Originally posted by VC_Resurrected
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
Collapse
X
-
Guest repliedRe: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
-
Re: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
Originally posted by WargimpWhat I ment is that each new thing that you add to the map (power boxes/lines, washer/dryers, destroyable stuff) needs to be rendered. If it needs to be rendered, it impacts preformance. Check out the framerate drop that you get on the more complex SF maps as opposed to the rather sparten standard maps.
i still don't think you understand the focus of my previous argument. Lets ignor my first post of new stuff to put in. The stuff they use now is good, but the layout looks fake. Move stuff around and put things in a logical layout (or a realistic layout) - and it would be fine.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedRe: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
Originally posted by troybobpersonally i don't think its an issue of adding content, just making the content look real.
Moveable objects are the worst resource hogs, BTW. Not only do you have to render the actual object, but you also have to calculate the physics on each and every one of 'em AND transmit it to ever client connected.
Destructable buildings are a nighmare. Not only do you have to do damage models for ever single part of the building, but you have to be able to dynamicly alter the colision meshes, calculate the physics for "chunks" (parts of the building), and send up all that info.
Because of bandwidth issues, you're not likely to see dynamicly destroyable enviroments in on-line games for awhile yet. Even Carmack had to back away from it after making some rather grand claims.
BTW, Red Faction managed to do it, but mostly because everything else in the game was rather simple.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
Originally posted by WargimpNice ideas... problem is they would cost frames.
The more stuff ya put in a map, the slower it's going to render. Designers need to find a nice balance between map complexity and playability... especially for low-end computers.
As an example, look at gulf of oman. The layout doesn't seem real at all. I mean if I go into the map in a local game with just me and look around, it just doesn't seem realistic. The roads, the beach, the city layout, the airfield......it just doesn't seem laid out enough to be immersive.
though i guess in BF you don't really notice stuff like this, but by moving stuff around you could really make it look like something that people would actually build in real life.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedRe: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
Originally posted by VC_Resurrecteddestroyable buildings would be excellent, they really need to develop a game where everything reacts realistically to gun fire and corrogated iron fences cant take tank shells!
Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3Wmo...elated&search=
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedRe: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
Nice ideas... problem is they would cost frames.
The more stuff ya put in a map, the slower it's going to render. Designers need to find a nice balance between map complexity and playability... especially for low-end computers.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedRe: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
destroyable buildings would be excellent, they really need to develop a game where everything reacts realistically to gun fire and corrogated iron fences cant take tank shells!
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
U want realism? How about destroyable buildings. There size would depend on how easily they could be destroyed. Then, CIVILIANS!!!! would come and rebuild. To stall the reconstruction; shoot the civilians. Remember, its not real, just a game.
Originally posted by VC_Resurrectedhow about some more animals, not just those birds that fly up when walk through some bushes, how about some fish in the water and deer in the forests and stuff.
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedRe: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
how about some more animals, not just those birds that fly up when walk through some bushes, how about some fish in the water and deer in the forests and stuff. maybe like some blinking neon lights in the cities that you could shoot and some transistor radios around.
also a mcdonalds, because there is one in every city and every town in the feckin world
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
yeck - no civilians
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedRe: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
I second the civilians... would make for a cool map to have civs running around. Although it would be fun to spray them, it could make for negative points when you kill them making the map harder.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
my all time fav: CIVILIANS!!!!!! hehe im so evil
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedRe: Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
Well i know for a fact that they have trash in the maps already,its called exploiters and tk'ers.
Leave a comment:
-
Suggestions: the little things for map realism.
To me, the BF2 maps lack the little things that make them look like believable locations.
Add yours:
1. More power lines.
2. Cable boxes.
3. The gutter things for rain (I think they're called storm drains).
4. Traffic signals (that at least blink red)
5. Random trash
6. Washers and dryers outside (not everyone has them in the house).
Add.Tags: None
Leave a comment: