Game physics

[9mm]

Stick to Newton this time.

[bn880]

Yes, I'm sure BIS has some new approach to handling collisions etc. If not then I hope they think about it...

lol, stick to Newton! it's true

[sgtvor]

I know it was a flight sim, but IL2 had the GREATEST physics....my god, crash landing as hard and spectacular as you could, while still managing to walk away from it was almost a game in itself...

Remember BIS...Good Physics = GLORY.

[Jinef]

Copy IL-2 basically, try to implement all the little details in and also try and make the tank tracks moreflexible without clipping into the terrain, so you get a nice view of tracks rolling over hills. It's a 'thing'.

[horrido]

In OFP, there is a big problem with friction: I mean the vehicles, chopper, cars, planes, tanks, etc... will slide down the hills too easily, like they where covered with soap (even if the hill is not very steep. Too often, you've to run after you chopper when you disembark, because it is sliding down the hill.
I hope this will be corrected in OFP2.

[R71]

The only thing that would bug me sometimes is when you ram another car, and your car would pass right through.

[Steameh]

My own personal preferance but i would like to see more specific damage areas on vehicles etc, eg shooting the tracks on a tank makes it immobile (think sticky bombs on Saving Private Ryan). Im aware we have this to an extent, but i would like to maybe see it devloped more (shooting tyres on cars reduces their speed etc) And no more cardboard vehicles please!! http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Transfunsel]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (horrido @<hidden> April 25 2003,15:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Too often, you&#39;ve to run after you chopper when you disembark, because it is sliding down the hill.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
lol, I can&#39;t remember how often I had to do this. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[haunted]

immobilising vehicles would be good, like u can do with turrets atm.

and yes, vehicles shouldnt be "frictionless" on hills...

[ale2999]

yea improved physics would be great. I know that bis could be worried about playability, but they could always implement a cadet vs veteran approach like now http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Sanctuary]

Physics need improvement , yes

But not only for the vehicles , for the unit itself too

How many time when playing OFP i had the impression of "driving" my soldier and not "being" it

The physics for the OFP soldier are nearly similar to Wargasm soldier (it was worse in Wargasm, but if you know this game, you will understand)

Please, improve the immersive factor by improving player physics and smoothness

[[CCCP]Stalker]

Newton FOREVER &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Hovmand]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sanctuary @<hidden> 26 April 2003,07:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Physics need improvement , yes

But not only for the vehicles , for the unit itself too

How many time when playing OFP i had the impression of "driving" my soldier and not "being" it

The physics for the OFP soldier are nearly similar to Wargasm soldier (it was worse in Wargasm, but if you know this game, you will understand)

Please, improve the immersive factor by improving player physics and smoothness[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
NO&#33;&#33; Dont do that, thats one of the things i love about ofp, i hate the way you "glide" over the surface in other games. In ofp it feels like a real person you are controlling.

[benreeper]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hovmand @<hidden> 26 April 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sanctuary @<hidden> 26 April 2003,07:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Physics need improvement , yes

But not only for the vehicles , for the unit itself too

How many time when playing OFP i had the impression of "driving" my soldier and not "being" it

The physics for the OFP soldier are nearly similar to Wargasm soldier (it was worse in Wargasm, but if you know this game, you will understand)

Please, improve the immersive factor by improving player physics and smoothness[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
NO&#33;&#33; Dont do that, thats one of the things i love about ofp, i hate the way you "glide" over the surface in other games. In ofp it feels like a real person you are controlling.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree, DO NOT CHANGE PLAYER MOVEMENT&#33;

Ben

[Sanctuary]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benreeper @<hidden> 26 April 2003,19:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hovmand @<hidden> 26 April 2003,18:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sanctuary @<hidden> 26 April 2003,07:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Physics need improvement , yes

But not only for the vehicles , for the unit itself too

How many time when playing OFP i had the impression of "driving" my soldier and not "being" it

The physics for the OFP soldier are nearly similar to Wargasm soldier (it was worse in Wargasm, but if you know this game, you will understand)

Please, improve the immersive factor by improving player physics and smoothness[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
NO&#33;&#33; Dont do that, thats one of the things i love about ofp, i hate the way you "glide" over the surface in other games. In ofp it feels like a real person you are controlling.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I agree, DO NOT CHANGE PLAYER MOVEMENT&#33;

Ben[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Is it a joke ? i cant believe people like actual player movement system , it is not smooth and intuitive.
Just walk forward, then press left or right strafe key and you will have the impression your unit is a tank , never like a real person

The game atmosphere and the multiple situations you encounter actually give OFP a lot of immersive factor, but not the player control.

If the player controls was smooth and naturals , the immersive factor will be increased exponentially .

[[SZ]Vladimir]

Newton ok... and Einstein and quantum physics ?

Ok http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Newton is enough for OFP.

Vladimir

[bn880]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sanctuary @<hidden> 26 April 2003,13:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it a joke ? i cant believe people like actual player movement system , it is not smooth and intuitive.
Just walk forward, then press left or right strafe key and you will have the impression your unit is a tank , never like a real person

The game atmosphere and the multiple situations you encounter actually give OFP a lot of immersive factor, but not the player control.

If the player controls was smooth and naturals , the immersive factor will be increased exponentially .[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I&#39;m not exactly sure what you mean by smooth, hopefully not R6 Rogue Spear, or Duke Nukem kind of smooth.

I don&#39;t see so much wrong with the unit movement, other than insane stamina. Try using the mouse to move around instead of the keys...?

[sgtvor]

I don&#39;t mind the player movement in OFP either actually...

Maybe if you gave us an example of what you had in mind?

[Heatseeker]

Whats wrong with movement, in my opinion it is one of the many features that make opf difer from other games http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif , it actually feels like you runing and holding a weapon instead of sliding around like most other arcade shooters.
And regarding physics i hope to see improvement too, i mean if you go downhill, fullspeed with a armored unit and crash into a house you should take injury no? I really dislike those sliding tanks http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif .

[9mm]

There was a FPP game released few years ago, it was called Tresspasser, and was based on Jurassic Park plot. Although the thing was about dinosaurs, it was the one of most successful games in implementing Newton into a game enviroment.

[sgtvor]

Trespasser had AMAZING an physics engine...it&#39;s a shame the controls made it very near unplayable http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif The health meter in that game was rather interesting as well heh http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Jinef]

I would just say run a bit faster, ever seen the paras sprint, even with all their combat gear they are doing 10 mph, but for short moments, and don&#39;t have a stamina bar, that&#39;s silly, just slow them down. Also when you&#39;re sprinting and then go prone, you slow down a for a bit because of the animation, have a different animation for sprinting and lying down, more like diving towards the ground in a fast and slightly uncontrolled way to dive out of the way of potential enemy fire.

[Sanctuary]

For the player movement , i gave an example of what i have in mind when i said it can be improved
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just walk forward, then press left or right strafe key and you will have the impression your unit is a tank , never like a real person
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Now the problem is so much subjective , that i dont think i can clarify more what i mean by "smoothing" the controls.
The free aiming system is one of the best thing i ever met (the same as the mod Infiltration for Unreal Tournament) , but by player control i dont talk of that , i just cant feel realism in the way i move in the game. ( i wonder how you are walking in your real life if you find OFP walking player realistic http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif )

Thats is not awfull (as it is in the game Wargasm where it is extreme) , but in my opinion it can be improved

[Necromancer-]

Change the water physics dammit&#33;&#33;
I want to be able to swim and dive. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/crazy.gif

[akdavis]

Armor facing values. Tanks have thicker armor in the front than in the back. There should be a motivation to hit tanks from the side and rear, instead of the arcade set number of shots to kill from any angle. Even the general public is probably aware of this after hearing about the M1&#39;s rear-end vulnerability in Iraq.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

I like the OFP controls as they are for players. Especially being able to look around in first person, very handy when you are prone and looking round corners.

I still have trespasser; great game http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Well... great because the physics allowed you to do cool things, like use planks, steel bars, rocks etc as weapons, or to make huge rocks roll down hills, or balance stuff on top of other stuff, or run up to a T-Rex and slap it on the nose (favourite)
Storyline/ planned gameplay was v. weak though.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

More realism on the AFVs and IFVs... in fact, everything..... would be great IMO

[SilverB1rd]

I&#39;v played paintball, and I can run with my gun almost on target not like in ofp where you can shoot a guy running along side you when your runing becuase the guns is swinging all over the place. there is a difference between moving fast and sprinting. Look at AA 3 differnt movement modes slow normal and fast.

[NAA_Us_Marine]

How about dynamic wind physics and better aircraft physics with all that fun stuff like jet washes make stalling a reality. so your plane will just drop like a rock if you stall it out make a windstream and make it so your plane wont ride as if it was perfectly flying with no turbulence or wind causing any side movement and shaking of the aircraft. uhh ohh im almost at a flightsim I better stop while im at it.

[peanuckle_00]

I&#39;m going to mention the physics that actually play an essential part in combat. Let&#39;s talk about how when you sprint it takes about three seconds to slow down rather than coming to a (very unfair in mp games) complete halt, lest you stub your toes on the insides of your boots. Let&#39;s talk about how when you run into a wall real fast you end up hurting yourself. Let&#39;s talk about how when a building gets hit by a tank round the house doesn&#39;t crumple like paper. See WW2 images of houses that have been hit by tank rounds. I think that the game should detect whether or not an apache or airborne something or other is about to hit a building on its way down and like in those strategy games there&#39;s a preprogrammed animation on the way down that leads the trajectory of the helo and the animation done to the house. So like the game detects where the helo will land then programs loads the animation for the thing when it hits, the explosion, who gets injured, etc. Let&#39;s talk about when two cars collide that there&#39;s usually two very messed up cars and they don&#39;t just pass through each other. Let&#39;s talk about how when an object is on top of another object and the bottom object moves the top one does too.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

say boah... are y&#39;all some kinda preacher? Strange method of communication you have there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> think that the game should detect whether or not an apache or airborne something or other is about to hit a building on its way down and like in those strategy games there&#39;s a preprogrammed animation on the way down that leads the trajectory of the helo and the animation done to the house. So like the game detects where the helo will land then programs loads the animation for the thing when it hits, the explosion, who gets injured, etc.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

One thing... only possible if the helo or aircraft has no pilot or no engines... because otherwise a good pilot could avoid the crash. And this is basically what happens anyway, its just that the animations aren&#39;t realistic (crumpling, physics)

[uiox]

Yes game physic :

Some command for have the internal value relates to OFP physic, or in the comref (gravity, wind, rubbing, air density, etc..).


Some commands for use the internal routines of OFP, why recreate if they exist?

_Range = getRange ["Heat120", velocity, theta,height]

All of this specially for addon scripter, addon with events (marvellous idea) are more powerfull and easy to script.

This example is related to M109 command view, with the getrange the scripter can give to player precise informations.

[peanuckle_00]

No, I&#39;m not a preacher yet. I&#39;m just saying that if the helo is dead and on its way down then the computer should start loading the animation for whats going to happen if the sucker hits into a building or hits into the ground and everything should change accordingly. Like, there should be an animation done to the house for when a helicoptor hits the top of it or something lands on top. If you look at strategy games the houses usually just 1. catch on fire, 2. completely crumble into a pile of rocks, or whatever based on what happened to it. I think thats how to go about a destruction animation for the buildings in ofp. Make the pc determine what happened to it then match up the correct animation for what it should look like.

[Col. Kurtz]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peanuckle_00 @<hidden> 06 May 2003,08:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I&#39;m not a preacher yet.  I&#39;m just saying that if the helo is dead and on its way down then the computer should start loading the animation for whats going to happen if the sucker hits into a building or hits into the ground and everything should change accordingly.  Like, there should be an animation done to the house for when a helicoptor hits the top of it or something lands on top.  If you look at strategy games the houses usually just 1. catch on fire, 2. completely crumble into a pile of rocks, or whatever based on what happened to it.  I think thats how to go about a destruction animation for the buildings in ofp.  Make the pc determine what happened to it then match up the correct animation for what it should look like.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That could kind of work, but I would personally prefer a more dynamic system, where the damage can be diffrent depending on where the chopper hits, how fast the chopper hits etc. Also say a chopper is coming down over a building so the animation of the building been crumbled is been loaded up, then the chopper swerves and misses the building, what happens? Does the computer then cancel the animation? I think it would just be better to havea system if a shell hits a building, it gets a chunk blown out. Not computer detects shell coming towards building and loads up animation of building getting chunck blown out. That system could be quite CPU intesive. What if there are 20 shells all in the air at once? Does the computer have to load up a shell hit animation all within a few seconds? Don&#39;t know where I am going with this... If it doesn&#39;t make sense, ignore.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Thats what I meant, it doesnt make sense to pre cache the animations because its not predictable what will happen. And its already in the game, it just so happens that the animation for a helicopter hitting a building and the building beign destroyed by a shell are the same... but they dont have to be. Its not that revolutionary.

PS dont be a preacher, they are evil evil creatures.

[Skul]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">dont be a preacher, they are evil evil creatures.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

What about a philosopher? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Romolus]

Changing the physics of planes and choppers would be nice.

I understand that OFP will never be a flightsim and that the handling of planes and choppers should be possible for everyone.
But it wouldn&#39;t hurt if planes and choppers don&#39;t behave that different from their real counterparts.
Like beeing able to steer the chopper while ascending and not just beeing able to slow the chopper down with turning or flying up to the moon.
For planes it wouldn&#39;t hurt if turning doesn&#39;t slow the plane down too much and if you don&#39;t have to pull the stick all the time just to keep the plane airborne.

Those things don&#39;t make the handling harder for beginners but will help ppl alot that are used to flightsims.

A good solution in my eyes would be to make much more of the variables editable for addons that control how vehicles behave.

[bn880]

My view on this is work on simulation as much as possible and add it to the difficulty settings.

[1B1KSniper]

I just want some semi realistic water effects, like having water at multiple altitudes. I mean, who wouldn&#39;t have fun blowing a dam and running from the ensuing 100 foot wall of water suddenly rushing downstream...
Or just simple things like streams and stuff.
IMO, a decent engine like the RF one for terrain damage would also be good, it wouldn&#39;t have to be too realistic, just show some minor craters and stuff.

[Necromancer-]

There is one thing that is not yet mention in this thread....

If you blow a mobile object with about 24 satchel charges, such as a Jeep, it should not turn into a wreckage and fly high into the sky then crash somewhere where the wreckage is still intact....... such as Jeep tossing.
Instead it should just blow up in pieces and/or vaporize.

[1B1KSniper]

That&#39;s a very good point. Or, if you shoot a jeep with a tank, it would have an enormous hole in it.

[Col. Kurtz]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @<hidden> 08 May 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is one thing that is not yet mention in this thread....

If you blow a mobile object with about 24 satchel charges, such as a Jeep, it should not turn into a wreckage and fly high into the sky then crash somewhere where the wreckage is still intact....... such as Jeep tossing.
Instead it should just blow up in pieces and/or vaporize.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think it is actualy possible to vapourise something in OFP1. A long time ago for fun I laid lots and lots and lots of satchel charges next to a vehicle (Abrams I think). When I set off the stachel charges (there was something like a 100 of them) the vehicle dissapeared, and I didn&#39;t see it again. Either it went so high so fast I didn&#39;t see it, or it was obliviated.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

It went so high you couldnt see it / went off at an angle so far you couldnt see it. Things dont vapourise in OFP.

[Othin]

Things flying 300 up to the air after being hit is quite annoying. This ties back to the orginal topic of this thread. Nothing in OFP has weight. The only thing that seems to really matter is intertia.

I&#39;m not sure why things don&#39;t vaporize either, wouldn&#39;t it actually make mp games faster if a plane that was shot down was deleted and a few random "mechanical gibs" were created instead? Add a directory to the pbo where the addon maker throws burnt tires, bent sheetmetal, and whatever other pieces that would be called when the orginal plane or object is deleted.

The only question to this is what would determine an explosive kill? Kill values? If a rocket has a kill value of 1500, and a jeep has a overall armor value of 500 there would be an overkill of 1000 and it would delete the model and call the gibs maybe. I&#39;m not sure I&#39;m happy with that either though since we&#39;d like to see more realistic armor values implemented.

Kind of OT, but I would also like to see a ragdoll implemented. Nothing takes away from the realism of a mission like seeing a dead enemy soldier flying through the air with his rifle floating a few inches away from his hand only to land headfirst in the ground like an arrow. If a body dies the weapon they were holding should immediately be dropped. Just like the vehicles, there should be a degree of damage that a body takes before it&#39;s utterly destroyed and gibed in some way (think LGB falling on a platoon).

[Col. Kurtz]

I definetely agree that things should be able to be vaporised. Nose diving into the ground at about 600km/h in a plane resulting in the plane bounding around and flying up into the air is not right. It should just explode into a fireball and all that would be left would be chared remains. And yes, LGB landing ontop of soldiers...

