Cratering

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

My suggestion if for craters on the airfield only.

 

Is it possible to allow cratering within the confines of the airfield? The airfield currently has defined limits as the game knows if you have a successful landing vs an off field ditch. Even if it only affected the runway grids themselves it would be a major step to improving gameplay aspects. Craters should be 3d and have physics which prohibit an aircraft from crossing them.

 

If it is possible, and of course when time allows, we should have craters which affect gameplay and deny the enemy the use of an airfield for a given amount of time - let’s call it five to seven minutes. I don’t need craters to be persistent in all phases of the map, or frankly ANY other phases of the map.  On the airfields, however,  there is a real practical purpose as opposed to a general graphics effect which is appropriate for most other aspects of the game. You could also have a points value for runways in MP like some bridges currently have to reward attack pilots who take up such missions.

 

Persistent craters on the airfield would lead to critical tactical considerations for both sides, both offensively and defensively, especially with the Air Ops feature which is coming. It would also likely lead to a greater use of/involvement for the attack and bomber boys which could expand other things like MP usership and layered air operations.

[TG-55Panthercules]

This would be awesome!

 

Think of the possibilities:

 

1. Noob first in line to take off asks in chat:  "How do I start my engine?"

 

2. Weary veteran smartass chats back: "Hit 'B' key"

 

3. Noob blows himself up, cratering runway, and nobody else can take off for 5-7 minutes 

 

Seriously, I think this would be a great idea and would definitely give us ground attack types something fun to do if the mission builders would take advantage of it.

[RCAF-De_Havilland]

{snip}

Seriously, I think this would be a great idea and would definitely give us ground attack types something fun to do if the mission builders would take advantage of it.

also makes the fifty kg bombs actually useful for something,right now there near to useless on everything but the ju88 and even then only in certain senarios

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Bombs don't explode when you release them on the runway or below 8ft AGL
Safety fuse.
 

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

also makes the fifty kg bombs actually useful for something,right now there near to useless on everything but the ju88 and even then only in certain senarios

+1

[Yogiflight]

Really? I use the 50kg bombs in 'Campaign' missions with the Ju88 or He111 for attacking supply depots, railroad stations, or airfields, and they do their job pretty well.

But, of course, you have to hit the target, it is not enough, like with 1000 or 1800kg bombs to hit the ground somewhere in the surrounding.

[CUJO_1970]

There are currently a limited number of craters available in the engine, so my understanding is that when new ones appear on a map, it deducts from the old "inventory" of craters from a previous bomb run and applies them to the new location.

 

Han has said it may be possible to increase the number available in the future.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

That's a feature I would really like to see !

[Yogiflight]

I think, the 4 things on an airfield, is only for ground attack missions, when you fly bombing missions, it is enough to hit the parking area, that is indicated as target. But, of course, you always try to hit the targets on ground, I am never satisfied, to have hit the parking area, but no aircrafts.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

If you have Problems with your Runway, just ask these Handsome young Men to help you out. (DLC?)

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

There are currently a limited number of craters available in the engine, so my understanding is that when new ones appear on a map, it deducts from the old "inventory" of craters from a previous bomb run and applies them to the new location.

 

Han has said it may be possible to increase the number available in the future.

DX11 should open that up quite a bit I would think. My proposal would probably make a new class of crater as well - 3d/persistent/airfield dependent. So, I think other craters at artillery/tanks/open field/etc would not affect them this way anyway.

Edited February 10, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[CUJO_1970]

DX11 should open that up quite a bit I would think. My proposal would probably make a new class of crater as well - 3d/persistent/airfield dependent. So, I think other craters at artillery/tanks/open field/etc would not affect them this way anyway.

 

Yes, it's a great idea - maybe with mods on feature also it may be something a talented member of the community may make.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I would generally welcome a more Complex Ground Softness Dynamic as well, with Different Hardness Levels for different Kinds of Ground, especially for Bushcrafting with Tante Ju and maybe Po-2s if they ever come. 

 

So basically people can judge by Looking at the Ground and it's Color and Texture wether it is suitable for Landing and Taking off from any given Field. 

 

Stuff like Mud, Firm Grassland. Deep and Shallow Snow, Agricultural Fields of Varying Softnesses, Farm Lanes and Tracks and so many other things down there. 

Right now it doesn't make a Difference, you just get stuck everywhere except Roads. 

Craters would just be an addition to that. 

[Scojo]

I think limiting their permanence to airfields is a good idea and can be feasible.

