PDA

View Full Version : Hi Oleg,..More Dramatic Ship Damage Models needed!!!



XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:26 PM
Hi Oleg


I have been playing IL2 since the first came out and I still fly online pretty regularly, I'm still amazed by the amount of details this simulation has ,how realistic it is, and admire the relentless quest to improve it day by day..

However one thing strikes me every time when I fly mission who involves attacking ships. Ships just sink! - There is no fire there are no real explosions ,except the water gushing up the air. I believe Naval attacks are one of the most dramatic attack scenarios you can have, yet it seems to be completely featureless in Il2- IL2FB.. !?!?!

The reason why I'm so astonished about this is because everything else is taken care of so well. I was wondering if you are planning to include these sort of feature enhancement in your next update?

It might not be priority looking at your excellent weekly development updates.but in any case it would be really worth while and add greatly to this superp simulation.

Best


Cillwell



Message Edited on 09/03/0310:16AM by MBB2003

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:26 PM
Hi Oleg


I have been playing IL2 since the first came out and I still fly online pretty regularly, I'm still amazed by the amount of details this simulation has ,how realistic it is, and admire the relentless quest to improve it day by day..

However one thing strikes me every time when I fly mission who involves attacking ships. Ships just sink! - There is no fire there are no real explosions ,except the water gushing up the air. I believe Naval attacks are one of the most dramatic attack scenarios you can have, yet it seems to be completely featureless in Il2- IL2FB.. !?!?!

The reason why I'm so astonished about this is because everything else is taken care of so well. I was wondering if you are planning to include these sort of feature enhancement in your next update?

It might not be priority looking at your excellent weekly development updates.but in any case it would be really worth while and add greatly to this superp simulation.

Best


Cillwell



Message Edited on 09/03/0310:16AM by MBB2003

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:37 PM
MBB2003 wrote:
- Ships just sink!

And? Granted every posiable way a ship could sink is not coded up.. But to give IL2 some credit in the ship attacking area.. I have seen alot of old WWII footage of ships being attacked.. and *just sink* is about the norm (ie 90%). But I agree a little fire, or a secondary explosing would be nice.. The only problem is no mater how much they add beyond the 90% they will never get to 100% because there will allways be someone who will be watching the history channel and note that they saw a ship sink and just before it went down the smoke stack fell over to one side.. It get endless... Me personally.. Im just happy we have a sim that allows us to attack ships.. And sense the patch we can now sink them online! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<font size= 3> <font color= blue>
TAGERT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If WAR was not the ANSWER.. Than what the H was your QUESTION?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:41 PM
MBB2003 wrote:
- Hi Oleg
-
-
- I have been playing IL2 since the first came out
- and I still fly online pretty regularly, I'm still
- amazed by the amount of details this simulation has
- ,how realistic it is, and admire the relentless
- quest to improve it day by day..
-
- However one thing strikes me every time when I fly
- mission who involves attacking ships. Ships just
- sink! - There is no fire there are no real
- explosions ,except the water gushing up the air. I
- believe Naval attacks are one of the most dramatic
- attack scenarios you can have, yet it seems to be
- completely featureless in Il2- IL2FB.. !?!?!
-
- The reason why I'm so astonished about this is
- because everything else is taken care of so well. I
- was wondering if you are planning to include these
- sort of feature enhancement in your next update?
-
- It might not be priority looking at your excellent
- weekly development updates.but in any case it would
- be really worth while and add greatly to this superp
- simulation.
-
- Best
-
-
- Cillwell
-
-
Bump


<ceter>http://www.drunkbastard.net/photos/nunporn.jpg </center>
sister Bertha plays FB every day.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 06:57 PM
Well the huge naval ships should definitive have more features as described - I like details!. Look I would not even mind having a ship hit.which would still try limp on ..(maybe back to port) who knows.. Then you could turn around to finish it off. smoke billowing from it .then she goes under .etc.u know what I mean.would be excellent


'Just Sink' is no good.especially not for simulations of such magnitude!


See other post here: http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzzmi

Cillwell


P.S. All ships should have more features like that actually.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:24 PM
I've always thought that ships should be given more complex damage models. I can understand trucks simply exploding when hit, but it's always seemed strange to me that a 500 lbs. bomb will do nothing to certain ships, but a 500 lbs. bomb + a 100 lbs. bomb will cause it to sink instantly. Has too much of a "hitpoints" feel to it. I for one would love a more complex damage model for shipping, especially the larger ships. Of course, with that would come an added level of uncertainty, that some might not enjoy. Personally, I think it'd be great to hit a ship, see it burn and not know for sure if it is sinking or not. Do I risk another pass to deal a critical blow, or do I hope that I've already done enough damage to render the ship useless?