[peanuckle_00]

I&#39;d like the BIS team to go more into detail about the human body&#39;s ability to perform under injured conditions. I&#39;d like there to be more damage specific zones such as getting hit in the chest, arm, and so on. I&#39;d also like the medic&#39;s job to be more complex. At least it could look more complex based on the wound. I&#39;d also like BIS to research geo mod technology, or at least pay the guy who created it and capitalized off of it. Or who didn&#39;t capitalize off of it and let the secret out. Poor guy.

[ntstlkr]

Cheers All, http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Speaking of physics and inertia, how about the ability to move within a moving vehicle? No more cargo positions. Being able to carry a vehicle in a C-130, and not have the thing sit there when the aircraft moves (same for all the ships like the aircraft carriers being worked on.)

This would also allow you to drop ramp and walk off the back end for a true HALO jump.

Thinking of that, how about increasing the allowable heighth/altitude limit. We have tons of high quality aircraft (ironic for a ground action based game) restricted to flying in the same altitude level.

NSDQ&#33;&#33;

[ntstlkr]

...and another thing.. http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Of the games I&#39;ved played I would rate America&#39;s Army the best for modeling realistic body movement (ability, stance, effects on movement from exsertion).

Being able to "carry" objects in a rucksack (extra ammunition, etc).

The water thing would be nice (since so many games out there now include that; e.g. DFBHD, IGI2, VN:LOS, etc).

Ability to increase soldier armor value through body armor (flak jackets in VN).

Language translators with military background to edit/review dialogue (if you&#39;re gonna play an American soldier, talk like one).

Differing quality of night vision equipment (i.e. a AN/PVS-4 is not the same as a later model PVS-7, and generally speaking, compared to Western equivalents, Eastbloc NV equipment stank).

Thermal observation equipment mode. The biggest difference between West and Eastbloc armor (in reality) lay not just in armor value but targeting aquisition and fire control. The West had moved to thermal viewers more than a decade before the East even began experimenting with it. They are still woefully behind today. The East didn&#39;t lack for using passive NV for target aquisition, but it runs a very distant 2nd place when compared to what thermal viewers can do.

I realise, though for reasons of balanced play, they may have purposely left this off.

Oh, and how about true "indirect" fire ability. A 155mm HE/DPICM, when fired at a target 25 K&#39;s away should be hit by that 155mm.

Speaking of DP/ICM, assigning the "ammunition", like the DP/ICM round, CBU&#39;s, ALCM, etc, the ability to "carry" submunitions.

More to come I&#39;m sure... http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

NSDQ&#33;&#33;

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ntstlkr @<hidden> 09 May 2003,16:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Ability to increase soldier armor value through body armor (flak jackets in VN).
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Flak jackets do not provide any protection from small arms fire, they just hold you together a bit better till you can see a medic.

[ntstlkr]

Cheers All, http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Flak jackets do not provide any protection from small arms fire, they just hold you together a bit better till you can see a medic.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Having had to wear/carry one for 12 years, you can say I am quite aware of a flak jacket/kevlar vest&#39;s limitations. That said, note that I didn&#39;t specifically say that they should make you impervious or invulnerable to small arms fire. That wasn&#39;t even their purpose.

Protection against shell splinters and fragments/shrapnel. Even then, they never specify making the wearer impervious to those effects, only that they increase the level of protection. Countless studies concerning (in those previous circumstances) causes of battlefield casualties made creating the "armored vest" a prudent investment.

Battle in close quarter & urban environments such as Hue, exemplify the utility of the FJ. Notice in historical documentation, the more US Marines wore it than otherwise when given a chance (and the operational circumstance dictated. Obviously it would be ill-suited for troops conducting a recon patrol).

That said, again, the ballistic protection afforded by a vest/jacket is determined by more than just the material it is made from. Weave of the cloth and layering is configured for what the vest/jacket is intended for. The old FJ/KV were configured for low velocity framentation as opposed to high velocity pentrators (bullets). (Then) A good bullet proof vest made a poor flak jacket, and the same the other way around.

However, as stated on the V/J, and in the accompanying manual, while not designed primarily for protection against small arms ammunition, the FJ/KV does increase the overall level of protection to the soldier and may afford enough of a ballistic barrier to mitigate SOME small arms fire.

A man with a FJ/KV is better off than one without.

It hasn&#39;t been until very recently that the level of protection has been increased to include small arms fire. Obviously improvements in manufacturing and in some of the material used can be attributed this. Improvements in material configuration also played an important part. The vests today are still made of kevlar (spectra in limited numbers), but woven and layering has been improved.

I noticed also that there has been some disparagement of the helmet to provide protection. In reality, much like the FJ/KV, the helmet wasn&#39;t designed so much to stop small arms fire but to provide protection against shell fragmentation. The old "steel pot" couldn&#39;t stop much of anything beyond a .22 cal peashooter.

However, the "K Pot" has been proven to provide protection against small arms ammunition up to 7.62 mm at medium range (at least). This was demonstrated not only by the countless trials it was subjected to but an example given in the US "Urgent Fury" operation in Grenada. A trooper from the 82nd Airborne Div was shot in the head (200-250 m distance I think?) with an AK-47. The round didn&#39;t penetrate, but was stuck in the kevlar. The shot was made dead on too, almost no angle of deflection. The troop got off with nothing worse then a ringing headache and sore melon from the blow of the impact of the round.

When I was with 1st bde, 3rd Ar Div, our S-3 went out to the qual range to test the helmet for himself. We all watched as he 6 rounds from an M16A1 into it from 100 m, then a clip from a .45 cal at 20 m. No penetration (though it was worthless by then).

The "K Pot" (also used to be known as the "Fritz") is probably the first military issue helmet to be proof against small arms.

Of course, some improvements in material have been made over the years, but suprisingly few. Spectra can&#39;t be used (as of yet) for it&#39;s unfortunate property of delaminating over time and use.

Of course, nothing yet protects against a face shot.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

So where does that bring us? Besides the end of an atrociously long rant? http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Just that if you&#39;ve been one, then you wear it like everyone else if given a choice.

A soldier in OFP, wearing body armor should have increased protection (armor level) than one who doesn&#39;t. Doesn&#39;t make him impervious, just lessons the effects of a grenade going off nearby say. The guys not wearing vest gets killed, but the guys wearing survive (wounded maybe, but alive and pulling triggers).

NSDQ&#33;&#33;

[Xenios]

I agree with what you&#39;re saying about body armor, and I hope it will present in OFP2. Unfortunately, I imagine a lot more people will be scoffing at the idea, with the assumption that it&#39;s worthless against anything other than pistol rounds.

As has been noted by the previous poster, if ballistics are modelled correctly, even rifle and heavy MG rounds lose their energy at range. At extreme range, a kevlar helmet or vest will stop a rifle round. And if shrapnel damage is modelled correctly, body armor should provide some (certainly not total) protection, even at close range. Jagged metal and debris has poor penetration ability. Body armor would be less effective, however, against deadly concusion forces close to a large explosion.

Another reason why so many armed forces around the world use body armor as standard equipment is because modern weapons will shoot through most cover on the battlefield. Hiding behind a car or a house may slow a MG bullet but will not stop it, but kevlar can often finish the job of stopping a slowed down round.

My dad served in the 101 Airborne in Vietnam, and while there he got ahold of some ceramic armor which could stop a AK round point blank. It was heavy and was usually only worn by Huey gunners, but he wore it whenever he didn&#39;t have to walk too far. Typically his duties were patrolling the perimeter of the firebase, which was under nightly attack by Viet Cong. I wouldn&#39;t be here if my dad hadn&#39;t been wearing that armor.

[Jinef]

Yeah body armour for us pilots&#33;

And make holes appear in the canopy when bullets come at you.

Also making the AI fire their rifles at helicopters would be good.

[bn880]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @<hidden> 09 May 2003,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also making the AI fire their rifles at helicopters would be good.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I second that, it&#39;s really really odd flying an Mi24 in this game... oops, simulator.

[ntstlkr]

Cheers Gents,
101st? I was assigned to the 2-17th Cav, 101st ABN (AASLT) from early &#39;93 to the end of &#39;94. We had a bunch of the old "chicken plate" ceramic armor in storage for the pilots. Was in a kinda back/front with a wrap around velcroized strap that went around the torso. Man that crap was heavy&#33;&#33;&#33;
Your Dad musta had a helluva time humpin that shit around. Give me my Kevlar anyday&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

what Ntstlkr was fine, I was more sort of trying to stop the &#39;flak jackets make you able to absorb 2 or 3 bullets before you start getting hurt&#39; brigade. I&#39;d like to see flak jackets providing limited protection from shrapnel but none from small arms (unless the medical side is more detailed, then the person with a flak jacket could survive longer without dieing without medical attention.)

The details about the new US helmet is irrelevant though because the game won&#39;t be contemporary, so the soldiers will have the old &#39;rounds go straight through&#39; style helmets.

And I assume there will be more than one side in the game, so the US having a super new bulletproof helmet isn&#39;t that relevant.
Although maybe there isn&#39;t two sides&#33; Maybe its going to be US vs US, blue on blue simulator http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ntstlkr]

Cheers All, http://www.flashpoint1985.com/ikonboard301/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Yeah, the scripting for wounds to individual body parts. Probably a limit to that since most games go with the general one wound is as good as another, although IGI2 makes a differentiation for head shots.

Here&#39;s one for you I haven&#39;t seen before but came to me playing AA the other night. Climbable trees. Not all of them but some might be made climbable. Tons of possibilities for the sniper crowd <EG>.

Also, probably more along the lines of scripting than in-game physics, is being able to adjust threat priorities against specific threat types as opposed to just general catagories (i.e. air, ground, etc.). A F4G Wild Weasal would target AAA and SAM, leaving the rest alone unless he was carrying other ordnance (like some snakes).

Even true direct fire modeling, since the indirect fire has been addressed ad naseum, would be nice. A 105mm main gun on a M60A3 had a workable range (depending on target type) of 1500-2500 m. Since the game is era specific, lets say the 106mm recoiless (jeep and Ontos mounted) could range out to 1500 m+ target dependent. O&#39;course that&#39;ll be more of a function of setting the viewdistance incorporated into the game graphics abilities and CPU ability.

Speaking of trees, curious to see the implementation of triple canopy jungle.

NSDQ&#33;&#33;

[Jinef]

Actually i think you&#39;ll find that Russian optics are of a fairly (i&#39;ve used latest RAF and old russian) good standard at 1/10 of the price.

The Russians are really the best when it comes to good optical sights for a very cheap deal.

True you can have your Niko japanese stuff for a couple of thousand quid but on an infantry scale it&#39;s a waste of money.

[ofpchaos]

TERRAFORMING PLZ
crumbling Walls

[Batukhan]

i think, that they should make the collusions more like in (god, forgive me for saying this) Battlefield 1942. I hate this game, but i love it&#39;s collusions: when u go aboard a moving boat or a plane or a car/tank then u wont slip off, but u stay on it... i know, "who am i to say how to make collusions" and no-one&#39;s gonna read this reply anyway, but if u do, then u should seriously consider making collusions, which was the BIGGEST "bug" in the OFP1

[Col. Kurtz]

i think, that they should make the collusions more like in (god, forgive me for saying this) Battlefield 1942. I hate this game, but i love it&#39;s collusions: when u go aboard a moving boat or a plane or a car/tank then u wont slip off, but u stay on it... i know, "who am i to say how to make collusions" and no-one&#39;s gonna read this reply anyway, but if u do, then u should seriously consider making collusions, which was the BIGGEST "bug" in the OFP1
That is a feature that many people want so I think BIS will include it to make us all happy http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[frankie2spankie]

Physics need improvement , yes

But not only for the vehicles , for the unit itself too

How many time when playing OFP i had the impression of "driving" my soldier and not "being" it

The physics for the OFP soldier are nearly similar to Wargasm soldier (it was worse in Wargasm, but if you know this game, you will understand)

Please, improve the immersive factor by improving player physics and smoothness
NO&#33;&#33; Dont do that, thats one of the things i love about ofp, i hate the way you "glide" over the surface in other games. In ofp it feels like a real person you are controlling.
I agree, DO NOT CHANGE PLAYER MOVEMENT&#33;

Ben
Is it a joke ? i cant believe people like actual player movement system , it is not smooth and intuitive.
Just walk forward, then press left or right strafe key and you will have the impression your unit is a tank , never like a real person

The game atmosphere and the multiple situations you encounter actually give OFP a lot of immersive factor, but not the player control.

If the player controls was smooth and naturals , the immersive factor will be increased exponentially .
Actually guyz, i just changed my PC to a 2.3Ghz or summot like that with loads of RAM etc and the player movement is incredibly quicker and smoother. However, it makes the game to easy as you make unrealistic reaction times.

The old, sluggish way was much better. The strafing is fine too&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; sure you cant hit naf all when you strafe and run but hey&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Actually frankie, the game doesn&#39;t get any faster with a faster PC, it just is more likely to run at the speed its supposed to. If you tweak it right you can get a 500mhz to run OFP at the same speed as a 2.4 (will look absolute donkey ba&#39;s tho)

How can you have unrealistic reaction times if the whole game is speeded up? The ai would react faster too.

[Batukhan]

speaking of AI... they had a very intelligent AI in OFP1, for the formations and tactics/strategies... but when it came to a serious face-to-face dogfight, then that AI was a piece of s***. They had absolutely no reaction, they aimed WAY TOO slow... i mean, if i saw a russian, then i could step 3 times on him before, he started shooting... that way you could do 1vs12 fights(if attacking from behind).. that aint really cool :P

[Bonko the Sane]

I&#39;ve posted this in some other thread but what the hell... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
The game phisics for the engine in OFP2 needs to be improved regarding clipping:buildings+large vehicles...if not well never have a decent ship or aircraft carriers,well all go through structure as usual http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif ...that is the worse thing in OFP for me

[Acecube]

I hope you guys from BIS read this ;-)&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Sugestion for OFP2:

Make even more different surface properties for the Maps (Ground properties).

This is:

- of course realistic physics, so ground vehicles can NOT go up hills steper than 45°. (usually much lesser)

- Make vehicles with high center of balance tumble/flip over when they reach a critical angle.

- Different ground/surface properties which make vehicles/soldiers move differently or not at all&#33; (Like mudd, very rough terrain,) Wet grass will embarras even the fancyest off road car driver&#33;&#33;&#33;

- Make ditches/channels/drains along roads where cars and trucks can get stuck. Only then you can simulate good convoy ambushing.

- Even soldiers walking speed should be influenced by different grounds

This will give the landscape a much bigger tactical/strategic meaning. For now Mountains are only a bigger cover as they can be climbed by most any vehicle. Wheeled vehicles are not forced to stay on the roads/pathways most of the time in OFP now.

All in all this could balance the game very much and give more realism at the same time.

Greetz

[BronzeEagle]

I think it&#39;d be neat to shoot a gun out the enemy&#39;s hands and attach a satchel charge onto the side of something rather than just on the ground. For instance, on the side of a tank or on the side of a wall to blow a nice hole through it.

[drewb99]

Something like UT2003&#39;s ragdoll physics would be an interesting touch for OFP2 as a performance option.

It&#39;d be quite cool to shoot someone off a building and watch them tumble all the way to the ground http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Please dont suggest things that have already been suggested in the same thread.

[Vladmir]

Sorry to bring up the ragdoll again, but I completely agree.....It would personalize each death and further immerse the player, an also would support hitting someone in a car and having thier lifeless body obstruct your view, or carrying bodys to a different locations to hide them........Again sorry but also walking in or on moving vehicles is one of my major things, also the multiple water levels......sorry for bringing all these up again, but i would love to see these implemented for immersions sake.......

Cheers http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Necromancer-]

ah... correct topic.. sorry about that, moderators.

..

Anyone remember Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear?

Last time i threw a flashbang too near, I got stunned, blinded and deaf for a few seconds.
About getting deaf... You&#39;d hear your ears ring after you have continiously fired a M249 SAW. Would be nice if this was implemented in the game.

[BronzeEagle]

Make it so the gun is only up in the aim position when you zoom in using the right click. That way when the gun is in normal position its around your waste, good for if you&#39;re doing a patrol or something. Then patrols look cooler. Honestly, who keeps the gun up in aim position the entire time their standing. It should be down at the waste until you see an enemy. Then you might be saying what happens if you fire and its down at your waste. Easy, it shoots someone to the left&#33; I just think that having the gun come up when you hit zoom is more realistic. Even in the crawl position the gun would be at a 45 degree angle and laying on its side not up in front in the aim during the crawl. Then when you zoom in you&#39;d bring the gun up for aiming. If the animations were done like this it&#39;d be entirely realistic and fights would last longer.

