Bomb damaged airfields

[HagarTheHorrible]

Do you think Bobp airfields will be pristine or show signs of having been attacked ?

 

Looking at aerial recon photos from the period it appears that many of the airfields in the Bobp area showed evidence of having been attacked or bombed, sometimes extensively,  damage is, depending on it’s affect on operations, sometimes then repaired, if still obvious.

[ShamrockOneFive]

The map itself doesn't have to necessarily add these so long as mission makers and the career show it.

 

If you play Ten Days of Autumn as an example you'll notice that the two airbases you fly from are bombed out and have craters everywhere.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Thanks

[Haza]

To be honest craters and damaged buildings can look nice when viewed from above and have that wow factor!  However, currently when viewed close up the craters look silly and fake.

In addition, although I've driven over craters in tanks with no sensation that a crater exists, do craters on an airfield have any affect on an aircraft that touches them?

 

If not, I'm hopeful that the craters in the forthcoming BoBp airfields will allow interaction with aircraft as to cause damage etc as I'm sure it was owing to a badly filled in crater that caused Steinhoff's crash. 

 

Regards 

 

[RedKestrel]

The craters currently are just textures iirc. So you can take off over them.

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

3 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

The craters currently are just textures iirc. So you can take off over them.

 

if

......and if they weren’t then runway denial could become a mission objective in multiplayer !!!!!

 

The question would be, if enemy aircraft piled up on the runway, or taxiways, because of an opponents well paced bomb crater, would the crater maker be awarded a kill ?

Edited May 27, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[No601_Swallow]

5 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

The craters currently are just textures iirc. So you can take off over them.

 

 

There are other forms of debris that are collidable. For example, a 100% damaged static aircraft, if I recall correctly. A mission builder could put one of them down and then cover it with a crater decal. Tee hee! ?

[Haza]

1 hour ago, No601_Swallow said:

 

There are other forms of debris that are collidable. For example, a 100% damaged static aircraft, if I recall correctly. A mission builder could put one of them down and then cover it with a crater decal. Tee hee! ?

 

How would that work if you bombed an airfield, say in MP?

[Feathered_IV]

13 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

The map itself doesn't have to necessarily add these so long as mission makers and the career show it.

 

If you play Ten Days of Autumn as an example you'll notice that the two airbases you fly from are bombed out and have craters everywhere.

 

I wouldn't want to have to rely on the 1% of the community that can use the mission editor, just to very occasionally see a tiny sample of how the landscape actually looked during 1944-45.

 

[Haza]

1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

I wouldn't want to have to rely on the 1% of the community that can use the mission editor, just to very occasionally see a tiny sample of how the landscape actually looked during 1944-45.

 

 

I'm guessing then as a mainly SP type, you will just wait for the Black6 missions?!

However, I'm hopeful that perhaps within that 1% you talk about, we may have some MP map builders who will be able to deliver something that is really good for the players who enjoy MP!

Currently, I'm enjoying Combat Box, so I'm sure Alonso and his team will be able to create some great landscapes, otherwise we might as well just use DCS type landscapes!

I find that if the landscape and damage models etc are done correctly it adds to the immersion, although I guess with GPS and icons on, perhaps some players may miss out on the great work that has gone into making the maps etc.

Anyway, only time will tell.

 

Regards

[ShamrockOneFive]

3 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

I wouldn't want to have to rely on the 1% of the community that can use the mission editor, just to very occasionally see a tiny sample of how the landscape actually looked during 1944-45.

 

 

I did say it should be part of the career mode too.

[Feathered_IV]

2 hours ago, Haza said:

 

I'm guessing then as a mainly SP type, you will just wait for the Black6 missions?! 

 

I've had plenty of time to think about it over the last year.  If the factual 44-45 environment is only to be seen in on rare handmade missions, I don't think it is the sort of product I am looking for.

 

1 minute ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I did say it should be part of the career mode too.

 

And QMB too.  If a user wants a prewar 1939 mission for some reason, let them spend weeks creating and testing it.  I don't think it should be the other way around.

[40plus]

14 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

The craters currently are just textures iirc. So you can take off over them.

 

I seem to remember landing my stricken il-2 at a bomber or airfield while playing the sea dragons campaign. The airfield had been bombed out and the craters had three dimensions with mounds all around them. I did my best to avoid them so can't say if they are collidable.

[RedKestrel]

5 hours ago, pfrances said:

I seem to remember landing my stricken il-2 at a bomber or airfield while playing the sea dragons campaign. The airfield had been bombed out and the craters had three dimensions with mounds all around them. I did my best to avoid them so can't say if they are collidable.

Its possible there are 3D craters, but I believe the ones made by in-game bombs, rather than placed by hte mission designer, are just 'flat'.

If no one knows for sure, I'll test this tonight in the QMB, bomb my own airfield and then try to land on top of the craters, see what happens.

[SAG]

On 5/27/2019 at 3:26 PM, RedKestrel said:

Its possible there are 3D craters, but I believe the ones made by in-game bombs, rather than placed by hte mission designer, are just 'flat'.

If no one knows for sure, I'll test this tonight in the QMB, bomb my own airfield and then try to land on top of the craters, see what happens.

 

you'll just clip through them sadly

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Bomb made craters are just decals ATM. This was discussed in EA and one of the devs chimed in at that time. It may be on the t’do list but I haven’t seen it discussed in probably 18-24 mos. Persistent craters would be awesome for both SP and probably more so in MP.

[RedKestrel]

8 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Bomb made craters are just decals ATM. This was discussed in EA and one of the devs chimed in at that time. It may be on the t’do list but I haven’t seen it discussed in probably 18-24 mos. Persistent craters would be awesome for both SP and probably more so in MP.