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 10:36 PM
Like gun camera footage, they often select the more spectacular sinkings for the TV.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 11:02 PM
How far should it go? A ship could be worth a LOT of tanks and AA guns worth of computing power!

Just from SSI's Naval warfare games... bulkheads, compartments, flooding causing listing/bow or stern lo, pumps, pump rates and power sources for pumps, damage parties with their own DM's, lifeboats with DM's, compartment contents so far as bridge, fire control, engine, fuel, magazine, torpedoes. If it is an aircraft carrier then more, are there planes on deck fueled and carrying bombs? Aircraft bays and contents. And that's just for damage!

Pretty soon you have a naval sim with no room for much of a flight sim unless PC's get twice or more times as powerful as now.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 12:28 AM
neal i dont know where your coming from about computer power, this is twice you used that excuse. One for my question about making the 190 p39 yak and mig3 closer to the naca charts. Sims of the last 6 years can handle oilspills, longer fires, bigger explosions and secondary explosions. But i guess you never seen nibbos effects for cfs2 and cfs3. And by the way most of the old 80s computer trainers for army/navy are extremely outdated, but you probally knew that right.


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 02:39 AM
Exactly!

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 06:40 AM
oh my god, the board insists I'm trying to post a naughty word when I'm not! I'll try and get the real message in here...

Message Edited on 08/31/0305:51AM by A.K.Davis

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 06:55 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- How far should it go? A ship could be worth a LOT
- of tanks and AA guns worth of computing power!
-
- Just from SSI's Naval warfare games... bulkheads,
- compartments, flooding causing listing/bow or stern
- lo, pumps, pump rates and power sources for pumps,
- damage parties with their own DM's, lifeboats with
- DM's, compartment contents so far as bridge, fire
- control, engine, fuel, magazine, torpedoes. If it
- is an aircraft carrier then more, are there planes
- on deck fueled and carrying bombs? Aircraft bays
- and contents. And that's just for damage!
-
- Pretty soon you have a naval sim with no room for
- much of a flight sim unless PC's get twice or more
- times as powerful as now.
-
-
- Neal
-

Not necessary to go that far to make anti-shipping missions more dynamic. Certainly it should be a more complex equation than "given vessel type A --> X Kg. of explosives = instantly sunk vessel".

There would be 3 principal areas to model:

1. hull
-a hull breach (torpedo, skipped bomb, complete vertical penetration, etc.) should cause different rates of sinking depending on the size of the warhead and the size of the ship
-multiple hull breaches should increase the rate of sinking

2. critical areas
-damage to critical areas (ammo, fuel, etc.) should cause catastrophic damage leading to either rapid or immediate sinking
-this damage should be accompanied by large secondary explosions
-could occur subsequent to a hull breach

3. non-critical areas
-damage to these areas would cause cumulative damage, similar to how damage is currently incurred by vessels in FB
-evidenced by smoke and burning, increasing as the threshold for cumulative damage for that particular vessel is neared.
-exceeding the cumulative damage threshold would cause the vessel to sink

I can't imagine that would be worth much more than an armor column's worth of computing power, and unless you're trying to model the D-Day invasion fleet, concentrations of complex objects would be limited. It might be nice to also have some way to suppress a vessel's AAA defenses, but that would probably be too much.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg


Message Edited on 08/31/0306:00AM by A.K.Davis

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 08:14 AM
Like I wrote... how far should it go? "I hit the main magazine with a 500kg bomb and I didn't get a secondary explosion!". "Oleg! We need lifeboats to leave the sinking ship! I want to strafe lifeboats!". "Ships should take longer to sink, please fix!".

You say so far and once it might get there, someone else says it's not real enough.

As far as computing power and other sims... fine but do those sims do the other things that this one does? No.

Consider your PC as a box that you can only put so much in. A game or sim that runs in real time can only get so many features to run at a decent rate on the average desktop PC. If your PC is slower then you can crank down the detail levels a bit and try not to run big maps or too many ground objects. If it's faster then you can get some more out of it. A ship with even a moderate level of modelled details is worth how many tanks, AA guns, whatever?
The extra code to make all that happen, what current features would have to go to add that? Because you can't just grow code by adding more and expect it to work nearly as well, sometimes not at all. If you've never worked in the business with really @#$%-ing large programs then you may have no idea how crazy it can get. You keep crunching the code down here and there and hope that some bug you never expected doesn't crop up that may hit instantly or maybe a month+ down the road. You pull off change after change but with every one the next has a bigger chance of screwing the whole works... and still people from outside the process want "MORE! NOW!". Every approach allows things to happen but at the same time they place limits on what can happen. Those limits can be pushed only so far, almost as far as you can push the programmers if they're really damn good. Of course you can always sacrifice some parts to make room.... In time, you have to redesign and come in from a totally clean approach even if the result looks basically the same only better. Sound familiar?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 11:08 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- Like I wrote... how far should it go? "I hit the
- main magazine with a 500kg bomb and I didn't get a
- secondary explosion!". "Oleg! We need lifeboats to
- leave the sinking ship! I want to strafe
- lifeboats!". "Ships should take longer to sink,
- please fix!".


