Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Wanted: Better Damage Model and Terrain Detail


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 walker450

walker450
  • Posts: 7

Posted 17 November 2009 - 02:07

Hello all. I have been flying ROF for about a week now and really love it. I seen this section of the forums and thought I would add my 2 cents…

I realize these topics have been brought up but I want to start a thread on them under the Feedback and Suggestions forum.

The damage model is very good, but is also very unrealistic at the same time. The fuselage should be able to be nearly completely destroyed when you crash at high speed. I won't go on anymore about this… I think everyone knows what I mean. Also, there should be much more debris on the ground when the plane has a bad crash (and stay around longer instead of just disappearing).

The terrain leaves much to be desired. It reminds some of flying old flight sim games from the '90s… please add ditches, telegraph lines, houses, farms, hedge rows, fences, etc. A forced landing would be much more challenging if there were ditches along the roads and at the edges of some fields that you would have to avoid.

If one reads the book Fighting the Flying Circus, they will see examples of what I ask for above. There is one account of a plane taking off and trying to climb over telegraph lines after the engine fails. Another account is of a German plane "scatted in pieces over the ground".
  • 0

#2 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 17 November 2009 - 04:32

The feuselage seems to have no damage model at all. You cant kill any occupants through the feuselage only with a direct hit to an exposed portion of their body.
  • 0

#3 GazzaV.Gazza

GazzaV.Gazza
  • Posts: 131

Posted 17 November 2009 - 05:11

I thought the terrain looked good. The more detail you add, the more drain there is on your system, however.

And, since most of what we do is very low-level compared to WWII sims, those telegraph lines etc. would be forever sucking from our RAM.

However, I do agree about the Damage model…it seems silly that after plummetting 1500M that your plane is still so easily identifiable as a plane.
  • 0

#4 Sensenmann

Sensenmann
  • Posts: 381

Posted 17 November 2009 - 05:25

You think a few fences and telegraph lines (which most likely weren't all that common that we would need them anyway) would be a drain on our resources, imagine the workload your system would experience trying to calculate all the flying debris from a disintegrating plane. Most likely it would reduce you computer to the smoldering pile you want the plane to be.

I like my computer, so I think I'll vote to keep the currently sufficient damage model.
  • 0

#5 walker450

walker450
  • Posts: 7

Posted 17 November 2009 - 05:44

I hope I didn't sound to negative in my first post. :) I really love this game and I am soooo glad that neoqb has poured their heart and soul into it for all of our simming pleasure. I am only putting this up since their is a specific forum for it.

As for the drain on system resources, there could be settings to the amount of detail for crashes and terrain. This would solve performance issues on regular machines, while high-end machines could turn up the settings and enjoy! (Anyone here play FSX?)

Also, the game DCS: Black Shark has an excellent damage model with lots of flying debris, and it is not a drain on my system at all. Also, Lock On: Flaming Cliffs has a very good damage model for the SU-25T. However, both of those games seem to make the fuselage nearly indestructible, at least until it simply explodes.

And as far as the low-level stuff goes… a lot of combat happened at high altitudes. However, most of the fighting would eventually end up at lower levels as the dogfight would generally work itself downward in altitude. In Eddie Rickenbacker's book Fighting the Flying Circus he describes his flights quite well, and on several occasions he takes his planes to max altitude. Now I'm getting off topic LOL….

When I first started flight simming in the '90s (Aces Over Europe, ATF)I always envisioned a sim that would simulate nearly every nut and bold of a plane. Maybe we will get there one day… I am just glad that there are still a few companies working on flight sims! I wish I had the talent to contribute to the effort because I certainly would if there was a way!
  • 0

#6 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 17 November 2009 - 12:12

When I first started flight simming in the '90s (Aces Over Europe, ATF)I always envisioned a sim that would simulate nearly every nut and bold of a plane. Maybe we will get there one day… I am just glad that there are still a few companies working on flight sims! I wish I had the talent to contribute to the effort because I certainly would if there was a way!

Well said. To me, RoF is step or two above other sims in its damage model, and the terrain is beautiful.

As for killing pilots and gunners through the fuselage…are we certain it's impossible? I'm pretty sure I have done it, but it requires a long, long burst of machine gun fire that you won't have the opportunity for against a recon aircraft.

Modeling whether each bullet would hit some internal spar in the fuselage, get slowed down, change direction, possibly hit the pilot, etc. could be a sim all by itself, and probably one that's more system resource intensive than the game we already have.
  • 0

#7 BarmyFailure

BarmyFailure
  • Posts: 26

Posted 17 November 2009 - 16:04

Modeling whether each bullet would hit some internal spar in the fuselage, get slowed down, change direction, possibly hit the pilot, etc. could be a sim all by itself, and probably one that's more system resource intensive than the game we already have.