[Gollum1]

It&#39;d be quite cool to shoot someone off a building and watch them tumble all the way to the ground http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
As opposed to you standing in the air and turning all red when you touch the ground like you do now? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[Vladmir]

Picking up objects such as bottles and being able to throw them would be cool. Imagine, you are an unarmed escaped pow, you pick up a rock and chuck it at a guards head, knocking him out and allowing you to steal his weapon. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/blues.gif

[BronzeEagle]

Make it so that when you eject out of a moving vehicle the vehicle keeps moving and you roll along on the ground. That way you can pull a Chuck Norris and plant an explosive on the vehicle and send it rolling into a camp. Or you can call it a little house on the prairie, whatever. But I have this script to put an explosive on a truck then detonate it whenever. It&#39;s pretty nice.

Also you should give explosive meter properties to all objects so that if they are shot or damaged to a certain point they blow up. I guess I could do that with scripts but I&#39;d rather just have a little meter like everything else.

[Uziyahu--IDF]

Quote[/b] ]I know it was a flight sim, but IL2 had the GREATEST physics....my god, crash landing as hard and spectacular as you could, while still managing to walk away from it was almost a game in itself...


I agree.  Skidding a plane across the ground without landing gear is a lot of fun.


Quote[/b] ]also try and make the tank tracks moreflexible without clipping into the terrain, so you get a nice view of tracks rolling over hills.

Tanks are heavy things.  You&#39;ve got to realize that heavy armor often leaves deep trenches on dirt roads.


Quote[/b] ]The only thing that would bug me sometimes is when you ram another car, and your car would pass right through.

Agreed.


Quote[/b] ]NO&#33;&#33; Dont do that, thats one of the things i love about ofp, i hate the way you "glide" over the surface in other games. In ofp it feels like a real person you are controlling.

Agreed.  Running across an open field when you&#39;re under fire (even from MILES) and loaded down with even a little gear is quite a clumsy-feeling thing.  Often your body will want to go one way and your gear will want to go another.


Quote[/b] ]Change the water physics dammit&#33;&#33;
I want to be able to swim and dive.

Yes, I really miss this from Delta Force 2.  (Did Land Warrior have it?)  Swimming with a Battle Dress Uniform Coat and Trousers is not easy, by the way.  Doing so with boots, kevlar, web gear, and weapon would be incredibly dangerous, I  should think.

Rivers and streams should have current, and I think that there should be an ocean current that encircles the map, especially if it is an island.


Quote[/b] ]Armor facing values.  Tanks have thicker armor in the front than in the back.  There should be a motivation to hit tanks from the side and rear, instead of the arcade set number of shots to kill from any angle.  Even the general public is probably aware of this after hearing about the M1&#39;s rear-end vulnerability in Iraq.

Definitely, and though Marek has said that deflection probably won&#39;t be in OFP2, I think some sort of deflection should be there...  It&#39;s going to be a lot easier to punch a hole in a Sherman tank than through a Merkava, simply because of the angles on the vehicles (not even considering armor quality).  To see an RPG glance off of one of the surfaces of a vehicle would be awesome.

Add in at least a sort of cosmetic ricocheting effect of bullets, as seen in the Knob Creek videos at Bigger Hammer (http://www.biggerhammer.net/) .  Ghost Recon had something like this, I believe.  Ricocheting tracers looping through the air is quite a sight.  (There is video out there of Iraqi troops executing people with AK-47&#39;s... tracers are coming BACK at the troops feet&#33;  The wall is maybe 100 feet away.)


Quote[/b] ]More realism on the AFVs and IFVs... in fact, everything..... would be great IMO

Absolute faithfulness to the real-life thing is essential.  Weapons like the HK G3 and FN FAL should shoot the same round as the M60 and the M21... not something weaker, for the sake of "balance".  Realism balances out the weapons, just fine.

Add to that jamming and malfunctions.  The weapons should have realistic jamming and malfunction ratios.  That is one way to balance weapons realistically.


Quote[/b] ]I&#39;v played paintball, and I can run with my gun almost on target not like in ofp where you can shoot a guy running along side you when your runing becuase the guns is swinging all over the place. there is a difference between moving fast and sprinting. Look at AA 3 differnt movement modes slow normal and fast.

Yeah, to some extent this is true, but troops in the 80&#39;s weren&#39;t trained so much about having a stable firing platform while moving at any speed faster than a run.


Quote[/b] ]How about dynamic wind physics

Yep.


Quote[/b] ]Let&#39;s talk about ...

How about some constructive criticism, Peanuckle?  I find your endless lists of nothing but negatives somewhat off-putting.  Can you at least give us examples in other games where these things were implemented well?


Quote[/b] ]I just want some semi realistic water effects, like having water at multiple altitudes. I mean, who wouldn&#39;t have fun blowing a dam and running from the ensuing 100 foot wall of water suddenly rushing downstream...


That would be wild&#33;


Quote[/b] ]terrain damage would also be good, it wouldn&#39;t have to be too realistic, just show some minor craters and stuff.

I agree.


Quote[/b] ]If you blow a mobile object with about 24 satchel charges, such as a Jeep, it should not turn into a wreckage and fly high into the sky

This is because wind resistance isn&#39;t implemented.  Objects behave as if they are in a vacuum.  Large flat polygons should have a horrendous drag coefficient.


Quote[/b] ]If a body dies the weapon they were holding should immediately be dropped.

No, in some cases someone should have to "pry it from [his] cold, dead fingers".  Sometimes a shot soldier should "run away" his weapon, if it is on full-auto.


Quote[/b] ]Kind of OT, but I would also like to see a ragdoll implemented.

I agree.


Quote[/b] ]Being able to "carry" objects in a rucksack (extra ammunition, etc).

I&#39;d also like to seek an increased inventory for soldiers who opt for a rucksack or mountain pack (at the expense of movement speed when carrying it, though).


Quote[/b] ]Ability to increase soldier armor value through body armor (flak jackets in VN).

Yep.  


Quote[/b] ]Differing quality of night vision equipment (i.e. a AN/PVS-4 is not the same as a later model PVS-7, and generally speaking, compared to Western equivalents, Eastbloc NV equipment stank).

Thermal observation equipment mode. The biggest difference between West and Eastbloc armor (in reality) lay not just in armor value but targeting aquisition and fire control. The West had moved to thermal viewers more than a decade before the East even began experimenting with it. They are still woefully behind today. The East didn&#39;t lack for using passive NV for target aquisition, but it runs a very distant 2nd place when compared to what thermal viewers can do.

I realise, though for reasons of balanced play, they may have purposely left this off.

Oh, and how about true "indirect" fire ability. A 155mm HE/DPICM, when fired at a target 25 K&#39;s away should be hit by that 155mm.

All good points.


Quote[/b] ]Flak jackets do not provide any protection from small arms fire, they just hold you together a bit better till you can see a medic.

They&#39;re good for catching shrapnel from grenades and RPG&#39;s.


Quote[/b] ]Quote (Jinef @<hidden> 09 May 2003,18:15)
Also making the AI fire their rifles at helicopters would be good.

I second that, it&#39;s really really odd flying an Mi24 in this game... oops, simulator.


Skilled troops will know better than to shoot at a Hind with small arms.  That&#39;s suicide.  An Mi-17 is another matter... Squads are trained to lead helos by 1 football field and jets by 2 football fields, even with assault rifles.


Quote[/b] ]- of course realistic physics, so ground vehicles can NOT go up hills steper than 45°. (usually much lesser)


I&#39;ve seen a dirt bike go up 4 or 5 stories of an almost vertical incline.  Looked like suicide, to me.  A Hummer can also go up a very steep incline.  Wheelbase and low center of gravity make a difference, as does the number of tires and the tire footprint size.


Quote[/b] ]- Even soldiers walking speed should be influenced by different grounds

Yeah, movement through the woods needs to be slowed.

&#39;Nade explosions need to go off at any altitude.


Quote[/b] ]You&#39;d hear your ears ring after you have continiously fired a M249 SAW. Would be nice if this was implemented in the game.


Yeah, I burned through full magazines of blanks with an M16A1 and my ears were ringing for 2 days.


Quote[/b] ]Picking up objects such as bottles and being able to throw them would be cool. Imagine, you are an unarmed escaped pow, you pick up a rock and chuck it at a guards head, knocking him out and allowing you to steal his weapon.

Yep.  Rocks should be readily available for pick-up from the ground and available for throwing.

--Uziyahu-IDF
http://www.idfsquad.com/

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Quote[/b] ]
Flak jackets do not provide any protection from small arms fire, they just hold you together a bit better till you can see a medic.


Quote[/b] ]
They&#39;re good for catching shrapnel from grenades and RPG&#39;s.
..Neither of which are small arms http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Vladmir]

Kicking doors in would be neat like you walk up to a door and the actions would be like


&#124; AK-74 On Back
&#124; Open Door
&#124; Kick Open Door
&#124;Reload AK-74mag
&#124; Discard webbing
&#124;____
Notice the discard webbing action, that would be neat too, as it would let you go faster farther. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Batukhan]

i don&#39;t want to be negative and of course i want all THAT u listed above in ofp2 but STAY REAL&#33; no-one&#39;s gonna do it anyway... ragrolls (ok maybe DOable, but surely not with the OFP1 models, physics), pickable objects(rocks, bottles?&#33; come on, it&#39;s a game about realism, not some Jet Li action movie)... and i saw something about playing paintball and aiming when running... i&#39;d say that this aiming in ofp is kinda crappy, but i surely wouldn&#39;t compare a paintballgun shooting blastic balls with a m16/m60, which weights about 5-7 KGs... i&#39;m sorry but THIS perfect game isn&#39;t possible EVEN by the BIS guys (i think ) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

[Vladmir]

Are you phiysically handicapped to the extent that you cant pick up rocks, If so how do you brush your teeth?? Think about it, did you ever see blackhawk down? The villagers threw............................ROCKS

Seriously, it is possible with todays technology, but ofp2 is still about a year and a half away, imagine what can happen in that time&#33;&#33;

I still think it is a good idea, and I stick by what I said..
Sorry to seem so negative, but you burned what i said pretty good, so have a nice day&#33;&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Batukhan]

i didnt say it isnt possible, i just said that u cant have EVERYTHING in one game... have u read the topics before yours? ppl suggest everything, and i think that BIS can&#39;t do it all... they should concentrate on more important matters... gameplay would be a good example... collisions (yea i know everybody mentions it :P).

[BronzeEagle]

Put bullet hit textures on vehicles, and when going to the map make the cursor a light pen and when its dark have the pen illuminating part of the map.

[Vladmir]

Oh, sorry I must have misunderstood your post, I know BIS can&#39;t compile it all into one game, but a few suggestions might help, just think if maybe just one of these things could be implemented&#33; But I agree Gameplay should come first. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Gollum1]

Are you phiysically handicapped to the extent that you cant pick up rocks, If so how do you brush your teeth?? Think about it, did you ever see blackhawk down? The villagers threw............................ROCKS
You call Mogadishu a village? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

I think BIS should concentrate on important engine issues instead of eye candy.

[Uziyahu--IDF]

i don&#39;t want to be negative and of course i want all THAT u listed above in ofp2 but STAY REAL&#33; no-one&#39;s gonna do it anyway... ragrolls (ok maybe DOable, but surely not with the OFP1 models, physics), pickable objects(rocks, bottles?&#33; come on, it&#39;s a game about realism, not some Jet Li action movie)... and i saw something about playing paintball and aiming when running... i&#39;d say that this aiming in ofp is kinda crappy, but i surely wouldn&#39;t compare a paintballgun shooting blastic balls with a m16/m60, which weights about 5-7 KGs... i&#39;m sorry but THIS perfect game isn&#39;t possible EVEN by the BIS guys (i think ) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
Voices like yours were proven wrong when OFP v1.00 was released&#33;

Why don&#39;t you let the developers tell us what isn&#39;t possible?&#33;

Who the sheol are you to tell us that?

Notice the title of this forum? OFP 2 SUGGESTIONS&#33;

[Uziyahu--IDF]

i didnt say it isnt possible, i just said that u cant have EVERYTHING in one game... have u read the topics before yours? ppl suggest everything, and i think that BIS can&#39;t do it all... they should concentrate on more important matters... gameplay would be a good example... collisions (yea i know everybody mentions it :P).
There was a "fan" like you back when OFP1 was in development, always pretending to have some authority to be telling us what was impossible. I think Eric something was his name.

Meanwhile, B.I. was making the things we were asking for&#33;

You remind me of that RedStorm wh0re at PC Gamer, Li C. Kuo. In his preview of OFP, he acted like the game was an impossibility that wouldn&#39;t work, but when it DID work he didn&#39;t even bother to eat his hat&#33; Instead, he tried to nit-pick about the little things that were not up to his standards while heaping praise on that piece of shi&#39;ite game, "Ghost Recon".

[SpeedyDonkey]

i didnt say it isnt possible, i just said that u cant have EVERYTHING in one game... have u read the topics before yours? ppl suggest everything, and i think that BIS can&#39;t do it all... they should concentrate on more important matters... gameplay would be a good example... collisions (yea i know everybody mentions it :P).
There was a "fan" like you back when OFP1 was in development, always pretending to have some authority to be telling us what was impossible.  I think Eric something was his name.

Meanwhile, B.I. was making the things we were asking for&#33;

You remind me of that RedStorm wh0re at PC Gamer, Li C. Kuo.  In his preview of OFP, he acted like the game was an impossibility that wouldn&#39;t work, but when it DID work he didn&#39;t even bother to eat his hat&#33;  Instead, he tried to nit-pick about the little things that were not up to his standards while heaping praise on that piece of shi&#39;ite game, "Ghost Recon".
hehe yea.. look here (http://www.pcgamer.com/reviews/archives/review_2002-01-02f.html) it is.

That weasel... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Batukhan]

Quote[/b] ]Voices like yours were proven wrong when OFP v1.00 was released&#33;

Why don&#39;t you let the developers tell us what isn&#39;t possible?&#33;

Who the sheol are you to tell us that?

Notice the title of this forum? OFP 2 SUGGESTIONS&#33;

i know it&#39;s all possible to make, but no normal person would put all this in 1 game... anyway it would take another 2 years to make such games... and why are you so angry at me? these are JUST SUGGESTIONS like u mentioned.

[Vladmir]

You call Mogadishu a village? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
Somalians, we happy now.... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

But seriously, suggestions can find thier way into games, so our voices may just make them put most of this stuff in the game. And BIS are no ordinary people, they made Operation flashpoint, by which is by no means an ordinary game, It is the nectar of the gods&#33;

[Baphomet]

What do you mean by smooth and natural? You mean like halflife? Unreal? That&#39;s not natural. If anything If they improve the movement made the thud of footsteps more pronounced... make stopping from a sprint take a few extra steps to slow down... You don&#39;t stop on a dime and you can&#39;t strafe from right to left (actually moving, not just swinging your torso left and right) without a brief pause or a slowdown.

I think a lot of people especially me, like the movement because it&#39;s appropriately limited. It&#39;s not (trancending-all-laws-of-physics-and-sensibility-so-that-you-can-circle-strafe-at-60mph
-like-some-kind-of-idiotic-attention-deficit-bullcrap-festival). There&#39;s nothing realistic or natural about those games. It&#39;s more appealing to people who don&#39;t like thinking, you know considering basic human limitations and all... if you don&#39;t like that. Go play some repetitive circlestrafe festival where you dance around your opponent for 10 seconds filling one another with 10 metric tons of lead. I prefer thinking in my games. I prefer capitalizing on the lack of thinking on behalf of my opponents and exploiting it.

From the first person perspective it doesn&#39;t look like much now if you mean improving the movement to be more like a human&#39;s movement... that is moving further AWAY from the design philosophy of FPS games of the past, like doom and halflife and quake where you ran at 30mph constantly and could strafe and turn effortlessly. Then I&#39;m all for it.


I&#39;d also have to agree on a side-note. Trespasser despite terrible bugs. Was really interesting to play. I personally. Despite many people lacking eye-hand coordination. Loved the arm and wrist manipulation idea. Being able to manually aim using the sights on the gun was great. It would have been nice to have some pre-set locations for the gun to be held or to save your own so that you know generally the best way to aim the gun.

Not only that but cocking my hand up and holding a pistol sideways "gangsta-style" and busting a cap in a raptors head was wicked good fun. =P

Not to mention that trespasser at times had the most detailed and impressive inverse kinematics (ragdoll to the layman) effects. If you shot a raptor in the head while he was running. His head would pitch violently and accurately relative to how he was hit... and usually crumple to the ground all with a realtime animation.

