New War Thunder damage model out doing IL2:BoS?

[VR-DriftaholiC]

http://devblog.warthunder.com/2014/12/04/in-development-upcoming-new-features/?hl=en

 

 

I hate to say it but it would sure be nice if the planes in this game didn't tear at predefined locations like they do now.

Edited December 5, 2014 by driftaholic

[Yakdriver]

well that still looks like predefined locations - just more possible predefined locations, and they are randomly generated?
looking good there!

[1PL-Banzai-1Esk]

Thanks for a laugh .

[Uufflakke]

Shark bites?

 

 

Edited December 5, 2014 by Uufflakke

[Yakdriver]

LOL!
no, more like taking small nibbles out of a cookie

[Y-29.Silky]

War Thunder DM is still missing all the stabilizers, canopy for that matter, propeller.. and especially the flight model of damaged aircraft.

 

It will be interesting to see how this works out. Right now the dm is far too repetitive. I think 8 different intances on one area is a bit extreme. Sliced bread? Paper wings?

Edited December 5, 2014 by Silky

[Wandalen]

Someone must call a doctor ! I die of laughter !! LOL :-)

[Potenz]

visual DM has nothing to do with phisical DM

[kongxinga]

What do they think the wings are made of? Sponge? Lol WT again. The mouseaimers won't know or appreciate a good DM if it stood on their noses. But hey, ponies.

[sturmkraehe]

Had to laugh at the shark image. I had this in mind when I saw the OP's image.

 

More seriously I think it is more likely for a wing to tear off at the neats of the sheets more easily. So imho BoS has it not so wrong at all.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You know their DM is pretty primitive actually? This is probably only a visual change just like the previous damage holes were just textures without any importance.

 

The real surface DM of WT has been totally bad for 3 years now and it's keen to expect they changed it due to adding some more eye candy to damage effects.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[johncage]

war thunder pisses me off. it has bar none the best ww2 tank models and textures i've ever seen. their game is optimized and their engine is robust and renders beautiful visuals.

 

why couldn't they have made an actual sim and not some cookie cutter arcade grind fest

[FuriousMeow]

war thunder pisses me off. it has bar none the best ww2 tank models and textures i've ever seen. their game is optimized and their engine is robust and renders beautiful visuals.

 

why couldn't they have made an actual sim and not some cookie cutter arcade grind fest

 

Works well for small, congested, insta-action maps. "Optimized" is the key word here - optimized for small maps, quick action, low altitude, little distance from one side to the other. The environments in War Thunder are also preset, the clouds are always there. In BoS they move with the wind. In RoF, the fog dissipates as the morning turns to day and that will be in the spring/summer/fall maps of the next operations - or Stalingrad if we get that time frame. WT's engine is static, and it is limited, and it is perfectly built for arcade.

 

It's funny though, WT has nibbles taken off the wings, with no real corresponding change in FM between each nibble, and the parts that break off literally break off. They don't hold on until physics cause it to break off, they always break off when that failure number is hit and yet BoS where you can damage a plane and it will keep on going only to have a structural failure later due to actual physics calculations is less advanced because it lacks some wing nibbles.

Edited December 6, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[IRRE_Belmont]

HAS TECHNOLOGY GONE TOO FAR ?

 

 

This dm sucks btw 

[SOLIDKREATE]

It's just a trick using the alpha channels in the textures.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

It's just a trick using the alpha channels in the textures.

So, are you saying that the WT devs are lazy?

[SOLIDKREATE]

So, are you saying that the WT devs are lazy?

 

No they just know how to utilize resources. Actual dynamic 3D damage would cripple most of our computers.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

So, are you saying that the WT devs are lazy?

There is a difference between being lazy and having your priorities set totally wrong + having the wrong guys working on it. It's not like nothing happened since it's 4 year development, it just turned out to be heading against a brick wall.

 

This is porbably how Spektre sayed only a vsual change to please the people complaining about DM uncomplexity. I doubt they developed a new, complex DM, which would require a total revamp of what they used for 3 years now.

[Bearcat]

visual DM has nothing to do with phisical DM

 

+1

 

war thunder pisses me off. it has bar none the best ww2 tank models and textures i've ever seen. their game is optimized and their engine is robust and renders beautiful visuals.

 

why couldn't they have made an actual sim and not some cookie cutter arcade grind fest

 

WT lost me at the Beta.. it has it's place for sure though.. That is why I laugh when people compare BoS to WT.