Well it sims that ballistic is allready pretty realistic. Kynetic energy seems allready dealt with, making the bullet change direction and lose energy when hitting something hard might already be implemented (try shooting at the ground, with an angle <45° the bullet bounces).
An.Petrovitch said that every plane is modelled as multiple parts that has their own aerodynamics and phisics properties. That's for the FM. I would guess the DM is quite the same. Then modelling every cable and vital parts for every plane would be doable but quite long to do.

By the way did someone ever took damage to the tail of his plane. My wings got destroyed easy but never took any damage to my elevator or rudder. Seems a little odd, especially considering i'm allways fired at from my six (i'm quite a loosy fighter pilot :) ).
  • 0

#8 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 17 November 2009 - 16:14

*ahem* :x

everybody complains that the plane does not crumple enough; unless we all have supercomputers tucked away in our closets were gonna have to settle for the already processor intensive and impressive damage models. do you know what kind of processing power it takes to accurately model a crash like that?

ok rant over.
  • 0

#9 BarmyFailure

BarmyFailure
  • Posts: 26

Posted 17 November 2009 - 16:30

everybody complains that the plane does not crumple enough; unless we all have supercomputers tucked away in our closets were gonna have to settle for the already processor intensive and impressive damage models. do you know what kind of processing power it takes to accurately model a crash like that?

Not everybody complains about the crashes, but you're absolutely right, modelling such crash accurately would be very very processor intensive because of all the physics that would have to be calculated in a very short time while many physics parameters are already being calculated for the Flight Model.

And i think most people here don't complain, they just want to point out things that they think are not accurate or seems odd. Most of us love this already great sim and want it to be even better. Of course realism grows along with our computer's processing power and I really hope that RoF will fly the same path that IL2 is, perhaps even a better one.
  • 0

#10 Executioner

Executioner
  • Posts: 137

Posted 17 November 2009 - 18:38

Agreed. The damage model is anything but convincing.

Planes should bear more visible markings and should be able to tear when severely damaged…
  • 0

#11 NakedSquirrel

NakedSquirrel
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1158

Posted 17 November 2009 - 18:50

*ahem* :x

everybody complains that the plane does not crumple enough; unless we all have supercomputers tucked away in our closets were gonna have to settle for the already processor intensive and impressive damage models. do you know what kind of processing power it takes to accurately model a crash like that?

ok rant over.

Some games cheat by replacing the model with a 'crash' model. If you take a spill from 10,000 ft with no wings, insert 'charred wood and rubble' model in place of whatever was left of the plane. Make a little puff of smoke and voila .

Anyhow, not a big issue. Crashes already look pretty darn good. Although it would be cute to have a model of charred wood and canvas for high speed crashes, I don't think it matters much. We are usually only looking at wrecked planes from 1,000 ft up in the air.

The damage model on the physics side of things does need to be changed. I put about 100-200 rounds into the back of an enemy plane from very close range. I damaged the rudder and elivator, but I didn't do any significant damage until I lifted my nose and hit the pilot's upper body. It almost feels like there's a steel plate between you and the pilot

While I agree it shouldn't mean sudden death to get a bullet in the tail of your plane (there is a lot of crap back there that would stop or deflect bullets before they reach the pilot), but it just feels too tough. But then again, I've never actually tried shooting a wooden plane in real life.

Maybe we can get Mythbusters to shoot a biplane with a machine gun and see what happens.
  • 0

#12 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 17 November 2009 - 20:05

The damage model detail will be increased when some people aren't running single core systems anymore.

I swear, if the DM were increased to the level everyone wants, they would only be getting 8 fps 75% of the time. If I want to watch detailed particle effects, I'll run a couple benchmarks.
  • 0

#13 Bleddyn

Bleddyn
  • Posts: 811

Posted 17 November 2009 - 20:07

The damage model detail will be increased when some people aren't running single core systems anymore.

I swear, if the DM were increased to the level everyone wants, they would only be getting 8 fps 75% of the time. If I want to watch detailed particle effects, I'll run a couple benchmarks.

We already have more "removable pieces" then most DMs.. but people will always ask for a plane that disintegrates to a particulate level, they want it included in a patch that is less then 10mb and want it to increase performance :roll:
  • 0

#14 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 17 November 2009 - 21:19

*ahem* :x

everybody complains that the plane does not crumple enough; unless we all have supercomputers tucked away in our closets were gonna have to settle for the already processor intensive and impressive damage models. do you know what kind of processing power it takes to accurately model a crash like that?

ok rant over.

No offense but, do you? I know I dont, it sounds like you must so give us an idea what type of computer we would need.

