Project Reality Forums

I just wanna know, can you [devs] do something to them or its hardcoded part of BF2?

Imo bodies are flying too often when hit with 7.62 etc, maybe body weight can be increased?

are you kidding? ragdolls are freakin awsome!

Yeah i know, im not suggesting removal of ragdolls, just some edits so they can be more natural and realistic.

BF2 came out in 2005. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the ragdoll physics in game are probably about as good as they are going to get.

Also, when your suggestion amounts to "Make it better", it is not particularly helpful or constructive. Just saying.

he suggested making the player heavier, whch is very simple.

My apologies to all for posting this, it was immature/selfish on my part.

Psykogundam wrote:he suggested making the player heavier, whch is very simple.

Well, I was more thinking along the lines of something which shows evidence of deeper thought, research, sources etc. Like this, for instance.

However, it is not hardcoded, apparently:

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:There's actually several parameters to adjust how ragdoll acts. We just haven't really played around with them enough.

(Thats from early 2009)

Psykogundam wrote:he suggested making the player heavier, whch is very simple.

And that has its sideeffects I reckon, otherwise it would've been balanced fine already I'm sure.

okay so 1. yes BF2 came out in 05 but . . . keep in mind that there were games out before which had Much better physics than Bf2 . . . trust me EA team just did a Shotty job at putting everything togeather 100% 2.Making the players heavier would yes Maby fix the issue but at the same time there would be alot of work going into fixing every issue such as . . . Momentum aka Falling/running down stairs Collision effects/jumping off objects + damage taken. ^_^ lol Huey Helicopters ( climb sux first off ) adding heavier people would just make it worse lolol

there realy is a whole list of stupid **** that would go into the idea .. but overall yes it would be nice not to have rediculous deaths but at the same time .. what harm is it realy doing? you get shot you die so what if your body goes flying its more fun to watch ^_^

I don't know about you, but watching ragdolls fly ridiculous heights when exploded makes my day.

I believe ragdolls are activated when player is dead. So increasing player weight in ragdoll configs wont affect jumping etc.

If you check some older BF2 trailers, theres difference beetwen old ragdolls and what we have now.
YouTube - Battlefield 2 - Helicopter

WilsonPL wrote:Yeah i know, im not suggesting removal of ragdolls, just some edits so they can be more natural and realistic.

ragdolls are neither natural nor realistic. and belive it or not, they actually do serve a purpose for us. if your enemy is prone and you see him "pop up", you know you killed him.

Wh33lman wrote:ragdolls are neither natural nor realistic. and belive it or not, they actually do serve a purpose for us. if your enemy is prone and you see him "pop up", you know you killed him.

Well in real life people really dont pop up so much, of any at all. Theres the problem.

Im all for more realistic ragdolls, another non important thing that will make the game look much better.

Wh33lman wrote:are you kidding? ragdolls are freakin awsome!

Especially when they are glitched

I think its to hard to do, I think whoever gave the point about BF2 coming out in 2005 is correct.

[R-DEV]AfterDune wrote:And that has its sideeffects I reckon, otherwise it would've been balanced fine already I'm sure.

Although it could stop the player from rolling down the hills as much so it wouldn't be such a headache for the medic.

Redamare wrote:okay so 1. yes BF2 came out in 05 but . . . keep in mind that there were games out before which had Much better physics than Bf2 . . . trust me EA team just did a Shotty job at putting everything togeather 100%

Have you considered the net code/grafics/cpu etc involved in 64 players and the size of the maps and so forth.

Yeah source had "nice" rag dolls, but the maps were much smaller, there's fewer players, there's no vehicles and so forth. And then come here and say that the Refractor2 engine is bad is kinda bull shitting Dice.

Considering what the engine can do at the time of making it, it's actually pretty good. There was advances on bf2142, when they had more time to know the engine, and they had the source code. PR has had what, 5-6 years to make where we are today, they might have had 2-3 years, AND had to build the engine.

[R-DEV]motherdear wrote:Have you considered the net code/grafics/cpu etc involved in 64 players and the size of the maps and so forth.

Yeah source had "nice" rag dolls, but the maps were much smaller, there's fewer players, there's no vehicles and so forth. And then come here and say that the Refractor2 engine is bad is kinda bull shitting Dice.

Considering what the engine can do at the time of making it, it's actually pretty good. There was advances on bf2142, when they had more time to know the engine, and they had the source code. PR has had what, 5-6 years to make where we are today, they might have had 2-3 years, AND had to build the engine.

I've got to be honest with you, that's a load of shit. I have little patience for people who defend the engine work that Dice did for BF2 because for the most part it was one step forward from 1942 and two steps back.

You only have to start by looking at the abyssmal netcode and hitreg to see that Dice had its priorities all wrong when it went to work on BF2. I'm a firm believer in the principle that you start anything by getting all the fundamentals perfect, or at least right, and then move on to icing, features and gimicks. Dice very much did this backwards, and skimped on a lot of the things that you really want to be squared away in a shooter's engine in order to free up resources for the creation of selling points.

Truism wrote:I've got to be honest with you, that's a load of shit. I have little patience for people who defend the engine work that Dice did for BF2 because for the most part it was one step forward from 1942 and two steps back.

You only have to start by looking at the abyssmal netcode and hitreg to see that Dice had its priorities all wrong when it went to work on BF2. I'm a firm believer in the principle that you start anything by getting all the fundamentals perfect, or at least right, and then move on to icing, features and gimicks. Dice very much did this backwards, and skimped on a lot of the things that you really want to be squared away in a shooter's engine in order to free up resources for the creation of selling points.

i LOVE how people confuse hitreg code failures with deviation

It's all about ping. If you're getting 100ish, you're bound to have a few hick-ups, in any game.

Dev1200 wrote:i LOVE how people confuse hitreg code failures with deviation

It's all about ping. If you're getting 100ish, you're bound to have a few hick-ups, in any game.

Nobody mentioned deviation.

out of serious curiosity is there an ability to add "weight" to the player models?

Though I will say that the effect of a player getting shot up into the sky after having a HEAT round, or an IED going off next to him is kind of realistic to a certain degree.