Destroyable Objects

[Mattn]

Fascinating info. Actually Zenerka, if you don't mind, could you provide a very high level overview of what would be required to add this feature? Or a list of limitations for why it's problematic?

* There is an upper limit for server entities - it should not be exceeded
* as Zenerka stated - manpower is missing - as always

[XaverXN]

According to what Zenerka said, we just need particles and sound, the rest is up to the person mapping. So not much to code here, is there?

The problem I see with destroyable objects is that its a "property" assigned to a brush - so you would have to split up e. g. a fence in a lot of small brushes that are func_breakables so the damage seen will be any near the impact position. That results in a lot of brushes, and a lot of entities - which have an upper limit as Mattn just stated, not to mention performance costs.

Its probably the best to have a few brushes that are destroyable - which the player can guess - like windows, that fence, an already cracked wall, chairs.
At least with the current 'break-system' thats more suitable than having the goal of a even nearly realistic breaking behaviour of most map pieces.

[Wanderer]

* There is an upper limit for server entities - it should not be exceeded

What would this value be?

[Mattn]

1024 is the upper entity (edict) limit (MAX_EDICTS)

[Zenerka]

According to what Zenerka said, we just need particles and sound, the rest is up to the person mapping. So not much to code here, is there?

Particles, sounds AND code support for every type of breakable material (which is needed to calculate particle and sound type). That is if you break a window, you want to hear breaking glass sound and see breaking window particle, etc.

[Wanderer]

1024 is the upper entity (edict) limit (MAX_EDICTS)

And to confirm, Server Entities are Spawn points, Func_breaks, Misc_models, lights, and func_groups?

[Mattn]

func_group is only for editor usage - the others, yes