3 point slings

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-01-20 08:17

i know this is an eye candy isue but does any one else think that when you holster your rifle where does it go? seeing as it has no sling the guy must throw it on the floor.
I would love to see slings added it would be cool.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-01-20 09:35

Hitperson wrote:i know this is an eye candy isue but does any one else think that when you holster your rifle where does it go? seeing as it has no sling the guy must throw it on the floor.
I would love to see slings added it would be cool.

In the perfect world, every last one of your weapons would be on the model and dynamically get moved/removed

TerribleOne · Post by **TerribleOne** » 2006-01-20 13:29

Because the game scenes are so vast and the player and vehicle counts very large also cuts we made for BF2.
Example:
In CSS or many other FPS game you will see your weapon on the floor if you drop it and it interacts with the world.
In BF2 you can not drop individual weapons, only kits. Kits viewed as a very simple (And low poly) bag.
CSS etc uses much smaller maps so it can concentrate the detail and use much higher poly surroundings and objects.
If BF2 was kitted up with the same dense triangle surroundings alike of CSS but with huge maps and lots of vehicles and players it would be unplayable or the dredded 'fog' would be increased to counter it so much that it would be like walking in a bubble.

Because if you are wondering the only reason the 'fog' exists is because that is the detailed render limit. If the fog could be fully removed the game WOULD be unplayable due to massive lag.

For example weapons and skins etc found at CDG:
http://www.cdg.net/forums/index.php?c=3

check in the WIP forum and Source Release Section.

You will find some super detailed models and textures which work really well in smaller games like CSS that the forum is mostly aimed at. But none of them could be used as a BF2 Weapon because they are simply too dense.

I went on a bit there but basically what i'm saying is that little detailed pieces of quality you might see in other games simply are not possible if you want to keep the large multiplayer games you are all used too...

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-01-20 15:45

my meaning was that in real life you have a weapon sling but in bf2 to change weapn you have no where to put your rifle a sling would be a nice addition.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-01-20 17:52

TerribleOne wrote:You will find some super detailed models and textures which work really well in smaller games like CSS that the forum is mostly aimed at. But none of them could be used as a BF2 Weapon because they are simply too dense.

You make a very good point for the fact that BF2 *IS* that detailed due to a very well rounded LOD system. Even old BF1942 didnt really have any problems with a 25,000 polygon weapon model (I tested long ago). The key here is of course the fact that the 1st person model isnt the 3rd person model. You can have 3000 polygons in 1st person and 300 in 3rd person (which would be the highest detail LOD, LOD 4-5 can be like 20 polygons).

Having the rifle, pistol, grenades and possible other things on the high poly soldier mesh wouldnt really add that much in comparison.

Edit: Especially since the only real additions would be one time use weapons, such as grenades. If you carry a rifle, holster it to pull up your pistol, you dont really add much polygons do you? You just shifted it around a little, hehe.

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2006-01-20 22:35

Operation Flashpoint didnt seem to have problems having EVERY soldier sling his weapon / AT weapon, and you could fit 100+ characters and vehicles in a battle at once.

Yes I agree, dynamically moving/removing the weapon would be awesome. But I doubt would be an easy task. The main thing though, is that it actually takes TIME to put that grenade back and unsling and ready your weapon. In BF2 you can change weapons at lightning speed. Realistic? No.

Something even more complicated but really sweet, would be character models actually have to pull out the new mag from their LBV/Chest rig. And drop their old mag.

Now that would be very nice. When out of mags you should throw your last empty mag towards the enemy

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-01-20 22:50

'[R-PUB wrote:fuzzhead']Something even more complicated but really sweet, would be character models actually have to pull out the new mag from their LBV/Chest rig. And drop their old mag.

They do... Well in 3rd person anyway (without a clip model). In 1st person, you dont even HAVE a chest

Post by **Happy** » 2006-01-20 23:23

I know there is a knife holding thingy on people's legs.

beta · Post by **beta** » 2006-01-20 23:40

They don't really take the mags out of the LBV, it's just kinda the general area, same for each mag too, kind of a lot to ask to have each LBV pouch get emptied though ...

Tom#13 · Post by **Tom#13** » 2006-01-20 23:49

and maybe you could take an I Pod out of one and start listening to some bangin tunes lol

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-01-21 12:56

Yeah wadup homes is u du' bing bing

back to topic it would be nice if your guy had a chest and a sling just to swing your weapon around on when you get out your pistol would be nice too.

TerribleOne · Post by **TerribleOne** » 2006-01-21 14:17

dawdler wrote:You make a very good point for the fact that BF2 *IS* that detailed due to a very well rounded LOD system. Even old BF1942 didnt really have any problems with a 25,000 polygon weapon model (I tested long ago). The key here is of course the fact that the 1st person model isnt the 3rd person model. You can have 3000 polygons in 1st person and 300 in 3rd person (which would be the highest detail LOD, LOD 4-5 can be like 20 polygons).

Having the rifle, pistol, grenades and possible other things on the high poly soldier mesh wouldnt really add that much in comparison.