 

I wonder if it could be made even more feasible by simply providing an alternate airstrip model, one for operational, one for bombed. When its damaged enough, it switches. This would provide the effect you're looking for while eliminating the need for individual craters to stay permanent.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I think limiting their permanence to airfields is a good idea and can be feasible.

 

I wonder if it could be made even more feasible by simply providing an alternate airstrip model, one for operational, one for bombed. When its damaged enough, it switches. This would provide the effect you're looking for while eliminating the need for individual craters to stay permanent.

That might work if the airfields were sectioned. Successfully bombing a section would close that section. I think hitting one airstrip (or hangars or revetments or etc) wouldn't necessarily close an entire airfield with multiple airstrips. Not sure that would require less decals and/or coding. It is an interesting idea though.

Edited February 15, 2017 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Gambit21]

The main problem with creating this effect at this very moment is that craters in the editor (which are objects that can be placed for effect) are not currently 'spawnable' objects - there's on "enabled" box in their properties as their is with aircraft and vehicles.

Otherwise it would be a simple matter to place a series of triggers down a runway, and in the properties of each trigger set the condition so that if a bomb explodes

within that area, a crater is spawned. The time the crater remains could then be easily set in the mission logic...permanent, or a few minutes.

 

With one of the Moscow airfields, a group of craters could be spawned, but because of the nature of those airfields this effect would be less precise.

 

Anyway...I can delete any object, but not spawn any object.

[216th_Jordan]

I would actually go a bit further: Make all craters 3d objects, if they exceed a max number or a time limit they will disappear. A ranged trigger could make craters persistent, so these would only be removed if no more nonpersistens craters could be deleted.

 

If all that triggering (also that airfield idea) is too difficult then keep it as is and just make craters 3d objects. (would have to be tested performance wise of course - given that there are cities with hundred of buildings though this should not really be a problem)

 

I don't know if this is actually possible in the engine but given what is possible already it does not seem too far.

[Gambit21]

Edit - craters are 2D as it turns out, not 3D objects.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Gambit21

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I like it but I'm not technical enough to describe it. Anyone willing to make the appropriate PM to Han or co-author one with me?

[Gambit21]

I'll send you a PM later this evening with the pertinent info and a screen shot if a cratered runway in the editor.

 

The MCU logic that I propose is resource heavy (as complex triggers are resource heavy) so even if the current 3D craters were spawnable, you'd only be able to have 1 or 2 airfields with this logic active at a time - and that's contingent on how many complex triggers are already active for other tasks in the mission.

 

You could make the hit area less precise i.e. one large circular trigger zone and spawn the whole group of craters. Or use counters...

 

All contingent in spawnable crater objects (right now if placed, they're just THERE

...and the craters would never represent the exact bomb hits

The net effect would a hit box (circle actually) for the runway/airfield or sections of runway.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Gambit21

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

OK I know nothing really about modeling 3d objects or how they are applied and managed, if this is even possible or just a rediculous idea,

Is it possible to render the crater and bomb as same object in different states... as in when the bomb is carried it is a bomb but carring crater "code" at the same time and once bomb is released it is like falling bomb with crater "code", and on contact the bomb gets re-rendered as crater,..

Still an object that can cause damage but now placed real time...

 

 

OK I confused myself but I hope someone can make sense of it- been a long day

[Scojo]

OK I know nothing really about modeling 3d objects or how they are applied and managed, if this is even possible or just a rediculous idea,

Is it possible to render the crater and bomb as same object in different states... as in when the bomb is carried it is a bomb but carring crater "code" at the same time and once bomb is released it is like falling bomb with crater "code", and on contact the bomb gets re-rendered as crater,..

Still an object that can cause damage but now placed real time...

 

 

OK I confused myself but I hope someone can make sense of it- been a long day

What problem are you trying to solve here?

 

Eliminating the need to despawn the bomb and spawn a crater object?

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

What problem are you trying to solve here?

 

Eliminating the need to despawn the bomb and spawn a crater object?

Lol, yes I think so,

It just popped into my head while reading,

Not sure if that the actual issue why craters would be a problem with resource load,

Just thought rendering an object with an already existing object (if even possible) instead of spawning new ones would be a solution.

 

But please forgive my ignorance.

[Gambit21]

I just thought of something - I might be able to trick the editor into spawning craters. Will test later.

[Scojo]

The main issue at hand still persists which is the need for the server to send packets telling the client where the crater is.

