How BTS could make holes in the building... (XCOM)

[killmore]

The only game where you can make holes in the wall (with explosives/guns) got to be XCOM! It was released 8 years ago.

If BTS would construct buildings from separate small tiles/textures like in XCOM we could have multiple holes in the building.

The front of the building would be constructed from multiple textures then to create a "hole" you would need only to replace one texture with another...

[RudeLover]

I'm guessing that with this system each building wall would then be made up of many polygons rather than one, with each polygon having its own texture? What would happen then when you play Arnhem or the Paris scenario with zillions of buildings, many of which are getting shot up...that's a bunch of polygons to keep track of. Seems like VRAM is the limiting factor. Or am I fundamentally misunderstanding?

[David Aitken]

I'm sure BTS have their own ideas about how they'd like to do this, but whatever happens, we're not going to see it before CM2.

David

------------------

Guderian's anger was monumental. He struggled for words. "To say that the troops are to blame – look at the casualties!" he raged. "Look at the losses! The troops did their duty! Their self-sacrifice proves it!" Hitler yelled back. "They failed!" he raged. "They failed."

[Darwin]

EVERYONE ON THE GROUND! NOW!!!

This thread is being highjacked. Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt...

Hey David, cool button.

[PeterNZer]

No, doing it the XCOM way wouldn't work since XCOM was a 2d sprite based game whereas CM is a 3d engine based game.

The required polygons for a dynamic building damage model are astronomical and current processing power can't handle that, at least on public PCs

PeterNZ

[killmore]

Not talking about polygons here at all. Just about replacing the textures on the building.

I mean simple replace window with transparent texture (hole)

(Are polygons involved in that?)

[Croda]

I think so. The Video processor has to account for everything on the screen. The simpler the graphics, the easier to process and the higher the detail can be. The more involved the graphics get, the more there is to keep track of, and the less detail that can be handled. Think of it this way, if you play a 5,000pt QB on a large map, look at how long it take between turns for the PC to get the movie generated. Much of that is due to handling of all the 3d objects on the screen. Small maps have less to deal with, thus quicker processing.

There's my take on it, though I'm sure there's someone here who can explain it better.

------------------

"Nuts!"

[David Aitken]

Croda wrote:

> look at how long it take between turns for the PC to get the movie generated. Much of that is due to handling of all the 3d objects on the screen.

In short, the mathematics are handled during the processing phase, and the graphics (polygons) are handled during the playback phase. So dealing with the extra polygons would slow down the maths a bit, but it would have the most dramatic effect on the graphics. You would have to wait slightly longer before seeing what happens in the turn, but the smoothness of the action itself (the important bit) would probably be significantly reduced, depending on the graphical power of your computer.

David

------------------

Guderian's anger was monumental. He struggled for words. "To say that the troops are to blame – look at the casualties!" he raged. "Look at the losses! The troops did their duty! Their self-sacrifice proves it!" Hitler yelled back. "They failed!" he raged. "They failed."