Background Ships -1 reply

Please wait...

Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

Hi guys,

just got around to watching Flags of our Fathers and realized that one of the reasons I like WWII movies so much is the sheer sense of scale, how many units there are.

I realize that with the current state of most peoples' computers and servers and what not we can't have 50 million people playing at the same time, but especially in late war Pacific maps involving invasions (or Normandy maps, whatnot), there's something missing: ships. Loads of ships. Case in point:

Spoiler: Show
majuroFleet.gifUSN-CN-Aleutians-14.gif

And barrage balloons, etc.

Day of Zitadelle and Cretan Village do a great job of adding atmosphere with the robot planes and distant AA. What's the chance we could have some sort of static, purely decorative fleet units in big amphibious maps?

I don't know if it'd be possible to whip up some ship-shaped "bricks" and place them out of bounds on maps like Charlie Sector, Iwo Jima, Saipan, Gold Beach, etc. etc. etc. -- would this cause huge amounts of lag? They wouldn't have to be super high detail, but just give some sense that there is major hardware out there.




zuiquan1

Ore o Dare da to Omotte Yagaru

50 XP

4th March 2006

0 Uploads

1,322 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

Its certainly possible, since its out of bounds I'm sure lag wouldn't be a problem.

Another thing developers might think, is "drawing" the ships on the skybox, creating the allusion that there are ships of in the distance, adding a few statics would complement it as well.




Coca-Cola

[130.Pz.]A.Aussen

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

2,816 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

zuiquan1;3658435Its certainly possible, since its out of bounds I'm sure lag wouldn't be a problem.

Another thing developers might think, is "drawing" the ships on the skybox, creating the illusion that there are ships of in the distance, adding a few statics would complement it as well.

allusion is a litterary term.




zuiquan1

Ore o Dare da to Omotte Yagaru

50 XP

4th March 2006

0 Uploads

1,322 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

meany :(




Natty Wallo

FH2 LevelDesigner

50 XP

16th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,652 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

drawing objects on the skybox is not smart, there will be locations on the map where those objects will look as if they were not in the "distance" (for example when you have a longer slice of land infront of you than the fog view for that map..)

Also there's no problem to put no-collision models in the out of bonds, we do this to create "background jungle" in our South-East Asian theatre, and even if I put 10.000 of those it doesnt affect the lag, so that's definitely possible also for ships etc... Problem on maps like Iwo Jima etc is that those ships will not be seen from the land, since you want to have a longer playable area in the sea than the fog-view limit of that map, so you need to choose to make out of bonds start very close to short, eliminating the "where will they attack from"-factor that make that map the best landing-map scenario in FH, or make a big playable area, which will force you to put the background ships so far out in the sea, they will not be shown from land...

on Charlie Sector however.... there it would work better.. also Gold, Sword, Juno beach... especially Juno and Gold where the allies start on the beach (no amphibious assault means no reason to have huge playable area in the water...)




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

"Allusion" can be correct. An allusion is anything that implies something else wiithout mentioning it directly. In this case, putting "dummy" ships on the horizon alludes to the presence of a massive fark-off fleet without actually showing a real fleet of crewable FH ships.

(I know he meant illusion, but zuiquan is Mr. Battleships Mod, so he has a huge 18-foot penis and a cadillac full of hoes.)

Putting objects outside of bounds wouldn't really ruin the element of surprise, I think (the no-collisions idea is very cool.) I mean, if you have an island and gigglety-thousand ships, they'd be all around it anyway...




Natty Wallo

FH2 LevelDesigner

50 XP

16th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,652 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago
Fuzzy Bunny;3658479 Putting objects outside of bounds wouldn't really ruin the element of surprise, I think (the no-collisions idea is very cool.) I mean, if you have an island and gigglety-thousand ships, they'd be all around it anyway...

No I didnt mean it would ruin the element or surprise to put fake ships, i mean if you would want those ships to be visible from land, they would have to be so clsoe to shore, that the real ships would also have to be so close to be seen.... because no mapper alive would ever put no-collision ships in the playable area, so real ships can go through them... they would be placed behind the real ship, as "background ships" which would mean that if they can be seen from shore, so will also the real ships; hence : surprise attack is gone.... (cos you will see the moving ships and know they are enemy players..)




Emperor Norton I

Nothing is real, Everything is

50 XP

20th July 2006

0 Uploads

7,434 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

If this ever comes to happen (which it should), whoever sets it up should look at the techniques hollywood used(and uses) to give an illusion of perspective. alot of corner cutting's possible.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago
Natty Wallo;3658487hence : surprise attack is gone.... (cos you will see the moving ships and know they are enemy players..)

Right, gotcha -- you're talking about the player-controlled ships being visible by necessity if ships beyond the border are visible.

To be honest, if I'm some Japanese dude sitting in my bunker and a gazillion USS MONSTER HAMMER class battleships show up off my little island, I don't think there's much in the way of surprise there.

- On maps like Gold Beach, surprise doesn't matter (as the attack starts on land, ships would only provide background scenery.) - On maps like Charlie, you see the landing craft pretty far out anyway, and there's a pretty limited space where they can arrive, so not much surprise. - On maps like Saipan, Makin or Iwo, you can generally see player-controlled ships from shore anyway when they're moving close enough to lay down the whoopass. I have literally never seen anyone move a ship to a new landing spot while out of visual range on any of these maps. Usually the defenders can see them just fine.

So my point being, you don't really need fog to hide ships (I thought fog was more to reduce how much stuff you see moving at once, increasing performance.)

Where you do have a point is with defguns -- those things have a gnarly range, and it'd be pretty silly for a defgun to be able to hit a carrier halfway across the map, and here I can see the need for fog -- unless you can work with field-of-fire dead zones for all shore-based long range weapons. It also would work the other way, as destroyers could stand way-the-hell off and wallop shore units with no fear of retribution.

Dunno, open to ideas.




Komrad_B

Score Monkey

45,850 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

4,500 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

Humm, its a very nice idea. Reading your post something immediately popped in my mind : the buildings in Kharkov Outskirt. In this map, we can see Kharkov on the horizon (hence the name). The buildings on the horizon add a lot of athmosphere and look nice from afar, even if they are 2d objects.

I suppose it would be possible to add 2d ships on the horizon, with the texture of a nice looking Iowa or North Carolina class battleship that we would also get to command in naval maps ;)

Of course those might look ugly when looked at by planes, so perhaps rudimentary 3d models with a small poly count could be used.