Not necessarily mature, but I wouldn't call it immature. If anything, it's unprofessional, but who gives a fuck about professionalism here.
I shared my two cents where I thought it was most appropriate. If you don't like what I had to share and where then all you had to do was nothing, absolutely nothing. However you just had to come in here like the King of England's personal internet forum police Sergeant and derail the entire topic because my post upset your stance on thread bumping. I retain my comment. Go fuck yourself! I call it like it is. If you don't like people telling you off then keep your mouth shut!
You know what, that's stupid. You know what else is stupid? Nearly every one in this entire thread. Everyone shut up and go home already. Also, Smeowkey your post wasn't worth it. The only time you should bump or create a new thread is if you have something to add. Whether you bump or create a new thread you're going to get told off if you just crap onto the keyboard with mindless drivel like Who cares? That's the point of the thread. No one give a crap that you thought that, give some ideas or don't bother posting. Simple. Thank the first post if you just want to agree.
and back on topic now, I think this would add more realism to the game. You cant have a realistic crash simulator without the object your crashing into getting damaged.
id like to see objects that use PhysX or some other basic physics engine..they don't have to deform like the car does..but it would be nice to have things break up when you hit them.. using something other than jbeam's would save resources too..at the moment every deformable object is a pretty much a vehicle, and as such hurts performance
I think destructible environments would be awesome! I'm hoping for destruction physics like red faction's geo-mod technology.
A fully destructible environment would be obviously too demanding on the CPU. Perhaps a solution/workaround would be to have only a few destructible objects/structures as "props" the same way we are currently seeing in the mods section like the garbage bin, boxes, etc.. I was envisioning the physics as seen in Pontifex 2 or Bridge It. Taking out a girder with a vehicle and watching the physics perform its marvel. Dare I suggest that maybe one of the many 3D modelers here could model us a steel girder bridge with a working jbeam? I imagine that's possible?
once the devs have per object/vehicle pausable physics, then parts of the map (like buildings and such) could be j-beamed objects, and it just be paused until you get to a certain distance (user configurable)
I've long stated (at least twice, I believe; hopefully not on this exact thread) that partly destroyable levels will need at least three major developments to happen: Node sleeping (deactivate physics from a distance), The ability to rotate Jbeams as objects, and The ability to anchor nodes to the world Also, map-specific Jbeams would be helpful. Perhaps not PhysX or GeoMod specifically, but a dynamic rigid body system would help lighten the load on the CPU for this kind of thing. Thing is, I'm not even sure Torque supports moving rigid body objects, or how well beam physics react in conjunction. The bigger issue, however, is the implication that runs with fully destroyable levels. Firstly, the rigger would have to JBeam everything. Every tree, rock, building, etc. would need its own JBeam. Even with rigid body objects, this would still mean making things that could realistically fracture on the fly, which would require either a very good destruction engine, or a lot of work for each and every object. Moreover, if every building were destroyable, you'd now have to concern yourself with interiors. Even a simple wall would need some form of layering and various chunks in order to break well, let alone everything behind it. You'd take the already-tedious prospect of building stuff and make it extremely time consuming. Lastly, you'd open the floodgates to specialization. It's pretty hard to make a car for this game, considering the structural and stylistic elements you need to get right for it to be well-recieved. Add destruction, and you'd do this to everything. Buildings, bridges, perhaps even trees would all have their own standard for realism. You'd have buildings being scrutinized for having laundry rooms on the second floor, or having unrealistic plumbing or wiring, or putting floor-to-ceiling windows with a neoclassical style (yes, I'm exaggerating for effect). And everything would need to be structurally realistic, else it would collapse. A single suburban home recreated to be fully destroyable with Jbeam would be equivalent to no fewer than three Moonhawks in performance effect. Rigid body, it would be about level with one. The difference between a good and bad CPU in relation to a full suburb of the above, would be the difference between a financial and scientific calculator in playing Crysis. This assuming, of course, that we'd be talking about fully destroyable levels. I'm all for partly destroyable, but we'd realistically need to draw the line somewhere.