[VR-DriftaholiC]

Agreed warthunders aerodynamic and engine damage models are sub par. But I also think that BoS' visual damage model is sub par compared to the plane being able to break where the bullets impact. BoS seems to have hit points and when they are exceeded the tail for instance will begin to break. The problem is that the tail ALWAYS tears at the same place. If WT can improve this then why can't BoS? Have we become so myopic that we can't expect more from this sim?

Edited December 8, 2014 by driftaholic

[Dakpilot]

But I also think that BoS' visual damage model is sub par compared to the plane being able to break where the bullets impact. BoS seems to have hit points and when they are exceeded the tail for instance will begin to break. The problem is that the tail ALWAYS tears at the same place. If WT can improve this then why can't BoS? Have we become so myopic that we can't expect more from this sim?

 

Absolutely true, however, it is simply fact of time, manpower and budget, my expectations and desire are there, but a realistic approach to what can be achieved with a small team operating on a comparatively small budget in a given timeframe must always be considered

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Have we become so myopic that we can't expect more from this sim?

Yes.

[FuriousMeow]

Agreed warthunders aerodynamic and engine damage models are sub par. But I also think that BoS' visual damage model is sub par compared to the plane being able to break where the bullets impact. BoS seems to have hit points and when they are exceeded the tail for instance will begin to break. The problem is that the tail ALWAYS tears at the same place. If WT can improve this then why can't BoS? Have we become so myopic that we can't expect more from this sim?

 

But all WT is exhibiting is breaking at the same break points - just a couple more. It is no more convincing, it is no more realistic - it is nibbles and cookie cutter. It's terrible and not worth the effort to add two or three more cuts to the wing. Just as silly as CloD's blowing the engine cover off. That is so worthless and silly too.

 

We should export more. This isn't more. Neither is CloD's. Neither is DCS. The best I've seen has been the multi-layer texture of "The Mighty 8th" where the rounds hit and unveiled the lower structure - but it was just a silly trick too. Nothing has been exhibited as next gen destruction. Not even Next Car's

 

The best actually is BoS' because the airframe gets damaged, and bends, and suffers further damage based on physics. Just having more breaks isn't next gen, static damage with only visual structuals isn't next gen (CloD), having a damaged structure that can either remain or fail is next gen (BoS).

 

So BoS is the next gen, not silly graphical layers - actual damage that impacts actual flight is actual next gen. I can't believe so many "sim" aficionados miss that. CloD, Il-2 old, War Thunder, etc - every structure hits a damage point and its done. Not BoS. That's what matters, and that's why anyone who say BoS'  damage model is worse hasn't a clue as to what they are talking about. That last statement is a factual statement, and nothing can refute it.

 

CloD, DCS, Il-2 of old, etc - instant failure when damage % met.

 

BoS - not at all. Damage a structure and it might break away, or it might not. Structure failure might occur later due to physical forces, and I've had that happen tons to myself and witnessed it against foes. It's awesome. The holy grails mentioned previously, can not do that.

 

BoS has the better damage model, it requires a lot of lies to state otherwise.

 

Can it be better? Sure, but it is the best right now.

Edited December 11, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[FuriousMeow]

Show me a bent wing in WT. Or CloD. Or DCS. Show me a bent horizontal stab in either of these phenomenal titles.

 

Show me a structural part that fails mid flight well after the damage has been inflicted - and not in an extreme attitude of 8+Gs.

 

No one can.

 

But in BoS, it is a common occurrence

 

BoS has the better DM. The others are old school..Four more nibble points on a wing don't make a better DM, they just look stupid.

 

This is not a subpar damage model:

 

Edited December 11, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[LizLemon]

BoS has the better DM. The others are old school..Four more nibble points on a wing don't make a better DM, they just look stupid.

 

And BoS doesnt model hydraulics, electrical, brake lines, ect.

 

Its far from the be all end all of dms in flight sims. It does structural bending (although it looks like hard body breakage) better then other games, but is definitly lacking if not outright missing in other equally important areas of dm.

 

Which brings us back to the point that bos is better in some ways but worse in others. And I think its hard to say its absolutely better or "next gen" when that is the case.

 

PS: I remember that someone asked about wing bending due to g-forces ages ago, and you replied by saying that there was a game that did that but that feature didn't make up for the other flaws in that game. Do you remember what that game qas called?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It's actually sad most sims with great techncal DM suffer from unequally worse structual DMs and the other way round. Furthermore DM physics play an important factor, not only the looks. If yor whole tail is ripped off and you can stillfly and land your B-17 safely you know sth is wrong (like in WT).

