Fully destructible enviroments...

[WolverineX]

With the physics processor planning a new way to destroy the levels you play in, what company do you think will be the first to take on this challenge based on their previous games.

 

[BlueWeasel]

Actually, Red Faction was one of the first games with destructible environments. You could blast thru any wall, but the physics left much to be desired (ie, destroy a building column, and it didn't fall).

 

[luigi1]

 

[luigi1]

valve or dice, the blow up able bridges are implemently rather nicely in bf2, valve seems to want to imernce you in game play, id seems to be only lights and smoke lately, mores the pity, carmac is a skilled programmer. of course it could be those far cry dudes, who saw that comming?? very nice with the environment.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
Actually, Red Faction was one of the first games with destructible environments. You could blast thru any wall, but the physics left much to be desired (ie, destroy a building column, and it didn't fall).

To an extent, this is true. However, it was not only possible but in fact encouraged for you to destroy bridges by taking out all means of support. True, it waited until all supports were gone before a section of bridge would fall, but you didn't wind up with floating blocks of terrain. I took out quite a few tanks using this method.

 

[skace]

I believe we still have quite a ways to go until buildings have structure equations, IE: how many pillars do I have to destroy until this building is structurually unsound. If my rocket hits the main crossbeam, will the cieling collapse? If I hit the building hard enough from the side, will the building fall over as objects inside it tumble out of the windows / etc.

We've seen the start of this new thinking with HL2, where small boards and such were made up of individial components. But this was just a baby step in comparison to whats ahead. When a fire can partially burn down a building and then have it collapse due to structure damage, then we will be in the money.

I can't even say who will be the ones to do that. Personally, I'd like to see Id do it, but I don't think Carmack cares that much about physics right now. He seems to be caught up in reflective lighting / etc. Both are areas that still need work. Graphics have just as much distance to cover as physics do.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: BlueWeasel
Actually, Red Faction was one of the first games with destructible environments. You could blast thru any wall, but the physics left much to be desired (ie, destroy a building column, and it didn't fall).

To an extent, this is true. However, it was not only possible but in fact encouraged for you to destroy bridges by taking out all means of support. True, it waited until all supports were gone before a section of bridge would fall, but you didn't wind up with floating blocks of terrain. I took out quite a few tanks using this method.

but you couldnt destroy everything, far from it

 

[otispunkmeyer]

it wouldnt be a good idea to destroy everything..... imagine a Bf2 server with no timelimit, and high ticket count

there'd be noting left of the map by the end, everyone would jus be bobbing in the sea, then you'd get people spawning as spec ops just to see how big a hole they can dig with C4

its funny but i reckon it would get annoying

when this does happen i think some kind of limit will need to be imposed

 

[Malladine]

there's a ww2 rts in dev by Relic that is supposed to have excellent physics in this respect. Craters from tank shells, buildings blowing apart, etc.

 

[Czar]

oh.. yeah

one game has had fully destructable enviroments from the start... worms

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Czar
oh.. yeah

one game has had fully destructable enviroments from the start... worms

:laugh:

actually scorch was before