Friday 2010-06-17 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

[lbuchele]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

I have to laugh.

ROF doesn't even get crashes modeled correctly, in the least.

And now with neoqb being forced out in favor of takeover by 777 Studios, I believe that ROF is in it's last days.

It´s just your own opinion.
To me, the crashes are accurate enough for a light wooden and canvas aircraft.
I don´t expect that such aircraft explode in a million of parts crashing and the photos I have seen shows more intact aircraft
( if it doesn´t catch fire,of course ) after crashes that more modern, metal built aircraft.
ROF is in good hands with 777 studios.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by lbuchele

It´s just your own opinion.
To me, the crashes are accurate enough for a light wooden and canvas aircraft.

not really, in most crashes there is just a very simplified "canned" damage model implemented that doesnt take the actual physical forces into account working on the airframe.

a good example of this is flying an aircraft from 4000 m altitude straight into the ground at maximum speed (or plummeting to earth after having its wings shot off at that same altitude). in RoF the aircraft will hit the ground, bounce a couple of times, and come to rest with a wing or few other things broken. it looks no different then an aircraft that crashed from 20 meters, yet it should completely disintegrate with its engine half buried into the ground when it plunges down from 4000 meters at full speed.

Originally Posted by lbuchele

I don´t expect that such aircraft explode in a million of parts crashing and the photos I have seen shows more intact aircraft
( if it doesn´t catch fire,of course ) after crashes that more modern, metal built aircraft.
ROF is in good hands with 777 studios.

many historical pictures from crashed aircraft in ww-1 with the aircraft being fairly intact would have been lower speed crashes and from lower altitudes, there are plenty of pictures showing disintegrated aircraft when the crash was more severe.

other then a low speed crash in RoF, crashes and physical forces working on the aircraft frame are fairly poorly modeled. enough for some eye candy, just not very realistic

[KaHzModAn]

Originally Posted by zapatista

not really, in most crashes there is just a very simplified "canned" damage model implemented that doesnt take the actual physical forces into account working on the airframe.

a good example of this is flying an aircraft from 4000 m altitude straight into the ground at maximum speed (or plummeting to earth after having its wings shot off at that same altitude). in RoF the aircraft will hit the ground, bounce a couple of times, and come to rest with a wing or few other things broken. it looks no different then an aircraft that crashed from 20 meters, yet it should completely disintegrate with its engine half buried into the ground when it plunges down from 4000 meters at full speed.

did you play ROF ? I don't say physical forces are calculated to affect the damage model accordingly... but it's not as bad as you say

from 4000m straight into the ground isn't possible without loosing your wings, so yes, you don't "burry your engine in the ground", but i'm pretty sure we are years away from a sim where impacts will realistically deform the ground...

so you hit the ground at maximum speed ? you know its around 250km/h for the fastest planes right ? even an I-16 can go almost twice that speed ! some WW2 planes can land at the max speed of a late WW1 plane... so why should it instantly be desintegrated ?

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by KaHzModAn

so you hit the ground at maximum speed ? you know its around 250km/h for the fastest planes right ? even an I-16 can go almost twice that speed ! some WW2 planes can land at the max speed of a late WW1 plane... so why should it instantly be desintegrated ?

Because here's what happens to a steel car, which crashes into a wall at 100 km/h:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs

So, why a wood&fabric plane would bounce off the ground after hitting it with the same speed?

[ElAurens]

Thank you SaQSoN, my point entirely. As I recall even Oleg commented on the poor DM in RoF.

There is a lot more to an air combat simulation than pretty 3D models and a small cadre of blinkerd fan boys who are so desperate for anything that they will overlook basic, and show stopping, problems.

Now, let's get back on SoW matters, shall we?

[philip.ed]

OK, so that's one wrong thing about the DM in RoF, but in many respects it has aspects I've seen that trump anything on the market at the moment.

[KaHzModAn]

hey i didn't say the DM in ROF was perfect... just that it wasn't as bad as zapatista said
and i've never seen a plane "bounce" in ROF, except if you arrive on your landing gears, and in that case its pretty normal to bounce

with a frontal shock like in your vid, i agree the plane isn't damaged enough in ROF... but imho i like the way it's done you don't bounce, the plane is still damaged beyond repair, and it explodes half the time...
(plus your steel half-truck must have had more kinetic force then a wood and fabric plane (i think... maybe ))