I don&#39;t recommend that for a game like ofp. Where you were fighting one or perhaps three processor draining raptors in trespasser... OFP&#39;s main strength is and should always be it&#39;s versatility in creating broad-scale battlefield simulations.

[Baphomet]

BTW "Uziyahu--IDF "

I remember that stupid little prick at PC gamer. It was that point of time where I realised that all the intelligent staff save William R trotter had disappeared. It was at that point I realised that open-minded sophisticated reviewing was no longer a possibility and I simply stopped reading that magazine.

I remember for issues after that all they did was take every opportunity no matter how irrelevant to extol the arguable virtues of ghost recon like some snot-nosed little highschool clique.

[Uziyahu--IDF]

Yeah, and you know why "Dr." Kuo was doing that? Because PC Gamer had a long-standing "I&#39;ll scrub your backside if you scrub mine" relationship with Red Storm Entertainment, starting with Rainbow Six, which we all know WAS a great game, for its time.

The guy is a farking sell-out, that is, if he EVER had an honest day.

I can&#39;t wait &#39;til OFP2 w/ join-in-progress, just to see if Li C. Kuo will lick Marek Spanel&#39;s feet for forgiveness.

[Baphomet]

Unfortunately deviating off topic here... forgive me. =P

Yeah I figured that&#39;s what it was. Only I couldn&#39;t think of how to put it into so few words at the time. Heh. As far as I&#39;m concerned all the staff reviewers there are pretty much sellouts. Just peddling the opiates of the very average and very unsophisticated consumer.

I&#39;ll bet they were surprised to find out how excellent the game went on to be. Especially from an emerging development house with no titles that had be as yet released. The way they handled mail from bewildered readers talking about how cool Ofp was also responded to in a very immature and nonsensical matter.

[SpeedyDonkey]

Man that really sucks http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif

Luckily its the opposite here in sweden&#33; As far as i can remember they really liked ofp and had all kinds of positive previews and stuff and thats how i first found out about ofp.

Now they&#39;ve promised to report as much info as they can about Ofp2  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Batukhan]

we had some really amature previews here in estonia... these non-sense &#39;i-haven&#39;t-even-played-the-game-but-saw-the-screens&#39; previews were first cool, when i hadn&#39;t played the game, but now i&#39;m a big fan of it... and these previews relly piss me off... they sayed about this: "Very modern graphics engine, this is all so cool, u can even sit in the backseat of the car"....

[Batukhan]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Uziyahu--IDF @<hidden> June 15 2003,15:17)
Quote (Batukhan @<hidden> June 14 2003,13:35)
i didnt say it isnt possible, i just said that u cant have EVERYTHING in one game... have u read the topics before yours? ppl suggest everything, and i think that BIS can&#39;t do it all... they should concentrate on more important matters... gameplay would be a good example... collisions (yea i know everybody mentions it :P).

There was a "fan" like you back when OFP1 was in development, always pretending to have some authority to be telling us what was impossible. I think Eric something was his name.

Meanwhile, B.I. was making the things we were asking for&#33;

You remind me of that RedStorm wh0re at PC Gamer, Li C. Kuo. In his preview of OFP, he acted like the game was an impossibility that wouldn&#39;t work, but when it DID work he didn&#39;t even bother to eat his hat&#33; Instead, he tried to nit-pick about the little things that were not up to his standards while heaping praise on that piece of shi&#39;ite game, "Ghost Recon".

hehe yea.. look here it is.

That weasel...

i read it and it was.... TERRIBLE.. insulting and amature. and please, if u get angry at me, do ANYTHING to me, but PLEASE, don&#39;t call me like HIM&#33; :P

[Uziyahu--IDF]

You should read how he talked up Ghost Recon in some of the same issues. It&#39;ll make you heave your lunch.

[Batukhan]

oh i read about Ghost Recon allright... :P my favorite sentance was "FIFTEEN MISSIONS AND YOU&#39;LL NEVER GET BORED" :P

[Vladmir]

How can anyone love that game as clumsy and ugly as it was? It was a boring shooter, the storyline was lackluster as best not to mention the enemy was as smart as a sack of rotting potatoes and the levels were about as big as a cardboard box, hell you didnt even see your gun in first person&#33;

On to the ragdoll, there could be an option to have either that or basic animations just so those with higher end systems could use the ragdoll or vice-versa.

I agree on Tresspasser, I also loved the hand wrist system, but I dont think a woman with arms like hers could handle a 12 guage shotgun with one hand  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Well thats my ranty 2 cents.

[LightBringer]

I think we need ability to drop the flag, and also a vehicle, which is able to flip tanks, and other vehicles, and can repair them as well... also the human mechanic should be able to repair minor problems on the vehicles (like engine problems, change a tire, change some damaged caterpillar-track, etc).

CU&#33;

[Vladmir]

Go play some repetitive circlestrafe festival where you dance around your opponent for 10 seconds filling one another with 10 metric tons of lead.
Baphomet,

I love that sentence, It is so true...You wouldnt mind if that went in my sig would you? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Baphomet]

Not one bit Vlad. =p

Please share the gospel my brother. Heh.
I hate games like that now. I stopped playing them in late 1997 during a brief stint with Quake 2. I now realise OFP was the game I was always looking for.

As far as the "One arm to handle everything" system in trespasser... I pretty much chalk that up to the developers either getting lazy or thinking they were making their complicated (yet IMO enjoyable) object manipulation system a bit more easy. So I just pretended she was hefting a benelli or a spas 12 with both hands. =P

[Honk]

I hope you guys from BIS read this ;-)&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Sugestion for OFP2:


Make even more different surface properties for the Maps (Ground properties).

This is:

- of course realistic physics, so ground vehicles can NOT go up hills steper than 45°. (usually much lesser)

-- Tanks and other military vehicles can climb hills that have slopes up to 60 %. I also think that tanks are often much to slow in OPF when the climb hills. Even when they use roads and the hill is not very steep.

- Make vehicles with high center of balance tumble/flip over when they reach a critical angle.

-- Yes, I agree. It is hard to put your car on it&#39;s roof.

- Different ground/surface properties which make vehicles/soldiers move differently or not at all&#33; (Like mudd, very rough terrain,) Wet grass will embarras even the fancyest off road car driver&#33;&#33;&#33;

-- Yes, I also agree. I should be impossible to climb rocky terrain with most vehicles.

- Make ditches/channels/drains along roads where cars and trucks can get stuck. Only then you can simulate good convoy ambushing.

- Even soldiers walking speed should be influenced by different grounds

This will give the landscape a much bigger tactical/strategic meaning. For now Mountains are only a bigger cover as they can be climbed by most any vehicle. Wheeled vehicles are not forced to stay on the roads/pathways most of the time in OFP now.

-- The braking behaviour of tanks has to be simulated somewhat better. The braking range of tanks can be very short.

All in all this could balance the game very much and give more realism at the same time.

Greetz

[Renagade]

I agree on Tresspasser, I also loved the hand wrist system, but I dont think a woman with arms like hers could handle a 12 guage shotgun with one hand  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Well thats my ranty 2 cents.
I liked the way u had to move ur hand to line up the sights and it had a full physics engine to it,IN 1998,its just a shame they had to rush it out http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif

i wish the woman was a bit stroner that way u could have beaten up the raptors with the baseball bat,sledgehammer,barret and the mounted machine guns a bit better or u could try what i did and drop metal girders off a height onto their heads :P

[Baphomet]

Problem with trespasser which I wouldn&#39;t want to see in ofp2 is the fact that they undershot the time they should have released the game by quite a few months. If you read any review on the game for it&#39;s time people complained bitterly on how the game ran so unplayably horrible on any system save the absolute fastest of the time. Which I believe was a P2 450mhz with dual voodoo2 in SLI mode.

Of course people in the minority with money to burn or kids whose every whim is subsidized by the bank of mom and dad won&#39;t be affected but I think it&#39;s a sobering reminder that focusing on what&#39;s important before applying attention to piddly little details should be a priority.

[Jinef]

This is going to be fantastic.

I would adore a realistic special forces mission in OFP2 where you have to navigate using escape map and stars, swim small streams, raid a small village, find a radio, call your base, meet a another SF team etc.

Have a engine with all these effects and you have an immortal game.

[Vladmir]

Problem with trespasser which I wouldn&#39;t want to see in ofp2 is the fact that they undershot the time they should have released the game by quite a few months. If you read any review on the game for it&#39;s time people complained bitterly on how the game ran so unplayably horrible on any system save the absolute fastest of the time. Which I believe was a P2 450mhz with dual voodoo2 in SLI mode.

Of course people in the minority with money to burn or kids whose every whim is subsidized by the bank of mom and dad won&#39;t be affected but I think it&#39;s a sobering reminder that focusing on what&#39;s important before applying attention to piddly little details should be a priority.
Exactly, I wont play a game until its perfect, I hate to play some buggy Grab bag of models and sound that isnt challenging or fun, but then again, since February last year, I haven&#39;t invested in any other games than Ofp... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Also, yes I have to agree on the arm system being a biproduct of laziness on the Developers part, but that is just a small detail that doesn&#39;t affect gameplay.....Hey, maybe she was jacked up on steroids at the time of the crash http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Im glad to see someone else who sees the true beauty and potential of OpFlash over those fragfest FPS.

[SilverB1rd]

...and i saw something about playing paintball and aiming when running... i&#39;d say that this aiming in ofp is kinda crappy, but i surely wouldn&#39;t compare a paintballgun shooting blastic balls with a m16/m60, which weights about 5-7 KGs... i&#39;m sorry but THIS perfect game isn&#39;t possible EVEN by the BIS guys (i think ) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
Your right... the m16 would be even more stable/accurate due to its weight. =P

[Baphomet]

Well... accurate in the sense that trying to hit something at anything beyond 40m. Or perhaps less. I swim 500m in a 50m length pool at the local fitness centre and when I look at it end to end it&#39;s a pretty far distance. If you were cranking rounds off like crazy and you weren&#39;t running too fast you could probably land a hit by using the accuracy by volume strategy.

however... heavy guns as far as I know are better for recoil than light guns.  Not versus light caliber weapons but the added heft, so long as you can lift it. Inhibits the gun from climbing more. So yes in a light jog you could probably spray and pray giving you a 50/50 chance to hit at 20m with an automatic weapon. By light jog I mean enough so that you can still reasonably control where the gun is pointing and your arms aren&#39;t jiggling all over the damn place.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus]

I would adore a realistic special forces mission in OFP2 where you have to navigate using escape map and stars
There is a mission like this allready in the CWC campaign. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Renagade]

i think unless there is some gameplay changes, a full physics engine in flashpoint 2 would probably go unused but it could help with vehicles to vehicle contact,CQB and landing the  helicopters on ships http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

As for trespasser,the arm system was a good idea but it should of been made stronger.

[Renagade]

I`ve just though of an other thing.


Removing the sky box or whatever causes the missiles to explode when u shoot them straight up.
Goldeneye on the n64 was cool in that respect, u could fire rockets into the air for ages then sit for a few minutes until they came raining down like an airstrike http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[The Frenchman]

hehe yea.. look here (http://www.pcgamer.com/reviews/archives/review_2002-01-02f.html) it is.

That weasel... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Thats almost as bad as what I saw in a GR forum. They said that only GR and Vietcong used ironsights&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif

[Vladmir]

I`ve just though of an other thing.


Removing the sky box or whatever causes the missiles to explode when u shoot them  straight up.
Goldeneye on the n64 was cool in that respect, u could fire rockets into the air for ages then sit for a few minutes until they came raining down like an  airstrike http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Good Idea, I would like that as well.

[USSoldier11B]

Quote[/b] ]Change the water physics dammit&#33;&#33;
I want to be able to swim and dive.

I second this motion&#33;&#33;&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Acidcrash]

I`ve just though of an other thing.


Removing the sky box or whatever causes the missiles to explode when u shoot them  straight up.
Goldeneye on the n64 was cool in that respect, u could fire rockets into the air for ages then sit for a few minutes until they came raining down like an  airstrike http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Good Idea, I would like that as well.
they explode mid air because of fuses/timers/<insert other method here> not cos of a sky box, you can in a plane go on for ever to disprove the skybox theory (18000 was the highest i got before i got bored and went into a dive) (this is in OFP btw)

[Animal_Mother [SWAF]]

About getting deaf... You&#39;d hear your ears ring after you have continiously fired a M249 SAW. Would be nice if this was implemented in the game.
Belive me...I have what you want to have implemented on OFP2 in RL for 9 years now....a constant ring of the ears...24/7/365.....nothing really funny. I don&#39;t think stuff like that needs implementing in a game. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Renagade]

I`ve just though of an other thing.


Removing the sky box or whatever causes the missiles to explode when u shoot them  straight up.
Goldeneye on the n64 was cool in that respect, u could fire rockets into the air for ages then sit for a few minutes until they came raining down like an  airstrike http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Good Idea, I would like that as well.
they explode mid air because of fuses/timers/<insert other method here> not cos of a sky box, you can in a plane go on for ever to disprove the skybox theory (18000 was the highest i got before i got bored and went into a dive)  (this is in OFP btw)
Are u saying  it could be fixed by making  an add-on that doesn`t do it or  is OFP being realistic http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

I think it would be cool if  u  could do  it for some weapons so  u could  use a  law like a mortar http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Acidcrash]

dont quote me on this, but i think they do explode after a certain time, though untill someone with experiance with them comes along and proves/disproves it, its just my best guess

[Renagade]

Quote[/b] ]Change the water physics dammit&#33;&#33;
I want to be able to swim and dive.  

I second this motion&#33;&#33;&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I too&#33;

It would be great if we could add a naval warfare element to OFP too http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Uziyahu--IDF]

Uziyahu--IDF
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of all of the people here that are asking for swimming, I wonder how many have tried it with only a Battle Dress Uniform (BDU, the standard U.S. camo outfit) coat (i.e., long-sleeved shirt with pockets) and trousers (i.e., pants)...

It&#39;ll kick your ass. I&#39;d hate to have to try it with a Kevlar, L.B.E., loading magazines, a weapon, a full canteen, and boots on, not to mention a flak jacket or kevlar vest and loaded rucksack&#33;

Swimming should definitely be left to civilian characters, Black Ops, combat divers, and frogs. Regular soldiers should only be able to wade or ford through the water (weapon raised over the head?) in a very light current, otherwise they&#39;ll need to drop most of their gear.

Comments from others who have been through "Water Indoctrination"?
Back to top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well since most Marine&#39;s in vietnam only wore loose shirts, loose pants. Their only equipment they carried were their Boots, Helmet, Gun, and Ammo. Atleast that&#39;s what way most likely. Swimming wouldn&#39;t be too hard in that. --Harnu

+++++

That is exactly the kind of uniform I am talking about. Yes, it is not easy to swim in that stuff, even without helmet, boots, webgear, weapon and ammo.

Has anyone else actually tried swimming with a pair of BDU trousers, BDU coat, and a T-shirt on underneath?

Surely I&#39;m not the only one&#33; --Uziyahu-IDF

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

I&#39;ve done it, but with modern British kit, so I&#39;m not sure if it&#39;d be the same in the OFP scenario.
Basically, you patrol up to the water you want to cross, then stick out a few sentries, the rest of the section get naked, put on their waterproof gear only, put everything else back in the bergen, squeeze the bergen into their bivvy bag, then scouts/ sentries go across first. The bivvy bag will float (just) and you hold the rifle on it with one hand and swim with the other hand and legs. Then the rest come over the same way.

But the kit the soldiers are wearing in ofp and therefore probably in OFP2 is only webbing, so they wouldn&#39;t have most of that equipment, so ignore me http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

With webbing and everything, I think swimming should be possible for about 5 / 10 minutes before death. If there was an option to dump kit when in water (which is why we don&#39;t tape up the front webbing straps - so you can just pull them right through and dump it in water) then swimming for longer would be possible.

I say 5/ 10 minutes because the combat swimming test involves swimming for 2 minutes with all that kit on as you get in the water, so with additional motivation (fear of death) soldiers should be able to go longer.

[Jinef]

I&#39;ve done it as well, flight suit, boots all your shit hanging off you, quite hard.

It would be very good to have missions where the first big challenge is crossing a river, that&#39;s where all the training deaths come from. the strongest swimmer goes first with a rope and everyone follows, looking out for pirahannas and crocodiles, that is in the jungle anyway.

Yey&#33; OFP2&#33;

Whenever i come to this section of the forum my heart skips about 30 beats, yes i die for about 50 seconds.

[Batukhan]

Quote[/b] ]I`ve just though of an other thing.