Hey, and wouldn't it be nice that after bailing out, you should avoid the cows not to be crushed by them. Then you're put up by a local family that hides you in the barn... where you can have a romance with the farmer's daughter. Then you should run from the enraged farmer to a nearby station and have a meal and a bottle of vodka/schnapps... Finally you infiltrate in an enemy airbase and steal a recon plane, and you manage to escape, after avoiding five different species of birds that could hit your plane when taking off... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well, yes, maybe we're asking too much... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 06:31 PM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- Like I wrote... how far should it go? "I hit the
- main magazine with a 500kg bomb and I didn't get a
- secondary explosion!". "Oleg! We need lifeboats to
- leave the sinking ship! I want to strafe
- lifeboats!". "Ships should take longer to sink,
- please fix!".
-
- You say so far and once it might get there, someone
- else says it's not real enough.

You're right. Realism is very dangerous stuff. Oleg is a fool for trying to make anything in his games realistic. Ships should simply disappear in a puff of smoke when hit. In fact, all the aircraft should also, since some people have been known to complain about their damage models. Yup, it's better to have everyone unhappy than to please many and disappoint a few. Now unless you have something real and constructive to add, please stay out of the discussion.

-
- As far as computing power and other sims... fine but
- do those sims do the other things that this one
- does? No.

I'm basing my ideas on what the game already does. For example, if I have 3 groups of 4 tanks in a small area of the map, the computer is already handling 12 separate gun systems, 12 separate rudimentary penetration models and 12 separate destroyable objects. Would giving a large ship a rudimentary penetration model for its hull and a few specific critical damage areas really take that much more computing power. As the ships' damage models stand now, they are no more complex than the trucks in FB. If you hit it with X it goes boom. And even if it did take a bit more, wouldn't it be worth it. Personally, I'd take hits in this area over the slow downs I get flying over urban zones.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 08:53 PM
As I said in one of my previous post I'm not a programmer but I believe a better damage model could be introduced for ships and it would not be that difficult.

I believe if you would take no longer to implement the damage model as it would take to construct one more flyable plane. In fact I believe its would be less work ..I know some of you saying that this would mess up the balance of CPU power distributed in a given level and lead to slow downs etc. Slow downs can occur anyways if you have a mission stuffed up with loads planes and ground vehicles.so I think the impact would be minimal, if not non-existence by the majority of missions where you have ships in it.

Again the point is!! - For me it's a matter of having a ultra detailed simulations but then having ships animations so featureless.look the ships itself have even amazing details..but then ..Blulp they just sink in an blink of an eye - I really hope they gonna include at least fire , explosions and smoke .that's simply a must have.yeah and they could sink little slower too.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...So Oleg ,you and your Henchman...give us even more to smile about. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Cillwell

XyZspineZyX
08-31-2003, 09:07 PM
MBB2003 wrote:
- As I said in one of my previous post I'm not a
- programmer but I believe a better damage model could
- be introduced for ships and it would not be that
- difficult.
-
- I believe if you would take no longer to implement
- the damage model as it would take to construct one
- more flyable plane. In fact I believe its would be
- less work ..I know some of you saying that this
- would mess up the balance of CPU power distributed
- in a given level and lead to slow downs etc. Slow
- downs can occur anyways if you have a mission
- stuffed up with loads planes and ground vehicles.so
- I think the impact would be minimal, if not
- non-existence by the majority of missions where you
- have ships in it.
-
- Again the point is!! - For me it's a matter of
- having a ultra detailed simulations but then having
- ships animations so featureless.look the ships
- itself have even amazing details..but then ..Blulp
- they just sink in an blink of an eye - I really hope
- they gonna include at least fire , explosions and
- smoke .that's simply a must have.yeah and they could
- sink little slower too.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- ...So Oleg ,you and your Henchman...give us even
- more to smile about. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


must agree,
a simple damage model would not hurt the game at all,
and could be done pretty easy,

by the way you should change the name of the thread,
so people see directly what its about. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


<ceter>http://www.drunkbastard.net/photos/nunporn.jpg </center>
sister Bertha plays FB every day.



Message Edited on 08/31/0308:11PM by fjuff79

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 12:38 AM
how do i do that?,...i would need to post completly new or not?


