteries do now. Being protected by concrete they would need bombs, rockets or shells to take down. This would add a degree of variety to each field's defences and would add some interest for the terrain creator, siting AT bunkers in sneaky spots between the SP and the town etc would be fun.
Eye candy objects: A selection of stuff that can be placed into an MA terrain that has no effect on gameplay other than for visual interest and maybe cover. These could include ruined factories, groups of ruined houses, a partially sunken shipwreck, crashed and burnt out aircraft and so on. Making them already destroyed prevents anyone trying to waste ordnance on them. It also adds some sign that there is a war going on. A terrain builder could dot these about to add visual interest and also to create mini environments for GVs to fight in and around. There could be restrictions on how many can be placed near a field to prevent FPS issues.
-
A few things I'd like to see in the next version, allowable in MA terrains:
A forward airbase: No bomber hangars, no ord bunkers, no troop barracks and no vehicle hangar. Just a couple of fighter hangars, a short runway, a reload pad, some AA, fuel bunkers and a tower. It should have a lot of temporary looking buildings (tents etc.) and maybe a pierced steel, dirt or grass strip and its own "F" designation on the clipboard map. The idea is for MA terrain builders to be able to put a defensive fighter airbase somewhere, i.e. tank town, without bringing in a bunch of bombers and jabos as well. Also, apart from the base guns the only defence against GV attack would be the three AT cannon armed aircraft, so these might get some more use.
AA or AT bunkers: There could be a heavy AT gun in a concrete pillbox, and also a variety of concrete flak towers or bunkers with one or more light or heavy AA guns etc. The terrain's creator would be able to be place these like a shore battery near to a base. There would need to be some restrictions on how many and where they could be placed. Perhaps not on the same tile as the base or town, but on flat terrain and within a certain distance. Shore battery placement currently has similar rules IIRC. In-game these emplacements would show up in the guns selection screen in the same way as the shore batteries do now. Being protected by concrete they would need bombs, rockets or shells to take down. This would add a degree of variety to each field's defences and would add some interest for the terrain creator, siting AT bunkers in sneaky spots between the SP and the town etc would be fun.
Eye candy objects: A selection of stuff that can be placed into an MA terrain that has no effect on gameplay other than for visual interest and maybe cover. These could include ruined factories, groups of ruined houses, a partially sunken shipwreck, crashed and burnt out aircraft and so on. Making them already destroyed prevents anyone trying to waste ordnance on them. It also adds some sign that there is a war going on. A terrain builder could dot these about to add visual interest and also to create mini environments for GVs to fight in and around. There could be restrictions on how many can be placed near a field to prevent FPS issues.
I like all of these ideas.
To extrapolate further on your forward airbase idea, I have a thought. What if, when maps were being designed, bases are spread out much further, and are much fewer in number. There would only be large (and maybe medium) airfields, as well as ports. Each of these base types is attached to a larger population center. When said base is on the "front line," the designer-added surrounding "field bases" are activated, such as v-bases and your aforementioned airstrips. This would give the impression of more of a "front line" of the fight, and then rear areas with less stuff in them. Does that make sense?
-
I can see what you mean but I'd guess HTC would be resistant to changing the game in such a way that would make existing maps obsolete, or at least would require their layout to be redesigned.
The forward airbase I described could be added to new terrains but wouldn't affect the old ones. Other than the tank town protection role I mentioned it could be used to create a sort of firebreak on a map. A row of forward airbases placed across the line of advance would be easy to take (only 2 FHs and no VH) but once captured its harder to advance beyond them (no ord, reload pads, troops, SPs out etc.) So a mission would have to come from two fields back to advance across the line. Now a map designer could place just one or two normal airbases as breaks in this forward airbase line to create a few fields that had strategic significance. These would become hotspots that would be fought over more fiercely.
-
Can destroyable vegetation be built along the same lines as any other destroyable object? If so and I've seen projections of the daunting numbers to placing that into every sector of the map. Can destroyable vegetation be a map builders localized set of objects to place around the expected combat zone max ring area of spawns and fields? Is there a smaller number set a sector can support while not killing everyone's game experience?
Or only allow destroyable vegetation around fields and towns in a proscribed manner and maximum number. As for time down, I haven't a clue. Would this vegetation even be something manned field guns can cut down or be bombed down to let gunners get a clear shot at a vehicle?
If a minimum number is possible, then I suspect as usual Hitech knows our whining greed better than we want to admit to. Even if we agreed now to a minimum amount of destroyable vegetation strategically placed. We would never stop whining for total destroyable vegetation unrestictededly placed.
-
Can destroyable vegetation be built along the same lines as any other destroyable object? If so and I've seen projections of the daunting numbers to placing that into every sector of the map. Can destroyable vegetation be a map builders localized set of objects to place around the expected combat zone max ring area of spawns and fields? Is there a smaller number set a sector can support while not killing everyone's game experience?
Or only allow destroyable vegetation around fields and towns in a proscribed manner and maximum number. As for time down, I haven't a clue. Would this vegetation even be something manned field guns can cut down or be bombed down to let gunners get a clear shot at a vehicle?
If a minimum number is possible, then I suspect as usual Hitech knows our whining greed better than we want to admit to. Even if we agreed now to a minimum amount of destroyable vegetation strategically placed. We would never stop whining for total destroyable vegetation unrestictededly placed.
That is pretty much fatally flawed in that it presents inconsistent outcomes to player actions with no explanation as to why some trees can be destroyed and others cannot.
-
new objects submarine Pen and Rail yard!
no one cares about 20ft of rebar and concrete. RAIL YARD!!!! And twain twacks with twains to shoot! Big long juicy trains! Not this little 5-10 car rarely seen train we have now...
Anyone have the stats on how many missions were flown on both sides bombing rail yards, and also attacking trains on the move?
-
Simply bumping this.
:aok
-
no one cares about 20ft of rebar and concrete. RAIL YARD!!!! And twain twacks with twains to shoot! Big long juicy trains! Not this little 5-10 car rarely seen train we have now...
Anyone have the stats on how many missions were flown on both sides bombing rail yards, and also attacking trains on the move?
Ah, but once we get submarines that can spawn from ports, sub pens are a must. Of course, HTC would need to give us the "Grand-Slam" bomb for the lancs to drop on 'em. :rock
Oh, and +1 on rail yards and realistic rolling stock.
-
Weather. New terrain needs weather. Rain. Ground fog. Snow. And Thunder & Lightening!
-
Weather. New terrain needs weather. Rain. Ground fog. Snow. And Thunder & Lightening!
and the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders too! :banana:
I wouldn't mind some fog, I remember there used to be a map that had fog over the ports. That was a good time when you couldn't see jack. :D Just remember, HTC does well to be able to keep as many systems as possible to be able to play and the more weather and destructible items in view the more it stresses a system.