Clean Maps v Destructed Maps

[HunterMed]

We've all spent hours and hours on our beloved PR maps.
Called CAS, Jdams, artillery and whatnot on those maps.

Now, I don't know how you feel but it seems weird to play over and over in a clean Muttrah for example again. I do not want to discuss destructable maps, but I would like to discuss the possibility of making a new map looked more destroyed basically.

All city maps are so nicely build and I love the maps, but after fighting there so many hours it just feels strange sometimes to start all over again.

I would love to see a destroyed city for once where the PR war has raged.
Like in FH2 where some city maps have massively destroyed parts of cities. I think that could also be interesting for gameplay reasons. no roof means no safety from mortars or whatever.

I don't know however how many "destroyed" models there are though and how difficult it is to alternate a normal model to a destroyed one.

What do you and especially mappers think about that?
Do you have in mind that your map might be played thousands of times with many many explosions?

I'd just like to hear what you think about more destructed maps from the start. (not talking about destructable buildings etc)

[sweedensniiperr]

I agree with but...

Those models have to be made...

[Ason]

absolutely agree, I think destroyed buildings is a major part of the feelings the maps create, would be really nice to see some of that in the Syrian maps, it would make them a bit different from all other middle eastern maps.

[Mineral]

If somebody makes a series of destructible large buildings statics (or small ones), I would probably hug you until you suffocate.

[Rudd]

As other say, it's about models.

I would dearly love versions of the Russian apartments with great big holes in them etc, but alas...Statics are PR's weakness and always have been.

The houses on Silent Eagle were designed to be destructable, if I ever figure out how to extract the wreck's of those and make new statics from them - then I'll make a whole village based on destruction.

[Spec]

I'll just go and consider this not a suggestion.

Anyway, I agree. More destroyed stuff would look very believable; as the OP said, however, that's stuff that has already been destroyed, destroyable objects soon make a map reach the networkable limit, i.e., can't have many of them or the map crashes.

[rodrigoma]

I think this is the kind of thread, "if you want it , do it"
As I know there aren't any real urban destroyed statics, maybe as Rudd said a destroyed village but it would still require work.

Best bet, learn to model, make the statics, and ask someone to make a map, or do it yourself.

[HunterMed]

Yeah I know about the policy...

I was just wondering if mappers WANT to make "clean" maps or if there are no destroyed statics available.
I mean it is perfectly explainable to have the will to make a nice city instead of a destroyed one.

Just wanted to get some awareness and how other people see it.

[Masaq]

If there were enough "destroyed <building>" statics to suitably build a high quality map, I think you'd be seeing them already. Mappers will always work with everything that's available to them. The issue is lack of statics, not lack of interest in that kind of map - as Rudd has already said.

[AFsoccer]

Another factor is that statics made to look destroyed are going to be more complex models (i.e. more triangles) and could severely impact performance... so it would be tough to have a fully destroyed cityscape, but I definitely agree that we could use more destroyed-looking statics.

[Heavy Death]

If i knew how to model, thats the only thing i would do. But sadly im too lazy.

[HunterMed]

Where do I start if I want to learn modelling buildings etc. with 0 knowledge so far?

also on the subject of "trianangles". If it is a completly destroyed building couldnt you just leave some walls (just like 4 walls basically, no roof) and put for example a reskinned "trash" thingy, like on ramiel, in it or something?

[Onil]

If anything, I would say that we need more exporters to re-export some of the destroyable statics that already exist in PR and make destroyed ones out of them. A swell as to fix some other models...

I would however also like to see a bigger variety of car wrecks... it would be nice to find a enterable bus wreckage for example.

[Mineral]

Where do I start if I want to learn modelling buildings etc. with 0 knowledge so far?

also on the subject of "trianangles". If it is a completly destroyed building couldnt you just leave some walls (just like 4 walls basically, no roof) and put for example a reskinned "trash" thingy, like on ramiel, in it or something?

Modding Tutorials - Project Reality Forums

Check the community modding for more help.

[Psyrus]

Where do I start if I want to learn modelling buildings etc. with 0 knowledge so far?

also on the subject of "trianangles". If it is a completly destroyed building couldnt you just leave some walls (just like 4 walls basically, no roof) and put for example a reskinned "trash" thingy, like on ramiel, in it or something?

If you check out this thread combined with what Mineral added, you can basically see what is involved in making your first static. I think I documented it pretty well and it shows the various steps & potential frustrations (and lots of good feedback) that you may experience

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f388-p ... e-wip.html

It was a really rewarding experience though, and hopefully come 1.0 you'll see some of my statics in play, mostly in the maps by pleym

[lucky.BOY]

I feel both kinds of maps have their place in PR, The sort of ruined city OP is calling for is caused by extensive bombardment prior to troops entering area, or a long all-out conflict, like we see in Syria.

For example seeing a Marines assault on destroyed Muttrah city just wouldnt feel right, same with Vadso etc.

In the end, it is indeed about what static are available, and what mappers choose to do with them.

[jenagrey8585]

Yes i am agreed with you and many good points raised by the folks so far

[ComradeHX]

I fully support this.

Something like "Muttrah City, day three(with leaking pipe behind mosque fixed)" would be wonderful.

I feel both kinds of maps have their place in PR, The sort of ruined city OP is calling for is caused by extensive bombardment prior to troops entering area, or a long all-out conflict, like we see in Syria.

For example seeing a Marines assault on destroyed Muttrah city just wouldnt feel right, same with Vadso etc.

In the end, it is indeed about what static are available, and what mappers choose to do with them.

Could have USMC defending the city while MEC(or other country) takes it.

[carmikaze]

I'll just go and consider this not a suggestion.

Anyway, I agree. More destroyed stuff would look very believable; as the OP said, however, that's stuff that has already been destroyed, destroyable objects soon make a map reach the networkable limit, i.e., can't have many of them or the map crashes.

He's not talking about buildings that can be destroyed, but statics, which are already destroyed.

[Rhino]

I fully support this.

Something like "Muttrah City, day three(with leaking pipe behind mosque fixed)" would be wonderful.

To have a "destroyed day2/3" or w/e would require the map to be 100% cloned, costing the space of 2 maps which we can't afford for both the normal version and the slightly edited, destroyed version. Not to mention the amount of work that would need to be done in making destroyed versions of the buildings and then editing the map to suit.