Red Orchestra 2: Heroes Of Stalingrad - Games

we were faced with problem of fully modeled interiors in our products ... and considering we have tens of vehicles in ground and air category only air vehicles with cockpit and transport vehicles like copters or trucks with open sides have that ... i think the decision to not make them was right because we would still be making these interiors ;)

[QUOTE=Dwarden;29067153]we were faced with problem of fully modeled interiors in our products ... and considering we have tens of vehicles in ground and air category only air vehicles with cockpit and transport vehicles like copters or trucks with open sides have that ... i think the decision to not make them was right because we would still be making these interiors ;)[/QUOTE] *gasp* Are you from bohemia interactive?

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;29068204]*gasp* Are you from bohemia interactive?[/QUOTE] You should already know this, it takes literally five seconds on google, yes he is. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] I would much prefer what they have now, with the wasd turret aiming of RO

[QUOTE=Dwarden;29067153]we were faced with problem of fully modeled interiors in our products ... and considering we have tens of vehicles in ground and air category only air vehicles with cockpit and transport vehicles like copters or trucks with open sides have that ... i think the decision to not make them was right because we would still be making these interiors ;)[/QUOTE] are you a wizard

JaegerMonster it's not like we don't want that ;) but there is literally endless amount of "Nice To Have list" next to nearly unlimited "ToDo list" and beyond overflow long "Bug list" yet don't forget infinite "Idea list" ;) and all just for ARMA games :) p.s. for some reason there is always finite amount of time, resources and manpower on developers side :(

[QUOTE=JerryK;29068581]are you a wizard[/QUOTE] Wizards can add physics to their games so probably not.

there is physical engine in the game, so unless You understood how mod it then better not claim otherwise ofcourse it's not as complex as PhysX or Bullet but that was discussed to death anyway maybe next time :)

New blog post by Alan on the official steam group: Well, before starting in on RO2 progress, let's talk about potatoes. Yes, spuds. No, not an April Fool Potato - more a wtfisgoingon Potato. Now, to be fair, I am too focused on RO2 to even begin to follow everything that is going down right now. But for those of you who haven't figured it out yet - "the game is afoot, Watson!" All over the Interwebski, people are chasing around an ever-growing storyline ([url]http://valvearg.com/wiki/Investigation_History[/url] ), that seems to have started off with a bunch of potatoes on Potato Fools Day. Except for the usually ever-vigilant Killing Floor fans, who appear to be hiding under rocks these days. For another quote: "the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys." I get the distinct impression that there is a lot more hiding under the covers, so I'd suggest that you "go do the voodoo that you do... so well!". [url]http://valvearg.com/wiki/Valve_ARG_Wiki[/url] if you have no idea what I'm talking about. But on to RO2... I could talk about tanks again, but we've beaten that to a pulp over the last couple of weeks. Training... why is setting up something as simple as in-game training so complicated? Keith has been building training maps - I've been dipping in and out doing scripty stuff for them. Then Keith keeps coming back and pointing out all the bits I'm missing. Actually, I know why it is difficult: we're having to go back to basics and run through systems that we have been using every day for the last 3 years or so. Should be easy, right? Wrong. Those systems become so automatic, so quickly, that it is actually hard to think through the steps. Training for the squad leader functionality, for instance... I've got to move my squad up, expecting enemy contact. The basics are absolutely automatic... MG team, here, ready for covering fire on the building ahead... me and the assault team, move up. Fire from the right... cover... assault team, suppressing fire... and so on. But to build a training scenario, we need to actually make sure the player goes through all the steps - and we have to make sure the player sees all the (key) functionality. We've already decided that the player can't be "trained" on absolutely every nuance. Call it "basic training". That'll get you ready for combat but, boy, is there going to be plenty more to learn when you get on the line! It reminds us both how complex the systems all are - and just how intuitive. Also how much choice - Keith and I were discussing over the use of cover. Me, I like using cover, lock on, pause, take stock, decide on the next course of action, go again. But I'm that sort of player, which is why I'll play squad leader, commander or MG. Whereas Keith is more of a bull-in-a-china-shop. Much more aggressive and in-your-face. So he doesn't drop into cover and pause. He'll duck behind something, but always wants to be moving. Different styles of play. Who wins? Well, that depends... if I've covered, then pop up and he's still moving, he's toast. If I pop up and he's stopped, waiting for me to do that, I'm toast. Or there are a couple of grenades flying. Or, quite often, Guppy wins - but that is just because he is so annoying. But there are always choices. I keep saying it, but we like "choices". Everyone will work up their own style of play - including those (like Keith and Dayle) who are more run-n-gun/twitch style players. And for next week - I won't be here. This time next week, I will be at a wedding in deepest Somerset. First time my whole family has managed to get together from around the world in about 2 decades. UK, New Zealand, USA - I think people in from Canada and South Africa, or wherever else everyone has got to!

