My Idea is to make all objects that would break under-fire in real life such as upturned tables, boxes, crates and the like actually break in-game. Now I don't mean these objects would get totally destroyed so the spy who is hiding is exposed, but for example if i took a shotgun and at a fairly close distance shot it at an upturned table, you expect there to be a head-sized hole in it. I think small tweaks like this could add a lot to PS game play-wise. People would have to improvise more, allowing for more interesting games, and not the same tactics for every level. I think adding good physics to objects like stacked boxes would do the game a lot of good as well. For example if a spy rolls into 3 crates stacked on top of each other, the crates should fall, but if the spy carefully climbs on top of the crates they should stay upright. Now I know both of these ideas could lead to major balance issues, but I think if they were implemented properly they could do the game a lot of good. It would Make players think and improvise more, and would sure as hell make the game more realistic. I know this sounds very Conviction-esque, but I just thought I'd put it out there and see what you all think.
SaltySnail.
--edit: come on, a bit nicer to new people--
We're aiming for more interaction with the enviroment as long as it doesn't make the balancing a really hard job. And we also need to have enough resources for it. Bullet holes are ok, and maybe even crates with physics, but I doubt we'll have more than that. Of course, pre-made 'physics' like walls being destroyed by various machinery after hacking an objective are possible (since it's not dynamic).
He may sound retarted
(don't edit yet, I'm about to give a complement), but this idea...
Quote from: SaltySnail on May 19, 2008, 06:28:53 PM
for example if i took a shotgun and at a fairly close distance shot it at an upturned table, you expect there to be a head-sized hole in it.
would be pretty interesting from a programmer's perspective. It's like decals but cooler and if we were using a more flexible engine, I would definitely want to develop this technology.
You did not just delete that picture! O-M-G! *walks out in huff*
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 06:47:53 PM
He may sound retarted (don't edit yet, I'm about to give a complement), but this idea...
Quote from: SaltySnail on May 19, 2008, 06:28:53 PM
for example if i took a shotgun and at a fairly close distance shot it at an upturned table, you expect there to be a head-sized hole in it.
would be pretty interesting from a programmer's perspective. It's like decals but cooler and if we were using a more flexible engine, I would definitely want to develop this technology.
Agreed, would be a very statisfying thing to develop :)
Quote from: frvge on May 19, 2008, 06:46:16 PM
Of course, pre-made 'physics' like walls being destroyed by various machinery after hacking an objective are possible (since it's not dynamic).
lol 'pre-made' physics, that's called a scripted sequence/event. Noob.
Also, our first map, Lakehouse will have destructible elements in it. Not much, but more then all the CT maps put together (which isn't hard to do, but still.)
People must realize that destructible environments can and do screw up a lot in terms of balanced and designer intent. Also, realistic destruction like what SaltySnail said about the table and shotgun just isn't practical and will take way too much time and resources to accomplish. Hell, the only game that is even close to pulling realistic physics like that off is the upcoming Star Wars game. I mean, it's fucking Star Wars they have enough money to do wtf ever they want.
So yeah, expect some basic destructible elements that are cool and fun, but don't expect everything to break in a realistic manner. That's insanity.
Eh-hem, Battlefield.
Ok, well some is better than none :P.
Quote from: Tidenburg on May 19, 2008, 07:23:40 PM
Eh-hem, Battlefield.
Battlefield Bad Company has similar destructible environments to the ones i was thinking of.
Ya, well Battlefield uses the Frostbite engine which has features such as desctructable environments pre-catered for whereas in the engine Project Stealth will use (Unreal) it would have to be hand-done for alot of it. You obviously don't realise exactly how much work this would mean, but trust me, its alot more than its worth.
I would think of bullet holes as advance decals than destructable enviroments. It doesn't take too much resources despite what Zed, the non-programmer, says.
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 07:38:59 PM
I would think of bullet holes as advance decals than destructable enviroments. It doesn't take too much resources despite what Zed, the non-programmer, says.
Bullets holes can just be decals... ART that an ARTIST does. Just like destructible environments. It's ART that an ARTIST has to setup, for unreal it has nothing to do with programmer. Like Tidenburg says, to make everything destruction isn't worth the effort. We can't change Unreal's code enough to implement some sort of procedural destruction.
Unless Epic upgrades the UT3 to use the latest updates to the Unreal Engine, we will have to use to slow method where everything is made before hand BY ARTISTS.
You obviously have no idea how complicated and time consuming destructables can be.
I don't even know why we are having this conversation, PS isn't a game that would benefit that much from destructables.
Ok, and yeh i had no idea how much time it would take to do something like this.
Who's talking about destructables? I'm talking about decals that show the other side of the object rather than an image the artist makes. Nothing to do with spliting vertices, all done in a pixel shader. It's much easier to implement than destructible enviroments.
