Destructable Environments in DNF?

[FireFly]

Cerberus_e said:
I thought HL2 was the only game that "still" used the BSP tree, and that causes the abysmally long loading times (I heard that)
also, what's the fun of destructible environments? then it makes levels with cool layout impossible, since you can skip everything.
there was something else I wanted to ask you, but I forgot

No, it's not. Even Doom 3 still uses BSP trees for collision detection, (but not visibility). With a fully destructible world all the collision detection has to be dynamic

From the person who wrote the Red Faction engine:

"All of out structures in the game are dynamic to handle this... the code to actually make the whole is only a minor part of the problem. For instance, our AI paths can update to reflect the hole, the rooms and portals update so a hole between two rooms is now a portal, and the collision detection structures for the world use recursive AABB, which get dynamically updated during the Geomod. Even things like slapping bullet decals on the new faces and making sure to remove decals on faces that get Geomoded away is a mess."

http://www.gamedev.net/community/for...opic_id=124869

[Cerberus_e]

well, how do games have moving platforms, and doom 3 all that cool moving machinery? to pick up plasma canisters, rotate them a bit, etc...?

that my question I forgot

[FireFly]

Those are static meshes - imported models made in a modelling program. Before that I believe movable brushes were used. These are called movers in the Unreal Engine.

A mover is a brush that can change position during play. They are used to make doors, elevators or any other feature in your map that is not static. Movers aren't very hard to make and once you get the basics you can try different things to come up with very cool stuff.

Movers are not strictly part of the BSP, although they block players and projectiles in the same way as the BSP world. Movers can't be subtractive, although it's possible to have glass or masked textures in a mover.

http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/Create_A_Mover_(UT)

[SyntaxN]

I never expected fully destructable environments in DNF, but parts of it should be destructable, like we´ve seen it in the black trailer

[Emultra]

Can someone change the title to "Destructible"? "Destructable" is not a word. It's like saying "unpossible".

[colmtourque]

I would be glad to but changing a title is unpossible for me.

[FireFly]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unpossible

[Emultra]

OK, inusable, then.

[Simon Charles]

Come on guys, it's Duke... That's the game that made holes in walls when we shot fire extinguishers and barrels. Don't you remember going "wow!" the first time you caused wanton destruction in Hollywood Holocaust? And that was in the stoneage days of Build.

Whatever tech 3D Realms has in store, I'm sure we'll see some nice destruction.

[Micki!]

So, i changed the title...

Btw, Dudetheman, i was actually going to find that quote froms yours, and post it here... But you did it before me, so anyways...

I really like that suggestion you came with there... But unfortunately, i guess 3DR are moving a completely different direction...

[Sir Robin]

bobk said:
I think this discussion shows how much progress is yet to be made in video games. Imagine a game galaxy where you fly to a planet, into the planet's atmosphere, land on the planet, walk up to a building, blow out a support structure, and the building falls down realistically, all this with no perceptable load times. Probably 7-10 years away. I believe it will require special hardware...

Bobk, why did you quote an AGEIA statement? (look on the ageia site - somewhere, I dunno )

Oh, and sorry about the spelling mistake

I wonder if any advancements have been made with explosions though? Usually explosions are very repetitive using the same effect over and over again, this can be seen in Duke 3d with the 'mini nuclear explosion'

More advanced particle effects to create such explosions would be very nice. (no static mesh explosions please! e.g. Quake 2 )

[bobk]

Sir Robin said:

Bobk, why did you quote an AGEIA statement? (look on the ageia site - somewhere, I dunno )

Oh, and sorry about the spelling mistake

I wonder if any advancements have been made with explosions though? Usually explosions are very repetitive using the same effect over and over again, this can be seen in Duke 3d with the 'mini nuclear explosion'

More advanced particle effects to create such explosions would be very nice. (no static mesh explosions please! e.g. Quake 2 )

I don't believe I quoted AGEIA...

Trying to merge engines that work well for outer space, flight simulator, large terrain on earth, city exteriors, building interiors.... seemlessly. Seems like that is a long ways off.

[Otto von Keisinger]

Mostly because people rarely have undertaken such a task, but it has been done before.

[hell-angel]

Micki! said:
I really like that suggestion you came with there... But unfortunately, i guess 3DR are moving a completely different direction...

I don't think that is unfortunate, not since they can now focus on object interactivity with a simpler (I guess) and stable engine. I prefer that over geomod everyday, since the destructions of house and walls and such is not nearly as beautifull as it should be IMO because we have a lack in computer power for it.

[Cerberus_e]

FireFly said:
Those are static meshes - imported models made in a modelling program. Before that I believe movable brushes were used. These are called movers in the Unreal Engine.

A mover is a brush that can change position during play. They are used to make doors, elevators or any other feature in your map that is not static. Movers aren't very hard to make and once you get the basics you can try different things to come up with very cool stuff.

Movers are not strictly part of the BSP, although they block players and projectiles in the same way as the BSP world. Movers can't be subtractive, although it's possible to have glass or masked textures in a mover.

http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/Create_A_Mover_(UT)

why don't they use movers for destructible environments, then?
if it's possible to deform surfaces (monsters bursting through walls, physics, ...)