Cillwell

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2003, 10:40 PM
MBB2003 wrote:
- how do i do that?,...i would need to post completly
- new or not?
-
-
- Cillwell
-
-

At the top of your original post, you should see "user options: edit message." Under that you should be able to change the subject line.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 11:18 AM
Ok Done
..Many Thanks!!!

Dark_Knight_667
09-03-2003, 12:44 PM
Ok..one thing to remember here..

You take a five hundred lb hunk of iron and explosive, drop it on a ship which the top deck is usually made of wood (very few pre WWII ships had steel decks except for battleships and aircraft carriers..and even some of them had wood) the bomb drops through the first deck. probably through the second and third..from the inside of the ship that 500 lbs of explosive would break the keel on anything but a battleship or aircraft carrier, and there is a pretty good chance it would on those as well.

Break the keel and it ain't gonna float for long

DK

http://members.cox.net/cptdarkknight/bkbanner.jpg


The Knights have arrived. AMD 2700 XP, Radeon 9800 Pro, Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, 30 gig hdd, Gigabyte GA-7VT600-L, 52x cd rom, microsoft intellimouse explorer, Saitek x45 HOTAS

<center><a href="http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/" target="mash"><img src="http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg" width="205" height="95" border="0"

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 04:55 PM
I think that the ships should have a more complex damage model.

Philips CDRW

Posting vacuous messages since 2002

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2003, 05:21 PM
Dark_Knight_667 wrote:
- Ok..one thing to remember here..
-
- You take a five hundred lb hunk of iron and
- explosive, drop it on a ship which the top deck is
- usually made of wood (very few pre WWII ships had
- steel decks except for battleships and aircraft
- carriers..and even some of them had wood) the bomb
- drops through the first deck. probably through the
- second and third..from the inside of the ship that
- 500 lbs of explosive would break the keel on
- anything but a battleship or aircraft carrier, and
- there is a pretty good chance it would on those as
- well.
-
- Break the keel and it ain't gonna float for long
-
- DK

While I don't doubt that it could and did happen, I'd like you to produce some evidence of how common it was for a large ship to break in two and sink instantly after being hit by a 500 lb. bomb. I strongly suspect that it was the exception, rather than the rule.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 08:39 PM
Looking at the latest patch i dont think they gonna include an more sphisticate damage models....looks liek all eys are soley on bug fisxin and flyable plane additions....sad cause that ship thingy is really a must!

Cillwell

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:27 PM
Maybe in the next sim...http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 01:13 AM
Dark_Knight_667 wrote:
- Ok..one thing to remember here..
-
- You take a five hundred lb hunk of iron and
- explosive, drop it on a ship which the top deck is
- usually made of wood (very few pre WWII ships had
- steel decks except for battleships and aircraft
- carriers..and even some of them had wood) the bomb
- drops through the first deck. probably through the
- second and third..from the inside of the ship that
- 500 lbs of explosive would break the keel on
- anything but a battleship or aircraft carrier, and
- there is a pretty good chance it would on those as
- well.
-
-

Battleships and carriers had wooden decks. The wood was laid over steel though./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Cruisers and destroyers were the same. Even the Flower class corvettes had steel decks, though not armoured decks. Destroyers were constucted with 15mm(max) hull plating. The superstructure with 6-10mm plate. The WW1 British destroyers had steel decks. The HMS Campbeltown(ex USS Buchanan) of WW2 fame was one of 273 constructed between 1917 and 1922.

The only vessels that had only wooden decks were the patrol types and trawlers, though not even them always.


It would be nice to have more DMing done to ships. One should be able to knock out the AA gun tubs, for example.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 05:02 PM
give us better ship damage modeling!
please/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VICTOR MAY HAVE BEEN A WEIRDO,BUT HE WAS A DAMN GOOD FIGHTERPILOT.
<ceter>http://www.boners.com/content/788904.1.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 06:50 PM
umm, yeah, when I crash with a TB3 or He-111 with a full bomb load into the ships, shouldn't they sink?

Boosher-PBNA
----------------
<center>It's your fault... <center>
Boosher-ProudBirds-VFW
http://www.uploadit.org/files/220903-Boosher%20Sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 04:16 AM
Computers can process information at an incredible rate. To add a more complex DM for a boat wouldn't even be noticable. What chokes computers up is displaying the AA guns, ships, etc. That has to do with the video card, not the processor. I know after the game loads I can watch my processor, and its usually less than 10% used after the game loads. That sure leaves alot of space for some super complex DM for just about anything! Once the game is loaded, the processor's job is over (so to speak).

I am with the thread starter, I really believe the DM for everything, including boats, should be better. Just something more than an unimpressive uniform sinking would be great, as well as more pieces left over after destroying AA guns and tanks! LOL