I don't think we should have this conversation either because Unreal3 is too damn inflexible to do anything cool.
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 08:10:14 PM
Unreal3 is too damn inflexible to do anything cool.
(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.audio-surf.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Battach%3D852%3Btype%3Davatar&hash=7be4d780d9f9d1c69eb74c2b8d740bb3c687a722)
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 08:10:14 PM
Who's talking about destructables? I'm talking about decals that show the other side of the object rather than an image the artist makes. Nothing to do with spliting vertices, all done in a pixel shader. It's much easier to implement than destructible enviroments.
I don't think we should have this conversation either because Unreal3 is too damn inflexible to do anything cool.
Decals that show the other side wouldn't look right. There would be no depth, it would be like a portal and not a hole in something.
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 08:10:14 PM
Unreal3 is too damn inflexible to do anything cool.
Not really, Unreal3 can do a lot, it's just we are at a disadvantage because we can't actually do any changes to code and have to do what we can with what UT3 allows. The actual Engine though allows a lot.
Quote from: Zedblade on May 19, 2008, 08:29:04 PM
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 08:10:14 PM
Who's talking about destructables? I'm talking about decals that show the other side of the object rather than an image the artist makes. Nothing to do with spliting vertices, all done in a pixel shader. It's much easier to implement than destructible enviroments.
I don't think we should have this conversation either because Unreal3 is too damn inflexible to do anything cool.
Decals that show the other side wouldn't look right. There would be no depth, it would be like a portal and not a hole in something.
In addition, if you shot off, for example, the foot of a table, it wouldn't affect the way the table stands. The way I understand what you mean, anyways. That would just be retarded...
Quote from: Cyntrox on May 19, 2008, 08:48:52 PM
Quote from: Zedblade on May 19, 2008, 08:29:04 PM
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 08:10:14 PM
Who's talking about destructables? I'm talking about decals that show the other side of the object rather than an image the artist makes. Nothing to do with spliting vertices, all done in a pixel shader. It's much easier to implement than destructible enviroments.
I don't think we should have this conversation either because Unreal3 is too damn inflexible to do anything cool.
Decals that show the other side wouldn't look right. There would be no depth, it would be like a portal and not a hole in something.
In addition, if you shot off, for example, the foot of a table, it wouldn't affect the way the table stands. The way I understand what you mean, anyways. That would just be retarded...
No it would, but i didn't want to use like 50's examples. And not everything should be destructive.
QuoteWho's talking about destructables?
QuoteProject Stealth Ã,» About Project Stealth Ã,» Public Discussion Ã,» Destructible Environments
Quote from: SaltySnail on May 19, 2008, 08:08:18 PM
Ok, and yeh i had no idea how much time it would take to do something like this.
thats the situation with a lot of ideas. Its to easy to think that PS is a AAA title with a large team and budget.
The old school way of doing it, like in CT....is the artist actually has to create a destroyed version of whatever is destructable.
The demos from StarWars that i have seen make it appear like it is done procedurally (game engine does it),
We can dream :D
Quote from: Zedblade on May 19, 2008, 08:29:04 PM
Decals that show the other side wouldn't look right. There would be no depth, it would be like a portal and not a hole in something.
Exactly why I think it would be fun. It allows programmers to play artist. We try the most obvious approach and say "Hey, it looks like it has no depth. Let's try to add ... to fix it" and then becomes progressively better until it's very good. It's a process, not single step. And shaders are not inflexible things that can only do bloom, lighting and bumpmapping.
Quote from: goodkebab on May 19, 2008, 09:11:41 PM
The demos from StarWars that i have seen make it appear like it is done procedurally (game engine does it),
"euphoria is currently being integrated into multiple AAA next-generation console titles, including Grand Theft Auto IV,
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Indiana Jones and Backbreaker."
http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm
Quote from: SaltySnail on May 19, 2008, 09:00:56 PM
Quote from: Cyntrox on May 19, 2008, 08:48:52 PM
Quote from: Zedblade on May 19, 2008, 08:29:04 PM
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 08:10:14 PM
Who's talking about destructables? I'm talking about decals that show the other side of the object rather than an image the artist makes. Nothing to do with spliting vertices, all done in a pixel shader. It's much easier to implement than destructible enviroments.
I don't think we should have this conversation either because Unreal3 is too damn inflexible to do anything cool.
Decals that show the other side wouldn't look right. There would be no depth, it would be like a portal and not a hole in something.
In addition, if you shot off, for example, the foot of a table, it wouldn't affect the way the table stands. The way I understand what you mean, anyways. That would just be retarded...
No it would, but i didn't want to use like 50's examples. And not everything should be destructive.