I imagine it is very difficult to dynamically alter the terrain or place an 'object' like a crater when the bomb explodes without causing performance issues.

[56RAF_Roblex]

23 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I imagine it is very difficult to dynamically alter the terrain or place an 'object' like a crater when the bomb explodes without causing performance issues.

 

 CLoD manages to do them. but to be honest the game does use more CPU than BoX anyway.     

 

I wonder if you could simulate long term effects by somehow extending or repeating the explosion damage (ideally with a very small blast radius) without the explosion graphics?   Even if it only lasted 5 minutes it would be fun to know you have shut down the runway or taxiway for a significant period.

[RedKestrel]

5 minutes ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

 CLoD manages to do them. but to be honest the game does use more CPU than BoX anyway.     

 

I wonder if you could simulate long term effects by somehow extending or repeating the explosion damage (ideally with a very small blast radius) without the explosion graphics?   Even if it only lasted 5 minutes it would be fun to know you have shut down the runway or taxiway for a significant period.

Some way to simulate it would be great. The ability to close down airfields with cratering would be nice...and the ability to try and spawn in and take off anyway while dodging craters would be great. Get a real Henderson Field feeling from it.

Like a lot of things we want from the sim, its probably one of those things where if it was easy it would be done already. Still, we may live in hope...

[SAG]

3 hours ago, 56RAF_Roblex said:

 

 CLoD manages to do them. but to be honest the game does use more CPU than BoX anyway.     

 

I wonder if you could simulate long term effects by somehow extending or repeating the explosion damage (ideally with a very small blast radius) without the explosion graphics?   Even if it only lasted 5 minutes it would be fun to know you have shut down the runway or taxiway for a significant period.

 

I don't know how hard it could be, I mean, we have a collider on every single tree! (and that is awesome)

perhaps the problem lies in it being dynamic, as you say. but maybe it is just one of those things that the devs haven't gotten around to doing.

 

Perhaps we should ask about it in the next Q&A? or in the next interview by @ShamrockOneFive?

[HagarTheHorrible]

22 minutes ago, SAG said:

 

 I mean, we have a collider on every single tree! (and that is awesome)

 

 

 

 

Even the invisible ones ?

[616Sqn_Tyggz]

I assume that much like we have in game currently, the BoBP airfields will be intact by default and can be destroyed.

Almost all blocks in the GB series (airfield infrastructure included) can be damaged/destroyed. I assume this same design principal is being carried into the BoBP.

The buildings which have already been produced for BoBP already are destructible.

All the current airfield blocks are destructible too. They can be destroyed by default or destroyed during the mission.

What this means is that mission designers can have a broader time scale to work with when creating a mission - Enabling them to set missions before or after the destruction of locations such as cities, settlements, battlefields or airfields.

Furthermore, airfields can be destroyed during a mission, disabling it so that aircraft cannot land nor take off from them. (e.g Stalingrad2 on the DED normal server)

Lastly, the BoBP map will most likely be as performance intensive as the Kuban map, if not more so.

So we should really hope the devs have the time or resources to improve the crater meshes already in game so that they look more convincing.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Tyggz

[Feathered_IV]

So by default the map is going to be in peacetime condition?  Is that official then?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Makes sense but Han already said there are destroyed versions of the map too. So map makers can set it the way theyd like and the campaign will be timeline appropriate.

[Gambit21]

I would really not enjoy placing all those craters myself, so I'm glad to hear that.

It's not so bad once you start cutting and pasting, but it still gets tedious. I placed plenty in the A-20 campaign.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

For craters I think having the raised rim be the actual obstacle rather than a hole you can drop into might be an easy way to make the collision mechanics work. Still breaks the landing gear and visually there isn’t much difference except at slow speed.

[Gambit21]

Right now the do have geometry, but 2D mesh basically with texture.

I suppose they could have a normal map associated with them that raised the rim.

 

There's more than one way to skin the cat really, with another possibility being the crater actually applied to the map texture itself (rather than a flat piece of geometry sitting on top) however I'm guessing that implementing this method would be quite a bit of work, and maybe more resource intensive.

 

As it is, I don't notice craters causing an FPS issue to matter how many I place....although I'm sure I could find the line if I got ridiculous about it.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I’m thinking mostly from an MP perspective with craters that last a set amount of time to deny airfields before resetting. Give ground pounders more carried mission types.

 

Getting more complicated, assigning the craters to the individual aircraft that dropped the ordinance and giving credit for any AC destroyed by them would be an outstanding piece of coding

[BraveSirRobin]

22 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

For craters I think having the raised rim be the actual obstacle rather than a hole you can drop into might be an easy way to make the collision mechanics work. Still breaks the landing gear and visually there isn’t much difference except at slow speed.

 

They don't need to change the texture at all to make craters obstacles.  They just need to make the area covered by the crater to temporarily act like rocks or sand or some other surface that aircraft cannot taxi through.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Agreed. That’s what I thought I said

 

I think I just wasn’t clear enough. It doesn’t need to be an actual hole.

Edited May 30, 2019 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Feathered_IV]

The greatest majority of airfield craters will not be on the runway or taxiways anyhow, so most can easily be represented as convincingly painted textures.  This will be much more resource friendly considering how numerous and widely scattered the craters actually were round the real airfields.  The scars of old craters that have been filled in can be represented the same way to build up a more realistic effect.   Only a fraction of the required craters would need to be represented as applied decals or 3D objects.  

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Agreed. That’s what I thought I said

 

I think I just wasn’t clear enough. It doesn’t need to be an actual hole.

 

I thought you were talking about changing the look of craters.  They don't even need to do that.