 

And that's only really an issue if that actually slows the game down too much.

 

To get around this, people are suggesting that only craters in airfield zones persist. However, that could still potentially affect performance as the server can only relay so many packages containing crater positions before the game slows down.

 

What I suggested, having a destroyed runway and undestroyed runway while giving the undestroyed runway a sort of "health" would potentially help this problem.

 

Once the runway is destroyed, it switches to the new object. Then the only information that needs to be sent by the server is a status bit/byte/packet. The client can then do the rest of the work. This will prevent the problem of the game slowing down.

 

Another way it could be done is for the game to limit the number of allowable craters in an airfield zone. Say only keep the first 10 craters made in an airfield. Therefore at most you'll have 10 positions per airfield handled by the server. Then you can change 10 to whatever number the server can handle without slowing of performance....

 

 

And this is all excluding the fact that the crater objects would need to be reworked and bug fixed so that they affect planes on the ground correctly.

 

I think this can be done, but its ultimately up to the developers

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

Ah ok,

Well, whatever the solution be I hope we are able to get effective craters, they are very important on airfields preventing takeoff of enemy aircraft.

Having 3d craters or straight up terrain deformation would be great, and very frustrating

[Scojo]

Ah ok,

Well, whatever the solution be I hope we are able to get effective craters, they are very important on airfields preventing takeoff of enemy aircraft.

Having 3d craters or straight up terrain deformation would be great, and very frustrating

Me too, and like I said, it's not a black and white issue. It can be done, it would just be up to those who want it to convince the devs that it's worth their time and then up to the devs to find a good way to do it where everyone's satisfied or affected by it very little.

 

I think having it as an option that can be turned on and off would also be an ideal feature. I'm sure there's some servers that would greatly suffer from such a feature.

 

For example WoL lets players basically do what they want without much consequence so I could easily see all airfields there being unusable just in the first half hour of a map lol

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Without considering any technical aspects of craters, I would only like this mechanic for SP or the more civil MP servers! This on normal for example would be a pain in the ass!!!!!!

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Without considering any technical aspects of craters, I would only like this mechanic for SP or the more civil MP servers! This on normal for example would be a pain in the ass!!!!!!

 

It's balanced by the fact that nobody really uses the taxiways/runways on normal/DF servers anyway.

[Gambit21]

The main issue at hand still persists which is the need for the server to send packets telling the client where the crater is.

 

And that's only really an issue if that actually slows the game down too much.

 

To get around this, people are suggesting that only craters in airfield zones persist. However, that could still potentially affect performance as the server can only relay so many packages containing crater positions before the game slows down.

 

What I suggested, having a destroyed runway and undestroyed runway while giving the undestroyed runway a sort of "health" would potentially help this problem.

 

Once the runway is destroyed, it switches to the new object. Then the only information that needs to be sent by the server is a status bit/byte/packet. The client can then do the rest of the work. This will prevent the problem of the game slowing down.

 

Another way it could be done is for the game to limit the number of allowable craters in an airfield zone. Say only keep the first 10 craters made in an airfield. Therefore at most you'll have 10 positions per airfield handled by the server. Then you can change 10 to whatever number the server can handle without slowing of performance....

 

 

And this is all excluding the fact that the crater objects would need to be reworked and bug fixed so that they affect planes on the ground correctly.

 

I think this can be done, but its ultimately up to the developers

 

 

Not that this is a bad idea, but it's way more work for the developers than simply making craters a slightly raised 3D object and changing the crater logic so that has an 'enable' box that can be ticked and therefore enabling the crater to be spawned.

If that is done than a crater that is turned into a linked entity will require the same amount of resources as any other static, linked entity..which is to say...not much.

 

If this were done then crater groups could be easily created that would spawn depending on where the runway was hit.

You only need one crater to disable a section of runway. Thus even if 3 bombs were dropped on one end, you only need spawn one persistent crater.

 

If my crater-spawn workaround had worked, I could demonstrate several options. However after experimenting a bit in the editor, I was unable to trick it

into spawning craters (by target linking them to a spawnable object).

 

Further, I was also incorrect about the current craters being 3D...that's a good illusion.

They are 2D. This means it's a bit (not much) more work than I was surmising to begin with.

 

Even very simple things that could be added to the editor, simple objects etc are beyond the current scope of work.

It's basically "we have our marching orders and we're sticking to them"...which I can't complain about. That's how they've been so

successful.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Gambit21