I was talking about the decal idea.
before thinking about this kind of stuff, how about making more materials less bullet-proof (with no visual effect like bullet holes; for instance, the vents on station work that way). cod4 any1? XD
Quote from: goodkebab on May 19, 2008, 09:11:41 PMThe demos from StarWars that i have seen make it appear like it is done procedurally (game engine does it),
From what I understand, the destructables in the star wars game are models that (upon collision) swap with a network of broken piece meshes which are held together with breakable attachment constraints. The geometry isn't actually generated procedurally.
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: Zedblade on May 19, 2008, 08:29:04 PM
Decals that show the other side wouldn't look right. There would be no depth, it would be like a portal and not a hole in something.
Exactly why I think it would be fun. It allows programmers to play artist. We try the most obvious approach and say "Hey, it looks like it has no depth. Let's try to add ... to fix it" and then becomes progressively better until it's very good. It's a process, not single step. And shaders are not inflexible things that can only do bloom, lighting and bumpmapping.
Quote from: goodkebab on May 19, 2008, 09:11:41 PM
The demos from StarWars that i have seen make it appear like it is done procedurally (game engine does it),
"euphoria is currently being integrated into multiple AAA next-generation console titles, including Grand Theft Auto IV, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Indiana Jones and Backbreaker."
http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm
But there is a problem with Euphoria in terms of Gameplay issues. Once the system is operating, the current NPCs is acting on his own until his action is done.
So if you push back a npc, he will fall down, and try to get up. Euphoria starts when the NPC starts to being push back and stop when he dies et stand up. The problem here is when he tries to get up, if you touch him, he will fall back again and never be able to do anything (gameplay)... If it was a boss fight, it would be a real joke.
Euphoria isn't more than 65% effective right now. In other terms, Euphoria is only great when it only acts on a Death Situation.
Quote from: Hyrage on May 19, 2008, 10:01:11 PM
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: Zedblade on May 19, 2008, 08:29:04 PM
Decals that show the other side wouldn't look right. There would be no depth, it would be like a portal and not a hole in something.
Exactly why I think it would be fun. It allows programmers to play artist. We try the most obvious approach and say "Hey, it looks like it has no depth. Let's try to add ... to fix it" and then becomes progressively better until it's very good. It's a process, not single step. And shaders are not inflexible things that can only do bloom, lighting and bumpmapping.
Quote from: goodkebab on May 19, 2008, 09:11:41 PM
The demos from StarWars that i have seen make it appear like it is done procedurally (game engine does it),
"euphoria is currently being integrated into multiple AAA next-generation console titles, including Grand Theft Auto IV, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Indiana Jones and Backbreaker."
http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm
But there is a problem with Euphoria in terms of Gameplay issues. Once the system is operating, the current NPCs is acting on his own until his action is done.
So if you push back a npc, he will fall down, and try to get up. Euphoria starts when the NPC starts to being push back and stop when he dies et stand up. The problem here is when he tries to get up, if you touch him, he will fall back again and never be able to do anything (gameplay)... If it was a boss fight, it would be a real joke.
Euphoria isn't more than 65% effective right now. In other terms, Euphoria is only great when it only acts on a Death Situation.
Is there any games out based on it?
GTA 4 & Star Wars: Force Unleashed.
Someone already said it ^^. :-*
Quote from: Hyrage on May 19, 2008, 10:12:49 PM
GTA 4 & Star Wars: Force Unleashed.
Someone already said it ^^. :-*
Ah, I didn't know Star Wars was out or that GTA used it :P
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: Zedblade on May 19, 2008, 08:29:04 PM
Decals that show the other side wouldn't look right. There would be no depth, it would be like a portal and not a hole in something.
Exactly why I think it would be fun. It allows programmers to play artist. We try the most obvious approach and say "Hey, it looks like it has no depth. Let's try to add ... to fix it" and then becomes progressively better until it's very good. It's a process, not single step. And shaders are not inflexible things that can only do bloom, lighting and bumpmapping.
I know what materials are capable of and I'm sorry, this whole decal that shows the other side is a stupid idea and wouldn't work. It would look stupid and people would laugh at how bad it was. Unless you prove it to me by showing it working on an object, I can't see how it could be done and look good.
And sorry, but you can't 'play' artist. No more then I can play 'programmer.' It's absurd.
And unless we want to license off UT3 and the Euphoria engine, then integrate the two... I see no reason why we are even talking about that. Who cares what other engines can do, we have what we have and can only do what we can.
This is how it is.
There will be some destructible props in some levels. (Tables, Chairs, some walls etc.)
Decals will be normal decals on bullet holes on certain materials. (Metal, Wood, Plastic etc)
That's it. Discussion over.
Ya... Transparent decals should be fairly easy.
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 08:10:14 PM
I don't think we should have this conversation either because Unreal3 is too damn inflexible to do anything cool.
