project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: Destructable Terrain?  (Read 14407 times)

XCOM1

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« on: October 05, 2006, 12:01:39 am »
Are you guys planning on adding code for destructable terrain?  I saw an alien behind a fence on one of my first missions and launched a rocket at it thinking "bye, bye little alien!" and lo and behold the fence didn't even shed a splinter much less get partly destroyed.  One of the things that I liked about the original Xcom was that you could blow away a wall to get somewhere fast or to kill an alien.  Is this going to be a future feature?  If not, I think that it is pretty week that a rocket can't even destroy a wooden fence.

HaJo

  • Guest
Re: Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2006, 03:14:06 am »
Quote from: "XCOM1"
Are you guys planning on adding code for destructable terrain?

The engine does not support fully destructable terrain.

There are plans to add some destructable items (furniture, barrels...),
but even that will be a lot of work (models, particle-effects etc.)

XCOM1

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2006, 05:19:51 pm »
OK.  I see.  Well I would try to help you guys out on that but I don't see it happening as I am an idiot when it comes to coding.  If you really think about it though, it could be a benefit to my team if they are able to hide behind a fence and not get shot.  :P

jhcook1999

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2006, 09:28:01 pm »
This limitation does seem to block the ability to create random maps, after all if you create a random map, and your soldiers can't get out of the dropship area, then they're sitting ducks and all of the civilians if any are dead.

Are we supposed to be able to see aliens through the wooden fences? I'm pretty sure that they can't see me, so that kinda makes it unfair.

Which part of the code is the limitation in?

Mephisto

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2006, 12:17:46 pm »
well, there weren't any particle-effects in the original x-com either. The item which was e.g. hit by a rocket was just completely removed from the map. This shouldn't be that hard to code (as it should be already done in the mapping-tools). If you don't know how to dynamically remove these parts just write a temporary map file and reload from there until you figure it out (but pause the game while doing so).

Sacrusha

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2006, 11:28:17 am »
It is a limitation given by the algorithms used by the graphics engine. There is no workaround except for changing the algorithms ie replacing the engine and make everything fit the new engine (more work than it's worth). This is not because of only a few algorithms, which can be exchanged, but because of the major concept behind the engine.

Sacrusha

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2006, 11:33:35 am »
Quote from: "jhcook1999"
This limitation does seem to block the ability to create random maps, after all if you create a random map, and your soldiers can't get out of the dropship area, then they're sitting ducks and all of the civilians if any are dead.
The random maps are assembled by rather big premade parts. Also, the parts determine to what other parts they can fit on either side (or their creator does) so what you described will not happen.

kaeau

  • Guest
important aspect
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2006, 07:27:21 pm »
just as opinion, while reading to the forum, i think it is one of the MAJOR good aspects of UFO enemy unknown, that you can blast your way trough almost everything, and in addition, have impressive and also useful mass destruction effects.

isnt it possible (from a none coder point of view) to add structures in a way, e.g. exploding barrels are made in quake?

cheers
ka
www.ninc.at

sirg

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2006, 08:16:45 pm »
Undestructible terrain... :( It's a bummer to read that wooden fences will be hard as steel or those japonese houses or african huts won't burn to the ground aided by some incendiary ammo  :)

However, you might compensate, at least a bit, by having aliens and humans die in spectacular ways... I want to see an alien blow up when I give him a grenade!

Reenen

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2006, 04:25:18 pm »
I used to create maps for quake1 and quake2... And q2 supported breaking stuff.

However, it was mostly on windows etc.  And the main problem came in with the "lighting" of the maps that used windows that could break.  (A wall made from breakable material didn't make shadows)

The VIS algorithm or something didn't actually consider breakable parts as "walls".  And if you used a breakable part to try to mend a "leak" it wouldn't work because of that.


An easy solution... but it will have a serious impact on the eye-candy of the game, is to replace all the "solid" walls with "glass" in the maps.  These glass just need rediculously high resistance, so they don't just break for nothing.

Each breakable part has a "health" assigned to it, and this should just be high (20,000 for brick walls, 7,500 for wooden walls, and probably 150,000 for steel stuff).

(This is assuming a typical pistol does about 150 damage)

Penetration of walls should be done differently though.

Reenen

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2006, 04:26:25 pm »
Oh, and I forgot to mention that high poly counts on these absolutely kills the (then) 3d cards.

Gomeril

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2006, 06:04:55 pm »
As a non-coder I cannot provide a solution but I would strongly prefer destructable terrain to eye candy.

Silencer

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #12 on: November 04, 2006, 12:20:36 pm »
A better example of destructable terrain in 3D games can be found in the PC version of Red Faction, where almost anything can be blasted (heck more than a few of the maps make use of the feature to mess up your day (or if you're a smart alec like me at times use to avoid a few ambushes).
And the excuse of high polycount is actually something that needs to be addressed, if the polycount is really that high then you need to have a look at where it's not necessary to have such a high polycount.
ie Halflife ran into engine limitations with polycounts and thus the design teams needed to scrimp and save to get around the limitations at times, ie cutting down on polygons on enemy models that were going to be seen a lot, cutting down on the weapon model detail, etc.
And I personally don't care much about destructable terrain unless it's going to add an additional level of detail into the tactics you can use in game, ie hiding in a shell crater, but things like shooting through/destroying walls is something that definitely feels wrong not to have at times, especially to me at leas with at present splash damage not seeming to work at all beyond an obstacle I can understand the difficulty of coding so the damage doesn't obliterate it's full extent beyond the wall, but lesser damage based off the blast radius would be nice. Instead of wasting a rocket on a wall due to a near miss and being mooned by the still living alien.

Reenen

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2006, 12:32:55 pm »
Red Faction used a very different engine than quake 2 slightly modified.

Quake 2 engine is more than 7 years old (I think) so destructable terrain wasn't quite possible then.

UFO AI runs a "heavily modified quake 2 engine" (loosely quoted from somewhere...)

Silencer

  • Guest
Destructable Terrain?
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2006, 12:53:00 pm »
I'm not denying it, it was more the point it's not an impossibility as suggested by one of the posts without a total restart.
Part of the VIS issue with Q2 was the fact it wasn't designed to have the dynamics for the partial transparency to begin with as I recall, nor was the issue with breakable walls considered such a big issue since largely they were in places where the lighting issues weren't noticable. I can't remember if Valve used the Q or Q2 engine for HL in the end with their modifications to the engine, or if they fixed that problem either.
And as much as I might like to offer assistance, I've got real world worries that take precedence to picking up on 3D programming of any description again, the 15,000 KM is a vast understatement of the current distance between my GF and myself, and I really want to resolve that ASAP before considering doing anything that'd require 20-30 hours per week to make any headway, I've even had to put aside my writing to search harder for a job.