Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Of all the 'niggling' damge model issues, this one is my greatest irritation :(

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Of all the 'niggling' damge model issues, this one is my greatest irritation :( (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=25017)

Everyone agrees, yes?
:mrgreen:

On topic: I guess it could be done, it's just a matter of having the visual DM be a bit less corresponding to the actually calculated DM in cases of breaking wings or other catastrophic failures.

I don't know if this could create other problems like it happens in other sims (eg, aircraft seen flying with no wings because the visual DM is "ahead" of the actual one in terms of damage received) or not, but i think that as far as effects alone are concerned it might just be a case of slightly modifying the 3D models.

In general now, let me just pop in here for a preemptive fire extinguisher statement:

The original post is a very well worded post on how to pass some useful criticism.

Let's not have supporters of CoD or detractors of WoP attacking the thread starter when he has taken care to word his post in such a polite manner.
Let's also not have critics of CoD taking his carefully and usefully worded message and turning it into a flaming wreck by injecting thinly veiled jabs at everything CoD.

In short, let's not have the two usual suspect groups going against each other once more and pulling a perfectly valid thread off topic.

Because if we do, i'm finally going to open that quarantine thread and move all offending posts there. This one will remain civil one way or the other.

Not a threat, just a friendly reminder and heads-up ;-)

Why there's always someone that have to justify the devs mistakes???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mysticpuma (Post 317252)

No, I'm not talking about anything to do with terrain, tracers, graphic bugs...nothing like that at-all. Those will be bugs, this is an actual designed for the game Graphic Issue.

Now take a look at the images in this thread (first post) and look at the wing damage. Not the actual puncture marks, but the snap points.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25009

Every one is the same, a complete straight line break. No tearing damage, no cable or struts sticking out, a pefectly straight 'snap' line (except a very rare piece of straight stick i.e, 109 shown in one picture)?

Now, I understand from a very old conversation that Oleg said that having many break points was impossible, but why does it mean that when a wing breaks, fuselage snaps, tail goes, that the line is a perfect straight?

Why can't the visual damage actually appear as damage rather than a perfect precision knife slicing off of the wing?

I have attached two pictures from Wings of Prey (wait...BEFORE YOU GROAN) as an example of what I would hope this far superior simulation (to quote many but not me) should at least be able to vsiually represent of a wing break?

The damge shown is imperfect, a structural failure that gives the impression that a wing was torn away?

Why in CloD does this not happen and looking at the wing which has snapped, eveyrthing is perfectly cut?

Surely it can't be too difficult to move on from the original IL2 in which this also happened and now we have a far superior Graphics engine, and although I understand 'snap' points have to be limited, why can they not at least represent catastophic damage?

So take a look at the thread I mentioned above and then look at the two pictures from Wings of Prey, which do you think shows a very damaged aircraft.

Yes I am sure I'll get the "ohhhh but WoP is a damaged game, blah, blah", well very funny, but this is a serious point about the actual appearance of a structural failure, so why can't CloD do this?

As-well as the two images of WoP I have added an example of the 'straight-line snap' effect, seen in most wing/fuselage/tail 'snaps' in CloD.

Am I asking too much for a step forward from IL2:1946 in this graphical representation and if so, why?

Cheers, MP

There is not reason I can think of at all for this, breaking points are a programming area so while again I dont see why they couldn't do that, I wont say that they can. On the other hand the way they have done the wing breakaway is just lazy/time saving modeling. The animation for the break probably corresponds with a (brain dead, forgot the name for the formal name of the geometry/line here) set of vertexes that are disengaged from the wing when it comes off. At this specific part of the win there is like an aditional face that is normally inside the wing (pre-breakoff) which has the strut texture you see applied to its outside face. Basically why model realistic looking damage when you can just add an additional stock face!....

Nothing about this game surprises me anymore...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slatz (Post 317329)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-S...615_215155.jpg

Like this.

If thats not a mod - must be connected to a setting in the game i guess?

I'm sure I've had wings torn jaggedly off in CoD, I'm not sure that the way it's done in WOP is that good either they look like the wings are made of paper torn diagonally I would think the wing would tend to come off where a spar joins, but I wouldn't be surprised if we aren't seeing all the DM possibilities yet.

no I have no mods on my game but it is before the last patch.as is this one,and I do believe this one was before any patches.Both are do to collision and not gun fire.https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-u...1-36-39-27.jpg

Found another one.this was just the other day in multiplayer.A collision as well.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-s...7-19_00007.jpg

Well if that screenie is cod, then my point will be mute...
What I was going to say is, that every DM feature must be quite a resource hit, so drawing a straight line may be an unfortunate compromise...
And a repeated jagged tear the same...

But however it is handled, somebody will perceive it as unrealistic and then we're back to square uno...

Before you ask... no, I don't have the foggiest idea how to code!
:-D