Only because we don't have a license.
I've been saying we can't add it to PS since my first post. UT3 is has too limited of access to do such a thing.
And I'm sorry that you think if something hasn't been done before in another game, it is either too stupid or too resource intense. I'd rather work on new ideas on how to use the hardware than refining the lighting model over and over.
Quote from: MulleDK13 on May 19, 2008, 11:33:44 PM
Only because we don't have a license.
Yeah, that's what I meant. I was always oppose to this whole MOD thing.
Quote from: Overstatement on May 19, 2008, 11:36:00 PM
I've been saying we can't add it to PS since my first post. UT3 is has too limited of access to do such a thing.
And I'm sorry that you think if something hasn't been done before in another game, it is either too stupid or too resource intense. I'd rather work on new ideas on how to use the hardware than refining the lighting model over and over.
Quote from: MulleDK13 on May 19, 2008, 11:33:44 PM
Only because we don't have a license.
Yeah, that's what I meant. I was always oppose to this whole MOD thing.
Lol, i don't' think it's a stupid idea because it hasn't been done before or because I think it will be to resource intensive (which I don't.). I think it's a stupid Idea because it's a stupid Idea that won't work and there is no way it would accomplish the desired effect and instead look cartoony and hilarious..
I really don't see why they can't do that with UE3. Gears 2 is supposably going to have destructable environments...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty8CL_0N4Oc
(skip to around 5:13 to get straight to the destructable environments part)
Ugh, SEARCH TOOL. This is the 2nd topic made in the last day that resembles a thread I made a long time ago. But I agree, interactivity and destructibility are always a plus in my opinion. Sadly it's something that isn't completely important to core gameplay although it would definitely add to it.
Welcome to PS.
GOW2 is going to be awesome. And the environments won't be completely destructible, I'm sure you can blow some holes in walls and such. Only certain things will have full destructibility.
Quote from: Blank Man on May 20, 2008, 07:45:20 AM
I really don't see why they can't do that with UE3. Gears 2 is supposably going to have destructable environments...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty8CL_0N4Oc
(skip to around 5:13 to get straight to the destructable environments part)
Wait, are you saying that we are fully paid by Epic Games + working a complete year only on that for a AAA game?
Quote from: Hyrage on May 20, 2008, 08:17:38 AM
Quote from: Blank Man on May 20, 2008, 07:45:20 AM
I really don't see why they can't do that with UE3. Gears 2 is supposably going to have destructable environments...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty8CL_0N4Oc
(skip to around 5:13 to get straight to the destructable environments part)
Wait, are you saying that we are fully paid by Epic Games + working a complete year only on that for a AAA game?
No, nothing even close to that.
Quote from: LennardF1989 on May 20, 2008, 06:28:55 PM
Quote from: Hyrage on May 20, 2008, 08:17:38 AM
Quote from: Blank Man on May 20, 2008, 07:45:20 AM
I really don't see why they can't do that with UE3. Gears 2 is supposably going to have destructable environments...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty8CL_0N4Oc
(skip to around 5:13 to get straight to the destructable environments part)
Wait, are you saying that we are fully paid by Epic Games + working a complete year only on that for a AAA game?
No, nothing even close to that.
I think he was being sarcastic :P.
Quote from: Blank Man on May 20, 2008, 07:45:20 AM
I really don't see why they can't do that with UE3. Gears 2 is supposably going to have destructable environments...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty8CL_0N4Oc
(skip to around 5:13 to get straight to the destructable environments part)
Gah, UE3 can do destructible stuff easily (Whats a bitch, is making it in Maya), but what they show in the video for Gears2 is a newer, upgraded version of Unreal Engine 3 that seems to have Procedural Destruction. This is something that the UE3 version included with UT3 doesn't have. Along with Crowds and Ambient Occlusion in the PPE.
I hope Epic does what Valve is doing with it's older games ::)
Quote from: Zedblade on May 20, 2008, 08:05:39 PM
Quote from: Blank Man on May 20, 2008, 07:45:20 AM
I really don't see why they can't do that with UE3. Gears 2 is supposably going to have destructable environments...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty8CL_0N4Oc
(skip to around 5:13 to get straight to the destructable environments part)
Gah, UE3 can do destructible stuff easily (Whats a bitch, is making it in Maya), but what they show in the video for Gears2 is a newer, upgraded version of Unreal Engine 3 that seems to have Procedural Destruction. This is something that the UE3 version included with UT3 doesn't have. Along with Crowds and Ambient Occlusion in the PPE.
Breaking a wooden plate isn't hard, but what the made with the geometry is something else. Like Zed said, it's probably procedural, but it's probably not something we will ship with the final version of PS. We don't need it, let's get better shadows lol.