Removing the sky box or whatever causes the missiles to explode when u shoot them straight up.
Goldeneye on the n64 was cool in that respect, u could fire rockets into the air for ages then sit for a few minutes until they came raining down like an airstrike http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

honestly there is no skybox, and u can test it even with LAW.. there is a addon, i don&#39;t remember what it was, some Napalm(don&#39;t remember by whom, very nice addon anyway), that u can add in rockets, so if the rocket explodes, the napalm fire addon kicks in... it was cool with AH-1 and it&#39;s rockets, but even cooler, when i but it on LAW, put the mission time 00:00 and shot the rocket up in the air... when the LAW exploded, the napalm started to work, and HUGE ball of fire with VERY NEAT tail came flaming down the sky like a big meteor... best view ever in the game ;)

[Batukhan]

Quote[/b] ]Quote
honestly there is no skybox, and u can test it even with LAW.. there is a addon, i don&#39;t remember what it was, some Napalm(don&#39;t remember by whom, very nice addon anyway), that u can add in rockets, so if the rocket explodes, the napalm fire addon kicks in... it was cool with AH-1 and it&#39;s rockets, but even cooler, when i but it on LAW, put the mission time 00:00 and shot the rocket up in the air... when the LAW exploded, the napalm started to work, and HUGE ball of fire with VERY NEAT tail came flaming down the sky like a big meteor... best view ever in the game ;)

and look, i found the napalm and did it again, now with screenie ;) http://www.hot.ee/batukhan/meteor.JPG

[Suma]

- of course realistic physics, so ground vehicles can NOT go up hills steper than 45°. (usually much lesser)

-- Tanks and other military vehicles can climb hills that have slopes up to 60 %. I also think that tanks are often much to slow in OPF when the climb hills. Even when they use roads and the hill is not very steep.
Just a quick angle metrics excercise:

45° is the same as 100 %

30° is the same as 60 %.

[Batukhan]

ow, we have famous ppl posting posts here... good to see some of BIS guys... so now we can see, that u still read the forums, and didn&#39;t put it up just for us http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

- of course realistic physics, so ground vehicles can NOT go up hills steper than 45°. (usually much lesser)

-- Tanks and other military vehicles can climb hills that have slopes up to 60 %. I also think that tanks are often much to slow in OPF when the climb hills. Even when they use roads and the hill is not very steep.
Just a quick angle metrics excercise:

45° is the same as 100 %

30° is the same as 60 %.
Obviously if you have the right data then fair enough, but when I&#39;ve been in the back of a Warrior (modernish british IFV for those who dont know) and in commanders seat they&#39;ve gone straight up any hill we could throw at them without even slowing down. I think the figures for steepness of slope has to do with a danger of overturning rather than an inability to climb them.

The warrior can beat a porche away from a set of traffic lights (550 BHP ) but weighs 25 tons. Obviously older IFVs/ AFVs might not be as nippy but it seems strange playing OFP with these vehicles that seem to be powered by hamsters.

[Renagade]

http://www.penguinhosting.net/~jpeck/PICTURES/Afraidbean.gifhttp://www.csuchico.edu/tc/alumni/potm/puke.jpghttp://www.penguinhosting.net/~jpeck/PICTURES/Afraidbean.gifhttp://www.csuchico.edu/tc/alumni/potm/puke.jpghttp://www.penguinhosting.net/~jpeck/PICTURES/Afraidbean.gifhttp://www.csuchico.edu/tc/alumni/potm/puke.jpghttp://www.penguinhosting.net/~jpeck/PICTURES/Afraidbean.gifhttp://www.csuchico.edu/tc/alumni/potm/puke.jpghttp://www.penguinhosting.net/~jpeck/PICTURES/Afraidbean.gifhttp://www.csuchico.edu/tc/alumni/potm/puke.jpg

[redwolf603]

Back to the whole swimming thing, I&#39;ve tried it in jeans, a tee-shirt, and sneakers, and it was damn hard, I&#39;d really hate to try it in a BDU.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

[Superskunk]

Hi there, i&#39;ve got some brainstorm possibilities to put in...maybe it&#39;s brings on some idea&#39;s... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

-- Put in a RAIL-ROAD system&#33; steam, Diesel, electra, MAG-lev??

-- Units can CLIMB TREES or some trees to use in their advantage

-- UNDERGROUND objects which you can use/place anywhere in a map. like a tunnel system, underground-room or other basic war-stuff.

-- Objects like houses, trees, should be DAMAGED IN STAGES and/or be damaged on different sides..maybe add BURNING so they will burn down. Or BURNING TREES and/or woods&#33;

-- aircrafts (planes/choppers) should be able to fly on the REAL HEIGHTS (like real world) have better view on high heights..

-- according to that "SKY-DIVE" should be possible so it won&#39;t take ages to get from 8000 mtrs height to the ground..

-- standard BUNKER-SYSTEMS much like the addon-verisons or based on real bunker-blue-prints&#33; *coastal gun*

well, thats what i can think of right now&#33;&#33;&#33;
GG All
Ss

[Superskunk]

Quote[/b] ]I`ve just though of an other thing.


Removing the sky box or whatever causes the missiles to explode when u shoot them  straight up.
Goldeneye on the n64 was cool in that respect, u could fire rockets into the air for ages then sit for a few minutes until they came raining down like an  airstrike http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

First. i &#39;ll say...make it as real as "it is with real weapons".

Second. Sky-box is possible...maybe rocket-only.  planes don&#39;t proof there isn&#39;t any&#33;

It could be possible a rocket like LAW, RPG  always explode when out of fuel, or after some time. You have to know the right facts, i don&#39;t&#33;

Last.  maybe the real-army could modify the real weapons so, that a LAW, RPG only explode on impact...that way we get more FUN outta OFP2&#33;&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Game On&#33;
Ss

[Superskunk]

There is one thing that is not yet mention in this thread....

If you blow a mobile object with about 24 satchel charges, such as a Jeep, it should not turn into a wreckage and fly high into the sky then crash somewhere where the wreckage is still intact....... such as Jeep tossing.
Instead it should just blow up in pieces and/or vaporize.
I think it is actualy possible to vapourise something in OFP1. A long time ago for fun I laid lots and lots and lots of satchel charges next to a vehicle (Abrams I think). When I set off the stachel charges (there was something like a 100 of them) the vehicle dissapeared, and I didn&#39;t see it again. Either it went so high so fast I didn&#39;t see it, or it was obliviated.
Its still in orbit i guess...

i did the same, with about 89 satchels, drove m1a1 onto it, and fired...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Projectiles in OFP disappear / blow up after 11 seconds of flight. There is no sky box.

[Batukhan]

Quote[/b] ]-- Put in a RAIL-ROAD system&#33; steam, Diesel, electra, MAG-lev??

sry, but i JUST HAVE TO mention this... BIS makes the OFP2 at about the times of Vietnam war... ummm.... i don&#39;t see how magnet railroads were built back then... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif ok, i&#39;m just teasing you http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif good idea to put railroads in OFP

[Superskunk]

Quote[/b] ]--  Put in a RAIL-ROAD system&#33; steam, Diesel, electra, MAG-lev??

sry, but i JUST HAVE TO mention this... BIS makes the OFP2 at about the times of Vietnam war... ummm.... i don&#39;t see how magnet railroads were built back then... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif ok, i&#39;m just teasing you http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif good idea to put railroads in OFP
You&#39;&#39;re right with the Vietnam part, but it&#39;s still not sure, at what time, Europe and Africa will be..not for me.

I tought on another thing to look at...

The largest explosion in OFP was the LGB-explosion. maybe there are larger explosion types which can be added...i&#39;d like that&#33;

NExt:

A carradio would be nice, so sounds come out of dashboard...

GReeTz
Ss

[Batukhan]

mhh... u mean like nuclear warhead? kinda hard to do something like that on small-scale islands like everon and malden... but there are smaller explosions than nuclear explosions and bigger then LGB... like some cruise-missiles... you know what would be nice? 3D-explosion models... i mean with bigger explosions... little grenade(and these 30mm cannons) explosions can remain sprite-based, but larger (sabot, LGB) can be like many-layered (with alpha) large sphere, fastly enlargering... because these sabot explosions were too big to be made using sprites, and sometimes it looked crappy...

[Superskunk]

mhh... u mean like nuclear warhead? kinda hard to do something like that on small-scale islands like everon and malden... but there are smaller explosions than nuclear explosions and bigger then LGB... like some cruise-missiles... you know what would be nice? 3D-explosion models... i mean with bigger explosions... little grenade(and these 30mm cannons) explosions can remain sprite-based, but larger (sabot, LGB) can be like many-layered (with alpha) large sphere, fastly enlargering... because these sabot explosions were too big to be made using sprites, and sometimes it looked crappy...
Ofcourse i didn&#39;t ment island-wipe outs...

Cruise-missiles is more like it. OR Maybe there are some other "satchel-like" explosion packages which can be set somewhere, any blow real big.
**Otherway in OFP a Fuelstation had some blast, but its&#39;not the real thing. I don&#39;t want movie-like explosions, but a little more fire and blast effect would make it more real.

To take it even further...when houses have like 8 impact-directions, which mean all 8 parts have to damage seperatly, they&#39;ll look more real blowing up.
If a Fuelstation is standing in the middle of some houses, and blows: You&#39;ll get a fire-ball , maybe spredding fire, and some houses damaged on the side which was pointing to the blast-area.
They&#39;ll be wrecked only for the half. If a fire -effect would take over, it could burn the house down after some time.

I hope this doesn&#39;t make it to complex http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

~Bye noW~
Ss

[FenderHSS]

I agree with earlier posts that character (human unit) movement shouldn&#39;t be completely smooth, because this way you get a more realistic impression of running fast, and ducking, because you can see your shoulders, hands and legs move around you. However, certain actions take too long to perform, like boarding a vehicle, or ducking/going prone. Also, you should be able to interrupt actions to perform another one. Right now, if you&#39;re standing, reloading a magazine, and you come under fire, you can&#39;t lie down until you finish reloading. Another idea, if you&#39;re sprinting and you press the "go prone" key, you should dive forward, not stop running and lie down. I guess what I&#39;m saying is more animation sequences for humans. The more animations you have, the better and more human-like you can move. Right now, it&#39;s hard to move tactically, especially in an uraban setting, because, running diagnally or sideways is really awkward. Its hard to keep pointed in the right direction, so you can&#39;t return fire while your moving to another position. Also, one feature that would really benefit this tactical shooter, is lean right/left and roll right/left (when prone) it makes cover sooo much more usefull.
Side note: could some actions, like opening doors (if it&#39;s simulated), dropping a weapon, or placing/detonating explosives, be given shortcut keys instead of having to go through a menu. One other thing, there could be an "Open Door" action (for moving stealthily) and a "Kick Door Open" for moving quickly into a room and taking occupants by surprise.

[FenderHSS]

Umm, reading through some of these ideas, I&#39;ve come to worry about one thing in particular. Everybody wants detailed, area-specific damage on vehicles, houses that burn down, and some very complex physics. This is all fine and dandy, but this could take a HUGE toll on performance. Everthing should have an option to turn it off. I&#39;d rather have a super-smooth running game than vehicles whose windsheilds shatter, tires pop, houses with realistic structural simulation, so on and so forth....

Oh and one thing that would be really cool (and I would want to be able to turn this off because potentially it could take up a lot of RAM) is bullet holes in soft targets, like plaster walls and unarmored vehicles, maybe even helmets.

And for bullet physics:

One game that has a feature I really like is IGI 2. I love how bullets can go through materials that they could in real life. Like crates, residential walls, and (depending on the calliber of round) some metal. Against a guy with .300 or .50 sniper rifle, a wood crate or an empty barrel really wouldn&#39;t afford much protection. I would love to see this modelled, because presently, you can take cover behind haystacks, crates, oil drums, and thin walls. I defy you to find a competent soldier who would take cover from a 7.62mm Machine gun behind a wood fence. Of course, bullet speed and defraction should be taken to account when they pass through these materials. And oh yeah, bullet DEFLECTION&#33; Some shooters model how bullets bounce of solid metal surfaces when striking them at shallow angles. With tracers enabled, this could prove to be a very cool visual effect, even if it is annoying when you get hit by bullets that weren&#39;t even remotely intended for you.

[FenderHSS]

My God, another post? Well, the gears keep turning...

Human models-  RAGDOLLS RAGDOLLS RAGDOLLS.  Really cool though they suck up performance. I want to see guys fly back 6 ft. and roll when they take 20 .45 bullets from a rapid fire SMG, or do a summersault when you shoot them in the back of the head with a 12-gauge shotgun.  Okay, now an even more graphic and gruesome suggestion:  Disemberment/decapitation.  When you take a .50 BMG round in the face, your head doesn&#39;t exactly stay in one peice.  What if you get hit with a 20mm cannon shell?  Those things blow arms, heads, and just about any appendage right off.  Remember Saving Private Ryan?  And then there&#39;s other stuff, like grenades. And what about 30mm cannon and explosives, like satchels, and HEAT shells?  People are blown to smithereens when hit with these things.  Depending on range from the center of the explosion, people could be ripped apart at the torso, have arms blown off, be burnt and horribly disfigured.  Of course, you could turn this off.  Might not be the best thing for a 11 year old to see....  Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast had a disemberment mode that was kind of cool.  But the severances would have to be a little messy.  They got away with cutting off arms and and hands cleanly at the joints, which saved them a lot of complex modelling,  because that&#39;s how a lightsaber does things.  But frag. grenades, don&#39;t exactly carve people up neatly.  There are no clean cuts.  It gets kinda messy.

TERRAIN-  Um, I&#39;ve noticed hills in OFP aren&#39;t exactly hills.  Hills are rounded.  The "hills" in OFP are just several planes fitted together to make a faceted assymetrical geometric object that resembles a mound of earth.  When you run up a "hill" as you step from one plane to the next, you viewpoint elevation changes dramatically.  I know round hills aren&#39;t easilly possible when you have to have vehicles drive on them, but maybe you could do something for a smoother transition between these interlocking planes, maybe make it less noticable....

[edc]

Quote[/b] ]TERRAIN- Um, I&#39;ve noticed hills in OFP aren&#39;t exactly hills. Hills are rounded. The "hills" in OFP are just several planes fitted together to make a faceted assymetrical geometric object that resembles a mound of earth. When you run up a "hill" as you step from one plane to the next, you viewpoint elevation changes dramatically. I know round hills aren&#39;t easilly possible when you have to have vehicles drive on them, but maybe you could do something for a smoother transition between these interlocking planes, maybe make it less noticable....
Turn your terrain quality up.

[FenderHSS]

We need dynamic fire effects, like in Postal 2&#33; Gasoline should catch fire, people should burn. When vehicles blow up, the don&#39;t just crumple all over and turn all charred and spew smoke. They buckle where they were hit and where secondary explosions occured. They only get charred where the fire is. Tank turrets should get separated from the chassis. Thats what happens when a tank suffers a hard hit and the ammuntion goes up. Also, tanks should blow treads when hit with a LAW and get stuck.

Trees catching fire and fire effects where large explosions happen should be included. I&#39;m not saying simulate a fire growing into a massive inferno that devours the forests of Vietnam, but fire should be on a timer and it should spread a little untill the timer runs out and it slowly goes out. Besides, wouldn&#39;t Molotov coctails and Napalm be fun? Come on, we need napalm if we&#39;re going to be in Vietnam, just like the VC needs to have women soldiers.

[metto]

This is easy to do, and shouldn&#39;t take much CPU capacity: When you(or somebody else) are hit in original OFP, you just hear you scream and see blood, but in reality, there should a short schock effect, when you are unable to aim or fire. It&#39;s not cool, when an enemy doesn&#39;t even note that he&#39;s been hit, before his dead.

[Batukhan]

Quote[/b] ]This is easy to do, and shouldn&#39;t take much CPU capacity: When you(or somebody else) are hit in original OFP, you just hear you scream and see blood, but in reality, there should a short schock effect, when you are unable to aim or fire. It&#39;s not cool, when an enemy doesn&#39;t even note that he&#39;s been hit, before his dead.

yea u&#39;re right... that&#39;s the only thing that was unreal in ofp 1 and no-one even noticed that it was unreal, because everybody was used to usual FPS&#39; where u get hit by a rocket and don&#39;t even moan...

[server1]

Physics need improvement , yes

But not only for the vehicles , for the unit itself too

How many time when playing OFP i had the impression of "driving" my soldier and not "being" it

The physics for the OFP soldier are nearly similar to Wargasm soldier (it was worse in Wargasm, but if you know this game, you will understand)

Please, improve the immersive factor by improving player physics and smoothness
YES&#33; NEED MORE PHISICS http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Killswitch]

My pet OFP vehicle physics peeves I hope will be different in OFP2:

<ul> Decceleration (braking). As it stands, the stopping distance of all vehicles is too long. Put in better brakes&#33;
Steering. Ever run into a tree in a curve due to the steering ceasing to work when going above a certain (low) speed?
Engine power/feel. Like noted previously, all vehicles must be *much* better/faster at climbing slopes.
Steering radius. Prime example: taxiing aircraft.[/list]
Oh, also, the aircraft flight modelling needs work, to say the least.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Hara Kiri]

hmm, i don&#39;t know how many want SOF2 style damage model, but there would still be a realistic explosion. In ofp1 every explosion kills. In ofp2 it would be more movie like, sometimes you lose your legs etc. But do we want an anoter forbidden under age of 18?

