Ability to destroy firearms = pointless.
Ability to destroy firearms = pointless.
Will you please explain why bullets are needed for collition detection. Soldiers falling from the sky have to be checked if they are colliding with eacother or anything else on the island just as bullets right?Originally Posted by [b
If i placed 400vs400 soldiers that would be 800 soldiers + 800*X bullets. When you have 2 groups with 400 soldiers firing at eachother there is active AI that targets and engages and decides whatever they decide. To be honest I think 400 falling soldiers have more to do with collision detection than soldiers shooting at eachother. If you have AI then AI will take CPU and you dont know how big the collision detection part is and how big the AI part is.
Again, please tell me why you need bullets for collition detection, it makes no sense to me. To me it seems like every object that can collide uses collision detection.
And as I said the 400 falling soldiers were lagging more than the 400 LGBs (do you count these as bullets?), maybe because the soldiers wiggle alot in the air and the bombs dont.
Stop telling me to use AI because AI has nothing to do with collision detection, they just lagg as hell. The FPS went down to 30 already with 10*8 soldiers so dont say AI doesnt lagg (when they wer just running).
"Cibit, come in my number two." - Terox
Want someone to JIP into your squad? Choose your words carefully.
You don't understand it. Others, not just me, do. Would you accept that and either learn about it or just shut up about it?Originally Posted by (InqWiper @ July 19 2004,03:39)
The LGB's WILL explode though, (unless you somehow stop them with a script or whatever). BUT, the soldiers may not die when they hit the ground, thus it needs more CPU time to detect if their damage is sufficiant to kill them. Also bullets are used as each shot isn't a 100% garentee'd kill so the engine has to detect if they've recieved enough damage to be destroyed.
AI infantry laggs more because each one individually has a process and an animation to play.
I think destroyable weapons would be cool, like in Black Hawk Down when the guy gets his M16 shot out of his hand. But I don't think it's as cool as some other things that could take the place of it in game, like if there were tanks with really cool textures and models etc, that'd be higher in priority, I believe, than this.
I think what people are trying to say is that the AI need to be trying to shoot each other because thats the kind of game that OFP is, a game where people shoot each other. And to be a true test they need to be calculating all the other processes that involve how the AIs engage and destroy the enemy. It'd work great if OFP was a game where we ran marathons and fell from the sky.
That's just what I think people are trying to get to though. I don't know much about how OFP runs either.
I didnt see anyone say the AI needs to be shooting eachother and not the weapons ***Originally Posted by [b
The test was to see how much more lagg it would be with extra hit areas. The test had nothing to do with how much an army of AI would lagg. If you dont understand what people are talking about, try not to comment on it until you do. ***
And try not making up tests which don't test anything to do with the subject in hand if you don't understand the subjectOriginally Posted by (InqWiper @ July 22 2004,03:39)
The test was about how much more lagg you would get if there were more areas on the soldier to hit (the weapons). Because I can not add more hit areas on the soldiers I add more soldiers. The problem is that you think collision detection is only active when you have a bunch of AI shooting at eachother. Since you think AI is needed and you think bullets are needed I feel no point in arguing with you because you clearly have a view on what collision detection is that I dont understand.Originally Posted by (Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX @ July 22 2004,04:49)
And at that, it fails, because you don't understand how it works.Originally Posted by (InqWiper @ July 22 2004,14:06)
When have I ever said that? I suggested you should have them shoot at each other as well, but I've never said that was the only part of collision detection - but then, I understand it a lot better than you.Originally Posted by [b
Since you have no clue how collision detection actually works, nor how much work it is for the engine, I think you should stop posting crap about it.Originally Posted by [b
I say that if it is plausible then implement it, if it doesn't get in the way of anything else that is. You have to take in to consideration the different engine of OFP2 and more powerful PCs etc. I'm sure BIS could do it if they wanted to.