 

BoS has a quite conoetetive mix of both in this regard. None mastered to perfection but with a decent amount of detail. here are some more issues like hit boxes, damage distribution and overflameable radial engines that bug me a little more than complexity currently, though I'd surely welcome any enhencements for greater realism.

[Lusekofte]

Well, but I agree with the author about loosing the wing at the same place every time, so a further development of BOS DM is preferable

[VR-DriftaholiC]

If you read the WT blog is states that damage occurs where it was hit. I don't think it's as simple as breaking at 4 predefined locations vs 16. Next cars bending of sheet metal is something that would be amazing in a flight sim. If you look at historical photos of aircraft damage there is so much more perforated and bent or dangling metal then there is severed parts. 

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Haven't flown CLOD in years. I do remember the visuals were quite good. Could BOS eventually implement Red Cloud's example above and at what cost performance wise? I think there are plenty of other things for the Dev's to work on, expand upon and implement in the short term.

[Mysticpuma]

+1 WT lost me at the Beta.. it has it's place for sure though.. That is why I laugh when people compare BoS to WT.

Sadly have to agree. It was really obvious during Alpha testing that the devs weren't listening to those with knowledge if what a Sim community wanted and once the unlocks occurred my interes fell away too. Graphically it looked really great but bombers without cockpits, biplanes vs jets, Ai that was flat and boring, kill stealing, shoulder shooting, etc, etc.....I had to get out to. I even.supplied some skins for the aircraft and got about 20,000 Eagles....but can't use them.as the only aircraft I am interested in are the P-47 and P-51....and I can't be arsed to bring my way up to them.

 

Got to say, I wish they had continued working on Wings of Prey and made an effort on the sounds, maps and multiplayer. I still think graphically it looks great (apart from the wierd cloud hues and green tinge, but sadly they went WT and the rest is history

Edited December 16, 2014 by Mysticpuma

[SeriousFox]

Show me a bent wing in WT. Or CloD. Or DCS. Show me a bent horizontal stab in either of these phenomenal titles.

 

Show me a structural part that fails mid flight well after the damage has been inflicted - and not in an extreme attitude of 8+Gs.

 

RoF?...  just kidding.

 

Anyways, I agree that visual aspect of DM in BoS is a weak point.. and as LizLemon said, BoS doesn't have hydraulics DM model unlike DCS or CloD..

Parts failing slowly is a great feature of DN engine but that doesn't make it better than CloD when it comes to physical DM.

[Potenz]

this is a modern DM

 

[361fundahl]

BoS is best damage model so far for ww2 flight sim for sure. I will always want more though of course

 

Anyone else mess around with Beam.NG or Rigs of Rods?

[VR-DriftaholiC]

 

It's a bit "floppy" or "bendy" not quite as rigid as it should be I think with some tweaking this tech would be an AMAZING upgrade to current flight sims.  

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

As far as I knwo those damage physics are more suited for car games ect and don't work well in a flight envirounment (also damage physics from weapons are a totally different story than crashes / object impacts).

 

Yea it's basicly too floppy and rugged parts such as the fuselage ldn't really oscilate like that, even after an impact. Also aircraft alluminium doesn't shred into pieces on impact but deforms since it's a very soft metal.

 

If this technology could be combined with great ballistical damage and flight physics (running at decent performance) it would easily create a whole new generation of flight sims. It could probably also be used for physical flight simulation, ie wings starting bending at high G and high speed or wing oscillation on airliners and gliders during flight.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

 

It's a bit "floppy" or "bendy" not quite as rigid as it should be I think with some tweaking this tech would be an AMAZING upgrade to current flight sims.  

 

What is this from Drift?

 

Chief

[VR-DriftaholiC]

A Beam.NG mod or something, there's a ton more videos. Even if something similar was only used for the visual DM it would be an improvement. 

Edited January 9, 2015 by driftaholic

[361fundahl]

Probably rigs of rods.

 

Beam.NG is constantly improving.... Very good idea that eventually could be used to simulate a variety of materials

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Probably rigs of rods.

 

Beam.NG is constantly improving.... Very good idea that eventually could be used to simulate a variety of materials

 

Click play on the video...

 

It says BeamNG in the title.