They say it's going to have the bells and whistles of a modern FPS... Does it...

[Graywolves]

If Key territory, such as bridges, were to be destroyable; I think that they should only be triggered to explode by a high tiered commander, otherwise some asshole would just destroy the bridge twenty minutes in.

[Hamma]

While it would be awesome, destruction on the BFBC2 level would not be feasible in an MMO.

[Crator]

Meh, it's probably feasible. You just can't fathom how it would work is all.

[Vancha]

I could see some extent of destructible terrain making it in, but from the sounds of what it's like in BFBC2, I doubt it'll be that..."easy".

Originally Posted by NewSith

No. More perfomance weight = less players, more lag spikes.

This argument needs to stop being made. It was made for hitboxes and they included hitboxes. It was made for physics and they included physics. Make the same argument for this and it's bound to be included.

Or was that your plan all along? Make the performance argument to increase the likelihood of it being included? Of course!

[MasterChief096]

Originally Posted by Vancha

I could see some extent of destructible terrain making it in, but from the sounds of what it's like in BFBC2, I doubt it'll be that..."easy".


This argument needs to stop being made. It was made for hitboxes and they included hitboxes. It was made for physics and they included physics. Make the same argument for this and it's bound to be included.

Or was that your plan all along? Make the performance argument to increase the likelihood of it being included? Of course!

I actually agree. Hitboxes and physics are one thing, but being able to destroy shit loads of the environment would heavily stress computers, and the scale combined with hitboxes and physics is already going to be stressful enough. IMO destructible terrain is not worth the fun in comparison to the performance cost.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Vancha

This argument needs to stop being made. It was made for hitboxes and they included hitboxes. It was made for physics and they included physics. Make the same argument for this and it's bound to be included.

Or was that your plan all along? Make the performance argument to increase the likelihood of it being included? Of course!

Lol, sissy, it's about server perfomance, not your PC's. Where it hits and how it breaks is not decided by your computer, unlike many other things.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Lol, sissy

Wait, what? You're the one scared it'd impact performance!

Originally Posted by NewSith

it's about server perfomance, not your PC's. Where it hits and how it breaks is not decided by your computer, unlike many other things.

Fair enough, but is that a reason to immediately discount all chance of every and any possible implementation of destructible terrain? Would a single breakable window in the entire game be beyond the capabilities of the server?

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Vancha

Would a single breakable window in the entire game be beyond the capabilities of the server?

Understatement is obvious here. 1 breakable window, 2 breakable windows... PlanetSide'ish number of breakable windows... Plus PlanetSide'ish number of players per (let's put it this way) this bloody window.
Do you see my point?

But anyway, you realise that a "destructable environment" is not just a glass that can be broken, don't you?

[Senyu]

I think Planetside should someday get something like this. It could be used for amazing object dustruction as every little peice is taken in effect and counted. Just have each weapon designate how many particles they would destroy



Destructable enviorment I think normally wouldn't work with Planetside. But in someways I can see it. As long as nanites repair damaged hillsides, forests, all that after a battle or continent becomes locked I would approve. And for facilities I would say only certain peices are destroyable. Like maybe some sections of the wall. I.E. the video above needs an impressive light engine and you'll see some crazy good stuff.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Understatement is obvious here. 1 breakable window, 2 breakable windows... PlanetSide'ish number of breakable windows... Plus PlanetSide'ish number of players per (let's put it this way) this bloody window.
Do you see my point?

But anyway, you realise that a "destructable environment" is not just a glass that can be broken, don't you?

It can be, and is. BC2 destructible buildings are made up of 20-40 segments, give or take. When parts take damage, the model is swapped out, hidden by whatever explosion caused it, plus some of its own particle effects.

So not a lot of information that needs to be disseminated. The binary state of 40 'pieces'. Damaged or undamaged. Thats 5 bytes.

A bigger issue is the impact all the extra hitboxes have, but I doubt a base would suffer much from an extra 50 or 100. There were already a dozens upon dozens of non player hitboxes around bases in PS without much ill effect. The doors, consoles, tubes, lockers, terminals, turrets, minespam, motion sensors, etc, all existed without much or any detriment to gameplay. Would 50 extra damageable objects stress things? Doubtful.

The biggest issue by far is the extra content creation work and extra video memory needed for the damage states. Good damage takes 3 times longer to make than a clean mesh.

[Senyu]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

It can be, and is. BC2 destructible buildings are made up of 20-40 segments, give or take. When parts take damage, the model is swapped out, hidden by whatever explosion caused it, plus some of its own particle effects.

So not a lot of information that needs to be disseminated. The binary state of 40 'pieces'. Damaged or undamaged. Thats 5 bytes.

A bigger issue is the impact all the extra hitboxes have, but I doubt a base would suffer much from an extra 50 or 100. There were already a dozens upon dozens of non player hitboxes around bases in PS without much ill effect. The doors, consoles, tubes, lockers, terminals, turrets, minespam, motion sensors, etc, all existed without much or any detriment to gameplay. Would 50 extra damageable objects stress things? Doubtful.

The biggest issue by far is the extra content creation work and extra video memory needed for the damage states. Good damage takes 3 times longer to make than a clean mesh.

Any idea if the video above would greatly solve most of these issues? Given the technology grows a bit more

[Crator]

That video is from a post in another thread on these boards. There was mention that this is not legitimate. Is that true, that it's not legit?

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Senyu

Any idea if the video above would greatly solve most of these issues? Given the technology grows a bit more

Its not a rendering engine issue. So pretty much nothing would be solved.

[Senyu]

Originally Posted by Crator

That video is from a post in another thread on these boards. There was mention that this is not legitimate. Is that true, that it's not legit?

No its pretty legit. Notch did claim it was not but another big game industry guy, forgot him name, dude that made Doom or quake or something, they mention it in this video. Without revealing much more of their system they explain that it is real and the history of the company. Mind you it is long but it gives you a look at both sides and lets you decide the truth.

[2coolforu]

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/8386977075/its-a-scam

Unlimited detail is most certainly fake, it was plainly obvious that it wasn't what it was cracked up to be