Damaged/Destroyed vehicle models?

[Bloody Bill]

Hey gents very new to the CM game. I just DL the demo for Normandy and Italy a few nights ago. I have not stopped fighting since:)

I was given some uniform, graphic and sound mods from a buddy. I was wondering if there was a mod for Damaged/Destroyed vehicles. I noticed that I blew up a jeep and when the smoke cleared the occupants were dead and the jeep was looking new although it was destroyed. Same with tanks, I know they have fire come out I was just wondering if there was a cool mod for blown up vehicles.

Thanks

[Oddball_E8]

Nope

10/char

[Seedorf81]

Nice idea to get implemented, though..

[Oddball_E8]

Nice idea to get implemented, though..

Agreed.

I wonder how much coding it would take tho.

Since i know nothing of coding it would be nice to hear Battlefronts comments on this.

To me it sounds kinda simple, like a toggle that is switched when the vehicle is destroyed (not just knocked out) to switch the skin... but that could be as complicated as programming a rocket launch for all i know.

[The Steppenwulf]

One would have thought that a generic damage decal that overlays the vehicle textures shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Though I doubt that they would be at all very aesthetically convincing - merely better than what we've currently got.

Implementing real model damage is an altogether different undertaking. Each model would need to be modified with a damaged type, and where appropriate, visible damage effects implemented with a physics animation sequence. Without animation, it wouldn't be too convincing. Then there's the shot modelling; which area of the vehicle gets struck would need to be tied into the right animation and damage model. For example; it would be no good having the turret fly off if it was the track that was hit or a skirt.

Anyway, I think you get the idea - to do it right (as BF no doubt would wish, as we would), it's a substantial undertaking all of its own. Considering what else could be done instead with that effort...

Despite that, it would be great to think that BF might get round to adding full battle damage at some point way down the road. Effects might only be bells and whistles but still...

[Jaeger Jonzo]

i think a lot of us would like to see a damaged/destroyed model for at least the more common battle tanks. Even in my recent pbem battle it was hard to distinguish between knocked out & still fighting tanks that were lined up behind a crest, as they all looked brand new!

The damage modelling in Achtung Panzer:Operation Star is excellent and would love to see similar in the cmx2 series. They have skirt armour/ancillaries blown off, engine fires, tracks blown off etc. Adds to the immersion massively.

[Ithikial_AU]

I think it wouldn't be worth it as most vehicles destroyed would have a few holes in it and not much else. Not everything explodes when destroyed.

What would be more aesthetically pleasing (in my opinion) along this line of thought would be the ability for map/scenario makers to place 'long dead wrecks' as terrain pieces which can look more shot up, burnt to a crisp, tracks lost etc. Would help show time so to speak as a battle flows back and forth over an area. They would also be great improvised cover pieces and also possible terrain based victory locations. This can in part be done already in the editor so it's the reason I think it's never going to happen. This is along with the crashed aircraft/glider terrain pieces on the never ending wishlist.

[Bloody Bill]

As a Vet, most vehicles I have seen destroyed with MG fire smoke as well, they do not look good as new. I love the game it is wonderful. Reminds me of ASL for Avalon hill days:) I was just curious to see if it can be done or if others were interested in this as well.

[Childress]

i think a lot of us would like to see a damaged/destroyed model for at least the more common battle tanks. Even in my recent pbem battle it was hard to distinguish between knocked out & still fighting tanks that were lined up behind a crest, as they all looked brand new!

Not necessarily. You may be underestimating Battlefront. Part of the game's challenge is not always knowing when an AFV has been KO'ed.

[Bloody Bill]

Not necessarily. You may be underestimating Battlefront. Part of the game's challenge is not always knowing when an AFV has been KO'ed.

How is it not necessary? Knocked out vehicles adds to the confusion of combat adds spice to the game. Killed/damaged vehicle would also add immersion to the game.

If its to hard to do, I can understand that but to say not necessary in a combat simulator makes no sense.

The game alone in vanilla form is very fun and challenging. Add mods for looks and sound and anything else that adds to the immersion and the game transforms into amazing!

I know that I am new here but seems a lot of negative replies for something that could add to the enjoyment.

[Oddball_E8]

Not necessarily. You may be underestimating Battlefront. Part of the game's challenge is not always knowing when an AFV has been KO'ed.

Yes, but sometimes its pretty easy to see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Destroyed_T-55_tank,_Bosnia.JPEG

What im talking about is a texture to show when tanks have been completely destroyed. Not just knocked out by a well placed shot but actually blown up, if you know what i mean.

A tank that has had secondary or tertiary internal explosions would be easy to spot as destroyed.

And those could have a texture to show that.

One would have thought that a generic damage decal that overlays the vehicle textures shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Though I doubt that they would be at all very aesthetically convincing - merely better than what we've currently got.

Implementing real model damage is an altogether different undertaking. Each model would need to be modified with a damaged type, and where appropriate, visible damage effects implemented with a physics animation sequence. Without animation, it wouldn't be too convincing. Then there's the shot modelling; which area of the vehicle gets struck would need to be tied into the right animation and damage model. For example; it would be no good having the turret fly off if it was the track that was hit or a skirt.

Anyway, I think you get the idea - to do it right (as BF no doubt would wish, as we would), it's a substantial undertaking all of its own. Considering what else could be done instead with that effort...

Despite that, it would be great to think that BF might get round to adding full battle damage at some point way down the road. Effects might only be bells and whistles but still...

