Fully Destructable Enviroments

[ErwinRommel(SS)]

that would be realistic and very fun for Fh2 what do you guys think?

[Big Lebowski]

it would lag the game to peices

[Gauntlet]

yup. No deal mate. Dice intended to do it with BF2, and realize it couldnt be done effeicent enough. No way FH2 gonna do it.

[[79th] Le_Chat]

Just to complete a bit the answer, and give some understanding ...

>> Generally building are in the game defined as static objects. This means that they are positionned once at the start of the map, and stay there unchanged during the whole time. This means no exchange is necessary between the server and the player PC on this subject. This helps in "unloading" the netcode.

>> It is easy to have building defined as dynamic objects. You just have to define (in your mod) an "alive" object and a "wrecked" object and declare them as a static dynamic object (like a immobile vehicule if you like).
This is what the FH team did with destructible bridges in Prokhorovka or Breakthrough 44.

>> Unfortunatly, it means that like for all dynamic object, the status has to be sent from the server to the players, and checks done between ammo in collision with the object squeletton aso aso aso ....
This is therefore a burden to the server and to the exchange (server-player).

Given the limitation in bandwidth, it is necessay too limit the number of dynamic objects that are being used in the same time.

In conclusion : You can use dynamic building but given the drain of ressource, you would do this only for those buildings that really "bring something" to the game ... like indeed bridges

But you are right, one can think of creative way to use this ...
>> Like a tower or building that would block a certain roads once destroyed.
>> Like "tiles of ground" that would become crater once bombed and would make an airfield unpracticle.

Aso, aso ....

PS : If anymore competent modder wants to complete, fell free by all means

Miaou

[Big Lebowski]

yeah Fully Destructable Enviroments is a nono..
but im sure the devs will bring more and new destructable objects ingame, like roadblocks and such..

[pvt. Allen]

We need destructable walls, nothing like runninng from a tank, taking cover behind a wall and...boooom...only half of wall has left. But it would need too many destructble objects...

[Safe-Keeper]

Off-topic: Download X-Com UFO Defence (legally) from FilePlanet. It has a relatively steep learning curve and the graphics are beyond aged, but it's highly addictive and has 100% destructible environments. You can blow apart walls or whole houses, hills, trees, lamp posts, staircases, tables, anything.

>> Like "tiles of ground" that would become crater once bombed and would make an airfield unpracticle.

I was going to say that!

Yes, you can have a crater covered by a flat, destructible object textured as asphalt/pavement. Then, if someone hits the runway at that spot, they blow a crater in the ground.

I also suppose that on small maps, with only a few objects (maybe like Pavlov's house or the old Foy), you could have certain walls and such be destructible.

[Ruhanga]

Mostly the most balanced would be that everything thats size is < or = cow's size could be destroyied. Like blocks of wall on ground or tables. Also strategic points like bridges etc.

[Duke of Holland]

We need destructable walls, nothing like runninng from a tank, taking cover behind a wall and...boooom...only half of wall has left. But it would need too many destructble objects...

Hmmm, you don't need every wall to be destructible, just a few to open up a new section

[pvt. Allen]

If you want WW II game with fully destructable enviroment you must play Soldiers: Heros of World War II. Blow holes in ground, crush trees, blow any part of building you want, set field, forest, house on fire! Do anything what you want (well, almost). Game is very very good.