[ale2999]

HARA sup bro&#33; It is already rated M for mature which means you have to be 17 to play it already> I dont care about the age http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[DracoPaladore]

*delete*

I should really learn how to multitask better.

Wrong thread.

[Hara Kiri]

I don&#39;t care the age too, but i don&#39;t think that ofp2 would be better with negative publicity.

[CopyCon]

I don&#39;t care the age too, but i don&#39;t think that ofp2 would be better with negative publicity.
I remember when "Barbarian" was released. There were moral ladies at every corner doing everything to stop the game. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

But portraitation of war legitimates the use of more gore.
Would you like to see Band of Brothers, with a "violence/gore off" mode. Wouldnt it destroy the whole thing?

[WhoCares]

While playing Jagged Alliance 2, I thought some of its features might be nice to have in OFP2.

The support for new/more equipement, e.g. different kinds of body armor (FLAK- vs. Kevlar-West, Helmet vs. Caps,...), on-the-fly (at least in the mission briefing) modding of weapons, e.g. attaching scopes, bipods or silencers (if the weapon supports it).

A kind of Stamina/Endurance feature beyond the short term breathing stuff, e.g. if you marched nonstop twice across the map in 50 hours, you would be tired, slower, less effective.

A more sophisticated health system. Medics in the field usually just fix you up, so that your status does not become worse. Later you have to see a real Butcher (Doctor), that can cure your wounds. Same applies for damaged vehicles.

For obvious reasons some of this implies the support for a different campaign system, more like a single loooooong mission, with phases of fighting and phases of recovery, rest and reorganisation.

Can&#39;t think anymore - heading off to the next beer garden...

[Drill Sergeant]

Jumping we need to be abele to jump and swim.
And dpn&#39;t change the gore level. I won&#39;t be buying OFP 2 if the gore level changes simple because It takes to much to render it. I think that we have a balance right now beween realisum and lag. Please don&#39;t make the people models explode or crap like that because than all of the modlers would have to redo all of thier work and than instead of rendering outside faces you also need to render the inside faces. So more gore = LAG.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Lag = delay between packets sent from computer to computer
gore &#33;= lag

[Drill Sergeant]

While playing Jagged Alliance 2, I thought some of its features might be nice to have in OFP2.

The support for new/more equipement, e.g. different kinds of body armor (FLAK- vs. Kevlar-West, Helmet vs. Caps,...), on-the-fly (at least in the mission briefing) modding of weapons, e.g. attaching scopes, bipods or silencers (if the weapon supports it).

A kind of Stamina/Endurance feature beyond the short term breathing stuff, e.g. if you marched nonstop twice across the map in 50 hours, you would be tired, slower, less effective.

A more sophisticated health system. Medics in the field usually just fix you up, so that your status does not become worse. Later you have to see a real Butcher (Doctor), that can cure your wounds. Same applies for damaged vehicles.

For obvious reasons some of this implies the support for a different campaign system, more like a single loooooong mission, with phases of fighting and phases of recovery, rest and reorganisation.

Can&#39;t think anymore - heading off to the next beer garden...
Ok would you want this in multiplay?
LAG and a multiplayer game would take forever this way.
As for the bipods they have been made already.
As for the flack vests look at BAS ranges and Delta unit&#39;s the have increased amor due to thier vests. This would be a night mare for just about every mod team. Now they would have to make all kinds of BPVs and differnt hats and stuff. It a novel idea but if you like a certian look or want several levels of armor just make your own models with all of these things made the way you wont the. I am just thinking of how hard this would be to patch and how this could possibly foul up some things for addon makers and mods. Though the mechanics would be a good idea a guy that carries a tool box around or a tool back pack and he could fix vehicles.

[The Frenchman]

"Barbarian"
Hmm, not familiar with the game. Do you have a link to the game&#39;s website? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

hahaha. Barbarian was in the days of the Amstrad and C64; I doubt there is a website unless its some sort of fan shrine to it.

[WhoCares]

Ok would you want this in multiplay?
LAG and a multiplayer game would take forever this way.
As for the bipods they have been made already.
As for the flack vests look at BAS ranges and Delta unit&#39;s the have increased amor due to thier vests. This would be a night mare for just about every mod team. Now they would have to make all kinds of BPVs and differnt hats and stuff. It a novel idea but if you like a certian look or want several levels of armor just make your own models with all of these things made the way you wont the. I am just thinking of how hard this would be to patch and how this could possibly foul up some things for addon makers and mods. Though the mechanics would be a good idea a guy that carries a tool box around or a tool back pack and he could fix vehicles.
Well, the Jagged Alliance plot is difficult to put into MP (who would like to be disbanded by the squad leader http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif ), but generally, I would wish there were no features limited to a certain playing mode. Of course, it must be possible to save MP games for such missioins... It should be up to the mission designer, what is supported in his mission. You know, those CTIs/RTS can take forever as well...
About all the modelling stuff - no, I am a lazy ass and I will not do it on my own. And I did not say, it would be easy to implement http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
But instead of having models of the complete weapon with all combinations of potential attachements, it would be good to have a model of the weapon with predefined link points, and models of equipement that can be attached to those links. Links and attachements would have special characteristics, so, that certain attachements can only be put on weapons with specific links, e.g. no pistols with M203 Launcher. (Isn&#39;t there already something like this with the rifle grenade/mortar?)
It would be good to have a kind of generic &#39;frame&#39; on both sides (weapon and addon) for each link class, which would constrain the model dimensions, so that attachement and weapon would properly fit.
But why do I bother about the implementation - shall BIS sort this out, if they want to implement it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[El Savior]

"Barbarian"
Hmm, not familiar with the game. Do you have a link to the game&#39;s website? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Check this site and search good old time games...
I&#39;m sure Barbarian is one of them  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

http://www.the-underdogs.org/

El Savior

This has partly with the gamephys to do;

BUT it would be Great with solid areas which could be destroyed like in RED FACTION 1 . Then you could blow off things with grenade (and holes to hide in in the ground).

ALSO A SPADE SYTEM WOULD BE GREAT (DIG HOLES IN THE GROUND) and throw away the earth abdn build fortifications manually.

When OFP2 Comes will almost everyone have a GeforceFX comp with 64 bit architecture. So I say stake for the FUTURE and not the past. Make the game so smooth so it balances performance with good PHYSICS and Graphics (THATS THE FUTURE OF GAMES).

[Lt_Damage]

I like the idea of more interaction with the environment. e.g digging in etc.

Currently a player feels they can only change what is around them by shooting it or blowing it up. To be able to change the environment with a shovel, or if you are laying in the bushe move the bushes aside a bit to give yourself a better view, it would greatly increase the player emersion in the environment.

The thing is how to do it? The way I think of it is the * key on the numpad releases your head, allows you to look around. Why not a similar thing that releases your left and right arms? while laying down you could gently shift aside the bushes with your left and right arms. You could also use this while kneeling to draw in the dirt make a plan etc.

Being able to push / pull objects aswell, you can tie this in with how you interact with other players. Dragging wounded to safety, 2 soldiers pushing their jeep into town to refuel http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Often you round around a corner straight into another player and there is no "impact" of the two bodies. Now the players themselves are supposed to be the most important element of the game, especially in multiplayer, however they have the most limited way to effect the environment, only with the gun. If you could knock a player on his ass and then shoot him your "player" becomes more physical, more real. You run around the corner, knock each other over first one to bring their gun up and get a shot off lives. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[dusand]

My several questions about OFP2.

I am interested in the real working thermovision in OFP2. Can we wait it in the game, dear BIS boys?

Next: I would like to have special feature that would make OFP2 more realistic. So -> sometime, there could happen that soldier weapon would foul. It would just stop working for a moment. Soldier would have to "repair" his gun. It could depend on the environment where the soldier is. Deserts have sand. Sand and dust is bad for weapons, so it could happen more often. This really happens. See soldiers in Iraq. They have problems with their weapons and sand.
Also, there could be some kind of temperature feature. Also, it would depend on the environment. If you would be somewhere in the mountains, there would be cold weather, soldiers would have wors conditions for the fight (soldier hands could tremble -> bad aiming), etc...

[The Frenchman]

If you would be somewhere in the mountains, there would be cold weather, soldiers would have wors conditions for the fight (soldier hands could tremble -> bad aiming), etc...
I like that idea. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[dusand]

If you would be somewhere in the mountains, there would be cold weather, soldiers would have wors conditions for the fight (soldier hands could tremble -> bad aiming), etc...
I like that idea. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I think it wouldn&#39;t be too difficult to make in the OFP2 and the game would get other realistic feature that would force us to think more about which way to choose for our soldiers.....

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Also, there could be some kind of temperature feature. Also, it would depend on the environment. If you would be somewhere in the mountains, there would be cold weather, soldiers would have wors conditions for the fight (soldier hands could tremble -> bad aiming), etc...
Then Scottish soldiers/ mercenaries should get Irn Bru in their equipment to make them immune to the cold.

[Platoon_EFeKT]

I dont know if it was brought here before, but what about foot trails? in snow, mud, sand etc.? i think its rather elementry... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Besides, while i was in the army, one of the things i remember hating was to swich magazines under pressure and after running alot (or any heavy physical effort) - it&#39;s not easy, i gurantee you, so sometimes you unintentionally drop the new magazine or missing the right spot to place it into...
I guess that in the first game, this feature could&#39;ve already been implemented, because everybody who ever played OFP remembers the player&#39;s heavy breathing and having trouble to aim good after a long run. i guess it should mean more in the next game, like i mentioned above. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[quakergamer]

I dont know if it was brought here before, but what about foot trails? in snow, mud, sand etc.? i think its rather elementry... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Besides, while i was in the army, one of the things i remember hating was to swich magazines under pressure and after running alot (or any heavy physical effort) - it&#39;s not easy, i gurantee you, so sometimes you unintentionally drop the new magazine or missing the right spot to place it into...
I guess that in the first game, this feature could&#39;ve already been implemented, because everybody who ever played OFP remembers the player&#39;s heavy breathing and having trouble to aim good after a long run. i guess it should mean more in the next game, like i mentioned above. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
AS far as I know there is already foot trails anywhere you go ...

[Platoon_EFeKT]

You mean in OFP2? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

[Acidcrash]

no in OFP:RES

[Platoon_EFeKT]

I&#39;ve never noticed... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
Even though my graphic settings are maxed... (besides of viewing distance... makes the game unnessecerly jumpy)

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

There are indeed footprints in OFP res.

[quakergamer]

I&#39;ve never noticed... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
Even though my graphic settings are maxed... (besides of viewing distance... makes the game unnessecerly jumpy)
Well Ive always had them maybe it depends on your benchmark ....

[Acidcrash]

I&#39;ve never noticed... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif
Even though my graphic settings are maxed... (besides of viewing distance... makes the game unnessecerly jumpy)
are you fully patched? they were introduced in one of the patches...cant remember which though sorry

[Platoon_EFeKT]

I have GOTY, and ofcourse fully patched... i guess i just didnt pay attention to these details like i used to http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

But enough of foot trails - what about my other ideas (with the magazine etc.) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/ghostface.gif

[CopyCon]

... so sometimes you unintentionally drop the new magazine or missing the right spot to place it into...
I think it&#39;s a good idea, It should be based on experience though.

[Platoon_EFeKT]

Yea, especially when you try to reload the magazine while running. you could be more precised in this action if you try to reload while walking or standing, or if you look at your weapon while reloading, so you&#39;ll have more chances to succeed.
But this topic should be more elaborated - even though the first game had some realistic "deaths" (i.e. when the player get shot while running he falls and dies) i&#39;ve never seen someone who took a bullet somewhere in his body and didnt fall back just from the bullet&#39;s impact... and i&#39;ve seen some people getting shot at for real - believe me http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

For example - a 5.56 bullet impact is almost equal to getting rammed to the ground by a big bull. putting aside the fact that 5.56 bullet will most certainly chuck your leg if it hits your knee because we&#39;d like the player to still be able to play after getting only one shot - he should still be knocked down from the impact...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

I disagree. Thats a movie myth. Small calibre bullets do not have enough force to knock a human down. They might FALL down after the shock of being hit, but they aren&#39;t thrown around. The way they fall in SPR is quite realistic.

[Platoon_EFeKT]

Well, let me tell you - getting shot by a 5.56mm bullet and be knocked to the ground is all but a myth...
When being shot by a .50cal (equals to 12mm) you&#39;d probably tear the guy who&#39;s being shot at to a half (i.e. shooting someone with a .50cal in the chest would, in most cases, tear his upper torso to a half) so just imagine what half of it (5.56) could do, but i dont know if OFP2&#39;s developers would want to go down to these kind of details... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

[dusand]

Hey, stop talking about 100% realism. OFP2 will be a simulation, not real life. It will be for having fun. If you will be shot 20 secunds after start, it won&#39;t be very funny. BIS boys have really hard task - combine realism and fun. Some balance...

[Acidcrash]

im actually happy with the way you currently die from being shot, ie stagger a couple of steps and collapse
though im not too sure about your body flying a kilometer or so when hit by a tank shell, or even a grenade http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

[Platoon_EFeKT]

Dusand, i did talk about 100% realism, but if you&#39;d read my post to the end, you&#39;ll see that me and you share the same opinion. I also like the way the player currently die but dislike the way stuff getting blown away... (as acidcrash mentioned) i mean, im sure the engine&#39;s phisical calulations would be more percised in OFP2 and we wont see vehicles "jumping" around ages after being exploded, but i think the issue of a player&#39;s body flying around from a tank shell blast should be delt with more concern. i dont know what kind of calculation OFP&#39;s engine did and what factors he considerd when it displays a player body flying about 300 meters away from a blast, but i do think this kind of an engine behaviour should have been delt with a simple patch dealing with the game&#39;s physical measurments... it could&#39;ve been the latest 1.46 or 1.91, but for some reason it wasnt one of the things the patch fixed, and that&#39;s why we should still put an emphasis on this subject to the devs... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/blues.gif

[korzon]

I dont know if this is proper subject and if anyone mentioned it before.

important realistic improvement may be:

- possibbility of weapon jam dependant on

-- weapon type ( some weapons jams frequently)
-- weapon use (weapon shoting nonstop jams more frequently)
-- weather conditions (some weapons are sensible some like AK are not)
-- tired or fresh soldier (some weapons are sensible for "user error" like STEN)

[Platoon_EFeKT]

Yes, the weapon jam idea with these factors has been already brought up korzon http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif but it&#39;s good to know that people consider it an important factor...

Anyway, going back to ammunition, but this time - AT ammunition.
In OFP, when you shot a sabot round at the ground it&#39;d produce the same blast effect as a HEAT round - a thing which is entierly not correct. AT rounds produces a very minimal explosion, because most of the round/missile&#39;s warhead is devoted to armore peneteration - most of the space inside the warhead is used for the copper cone and the exlosives behind it (for anyone who&#39;s familiar with armore peneteration techniques) so all of the explosion created by such a projectile is generated by that small amount of explosives mounted behind the copper cone, thus causing minimal damage to the surrounding, but delivers a serious blow to the armored vehicle.
Ferthermore - when the armore is peneterated, it produces some kind of a "spark" and a very small shockwave that "drags" the target vehicle along with the projectile a few centimeters along its course - i think this effect would be a good addon to the game, if it&#39;d be considerd, ofcourse... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[dusand]

I dont know if this is proper subject and if anyone mentioned it before.

important realistic improvement may be:

- possibbility of weapon jam dependant on

-- weapon type ( some weapons jams frequently)
-- weapon use (weapon shoting nonstop jams more frequently)
-- weather conditions (some weapons are sensible some like AK are not)
-- tired or fresh soldier (some weapons are sensible for "user error" like STEN)
I have the same idea. It would be quite realistic.

[9mm]

That&#39;s why magazine discription in config file should contain only the number of the bullets held inside, nothing more.
NO JAM projects would be needed anymore.

[G-LOC]

I want a sliding system to move inside aircraft, ships and tanks. I get in the sliding sistem and move. Then a helicopter can land in a moving ship, or taxi my aircraft in a moving carrier, or stand inside a helicopter and use my weapon.
Airbase can have this system to control aircraft&#39;s taxi.

