With A Cryengine Upgrade, Will We Finally See This?
#21
Posted 15 February 2016 - 02:50 PM
#22
Posted 15 February 2016 - 04:42 PM
the impact a 5-6 story tall battlemech has on the environment around it needs to be more apparent in MWO
#23
Posted 15 February 2016 - 04:50 PM
#25
Posted 15 February 2016 - 05:11 PM
They'll look into it. That doesn't mean they'll do it. Changing out the game's engine would be an undertaking not terribly far removed from just flat-out rebuilding the entire game from scratch; any new engines would have to provide some truly, phenomenally incredible benefits to make that sort of agony worth it.
Bendy trucks, feet that follow the ground, and other nifty-but-useless visual effects are not a phenomenally incredible benefit. No matter how much the dual-Titans, all-settings-to-Ultra folks say so.
#26
Posted 15 February 2016 - 05:32 PM
Nik Kerensky, on 15 February 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:
Hah, so it can be done! I think MWO would be an obvious beneficiary from investing in a proper physics based damage system, considering mechs taking damage is kind of a big part of this game!??
I need to correct myself, it's not soft body per se as much as multi-stage damage models(like 3ish), albeit pretty damn effective. Here are some features that I think when make the game feel much more immersive in terms of feeling the hurt. Should also note this is a game where projectiles are the primary vehicle for delivering punishment. Why again do they host the game server side, imo that honestly makes no ******* sense.

Internal components

More internal stuff because who likes to think that their mech is just a polygon with one layer of skin.

Model damage
Edited by JackalBeast, 15 February 2016 - 05:40 PM.
#27
Posted 15 February 2016 - 05:44 PM
#29
Posted 15 February 2016 - 05:59 PM
#30
Posted 15 February 2016 - 06:02 PM
Kaeb Odellas, on 15 February 2016 - 05:53 PM, said:
I like how a 20 lb SRM is half the size of an adult human.
Gotta be some crazy future composites lol. Honestly not sure if that 20lb is an accurate figure save for this game idk. I mean I get that there are 100 rounds per ton in game, but lorewise, there a only about 15 shots per ton of ammo. A more accurate figure is 133.33 lbs a missile.
Edited by JackalBeast, 15 February 2016 - 06:03 PM.
#31
Posted 15 February 2016 - 06:07 PM
JediPanther, on 15 February 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:
Well that's where the effective use of balancing realism vs functionality comes in to play.
#32
Posted 15 February 2016 - 06:16 PM
pbiggz, on 14 February 2016 - 04:54 PM, said:
Dont worry, AEgg probably hasn't taken a network programming class.
I kind of have to respond to this, because I literally write software for a living... Though I like actually having a paycheck and working less than 80 hours a week, so I don't work on games.
GreyNovember, on 14 February 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:
You don't need to send an entire packet containing the ENTIRE game state.
You send an event that occurs on one client. That goes back to the host server, who then gives it to everyone else once it's verified, and let the clients perform the calculations once they have the event data, which should give the same result as the originator.
What you don't do, is tell everyone everything ever about your current game state. Because that's stupidly unnecessary.
No, you don't send everything. But, you can't just send the point, speed, projectile, and angle of impact either, both because it's unlikely to generate exactly the same effect on each client because everything else may also be slightly off (i.e. mech position, direction, and speed) not to mention prior damage calculation results.
To put it simply, destruction like this means modifying hitboxes on the fly, or ignoring them and having a lot of really questionable shots hit or miss. You can't simply rely on each client being "close enough" to the server that you can only send an origin point. Even sending nothing but the bare minimum of angle, point of impact, speed, and projectile type is likely more than we do now, let alone trying to send even a tiny snippet of what the new collision mesh should actually be.
#33
Posted 16 February 2016 - 02:42 AM
JackalBeast, on 15 February 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:

Internal components

More internal stuff because who likes to think that their mech is just a polygon with one layer of skin.

Model damage
Even this type of detail would go a long way for MWO..
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users























