Fire TY, hire me .

Smaller vehicles can perfectly well have child objects, in my eyes, if they're the only ones on the map. As was said, if you have an infantry map with only a few vehicles (like an AT-ST for the Imps and a light hover tank for the Rebels), surely there can't be harm in putting damage effects on them. Watching the leg of an AT-ST get blown off would be hilarious.

Then they would have to limit it on ALL the maps or have 2 different types of ATSTs. Makes absolutely no sense, extra work for not that much payoff. Totally NOT worth it.

Still the argument is moot since the mod isnt even released yet. I think people prefer piloting an AT-ST period sooner rather than later.

Smaller vehicles can perfectly well have child objects, in my eyes, if they're the only ones on the map. As was said, if you have an infantry map with only a few vehicles (like an AT-ST for the Imps and a light hover tank for the Rebels), surely there can't be harm in putting damage effects on them. Watching the leg of an AT-ST get blown off would be hilarious.

That sounds pretty final to me.

I just dont want people to think that we wont have such n such a feature implemented (how can we? we havent even tested it) because a tester , who people would presume knows more about the mod than they do, makes it sound that way.

Im not havin a pop. Just makin sure there are no misunderstandings here. No need to get all defensive.

Now back on topic please.

Just because I am a tester does not mean I cannot post my opinions as I see fit. And I did not say it as a final yes or no. It is just HOW I SEE THINGS. You see  them differently, fine. I don't think it will work as one of the ways suggested and I posted why I don't think it will. Plain and simple.

As for capitol ships I bet this will work near flawlessly. Due to the limited amounts of network code it would require. as opposed to smaller craft in mass numbers.

1. It isn't your place to categorically say what and wont be included in the mod.

and 2. We are not at the point where we can confirm what vehicles , if any , will have this feature. Its bad practice to make categoric statements either way without internal tests. Im forever hearing people moan that Dice/EA  promised stuff and then didnt produce. Same deal here.

TY2D2 wrote:

dawdler wrote:

The problem here is netcode yes, not actual polycounts. Imagine 60 Titans flying around on a map

Which is why we won't see things like this on Speeder Bikes, ATSTs, TIE Fighters or other small vehicles... Only vehicles that would REALLY benefit from it and are in limited quantities. Like Capitol ships and other LARGE vehicles.

Since when were you a dev?

Anyway...

We arnt in a position to either confirm or deny whether ,and to what vehicle, this would be implemented. Its not good to make promises we may not keep. Equally its not good to rule things out at this stage either.

You don't have to be a DEV to know that it would most likely cause a lot of lag having things like that on small vehicles when there is a large quantity of them. Pretty simple thinking right? Didn't everybody already know that?

Lets see what will cause more lag?

3 Xwings with one destructible child object and code for it.
3 TIE Fighters with the same.
3 Ywings with the same.
3 TIE Bombers with the same.
2 Awings with the same.
2 TIE interceptors with the same.

Plus:
ISD with multiple
2-3 Corvettes with maye 2-3 of their own.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
I am thinking here that its not going to work out well. And heck, thats not even half of what a full space server will most likely have player-wise. With a full server you would have to double those numbers. And double the stress on the server.

And its the same story with ground maps, but worse.

dawdler wrote:

The problem here is netcode yes, not actual polycounts. Imagine 60 Titans flying around on a map

Which is why we won't see things like this on Speeder Bikes, ATSTs, TIE Fighters or other small vehicles... Only vehicles that would REALLY benefit from it and are in limited quantities. Like Capitol ships and other LARGE vehicles.

Since when were you a dev?

Anyway...

We arnt in a position to either confirm or deny whether ,and to what vehicle, this would be implemented. Its not good to make promises we may not keep. Equally its not good to rule things out at this stage either.

The problem here is netcode yes, not actual polycounts. Imagine 60 Titans flying around on a map

Which is why we won't see things like this on Speeder Bikes, ATSTs, TIE Fighters or other small vehicles... Only vehicles that would REALLY benefit from it and are in limited quantities. Like Capitol ships and other LARGE vehicles.

GD was able to setup a vanilla gunship to go spinning out of control if its engine was shot off, and I'm sure that could be replicated on our fighters, and other smaller craft.

This is just a damage effect like smoke or fire that instead slap an engine on it to cause spin, fairly simple. I remember doing the same on the rear prop for the EoD Huey (BF1942 version, I dont know if they did it for BF2).

The problem here is netcode yes, not actual polycounts. Imagine 60 Titans flying around on a map

I doubt that destructible-child objects will cause lag, they won't be adding any more polies as they'll just be parts that were already on the models.  The only problems I can think of would lie with their network code.

Thats why PR gets a lot lag for machines with less RAM. It adds a lot of lag if you have too much of it, which is why the PR mod limits its use of stuff like that.

I doubt that destructible-child objects will cause lag, they won't be adding any more polies as they'll just be parts that were already on the models.  The only problems I can think of would lie with their network code.