G-LOC

[Platoon_EFeKT]

I hope someone from the devs is checking this thread from time to time - to be updated, that is... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[SnypaUK]

On the tank thing when a tank gets hit with a missile or SABOT round wouldnt it be cool if the turret blew off and landed back on top upsde down and then ammo started cooking off

[SnypaUK]

could we continue this topic here (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=57;t=33802) then we dont have to flick through millions of pages

[Phleep]

Dusand, i did talk about 100% realism, but if you&#39;d read my post to the end, you&#39;ll see that me and you share the same opinion. I also like the way the player currently die but dislike the way stuff getting blown away... (as acidcrash mentioned) i mean, im sure the engine&#39;s phisical calulations would be more percised in OFP2 and we wont see vehicles "jumping" around ages after being exploded, but i think the issue of a player&#39;s body flying around from a tank shell blast should be delt with more concern. i dont know what kind of calculation OFP&#39;s engine did and what factors he considerd when it displays a player body flying about 300 meters away from a blast, but i do think this kind of an engine behaviour should have been delt with a simple patch dealing with the game&#39;s physical measurments... it could&#39;ve been the latest 1.46 or 1.91, but for some reason it wasnt one of the things the patch fixed, and that&#39;s why we should still put an emphasis on this subject to the devs... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/blues.gif
The physics engine doesn&#39;t take into account energy lost due to the unit crumpling or falling apart and air resistance. It would be good if "crumple zones" were introduced so aircraft would crash and stay crashed and bodies would fall short of a parabolic projection from the fatal explosion.

[Snypa UK]

Need to improve ice rink physics on road vehicles and improve handling on planes. need to be able to roll in a Fixed wing plane tanks should move a bit more like tanks less speed more power and although unrelated suppressing fire would be nice

[VMF124 Foxtrot]

Get a joystick man. Then you can roll and loop your plane.

[Batukhan]

i completely agree with Platoon_EFeKT... in death realisms and tank ammunitions... it isn&#39;t exactly a big programming to make a man blowing into gibs, rather than throwing it further and further away after explosion. it kinda reminds me of counter-strike and it&#39;s bombing/defusing maps... when u stand on a bomb and it blows up, u just fall down and fly into the skybox. exactly the same in OFP1... sometimes even worse. Lets say u stand on a satchel charge and it blows up.. u should kinda vaporize (considering the firepowr of that satchel charge in OFP), but instead after few moments your player plays the death animation and just falls down... tho i worship OFP, this is one of the most annoying things in the game... oh yea, flying cars and broken+flying planes. i bet all of you have tried, what would happen to a jeep, if it had at least 8 satchel charge beneath it... well i most certainly have. I WANT TO SEE PIECES AND BIG CHUNKS OF METAL flying over my head, not a jeep model with darkened textures and modified vertex positions. And planes... u go 600MPH(supposingly mph, cause in OFP there are just "speed unist") 90 degrees into ground and what would happen? plane "deformes" and flys back up... instad of making a 5m deep hole and 200x200meters of debris-full ground.. ok, that&#39;s all i have to say for a long time

[The editing man]

I dont know if this is proper subject and if anyone mentioned it before.

important realistic improvement may be:

- possibbility of weapon jam dependant on

-- weapon type ( some weapons jams frequently)
-- weapon use (weapon shoting nonstop jams more frequently)
-- weather conditions (some weapons are sensible some like AK are not)
-- tired or fresh soldier (some weapons are sensible for "user error" like STEN)
I have the same idea. It would be quite realistic.
Yeah i like the idea also, but its maybe too realistic wich can spoil the gameplay for many.

[AirwolfPL]

OK...
Here&#39;s the list of improvements I would like to see:

1). Better flight model of planes (especially planes) and helicopters (I hate the way they&#39;re behaving at the high speeds). It shouldn&#39;t be too hard of course, because the game isn&#39;t Flight Simulator.

2). More realistic cars and tanks. I would like to see 1nsane-like handling. Current simulation models is nearly unacceptable for me.

Dammage zones on the vehicles should work better. I would like to see a possibility to describe vehicle parameters better - not only max speed, weight, turn and ground coeficiency, but also - engine power, etc. Then it would be possible to create for example slow vehicle with a lot of the power to climb hills etc. Possibility to attach trailers and transport one vehicle inside another is a must for me as well.

3). General physic model improvements... couldn&#39;t you guys implement dynamic system like Havok?

4). Better damage models - for example cars should receive visible 3D dammage (not only texture changes). I don&#39;t like how building dammage model is looking too. Dammaged vehicles should loose their parts (for example when chopper is crashing rotors should separate from the hull, or if tank&#39;s turret receives pretty high amount of dammage it should be torn apart)

5). Falling down - soldiers should be able to fall down (for example when grenade explodes nearby and explosion hurls them into the air, but doesn&#39;t kills them)

6). Better clipping is a must.

7). AI which actually knows how to take adventage multi-level buildings, terrain obstacles etc.

8). Weapons and equipment weight. Soldiers with heavy weapons moves slower. Choppers and planes with heavy load should have slower reactions to controls as well.

10). Weight and space based equipment space. Not slot based one.
This would allow us to take for example 2 assault rifles at once, or assault rifle and machine gun, but less ammo. Additional cargo space (like backpack) would allow soldier to carry more equipment. Same things regarding vehicles.
Only planes and helicopters should have slot/weight based equipment space.

11). Head gear (like NV Goggles or Helmets) and equipment like binoculars shouldn&#39;t be hard-coded into game&#39;s engine. It should be easy to customize just like any other weapon
Soldier should be able to carry additional equipment like vests, backpacks, etc.

12). Possibility to replace &#39;in game&#39; some weapons with anothers - for example - I&#39;m landing AH-64 on the FARP and rearming the chopper from 16xHellfire setup to 8xHellfire + 32xHydra setup.

Things like inverse kinematic (so called ragdolls heh) / ground errosion (geomod from Red Faction) etc. aren&#39;t so important to me. I think it would be hard to have satisfying performance. Face it guys - OFP is more like a &#39;world simulator&#39; not like &#39;one-small-corridor simulator&#39;.

I like the idea of weapon jams too, but I don&#39;t think it should be based on such huge list of factors as korzon described.

[Acidcrash]

Quote[/b] ]10). Weight and space based equipment space. Not slot based one.
This would allow us to take for example 2 assault rifles at once, or assault rifle and machine gun, but less ammo. Additional cargo space (like backpack) would allow soldier to carry more equipment. Same things regarding vehicles.
Only planes and helicopters should have slot/weight based equipment space
after thinking about that, you could possibly implement it like Neverwinter Nights did... ie, weight: after carrying so much you could only walk not run, then after that only walk slowly. this would also work well with a revamp of the current way you pick up ammo and load them in vehicles. instead of making 6 journeys between the bodies and the vehicle just to load their rifles, you could do it in 1 or 2... if you see what im saying

[Gollum1]

I agree, a weight system would be great.
Finally there would be a difference between an AT/MG gunner and a scout, with advantages and disadvantages for both sides, firepower vs. speed, agility, reload speed, posture change etc. Oh and if you want to retreat quickly it would actually make sense to throw your weapon down&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[Snypa UK]

well it doesnt normally you want a weapon to bring a rearguard action to bear on the enemy and MGs are essential
but it would make for interesting thinking. on dumping backpacks that would make it very interesting and would reward good planning by dumping your bergens in a wood then proceeding. it would also make you more nervous about it all going tits up and losing all your equipment in your bergens which would in itself bring about lots of choices such as do i take my AT weapons and slow myself down or should i risk being bumped and losing my AT cover?

[Gollum1]

Right now you can pick up and RPG and 3 rounds "just in case" instead of your 6 handgrenades, that would weigh you down a bit IRL.

[ThePygmy]

This might be a bit advenced but: How about when soldiers get close to a wall or tank or anything that gets in his way he raise his weapon (if his looking towrds the wall) as in Vietcong. And when u get close to a tree or something the soldier hides as much as possible behind it. If a much wanted lean fuction would be added u could stick your head out from behind the tree. Pretty much like in Call of Duty when soldiers hide behind walls etc. Another stolen idea from CoD: Soldiers jumping through windows and over windows. Other changes I&#39;d like to see:
1:Caves
2:Craters
3:Ability to stand in/on vehicles when they move as in Battlefield1942
4:Jumping or a automatic action that makes the soldier climb up on ex a plane-wing.

Heh.. Pretty much dreaming but who knows whats possible Muahahahahha&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[ejik]

I think the aim should be worse after running, and not unlimited "fastrun" when you go forward/strafe at the same time.

[Baphomet]

The aim is worse after running if you notice. The cursor bobs up and down just as if you were wounded in some cases. However yeah. That diagonal running thing works well when going up steep inclines too.

[toadlife]

Quote[/b] ]10). Weight and space based equipment space. Not slot based one.
This would allow us to take for example 2 assault rifles at once, or assault rifle and machine gun, but less ammo. Additional cargo space (like backpack) would allow soldier to carry more equipment. Same things regarding vehicles.
Only planes and helicopters should have slot/weight based equipment space
after thinking about that, you could possibly implement it like Neverwinter Nights did... ie, weight: after carrying so much you could only walk not run, then after that only walk slowly. this would also work well with a revamp of the current way you pick up ammo and load them in vehicles. instead of making 6 journeys between the bodies and the vehicle just to load their rifles, you could do it in 1 or 2... if you see what im saying
HIdden and DAngerous 2 impliments this type of loadout configuration *almost* perfectly.

It&#39;s space/weight which determines how much a solider can carry, and the more eqipment a solider carrys the slower he will be able to run. Also, the less weight the soldier is carrying, the longer he will be able to sprint before tiring out and slowing to a jog. THe time a soldier can sprint is very low (2 seconds or so) if he is carrying 50 lbs of gear, while, if he is carrying no gear, he can sprint for several seconds before tiring out. Also, you can jump in hidden and dangerous but only if you are not tired. SInce it&#39;s so easy to get tired, jumping is not a factor during MP firefights. (NO BUNNY HOPPING&#33;)

You can&#39;t magically whip out a grenade if it&#39;s in your backpack. You have to go to your inventory and move it from your backpack to your pouches, before you can access it. YOur pouches consist of 12 &#39;slots&#39; for in which you can put various items..heavier items sometime take more than one slot (like large first aid kits and explosives). You can carry two weapons of any kind. One in your hand and one over your shoulder. Depending on your soldiers strength rating, if you have two weapons, you might not be able to fill up your backpack and pouches.

Again, OFP2 should try and emulate and/or improve on the Hidden and Dangerous 2 method of configuring soldier loadouts. It&#39;s simply fantastic.

[Goeth]

I agree, hd2 has perfect system and bis should really consider implementing something similar to ofp2.

[TheManWithManyIdeas]

An obvious fault in the OFP physics was the falling and slope reactions. Although it wasnt wholly important, in order to further explore the possibilites of OFP2 then these should be repaired.

[esti_the_big]

Personally, My gretest wish is to implent a good base of physics in the code...

Especially including better physics for all vehicles, and better physics for humas. Ragdoll might not be gameplay important, but in todays gaming it&#39;s simply standard that must be achieved by high quality games such as OFP, as well as inverserse kinematics that allow realistic recoil effects for gun shots and bullet hits.

Then theres realistic damage system. War is terrible, it&#39;s about death and destruction. Death was included more than enough in OFP1, now they also gotta think about destruction. A small town after a battle must look like it experienced the most terrible time ever. Meaning i don&#39;t want strangely distorsed buildings but realistic damage visuals, such as realistic explosions and fires and destroyed buildings. same for vehicles, they gotta look like they were destroyed by some terrible force. It&#39;s not always realistic seeing a small car distorsed a little after the impact of a massive bomb. The car must be ripped apart by the force, debris lying around everywhere, same for other vehicles (planes shouldn&#39;t be able to be recognized as planes anymore after a ground crash with 1500 kmH, tanks should be more destroyed-looking). A dynamic physics system implenting this would be great.


And about terrain deformation...
This IS something that can bring gameplay up to a new level. Terrain deformation for realistic cover taking etc, and shooting holes in buildings. if OFP2 includes enhanced indoor combat, real-time deformation of buildings is a must-have, especially in a large scale war sim such as OFP, where the war isn&#39;t only inside the building, but outside as well, which can strongly influence indoor fighting (where a misplaced bomb crashing into a building can open up completely new hiding and camping possibilities...)

All the other stuff mentioned would be logical developments that can be achieved physically correctly using these physic rules that should be implentet in the source. Weight management, jams etc is all a thing of scripting etc...

[Pathy]

This has probably been raised, but i&#39;d like to stand freely in a moving C-130 and not fall out the back end/floor of it....if BIS could make the physics as such that it would be possible to walk around inside a plane, then imagine the parachuting possibilities (no more "eject", suddenly appearing in the air....)
ive kinda done this with a non moving aircraft (an-12 with ramp down i think it was, put 1000 feet in the air, then use a HALO style script).... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[TexMex Leprechaun]

It would be great if you could crash land your planes, and chopers. I hope BIS will make the damage much more realalistic, like broken glass, and even broken landing gears.

[FragMASTER]

I would like to have realistic chopper flying, kinda like in x-plane but maybe they dont have to do torque effect. I would want to be able to do barrel rolls and inverted spins maybe even a split-S, just something other than upright flight all the time. I can get inverted sometimes but it&#39;s a hard thing to do.
I have nothing against planes as I can invert them whenever I want and stay inverted, and do a lot of aerobatics.

[KJAM]

Quote[/b] ]Commanding a platoon through its interface is simple. (from the PC GAMER revier guy)

you silly person........you cant command THAT many people.


overall i think he was milked on arcade shooters http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

oh and great suggestions guys http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif im sure BIS will surprise us http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif


yeah i&#39;d like to see a bit more spectacular helo maneuvers too


Quote[/b] ] I can get inverted sometimes but it&#39;s a hard thing to do.


i can do that easy.........sometimes not on purpose.........but then i kinda crash http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif LOL

[Phleep]

I have probably been playing Trial Bike too much but I think an additional weight related function should apply to the motorbike vehicle class.

If you can pull back on the handle bars or push them to control your pitch whilst airborne it would guarantee a few less "face plant" landings and make the class of vehicle more attractive. Mouse look would be fine for controlling this.

Also, when the suspension bottoms out or you don&#39;t land on your wheels you should sustain damage in any vehicle class - and since there should be locational damage in OFP2 this should start by ruining the suspension and buckling axles.

[m21man]

Quote[/b] ]If you can pull back on the handle bars or push them to control your pitch whilst airborne it would guarantee a few less "face plant" landings and make the class of vehicle more attractive. Mouse look would be fine for controlling this.
Also, when the suspension bottoms out or you don&#39;t land on your wheels you should sustain damage in any vehicle class - and since there should be locational damage in OFP2 this should start by ruining the suspension and buckling axles.
Remember, at its heart OFP is a combat sim, not a racing sim.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Nonetheless, in combat a tank that drives over a cliff (too fast) is in trouble.

[Phleep]

Quote[/b] ]If you can pull back on the handle bars or push them to control your pitch whilst airborne it would guarantee a few less "face plant" landings and make the class of vehicle more attractive. Mouse look would be fine for controlling this.
Also, when the suspension bottoms out or you don&#39;t land on your wheels you should sustain damage in any vehicle class - and since there should be locational damage in OFP2 this should start by ruining the suspension and buckling axles.
Remember, at its heart OFP is a combat sim, not a racing sim.
True, but it would increase the opportunity to drive vehicles appropriately in given environmental conditions - regardless of how many mortars are raining down on you.

How many of us have driven jeeps down cliff faces to get somewhere in a mission?

How many of us have lost control on a bike merely because of an uncontrollable nose dive?

To encourage people to take the smoothest route in multiplayer - instead of bypassing bottlenecks with insane driving stunts - you need a penalty for driving on nasty terrain. A damage bar is just not the same.

Punctured tyres, ruined shocks and suspension, buckled axles or wheels, bent chassis. There are heaps of ways of making it more exciting to survive on the battlefield.

Anyway, detailed vehicle damage has been discussed amply already. We just haven&#39;t listed all the ways it can be caused.

[KJAM]

speaking of damage i hope the models will have changed from the "origami" look when they are destroyed that just looked plain stupid, and also planes should be able to slide across the ground depending on how well you make an emergency crashlanding, wings rip off (maybe) if you leave the gear down that gets ripped off etc



Quote[/b] ]How many of us have driven jeeps down cliff faces to get somewhere in a mission?

yup ive done than, and strangely somehow i managed to get the jeep to become an amphibious vehicle managing to cross the river in nogova near Davle (or wherever the bridge is)

[Gollum1]

LOL Kjam "origami" is a fitting way to put it. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

But yes, rougher terrain and penalties for going off-road would really count, in MP everyone always go the straightest route. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

[Baphomet]

I don&#39;t necessarily agree with higher terrain penalties in some cases. I think the cars when going offroad for example were rather pathetic. I&#39;ve been in a few "offroaded" cars in my day and you can still go fast over dirt or grass... it&#39;s just you can get suck really easy and you slide around a lot.

