Huntarr Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Originally posted by Huntarr: New effect 1.03 Just my personal preference, I really liked the "Cone of Death" It immediately reminded me of airbursts the first time I saw them. The only thing that could have made them look more realistic would be the little random dirt puffs that pop in a circular pattern under the airburst from the fragmentation. That may be getting a little too detailed Ye ole effect 1.02 I also noticed the smoke is gone from 1.03. That was very true to life. That's missed. If the speed of the down effect of the cone was faster would that might be a good compromise. Please share your thoughts. I can live with either I just like the prior version. [ April 06, 2008, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Huntarr ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Without having seen the new version in action, I expect it to be much better and more immersive than the slowly falling shrapnel dots. The little random dirt puffs would be the best solution, of course! They could even bring back some of the old shockwave glory, if they spread with the speed of sound! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I personally think the 1.03 version is probably a bit more realistic. (I have not seen them myself, just posted SS's.) Unless a round has some sort of sub-munition that is designed to "rain down" on a target after the container bursts in the air over it, you really should not get that "showering" effect for every round fired on personnel. When a regular mortar or artillery shell bursts in the air without hitting trees or any other overhead materials, you should just see a regular burst of light and a bit of smoke. The fragments of the shell would fly about in all directions rather than just heading down. The screen shot provided for ver. 1.03, clearly duplicates that IMO. [ August 31, 2007, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I should know this... tactical air, no cannister munitions, right? I suppose the footprint of a cannister round would be a bit too wide to use on a CM size map. Though the Germans in CMx1 were given a rather spectacular bomblet drop capability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted August 31, 2007 Author Share Posted August 31, 2007 here is a video that should help you see that BFC was closer to the real thing the first time around. The trick to the visual is the combination of puff of smoke in the air, but what really sells it is the ground effect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molloy Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 The original animation was much better. Now, there are far too many ugly specs of gray/brown that clutter the screen with any decent volume of artillery fire. Bring back the elegant smoke! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 If I had a choice...I'd go with the original. But both are cool. The explosion textures rock in this game...very organic looking. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted September 1, 2007 Author Share Posted September 1, 2007 Molloy & Mord you get an OOHHRAAHH! Semper Fi 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Before reading this thread I just replayed the first campaign scenario with heavy artillery. One of my thoughts during the game was "wow the airbursts look a lot better than I remember". As for whether they look more realistic or not I have no idea, but my initial reaction was positive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 i like the new airbursts, but i find the scaling wich comes into action when you scroll away from the explosions, a bit too much. when you watch it from the other side of the map the little mortar exposion suddenly look 5 times as big. thats quiet strange... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 The new ones are far and away better - the old one looked like nothing more than a gentle summer rain shower, slowly drifting down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted September 19, 2007 Author Share Posted September 19, 2007 Originally posted by JonS: The new ones are far and away better - the old one looked like nothing more than a gentle summer rain shower, slowly drifting down. The speed of the cone can be sped up. I don't like the scaling of the burst. It is the same at long range as it is short range. It looks silly at long range. The burst is massive. Here is an Mil file for those who think airbursts are spherical explosions. They are conical in effect. http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/becker.pdf [ November 22, 2007, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Huntarr ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 The speed of the cone can be sped up. Arr! Perhaps, but it never was, now was it matey! But away with ye. The whole thinking that fragments come down in a CMSF-like cone is for the scurvey dogs ... unless the US Army has started using Lt Henry Shrapnel's foul spherical case shot. Yarrr! [ September 19, 2007, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Red John Vane ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted September 19, 2007 Author Share Posted September 19, 2007 http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/becker.pdf read the above paper The fragmentation effect, NOT the explosive [ November 21, 2007, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Huntarr ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Arr! I be acquainted with airbursts, ye foul footslogger. I be thinking the other 'un be the better 'un. Sorry if I spoiled ye foul vote building schemes. Yaarrr! [ September 19, 2007, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Red John Vane ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelmia Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Yarrrrrrrr until tomorrow matey. I be thinking that the new cannon balls be running better on me graphics settings. Thar make it better by my reckon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin.Rommel Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Both are good~~ But I think the color of the fragment(1.03)should be changed(the color in 1.02 is just good),the gray fragment looks a little ugly and Bring back the smoke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hev Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I think the original was MUCH better then the version we get now. The "cone of death" looked better, was more realistic and aside from that if gave me wood 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Krejcirik Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 I don't care how airbursts look, but they are too ineffective against troops on the rooftops. I would think a Quick mortar mission agaist a single roof would cause more then a one or two casualty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Originally posted by Hev: I think the original was MUCH better then the version we get now. The "cone of death" looked better, was more realistic and aside from that if gave me wood I take offence at that, I don't even know you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 Ya the original was better. And Huntarr, please contain your OOrahs until the Marines have landed. The correct term for the game is Hooah (and anyother time for that matter). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted November 22, 2007 Author Share Posted November 22, 2007 Since the debate has reappeared a bump wouldn't be out of line. "Cone of Death" should simply get a faster descent speed and optimally some dust kick up. Please feel free to way in your opinions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 The old "cone of death" didn't look right because the fragments were moving too slowly and also in a pronounced parabola rather than straight down like a bullet. However, the new graphic is just plain wrong as many have pointed out. It looks more like anti-aircraft flak than artillery fire. I would prefer something that looked rather like a giant sawn-off shotgun blast aimed at the ground, coupled with a pronounced amount of disturbed dust and earth when the blast touches the ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hev Posted November 22, 2007 Share Posted November 22, 2007 Steiners discription hits the nail on the head 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted November 23, 2007 Share Posted November 23, 2007 You could just forget about the particle fragment effects and just have the puff of smoke at the top and the impact puffs on the ground. That is what the excellent video posted by huntarr above shows. Originally posted by Huntarr: here is a video that should help you see that BFC was closer to the real thing the first time around. The trick to the visual is the combination of puff of smoke in the air, but what really sells it is the ground effect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.