[Little Conqueror]

I'd like to see somebody try to make a level entirely out of movers. I'm telling you, it'd be insane.

[FireFly]

You can't use movers for destructible geometry, because all they can do is move about on a set, predefined course. You can't modify them in-game.

As I said it's perfectly possible to have destructible geometry using static meshes, or just plain meshes (I imagine they used this in HL for the zombies that burst through the walls). However it's limited to specific, specially made sections.

[LiquiD]

In meqon you can blast through brick walls, so whats stopping 3drealms from doin that same thing from time to time? I can understand the CPU demands if every brick wall was destructable... That would be seriously demanding.

[hell-angel]

A brick wall has to be build brick by brick. Although one can batch something like that, it is still a lot of work and requires a serious amount of data.

As for the CPU load, that all depends on how big the wall is and how small the stones.

[Haravikk]

I think the more important question is what precisely does total destruction add to a game? IMO being able to destroy everything is a gimmick that would wear off extremely quickly.

I like the "layered" suggestion which makes the destruction visible but not environment deforming, as the whole point of a level is that there are specific places you are supposed to go, and specific ways to get to them. It's no fun if you can bypass carefully designed parts of a level just by blowing through everything in your path.

Even Red Faction wasn't fully deformable, it just allowed you to dynamically deform specific parts of the levels. There were still indestructable walls and doors which made up the main level design.

Admittedly, Warlords was a sweet multiplayer map, but that kind of destruction doesn't really work so well for general gameplay.

[Cerberus_e]

FireFly said:
You can't use movers for destructible geometry, because all they can do is move about on a set, predefined course. You can't modify them in-game.

what are the bricks in Meqon then?
you can move them around with your mouse, so it's not a pre-defined course like for example the train ride from Quake 2.

[FireFly]

They're models, just like the enemies are models, and can move around and be affected by physics. Static meshes are merely models that are specially optimised for use as geometry.

[Cerberus_e]

so we just create a whole level out of models!
man, I should be game developer

[hell-angel]

Haravikk said:
I think the more important question is what precisely does total destruction add to a game? IMO being able to destroy everything is a gimmick that would wear off extremely quickly.

I like the "layered" suggestion which makes the destruction visible but not environment deforming, as the whole point of a level is that there are specific places you are supposed to go, and specific ways to get to them. It's no fun if you can bypass carefully designed parts of a level just by blowing through everything in your path.

Even Red Faction wasn't fully deformable, it just allowed you to dynamically deform specific parts of the levels. There were still indestructable walls and doors which made up the main level design.

Admittedly, Warlords was a sweet multiplayer map, but that kind of destruction doesn't really work so well for general gameplay.

But most doors you could blow your way around in red faction.

But you have a point though, I would like to have it, but I prefer a good non-destructable level over a destructable level which you can almost completely bypass.

[LiquiD]

Yeah I guess they should save the destructable levels for Serious sam ha?

[Micki!]

hell-angel said:

But most doors you could blow your way around in red faction.

But you have a point though, I would like to have it, but I prefer a good non-destructable level over a destructable level which you can almost completely bypass.

Hehe, i remember a part of the training level, where you could practice with explosives... You couldn't get to any further training rooms before completeing the explosives part first...
Except if you use the explosives to blow up a way besides the locked door...

[hell-angel]

^ hehe, to good old days.

Some stuff like this will be cool for DNF though. Just not all the time.

[Water12356]

Cerberus_e said:
that isn't strange, it allows you to skip the whole levels (skipping intended routes of the developers in levels, allowing you to immediately finish a level )

serious sam 2 has destructible environments, look into that

Yea where the hell do u get that much ammo though?

[Otto von Keisinger]

As I recall, Red Faction was very leninent with it's ammo supply. I never was for a want of ammo, unless I decided to mine unnecessarily.

[hell-angel]

Otto von Keisinger said:
As I recall, Red Faction was very leninent with it's ammo supply. I never was for a want of ammo, unless I decided to mine unnecessarily.

Correct.

[Otto von Keisinger]

Addendum: when I did mine, I usually would hit the hardcoded limits of the game before I ran out of ammo, thus breaking the game.

[hell-angel]

Damn, I never hit them. You must have spend some time blasting then.

[Cerberus_e]

Water12356 said:

Yea where the hell do u get that much ammo though?

well, destroying one wall can lead to half the level skipped

[Otto von Keisinger]

hell-angel said:
Damn, I never hit them. You must have spend some time blasting then.

I got very deep indeed, and I usually would wind hitting the limits unintentionally just playing (I tend to make big doorways) right before a part where you have to take advantage of the destructability.

[hell-angel]

I see, nice. Some stuff like that would be fun in DNF, but only on places where it is required to use it or as a fun way around something difficult or maybe even to a secret place with lots of ammo to kill the guys more easily.

[Lemonfield]

Which I fully expect to see in DNF. Remember the cracks on the walls in DN3D, indicating a destructable wall? I think we may see something like that again.

Edit: woops, contradictory statement. Pick a place somewhere between 'fully' and 'may'.

[hell-angel]

I hope so. Only, I do want it to look better then in D3D.