You do however have to punch the accelerator hard and that usually can cause you to spin out when doing a sharp turn.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Yes, but you must remember that when you are driving off-road its probably been fairly flat grass or mud. IRL it could be marsh, severe &#39;babies heads&#39; (whatever they are called - the big lumps of grass that are a pain to walk over), rocky outcrops, heather, etc.


Also bear in mind that the &#39;rocky&#39; texture on the hills can br driven up no matter how steep it is (when it should be a cliff)

[InqWiper]

It would be really nice with a way to climb over obstacles like in Hidden and Dangerous 2. That feature was REALLY sweet http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[kdog]

I kind of like OFP&#39;s limited movement. It puts the focus on the bigger picture, rather than micro-managing the body of your computer charachter through some clumsy interface..

kdog

[Friedchiken]

yeah, but an extra climb feature (not jumping) does wonders and maybe the action "menu" interface should be streamlined. And maybe an option for mod-makers to create new key-bindings for new features.

[Sid]

Why not use "Havok" physics?

I mean, it&#39;s a cheap enough module to purachase and incorperate into a piece of software, and the physics are totally customizeable, and include believable collision detection and the lot.

Thanks for your time,
-Sid

[InqWiper]

Quote[/b] ]Why not use "Havok" physics?

I mean, it&#39;s a cheap enough module to purachase and incorperate into a piece of software, and the physics are totally customizeable, and include believable collision detection and the lot.

Thanks for your time,
-Sid

And when it comes to realistic weapons and vehicles and stuff?
The havoc engine seems to FPS (not framrate) to me, it would be worse than BF 1942 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[Sid]

Quote[/b] ]Why not use "Havok" physics?

I mean, it&#39;s a cheap enough module to purachase and incorperate into a piece of software, and the physics are totally customizeable, and include believable collision detection and the lot.

Thanks for your time,
-Sid

And when it comes to realistic weapons and vehicles and stuff?
The havoc engine seems to FPS (not framrate) to me, it would be worse than BF 1942  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
Ouch. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Well - upcomming titles (Such as HL2) - have very convincing Physics, using Havok.

[FW200]

I would love to see rockets turn with you.
This is a bit of a fuzzy description so I will explain it with a pic:
http://aa.domaindlx.com/FW200/Fokkerturn.jpg
I am using a rocket model with 2 modeled tracers to simulate multiple guns firing using the "zuni" principle. However , as you can all see , when I turn the rockets ("tracers") remain horizontal. I would like to see that the rockets turn with the same angle as the plane  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Balschoiw]

As far as I know

Quote[/b] ]Havok
is just a basic engine that can be extended. BIS has it´s own physics engine and employed an extra physics programmer for OFP2. I think there will be a lot of changes and new things for the physics secor like dammage model and all that funny things.
I´d like to see at least 30 damage zones per vehicle (depending on type of vehicle and weaponry) that are able to detect angle of impact and strength. This way a base for damage-dependant deformations would be laid even if they don´t implement them in OFP 2 right away.
Would make it very more real.

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey]

I&#39;v played paintball, and I can run with my gun almost on target not like in ofp where you can shoot a guy running along side you when your runing becuase the guns is swinging all over the place. there is a difference between moving fast and sprinting. Look at AA 3 differnt movement modes slow normal and fast.
I know what you mean, I play airsoft and can keep my M4 alot better on target than OFP does. Because I keep the gun up in my shoulder, not under my arm.

[Korpisoturi]

Is there gonna be a geomod system. The building explosion thing is bit stupid in OFP.

[Dem]

What I would like to see in OFP 2 is more dynamic objects.
For example moving leaves in trees, soldiers uniforms deformed by wind, possibility to move in vehicles or at least more movements for pilots, drivers, crews ( but you don&#39;t see them in tanks so... perhaps...) and what else... more moves avaible for soldiers that one could obtain by clicking a combination of keys ( as in MotoCross where you had to push w, x, r or so to get a specific move with your motorcycle ) so I could hit with my M16 one in the head and make him sleep for a while http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif , finaly to have more combat moves to variate the killing experience http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif .

On the other hand it would be nice to take care of some small details that you may say insignificant but that would totally imerge the player in the virtual world .
For example I would like to see my character push a button or drag a rope and see his cockpit break, and the pilot&#39;s chute would open in a more realistic way ( btw it would be nice to shoot soldiers when they are still in their chutes even it&#39;s not alouded in some convention, but Hitler&#39;s troops didn&#39;t mind about it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif ) ;
Other examples is the way players use cockpits to pilot a chopper : it would be nice to have the radar functioning ( of course in a disabling option for players who use low textures ) and see the pilot push some buttons on that attracting pad, same thing for tanks and all vehicles... I really feel bad when I see that radio in the U.S. jeep and can&#39;t even do something with it... through it... step on it... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif , or when I see the bombs on the Blackhawk ( if I&#39;m not mistaking ) I would like to use them dammit&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif , and the list goes on : why did they put the support one the M60&#39;s canon if it isn&#39;t used ( if I&#39;m not mistaking ) and threfore to reduce recoil .

To resume my ideas I would like to say that I&#39;d like more interactivity with objects and with my own character, that would be so fun ( I can&#39;t reisist giving more examples : imagine hanging myself on a heli&#39;s door and firing with one of my hand at enemies, launching them grenades, sticking my knife in their ass, then cut it in 2 halfs with the ninja&#39;s sword, and the BMP, why it is written in the little manual I found with the game that the BMP&#39;s had some sort of holes for the the transported troops to fire through them : &#39; it has a system that alouds soldiers to add their fire power to those of the vehicle &#39; ? it&#39;s not true and it would be nice to have )
I&#39;m sorry if someone else said the same things I can&#39;t read all the posts but I think i exposed better my ideas, no ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Friedchiken]

Well, some of your physics ideas may take a little too much time to implement for their limited use but hey, we&#39;re talking about the guys who simulated the moon and the stars even at the poles. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

What I think would be interesting though is that players should have to climb (not jump) into a blackhawk, walk through the body, and then use the controls there. Though maybe this would require changing the imprecise nature of the animations. And maybe people who are stupid enough to walk around inside moving vehicles could suddenly go into rag doll mode and fall out the back of the truck http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

( btw it would be nice to shoot soldiers when they are still in their chutes even it&#39;s not alouded in some convention, but Hitler&#39;s troops didn&#39;t mind about it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif ) ;
Disregarding everything that has been said more concisely and more clearly before,

It is NOT against the &#39;rules&#39; to shoot parachuting soldiers. It IS to shoot parachuting airmen.

[Kegetys]

Why not use "Havok" physics?

I mean, it&#39;s a cheap enough module to purachase and incorperate into a piece of software, and the physics are totally customizeable, and include believable collision detection and the lot.
Why put money into such when you could use a free one (http://opende.sourceforge.net) instead, like games such as Stalker (http://www.stalker-game.com) and Xpand rally (http://www.xpandrally.com/) do? ;)

(Though the collision detection in ODE isn&#39;t quite complete yet, but OFP already has collision detection)

[jantenner]

just give the objects some weight.. mustnt be ragdoll details but it would be nice

[Axek]

Why put money into such when you could use a free one (http://opende.sourceforge.net) instead...
No Thanks. One particular game (http://soldner.jowood.com/) hasn&#39;t done that very well.

[BravoBill]

That&#39;s because Soldner&#39;s devs had no real intention of making things realistic. Everything is based on a very simple model. OFP has pretty good phyics as is compared to Soldner. This free one is actually very good if you use it right. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Friedchiken]

Well, in some cases it&#39;s better to have faked physics IMO. I think the faked ones when done right take up less CPU power and look pretty good and special effects may be easier to implement.

[Baphomet]

Quote[/b] ]I know what you mean, I play airsoft and can keep my M4 alot better on target than OFP does. Because I keep the gun up in my shoulder, not under my arm.


All I know is one of the greatest features about OFP is the fact that it deters the moron counterstrikers from attempting to "deathmatch". Whilst playing.

No circlestrafing. No running and hitting guys at 200m.

This really shouldn&#39;t be such a big problem. It&#39;s called thinking before you start moving all over the place.

[Hockey112]

Something similar to this( http://soldner.jowood.com/screenshot.php?lang=&ss=50 ) would be awesome.. Imagine using an Atomic bomb on the island and everything would be blown to pieces. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Friedchiken]

Too bad Soldner 100% screwed up in that department. They wasted their time doing those stupid taunting animations.

I&#39;d like to put in a reminder for the devs to budget resources like an SAT test: Implement all the things that are easy, then do the ground-breaking, difficult jobs at the end. And maybe if you run out of time, less people will complain about funny things like flying jeeps than computer destroying CTDs. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[bedlam]

and plz ... make it possible to assign a destroyed modell to a cfgvehicle.. so that its possible to get rid of those ugly warped modells making it all more realistic.

[Jinef]

Instead of having &#39;damage&#39; points, maybe have a basic mass * velocity = momentum formula. Momentum then is responsible for damage inflicted.

Atm it&#39;s hard to find realistic balances, WGL has &#39;realistic&#39; ballistics but a 5.56 bullet has about the same damage as being hit in the nose with a football. Also the hit points define craters and bullet hole sizes, this should not be so. You can have a small crater from an exposion but a large death radius due to shrapnel.

So basically a more realistic way of dealing with projectiles, while also trying to make it efficient for the CPU ... difficult job.

[sp00n]

One thing thats always bugged me, is I could be going 90+ MPH in a topheavy truck of somesort, then just turn real sharp and go completly sideways for about 10 feet then stop. If I did that in real life, Id barrel roll for quite a while. How about the ability to flip your vehical?

[gandalf the white]

best thing i&#39;d like to see in Flashpoint 2 is the ability to use real ropes, rapple ropes dangle from under a chopper, humvees swinging from side to side (wich has effect on the chopper) etc, it&#39;s possible ; i&#39;ve seen it in Farcry (though that was a raft with a car on attatched to a boat)

i have this feeling ragdoll is already mentioned, so let me add to that:

most ragdoll games from this moment have started some weird homoerotic threads with pictures....

dudes (http://img69.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Stripes238/Far%20Cry/FarCry0037.jpg)
sniper (http://img69.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Stripes238/Far%20Cry/FarCry0061.jpg)

so PLEASE make the spine flexible too&#33; or in any other way try to prevent this&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Jinef]

Maybe get a bit more info on helicopter crashes. There should definitely be survivability to a helicopter crash landed well, not instant death in a fireball.

[Xawery]

Instead of having &#39;damage&#39; points, maybe have a basic mass * velocity = momentum formula. Momentum then is responsible for damage inflicted.

Atm it&#39;s hard to find realistic balances, WGL has &#39;realistic&#39; ballistics but a 5.56 bullet has about the same damage as being hit in the nose with a football.
that&#39;s exactly the point: momentum isn&#39;t the single contributor to the damage caused. Sure, more kinetic energy means a higher probability of knocking you off your feet (something that should MOST CERTAINLY be included in OFP 2, although WGL already simulates that quite nicely), but there is also the matter of bullet fragmentation after it enters the body. I have already written massive posts about this matter on other forums, but I&#39;ll restate the conclusions here: disregarding direct hits to vital organs (because then it really doesn&#39;t matter what caliber you&#39;re using), the 5.56 M885 is more lethal than a 7.62 round. Due to its high momentum the 7.62 flies through the body leaving relatively small permanent cavities behind it, while the 5.56 tumbles and fragments, causing extensive permanent &#39;tunnels&#39; in the temporary cavity, resulting in massive blood-loss.

In other words: momentum is not the only factor.

The problem is, how are you going to model that without forcing the CPU to perform staggering amounts of calculations for a single shot. Perhaps some sort of LOD could be applied to the damage models? Allow me to explain. The more units are present in a battle, the less detailed the damage calculation model becomes. After all, in anything larger than a skirmish the individual lethality of a weapon is of little concern, battles are won by maneuver...

Just musing...

regards,
Xawery

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

Please tell me you aren&#39;t seriously claiming that 5.56 knocks people off their feet....

[bedlam]

ehh i think u got it all messed up there...

5.56 has a higher velocity then 7.62
yes it can tumble around.. and the 7.62 cant... ehh why not..
7.62 makes much more damage then 5.56 if u compare a simular trajectory through a body.


no need for 50 cals anymore.. just use 5.56.. :P lol

[funnyguy1]

Physics for crashing aircrafts:

If an aircraft is going down very fast, when it`s finally hit the ground it`s not jumping (even when aircraft was burning after ground collision, it was`nt stay on the ground).

It`ll be hard to do physics system that`s holding every object on the ground after a crash.

For example:

Helo is going down from some heigh, its reaching the ground, crashing (maby some animations, like somebody said early),
and stay right in the same place where it was crashed.

so: going down -> BANG&#33; -> NO JUMPING

When the bomb is detonating from above, BMP can not just jump away, it also must smash up into pieces, staying where it was standing... this things are too heavy.

sorry for my english again ;)

[Xawery]

Please tell me you aren&#39;t seriously claiming that 5.56 knocks people off their feet....
I&#39;m not. Please re-read my post and you will see that what it actually says is that things with more momentum knock you off your feet more easily. 7.62 = more mass = more momentum. The 5.56&#39;s higher velocity does indeed mean that the pressure at the bullettip is much higher than is the case with the 7.62, but that only means that the 5.56 is more proficient at penetrating armour. Pressure over the area is what determines the likelihood of getting knocked off your feet. The 7.62 being not only longer, but also broader is thus more likely to knock you off your feet. you were quite right to correct me though, I seem to have used momentum and area pressure interchangeably in my original post. Sorry for the confusion.

Please note I&#39;m comparing the Soviet 7.62 round and the NATO 5.56 M885 round.


Quote[/b] ]5.56 has a higher velocity then 7.62
yes it can tumble around.. and the 7.62 cant... ehh why not..

The 7.62 does tumble, but because of its length, it only begins any significant yaw after passing through ca. 25 cm of tissue. The 5.56 M885 starts to tumble after only 12 cm (note that this is the average distance; there appears to be quite a standard deviation from the mean, resulting in a 70% confidence interval between 9 and 16 cm).


Quote[/b] ]7.62 makes much more damage then 5.56 if u compare a simular trajectory through a body.

This is simply untrue. I&#39;m wondering where you get your facts from. First, allow me to quote Dr. Martin Fackler, from his article on patterns of military rifle rounds, International Defense Review, 59-64, 1/1989: "Bullet mass and bullet striking velocity establish a bullet&#39;s potential; they set the limit on the tissue disruption it can produce. Bullet shape and construction determine how much of this potential is actually used to disrupt tissue; they are the major determinants of bullet effect."

Second, To illustrate my point further, let&#39;s take a look at some wound patterns.

This is the wound as caused by an AK-47 round.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg

This is the wound caused by a 5.56 M885 round.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M855.jpg

Notice how the M885 has caused massive damage long before the 7.62 round has even begun to tumble.

It would really help if people started to base their assumptions on scientific and statistically proven evidence, instead of "Black Hawk Down".

Now, you might wonder, why do some U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan choose to use captured AK&#39;s instead of their M16s or M4s, if the rounds used be those rifles are so much more deadly? Because the 7.62 simply has more stopping power. Please note that the above figures and facts assume that a sufficiently fleshy area is struck, i.e., a thigh, or a lung, or even the stomach: doctor&#39;s reports from Vietnam state that the typical path through the abdomen caused minimal disruption; holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet. In those cases a 5.56 is far more deadly.

The point, however, remains that you want stopping power. If you hit someone in a sufficiently thin area (say the arm) the bullet will have no chance to fragment and will simply pass through the tissue leaving a neat, clean corridor. If you&#39;re using the 7.62, the sheer area pressure will knock the target off his feet. Same applies for obstacles: while the 5.56 has a better armour penetration, things like thick walls will usually stop it due to the bullet fragmenting. The 7.62 will get slowed down due to its bulkier silhouette, but it will pass through.

I hope I&#39;ve explained my stance on the matter. If you&#39;d like to read some more things about wound ballistics, I suggest looking up some articles in the Journal of Trauma (should be available in most medical libraries).

regards,
Xawery

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX]

I think a few people meant 7.62 NATO rather than 7.62 russian.
Anyway, my only objection was where it seemed that you were claiming a bullet would knock someone down, which is total movie myth. People fall down from the shock of being shot, not from the energy transferred to them from the round, unless its a much larger round than 5.56.

Edit:
and US soldiers are using captured AKs because they can get ammunition for them a LOT more easily than they can get ammunition for their own weapons.