Look when they were developing this game they were all about bragging about how much detail was put into the ground vehicles, something we very rarely interact with. If so much detail could be done with those why not the planes (They are immensly detailed BTW but not the DM). Surely the damage model isnt modeld into the ground vehicles but drawing them still takes effort. Also any setting should be able to be disabled. If I dont want to slow down during a disasterous crumpling crash then turn off detailed crashes. I dont know its obvious I dont know but please unless you DO know dont act like you do.

A way to tell if the pilot is damagable through the fueselage is to pan above an anemy plane and see if you can see the pilots legs or lower body. If his lower body is not drawn then surely it cant be hurt. I know sometimes when I am flying around flak I have taken shrapnel, where it hit me I have no clue because I cant see myself.

Maybe if NEOQb could chime in like they do on every other issue they know they are right on it would end the discussion.
  • 0

#15 stethnorun

stethnorun
  • Posts: 571

Posted 17 November 2009 - 21:36

Maybe if NEOQb could chime in like they do on every other issue they know they are right on it would end the discussion.

Not a great way to get a friendly response, don't you agree? Maybe tone down the sarcasm.
  • 0

#16 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 17 November 2009 - 22:02

*ahem* :x

everybody complains that the plane does not crumple enough; unless we all have supercomputers tucked away in our closets were gonna have to settle for the already processor intensive and impressive damage models. do you know what kind of processing power it takes to accurately model a crash like that?

ok rant over.

No offense but, do you? I know I dont, it sounds like you must so give us an idea what type of computer we would need.

Look when they were developing this game they were all about bragging about how much detail was put into the ground vehicles, something we very rarely interact with. If so much detail could be done with those why not the planes (They are immensly detailed BTW but not the DM). Surely the damage model isnt modeld into the ground vehicles but drawing them still takes effort. Also any setting should be able to be disabled. If I dont want to slow down during a disasterous crumpling crash then turn off detailed crashes. I dont know its obvious I dont know but please unless you DO know dont act like you do.

A way to tell if the pilot is damagable through the fueselage is to pan above an anemy plane and see if you can see the pilots legs or lower body. If his lower body is not drawn then surely it cant be hurt. I know sometimes when I am flying around flak I have taken shrapnel, where it hit me I have no clue because I cant see myself.

Maybe if NEOQb could chime in like they do on every other issue they know they are right on it would end the discussion.

well for a machine to crumple realistically probably the kind they use to do virtual crash tests.
  • 0

#17 walker450

walker450
  • Posts: 7

Posted 18 November 2009 - 00:38

To everyone talking about how much processing power it would take: The settings would take care of this. There could be different levels of detail for damage models.

I hate to sound nit-picky about this… but if no one ever talks about it the developer may not see it as a desired addition.
I personally would like to see the focus now to improve more on the game such as respawn, DM, increased terrain detail, better control setup interface, etc; than releasing more planes to fly. How many planes do we really need right now? They can always be worked on later on…

About the "crash model", such as a burning heap on the ground… I am very glad ROF has not resorted to this. That is a quick and easy way to get out of having to refine the actual DM. I appreciate what they have started on I just hope to see continued improvement. It would be so awesome to see the motor break free from the fuselage and topple on the ground, kicking up dirt and dust as it grinds to a halt. :)

I am so impressed with the damage model in the air. Just earlier today I seen my own most spectacular damage when I hit an Albatross in the radiator area: fire burst from the area, the wing collapsed, and the plane rolled perfectly to the right- it was simply beautiful and no other sim comes close to this level of detail and realism.

I can't wait till we have some large twin engine bombers to shoot at… those should be some great mid-air break-ups! :)
  • 0

#18 Gimpy117

Gimpy117
  • Posts: 1661

Posted 18 November 2009 - 03:55

well the thing is the plane already crumples a bit during impact….im sure there's a few tweaks they could do during a crash. but to make the entire plane turn into a smoking pile of undistinguishable rubble would need A lot of power.
you'd have to intorduce some kind of protocol on what to do with:

1. the frame of the aircraft
2. the engne (which i think is modeled with the frame)
3. pilot
4. wings
5. other random stuff like wheels, fuel tanks, ammo boxes

even if you take out the extras there's still a lot of stuff for your processor to figure out what to do with.

I wonder if you can spawn a bunch of physics enabled objects like wood, an engine block, a pilot and maybe some wheels.
  • 0

#19 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 18 November 2009 - 04:53

Maybe if NEOQb could chime in like they do on every other issue they know they are right on it would end the discussion.

Not a great way to get a friendly response, don't you agree? Maybe tone down the sarcasm.