Well, World of Tanks has some sort of overlay that adds "bullethole" decals to tanks (and also riccochet decals) so it shouldnt be impossible.

Maby not with the detail that they have, but something similar maby?

(not saying that its a good game, just that i liked that feature when i tried it)

[mjkerner]

I wouldn't get too bummed out about this. Steve has mentioned before that decals are do- able, but just pretty low on the list. I don't recall whether this is a feature more likely to debut in a new game, like Bulge or East Front, or just later, but I do recall a discussion to the effect that it will show up eventually.

[Mord]

Steve has mentioned before that decals are do- able, but just pretty low on the list.

Don't blaspheme, heretic! They should be right up there next to fire and no more guys disappearing when they are shot on vehicles...oh, and flame throwers!

THAT'S right...I said FLAME THROWERS!

Don't be eyeballing me...

Mord.

[Oddball_E8]

Don't blaspheme, heretic! They should be right up there next to fire and no more guys disappearing when they are shot on vehicles...oh, and flame throwers!

THAT'S right...I said FLAME THROWERS!

Don't be eyeballing me...

Mord.

I need a flamethrower!

I cant tell you why, but I really really need it

[womble]

How is it not necessary?

It's not necessary in the same way that mods are not necessary. It's a purely cosmetic way of displaying the information that is already visually displayed by the base of the unit. Sure, it'd be nice, but it won't add anything to the total of data displayed.

[Oddball_E8]

It's not necessary in the same way that mods are not necessary. It's a purely cosmetic way of displaying the information that is already visually displayed by the base of the unit. Sure, it'd be nice, but it won't add anything to the total of data displayed.

OI! Stop using logic and reason!

This is a games forum for crying out loud!

Logic and reason has no place here, we use hyperbole and straw man arguments!

[Bloody Bill]

It's not necessary in the same way that mods are not necessary. It's a purely cosmetic way of displaying the information that is already visually displayed by the base of the unit. Sure, it'd be nice, but it won't add anything to the total of data displayed.

Yes, I see your point if you want to go back to board games to play the game. It is the day of the computer game so why not get everything possible out of the game we can. Almost all mods are not needed but a lot of them greatly improve the vanilla version. To be against improving something you enjoy seems odd.

[Mord]

It's not necessary in the same way that mods are not necessary. It's a purely cosmetic way of displaying the information that is already visually displayed by the base of the unit. Sure, it'd be nice, but it won't add anything to the total of data displayed.

Oh looky...another heretic. If I had a flamethrower I could burn him!

Mord.

[Freyberg]

It'd be a cool feature, especially if they went all the way with turrets and tracks blown off and so on, but I understand perfectly that that would be hard work.

[para]

Oh looky...another heretic. If I had a flamethrower I could burn him!

Mord.

I have some matches and a can of petrol will that do you Mord?

[womble]

Yes, I see your point if you want to go back to board games to play the game. It is the day of the computer game so why not get everything possible out of the game we can. Almost all mods are not needed but a lot of them greatly improve the vanilla version. To be against improving something you enjoy seems odd.

We already have everything possible. For the extant values of "Man-hours to be spent on developing the game". Adding damage depiction (decals or whole new "wreck" models) is lots of programming work that could be spent on actual game features that let you do different things, like set fire to stuff/people/places, or manage inventory, or, or, or... It remains cosmetic, and we've had a huge cosmetic upgrade with the advent of v2. And yes, I'd be happy if the models weren't near as detailed: I saw little point in painting my tabletop minis; I see less point in having the insane interior detail in the AFVs depicted on-screen. I'd far rather have actual game features than cosmetic improvements. As I said, they're nice, but they're not necessary (maybe you want to look the word up). I'm not against improving anything, I'm against prioritising cosmetic improvements over gameplay/performance ones. Oh, and I'm against people putting words in my mouth too. And wooly thinking.

[poesel]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1234512&postcount=24

Doh, I should have mentioned the decals thing myself! My guess is we'll implement the hit decals before we have destructible models. There's other benefits to a "decal" system, such as the potential for having customized rank graphics on soldiers, vehicle numbers, building damage decals, etc. I can't promise that all of these things will happen at once, but I can say that once the underlying code is written for decals the foundation will be there.

...

Steve

From February 2011 - can't be that long now

[StkNRdr]

I support the idea but understand it may be more difficult to implement than it may appear. Although it adds to the immersion, that is not the main reason I think it is important.

Damage can vary from a tank being completely taken out and showing very little from the outside to explosions that rip the turret off. There is also the unraveling of tracks.

The reason I think it is important is, it is a matter of a unit's battlefield knowledge. A unit that gets the hit, for example in the the case of the tracks, would see this damage and know the tank was now immobile. Currently it is an unknown to the unit.

It all comes back to what would the units on the filed know in these cases. The damage they witness would tell them more about the enemy vehicle's condition than is currently known in the game.

[The Steppenwulf]

And yes, I'd be happy if the models weren't near as detailed: I saw little point in painting my tabletop minis; I see less point in having the insane interior detail in the AFVs depicted on-screen. I'd far rather have actual game features than cosmetic improvements.

There lies the critical diff between a wargamer that plays computer games and a computer gamer that plays wargames: Our philosophy - realism is found in the gameplay first and foremost, and secondly to that, in the effects, art and visuals.

@poesel71:- I didn't know that BF had already inferred that damage decals were a serious possibility. I did imply in my earlier post that I wouldn't be surprised if they fall under consideration at some stage. Thanks for retrieving that post :-)

[jtsjc1]

Doesn't TOW have something like this?