Proximity Fuse/VT Fuse

[X32Wright]

I am wondering if the proximity fuse or the Mark53 VT fuse would eventually be incorporated in SOW:BOB's flak/triple A.

The use of proximity fuse will increase the realism gameplay if it is incorporated into the game instead of just using 'vectors' or bounding boxes for flak. I am sure that 'raycasting' can now be done in the GPU in hardware by both ATI or nVidia.

This would be feasible specially if we would have Oboe or Gee (radio beacons) in the game as well.

[Codex]

Soft Particles would do the job nicely without much GPU overhead.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb172449(VS.85).aspx

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

bring it on. Oh Oleg Master of the universe!

[Igo kyu]

I am wondering if the proximity fuse or the Mark53 VT fuse would eventually be incorporated in SOW:BOB's flak/triple A.

The use of proximity fuse will increase the realism gameplay if it is incorporated into the game instead of just using 'vectors' or bounding boxes for flak. I am sure that 'raycasting' can now be done in the GPU in hardware by both ATI or nVidia.

This would be feasible specially if we would have Oboe or Gee (radio beacons) in the game as well.
Proximity fuses, Oboe and Gee were late war devices, at the time of the Battle of Britain (BoB) none of those were in use. Maybe in later SoW releases, but please not in BoB.

[X32Wright]

Keep in mind that radio wave detection and ranging or RADAR was used by the RAF early in the war specially for knowing the fleets of bombers and fighters that Goering sent over Channel to Britain.

Thanks for that link Codex surely that is a more simplier way of tackling the problem. I was however hoping for raycasting's accuracy because of our bad experience with Flak in Il-2.

[Codex]

Keep in mind that radio wave detection and ranging or RADAR was used by the RAF early in the war specially for knowing the fleets of bombers and fighters that Goering sent over Channel to Britain.

Thanks for that link Codex surely that is a more simplier way of tackling the problem. I was however hoping for raycasting's accuracy because of our bad experience with Flak in Il-2.

Sorry I thought you were referring to image quality. In terms detonation modelling, a form of Raycasting would work but I'd say particle physics would more realistic.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=uwUBkEH8fgk&feature=related

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=bMiNPU03o2k&feature=related

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb943954(VS.85).aspx (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb943954%28VS.85%29.aspx)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb205329(VS.85).aspx (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb205329%28VS.85%29.aspx)

Sort of related by could be adapted to simulate flak:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjk4_nH46eI&feature=related

[X32Wright]

Agreed VOXEL technology surely would be better BUT VT principles were done in real life using high frequency radiowaves so it works more like raycasting than voxel.

No I am talking about how the 'collision detection' is handled as well as occlusion. The visual aspect of the detonation surely can be done with particle physics models.

Anyway no matter what kind of technology is used I am hoping that they would be better than what we have now. Maybe I am just spoiled of playing DCS:Black Shark.