Project Reality Forums

This is what I'm proposing. Wooden fences like the my picture are able to be crawled under. They will also be able to be driven through. This is unexploitable in the way you said because wooden fences offer little protection and you have to be going a certain speed to pass though them. I'm not saying tanks should be able to be driven through chain link fences because that is exploitable, nor should chain link fences be able to be crawled under. Rails such as the ones on some streets should be able to be crawled under, but not driven through because they are made of thick metal.

Basically:
Thin wooden fences: Drive-throughable at a certain speed/crawl underable
Metal Rails: Crawl underable
Chain link fences, ect...: Remain the same as they are now.

spawncaptain wrote:While it would be nice for tanks to be able to pass through chain-link fences, I can already see an exploit there. One could position the tank "inside" the fence just so that the turret is on the far side and reverse when spotted where you'd be invincible since tank shells explode on impact with fences IIRC.

They were talking about wooden fences like in DragonFly Cornfield. (which right now are destructible).

[R-DEV]dbzao wrote:Not that bad of a compromise...

Ye if you remember ages ago I was working on something a bit like this but with large hedge rows so not every type of vehicle could drive though them and tanks would need to put a little effort to get though them but would really only slow them down a little while going though them, although never finished off the idea.


Dest fences is naturally the most immersion approach but like you said, this is a good compromise when it comes to the dest object count of BF2.

I think with something like a picket fence it would be better to have the cols set up so you could get underneath them in crouch mode rather than prone mode, it wouldn't look fabulous but I don't like the idea of 'prone-diving' every time you meet a fence, imo that would just look more silly.

Anyway that's a bit off topic and nitpicky for what is a broad suggestion.

darklord63 wrote:Well either way, current PR fences are not drive-throughable or able to be crawled under. Although it is unrealistic to have a 20 ton vehicle be stopped by wood fencing, it is also unrealistic to be able to pass right through them. Regardless being able to drive through them is a more accurate representation and it makes the game more enjoyable. (Not having to drive around huge fencing.) It also seems like a popular idea.
Being able to crawl under a fence is even more advantageous to PR. Due to the high stamina loss of jumping over fences when they clearly have enough room to be crawled under.

you cant have that much destructible stuff in BF2 i agree with driving through fences but not quite crawling under some because some are made to jump over and retard the movement

for the larger fences I'd say lets not do this, putting destructable sections that are easy to recognise would be the best way forward

View Post
While it would be nice for tanks to be able to pass through chain-link fences, I can already see an exploit there. One could position the tank "inside" the fence just so that the turret is on the far side and reverse when spotted where you'd be invincible since tank shells explode on impact with fences IIRC.

And even as far as non-destructible fence-like structures go, one could just change them not to stop bullets. A piece of wood wouldn't effectively stop any sort of projectile anyway.

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:for the larger fences I'd say lets not do this, putting destructable sections that are easy to recognise would be the best way forward

You can't really go 1/2 and 1/2 on this, its really all or nothing tbh.

This would take away a bit of frustration for a lot of players if used, I hope it be implemented.

Roar, I rad only the 1st page. +1.
Those thin wooden fences on Asad Khal are so damn annoying cuz u have to drive around them every time..

This idea does seem to have more support than most, and I don't think it'd be a difficult change. Just remove old picket fences and replace with the Forgotten Hope 2ish model. It adds realism as well as game play. If one thing should be added it should be crawling under fences, it is ridiculous when you have to walk around or jump over and loose all your stamina where as in real life you would crawl under.

darklord63 wrote:This idea does seem to have more support than most, and I don't think it'd be a difficult change. Just remove old picket fences and replace with the Forgotten Hope 2ish model.

We cant "just replace", we need to either make our own or "trade" those fences from FH2.

I know, but you get what I said.

Is there an... "easy" way to change a model's collision mesh?

Well the FH2 team did. You could probably ask them.

darklord63 wrote:Well the FH2 team did. You could probably ask them.

No, they didn't change the collision mesh, they made a unique collision mesh and exported it with the original model, whereas AD is asking about ways to change already exported models with the old collision mesh, which may require a lot of work in tracking and reimporting certain files etc...

And, as Danke has said, we can't edit the collision mesh itself (except perhaps for a few properties) of the BF2 fences as it would break the EULA, so they'd need to be completely original (unless you can get the desired effect without actually changing the collision mesh "model").

darklord63 wrote:This idea does seem to have more support than most, and I don't think it'd be a difficult change. Just remove old picket fences and replace with the Forgotten Hope 2ish model.

That is where your so wrong tbh. This isn't something that is a "simple change", really to do this properly we need brand new fences because mainly, there isn't enough space under our current fences to have someone crawl under them, you would be crawling though the fence itself which will look gay in both 3p and 1p as well as opens up a tiny bit of exploitation.
Now if we make brand new models, we can't just "replace" the old ones with the new ones on existing maps since new models need lightmaps need to be redone and that's a huge pain in the *** epically if we dont have the lightmaps for the map any longer or the mapper who made the map has retired, inactive or is busy with other stuff and can't do it himself which most of the time is the case and most of the time mappers dont want to deal with fixing up little bits here and there on there old maps, its not worth it. Fixing bits on maps is only worth it if your going to be fixing lots of stuff.
Now also with replacing the old fences and unless we make them the same size as the old fences excatly, having them match up to the old fence positions will be hard and if they are not the same size then you get an issue with the new fence being longer or shorter than the old fence and not meeting the end of the field. Even if we do make the new fences the same size as one of our fences currently in PR, we have more than one type of fence in PR that would need replacing and both have different size standards.

All in all, its not a simple task and that's also not going into the effort needed to make a brand new set of fences.

[R-DEV]AfterDune wrote:Is there an... "easy" way to change a model's collision mesh?

There is sort of but for a staticmesh, but for reasons I've stated its not an option for changing it for our fences...

Unless the models were exactly the same barring the collision mesh changes. You wouldn't need to re-lightmap anything, right?

Just re-exporting a model can change its lightmaps UVs unless the model has been made with custom LM UVs (Which so far no models ingame have since that means no lightmap samples and the static can only be LMed in Max) but you can change just the col mesh on its own and replace it with the old one yes but you would want that to match the main object and not like I said, have players crawling though bits of wood.

Well a lot of fences in PR are higher than a prone player.