Sorry bts....i'm getting greedy

[Auggy]

I would really like to see damage on tanks by things such as scrapes, scatches, dents, and turret penetrations. I have no knowledge on pc coding just an idea. I'm sure this would be too late for cmbb but maybe cm2? If you could track the projectile to it's destination. (the big hulk of steel it smacks) Then can you replace the skin on that part of the tank with another one that had a scratch or something on it.

It would just add another "coolness" and practical factor to this already amazing game.

I mean you have to make this game better..somehow.Even though I can't imagine how.

[Seanachai]

While cool, this would be utterly pointless, and unbelievably difficult, I'm sure.

Still, I don't believe there's anything wrong with this sort of 'if only' thread, as long as it doesn't deteriorate into some sort of 'fantasy dreamdate as programmed by BTS' sort of thing...

[Auggy]

Well in my mind it doesn't seem too complicated....thats MY mind of course though.

[bboyle]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Still, I don't believe there's anything wrong with this sort of 'if only' thread, as long as it doesn't deteriorate into some sort of 'fantasy dreamdate as programmed by BTS' sort of thing...

Now THAT would be badass operational.....

[WWB]

Originally posted by Sir Augustus:

Well in my mind it doesn't seem too complicated....thats MY mind of course though.

Then you have never programmed anything. All I do is lightweight access apps, and NOTHING is ever as easy as it seems.

WWB

[Priest]

Possible yes, easy not sure, but I bet we will see Kwazy say something about VRAM limits.

[Cull]

I too have no programming experience, but just knowing how the bmps are constructed tells me that it would be a ****e-ton of artwork (wouldn't you have to have a seperate, replacement bmp for every vehicle bmp? Or several, actually, to model different damages), not to mention adding quite a bit for the engine to execute in-game.

Sure, it'd be swell, but yes, you're being "greedy". Of course, if that kind of thing is your priority, by all means, cast your vote!

The major game issues that BTS are addressing for CMBB are well up on the priority list from the eye-candy stuff, I think, and thankfully so. I could live indefinitely with little or no visual improvements to CM in trade for the gameplay/AI type improvements.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Jack Arilliac:

I too have no programming experience, but just knowing how the bmps are constructed tells me that it would be a ****e-ton of artwork (wouldn't you have to have a seperate, replacement bmp for every vehicle bmp? Or several, actually, to model different damages), not to mention adding quite a bit for the engine to execute in-game.

Exactly. Not to mention that the .bmp standard is just about one of the most assinine graphics standards still being 'maintained', and wouldn't survive a moment if it wasn't a fixture of the 'cross Windows' standards.

In short, in order to offer this sort of 'graphic' modification, BTS would have to endlessly duplicate different AFV 'skins', with the engine programmed to substitute them, on a piecemeal basis, and with the datafile size of the game growing to almost astronomical proportions as each 'aspect' of each AFV was modified to acknowledge 'some minor and unimportant' change in appearance.

Perhaps BTS could 'standardize' changes to AFV appearance, so as to institute a system of 'damage' modules. Of course, that would most likely eliminate the ability of 'Modders' to give us unique or historical adaptations of the vehicles, or at least complicate them beyond belief.

What you are thinking of is 'cool', but useless, as I said before.

It would increase the size of the graphic files astronomically. It would require the engine to do all sorts of 'new calls' on graphics, slowing down play, or requiring a more powerful platform. And it would piss about with the very fine efforts of the many 'Modders' who give us any number of beautiful graphics of the various AFVs.

For the very small return in visuals and 'information', such a modification would bear too heavy a price tag.

So, I'm not a 'programmer' either, but I have an appreciation of what would actually be involved to institute the kind of off-beat cosmetic change you're talking about, and it's not only far beyond the capabilities of people like you and I, Sir Augustus, to institute, but it's a waste of time and resources to include, and would impose all sorts of limitations on the ability of 'Modders' to do what they do.

If BTS modeled 'non-penetrating' hits, or 'ricochets' in terms of the graphic engine, how would this affect the activities of 'Modders'?

Should BTS include, at immense time and application of resources, multiple AFV skins, for every possible 'non-penetrating hit', or even just some sort of standardized 'no-kill hit' , and then require every Modder to execute the same sort of 'no-kill' hit skin if the Mod is to match up with the requirements of the graphic engine?

It's not remotely do-able, it's not going to be done, and it serves no purpose in the universe except the 'coolness' factor, and that comes with serious costs, even in terms of 'coolness'.

In short, give it up.

[ham]

Hmm ? Actually the engine tracks the exact location of the hits already. Transforming the hit to the same spot in the skin shouldn't be that hard. When the spot is found, 'paste' a hit marker there.

Every vehicle could have one hit marker of its own, located in a new bmp file. Of course, this kind of hit marker system would work best only with tanks, not with trucks etc.

Anyway, this would be a lot of work and would offer very little in return. Besides, if CM currently uses one shared skin for every piece of the same tank model, they'd need have the program generating a temp skin for all hitted vehicles and paste the hit there for "hit&forget" system which could really eat up the VRAM. Another solution could be tracking the hits with new code, keeping track of the hits this way ,"dynamically", would eat more cpu and could slow down the drawing routines. '

It could be a nice feature to have but seems to have too much work for so little ?