Edit: Especially since the only real additions would be one time use weapons, such as grenades. If you carry a rifle, holster it to pull up your pistol, you dont really add much polygons do you? You just shifted it around a little, hehe.

Yes you have low poly models for 3rd person and higher poly models for 1st, but.
The point im pushing was that if you want minute details like slings and animations and visable isolated weapons and items your adding up a large list that has to be deducted in one way or another. View Distance or lower; Detailed Worlds, Players, Vehicles,
even smaller player count or World Size.

You really have to decide whats important. Personally i would rather the view distance be increased whatever the cost.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-01-21 17:44

TerribleOne wrote:Yes you have low poly models for 3rd person and higher poly models for 1st, but.
The point im pushing was that if you want minute details like slings and animations and visable isolated weapons and items your adding up a large list that has to be deducted in one way or another. View Distance or lower; Detailed Worlds, Players, Vehicles,
even smaller player count or World Size.

You really have to decide whats important. Personally i would rather the view distance be increased whatever the cost.

That's what LOD is for. Modern graphics engines are very flexible. It is no longer a clear option between detail and fog range (well it will always be to a certain degree). The most visible example of this is Far Cry. They tossed limitations out the window and made something with AMAZING detail and AMAZING view distance! In BF1942/BFV/BF2 its not quite as good, but you will still see old examples of people removing fog completely on El Alamein and still be able to play.

The "minute details" are only in effect within like 10-20m. That's a tiny portion of a possible 1000m+ view range. But granted, it would hog down if you can gather 64 players hugging each other within a 20m radius

Tom#13 · Post by **Tom#13** » 2006-01-22 15:05

Hitperson wrote: Yeah wadup homes is u du' bing bing

fo shizzle, lol
but seriously, is it possible or not( slinging ur weapon, not the ipod, but that would be cool)

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2006-01-22 16:08

A simple solution to this wouldn't take too much. Look at the Anti-Tank class. He has a launcher on his back, seemingly extra ammunition for the one in his hand. On the back would most likely be where a soldier would holster his automatic firearm if it was not needed, not dangling from the shoulder..

Maybe there is a way to get the weapon to go on the soldiers back when it's not in use? It would be a lot more efficient than having to do animations for it dangling on the soldiers shoulder.

I've always disliked the idea of these big automatic weapons just simply disapearing when you switch to your knife.

TerribleOne · Post by **TerribleOne** » 2006-01-23 13:47

dawdler wrote:That's what LOD is for. Modern graphics engines are very flexible. It is no longer a clear option between detail and fog range (well it will always be to a certain degree). The most visible example of this is Far Cry. They tossed limitations out the window and made something with AMAZING detail and AMAZING view distance! In BF1942/BFV/BF2 its not quite as good, but you will still see old examples of people removing fog completely on El Alamein and still be able to play.

The "minute details" are only in effect within like 10-20m. That's a tiny portion of a possible 1000m+ view range. But granted, it would hog down if you can gather 64 players hugging each other within a 20m radius

Far Cry uses no where near as many player/ vehicle/ effects/ map size as BF2.
You will notice if you take a look at the wireframes of the player models, vehicles and weapons that not only are the models not as dense as BF2 models but the textures look 'cartoony'. That look is caused because they used smaller Texture maps with less detail.
Far Cry used Bump Mapping very well to squeeze detail out of lower poly models.

Also the 'Fog' can never be removed in BF2 regardless of the map. By fog im refering to when the engine renders the map and entities.
I noticed that by editing the text file so that the fog was view distance was maxed you could see the map perfect but not the entities until they got within the normal view.

Games are limited only by hardware. Until the standard of Computer and Graphics processing power is much larger you will not see any games that can do every aspect of a game with much higher quality.
Ie:
Lag Free
Huge Maps
64 players+
Large texture maps
Dense models
maxed view distance.

But it will arrive shortly.
Intel say they will have a 10GHZ cpu out by the end of 2006

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-01-23 15:27

TerribleOne wrote:Also the 'Fog' can never be removed in BF2 regardless of the map. By fog im refering to when the engine renders the map and entities.
I noticed that by editing the text file so that the fog was view distance was maxed you could see the map perfect but not the entities until they got within the normal view.

The BF2 LOD system is great, but not perfect. That objects drop out of view completely is a flaw (one that is partially fixed by the new patch btw). Far Cry uses a slightly different version with dynamic LOD for even greater view distance.

Anyway, I dissagree that games are limited by hardware. I'd say the hardware is limited by the game

TerribleOne · Post by **TerribleOne** » 2006-01-24 13:20

Ok, Lets say games are limited by technology. Wheather that be software or hardware it is not possible to have the dream game yet.

dawdler · Post by **dawdler** » 2006-01-24 15:02

TerribleOne wrote:Wheather that be software or hardware it is not possible to have the dream game yet.

Alas, it never is...

Post by **Hitperson** » 2006-01-25 09:09

Looks like I'll have to stick to good old Far Cry then