Well tell me how you would ask. I dont care if the resonse is freindly or not honestly I just want a response. This issue isnt even that big of an issue for crist sake so whats the problem with a simple quick answer. I dont need to know the physics of wood and canvas and their effect on trajectory and velocity related to the coificient of friction of air at a reletive humidity of 30%. I just want a simple hey "occupants lower bodies are/arent modeled and we are/dont need to fix it" simple as that.
  • 0

#20 stethnorun

stethnorun
  • Posts: 571

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:55

Maybe if NEOQb could chime in like they do on every other issue they know they are right on it would end the discussion.

Not a great way to get a friendly response, don't you agree? Maybe tone down the sarcasm.

Well tell me how you would ask. I dont care if the resonse is freindly or not honestly I just want a response. This issue isnt even that big of an issue for crist sake so whats the problem with a simple quick answer. I dont need to know the physics of wood and canvas and their effect on trajectory and velocity related to the coificient of friction of air at a reletive humidity of 30%. I just want a simple hey "occupants lower bodies are/arent modeled and we are/dont need to fix it" simple as that.

Two months ago, I would say you had a point about the lack of communication. But neoqb has gone out of it's way to communicate better, posting a new (often quite long and detailed) blog post just about every week.

Now, you expect them to go into every thread and answer every question? When, exactly, would they have time to work on the game? The damage model in this game is still the best on the flight sim market. Could it be better? Of course and I'm sure it eventually will be. But getting all impatient and sarcastic, especially about an aspect of the game that is still ahead of the curve, is counter-productive. They are doing their best to answer people's questions AND improve the game (the latter being their ACTUAL job).

In the past, I've been one of the more outspoken critics of the lack of communication and even after I was made moderator, I continued to lobby, behind the scenes, for more communication. They listened to our pleas and we are now getting at least twice as much info as we used to. Irritable and sarcastic jabs at the devs will only hurt that momentum. I mean, if you were working at neoqb, and spending EVEN LONGER days at the office, working on writing up detailed blogs and such, then went on the boards and saw people acting ungrateful, would you really want to keep busting your ass to keep them "in the loop"?

I wrote this out in the open, as opposed to a PM directly to Viper69, because I think everyone (not just Viper69) should really consider the ways in which they compose themselves on these boards. The game isn't perfect, neoqb isn't perfect but they are damn sure trying their hardest. So PLEASE critique, point out flaws, list solutions, give suggestions, etc etc. But do so in the spirit of teamwork and cooperation, not hostility and petulance. We are all on the same "side" here.
  • 0

#21 TX-Thunderbolt

TX-Thunderbolt
  • Posts: 1436

Posted 18 November 2009 - 13:07

I hate to sound nit-picky about this… but if no one ever talks about it the developer may not see it as a desired addition.

Agreed. Talk about it all you want or all you can. No Probs.



I personally would like to see the focus now to improve more on the game such as respawn,…., better control setup interface, etc; than releasing more planes to fly. How many planes do we really need right now? They can always be worked on later on…
:)


Funny thing is, the things you posted above ARE the things that are the top priority right now. It's been posted in a number of threads already. ;)
  • 0

#22 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 18 November 2009 - 13:55

The damage model detail will be increased when some people aren't running single core systems anymore.

I swear, if the DM were increased to the level everyone wants, they would only be getting 8 fps 75% of the time. If I want to watch detailed particle effects, I'll run a couple benchmarks.
I think the good start with improving DM would be if you could actually penetrate canvas with bullets and kill crew.
  • 0

#23 Viper69

Viper69
  • Posts: 5500

Posted 18 November 2009 - 15:30

First off I dont expect them to get into every thread and answer every question. The reason is for the most part the community can answer any question anyone could ever ask. Second, I have been both critical and super supportive of Neqoqb surely I am aloud to be not demanding but firm in my request as demanding does nothing but clam people up. Neoqb does communicate more then I would expect especially in a language that is not their native and I commend them on that. Third, I thank you for not directing everything at me simply because I am voicing what others are thinking or dancing around. How many pages did the gyroscopic thread get to, also how many threads did it take to get them to see there was a problem with the DVII engine and the SE5A elevator. Unless we keep pressing things they just would get forgotten, maybe I am wrong. These guys are great at responding to people which is why I was questioning them because I thought they would answer by now.

Maybe our community representative could ask them in an appropriate way and give us their answer. Like I said the answer does not have to be a physics lesson just a yes or no rounds dont penetrate or effect anything in the feuselage.

If asking question in a firm manner because I am frustrated with a lack of input(on this subject) gets me in trouble so be it. Lastly I appologize to Lefty or anyone at NEOQb if I come off as abrasive you guys are doing a hell of a job and keep it up. I also understand everything cant be fixed in one fell swoop I just had a simple question was all.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users