[QUOTE=Dwarden;29068814]there is physical engine in the game, so unless You understood how mod it then better not claim otherwise ofcourse it's not as complex as PhysX or Bullet but that was discussed to death anyway maybe next time :)[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the gliding tanks, object physics and full-stop collisions, it's been like that since the first games and you guys only focused on graphics, you have an odd sense of priority. But anyways.. this is not the ARMA series thread, back to red orchestra.

[QUOTE=Dwarden;29068738]JaegerMonster it's not like we don't want that ;) but there is literally endless amount of "Nice To Have list" next to nearly unlimited "ToDo list" and beyond overflow long "Bug list" yet don't forget infinite "Idea list" ;) and all just for ARMA games :) p.s. for some reason there is always finite amount of time, resources and manpower on developers side :([/QUOTE] Just remember, the WASD turret is there. We really liked it, it felt like a genuine step forward. If possible, we'd like to see it implemented.

I couldn't care less about a WASD turret, you guys are just being picky there.

[QUOTE=MagicBurrito;29071212]I couldn't care less about a WASD turret, you guys are just being picky there.[/QUOTE] You don't tank so you don't know.

analogue or digital, analogue or digital. hmm

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;29064167]I'm certainly looking forward to the new damage system, as that is a brilliant idea. Modeling interiors is not as important and one doesn't require the other. No complaints in that regard. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] ...No. The developers have admitted that it does take 10x the amount of time to make the new tanks as apposed to the old style. That is not pessimism.. if they were doing the old system there'd be a lot more tanks. Tank interiors is certainly nice, but it's a combined arms shooter, not a tank simulator. I highly doubt the new models will make tanking 10x more fun so it doesn't seem like it's worth the labor, smaller amount of tanks and extra development time. Im not going to complain once they are done, but if I ever found myself in a position where I would have to spend two months meticulously modeling the interior of a tank I would rightfully be pissed off. Theres fewer tanks and somebody had to do the tedious grunt-work.[/QUOTE] Quality > Quantity If you want 100 shitty looking tanks be my guest but I'll take 2 superbly designed tanks over 100 crappy ones any day.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;29071699]Quality > Quantity If you want 100 shitty looking tanks be my guest but I'll take 2 superbly designed tanks over 100 crappy ones any day.[/QUOTE] Shitty looking tanks? have you even looked into this game at all, the tanks don't look worse because you can't see the inside, sure the experience might not be as good , but the variety on the battlefield would be much greater, and not just two evenly matched tanks, but other vehicles.

to be fair, the majority of the game [I]is[/I] close-quarters urban combat [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] Aren't there already a few screenshots of a Pz3J?

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;29071736]Shitty looking tanks? have you even looked into this game at all, the tanks don't look worse because you can't see the inside, sure the experience might not be as good , but the variety on the battlefield would be much greater, and not just two evenly matched tanks, but other vehicles.[/QUOTE] Yes, I fucking have. I meant basic too. In RO a tank was basically just a second health bar. In RO2 not so much. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=the_killer24;29071877]to be fair, the majority of the game [I]is[/I] close-quarters urban combat[/QUOTE] So other parts of the game should be neglected because of that?

I don't care about having only 2 tanks on release. It's almost like BC2 in where they only have one vehicle for each side. You either use your vehicle to counter theirs or you can use it as an awesome 'Putsch' weapon.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;29071958]Yes, I fucking have. I meant basic too. In RO a tank was basically just a second health bar. In RO2 not so much. [/QUOTE] Yes, and not having a health bar is a great idea, [I]but it does not require a fully modeled interior to have a realistic damage system.[/I]

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;29071958]Yes, I fucking have. I meant basic too. In RO a tank was basically just a second health bar. In RO2 not so much. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] So other parts of the game should be neglected because of that?[/QUOTE] You don't need such an advanced inside for the damage system to work.

[QUOTE=Trooper0315;29064473]You do know how much a single tank can change the tide of battle, right? Since this isn't a arcade-y shooter, there were always and will be few men on the front with AT weapons. Let alone how much de-moralizing seeing a enemy tank coming at you can be.[/QUOTE] Doesn't really have anything to do with anything I said in my post.... No, I mean really, this post ^ has literally nothing to do with anything I said. This is not about the damage system or the role tanks play, its about the number of tanks that will be included. There's a panzer III for the Germans and a t34/76 for the Soviets. Stark contrast to the huge variety of [B]qaulity[/B] tanks and armored vehicles in RO:OST. Modeling the entire interior as apposed to a 1/2 or 1/3 of the interior like in ROOST is just a waste. Instead of having 13 very good tanks we'll have two [I]slightly[/I] better tanks. All these [I]gameplay[/I] improvements they are doing to the tanks (meaning the damage system..) could have easily been done to RO:OST's current tank lineup. Once again, this post (this post right here) is not about the damage system, the new damage system sounds really cool, but once again, you do not need a fully modeled and textured tank interior (that takes 10x the amount of time to make) to have a good damage system. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Profanwolf;29072499]You don't need such an advanced inside for the damage system to work.[/QUOTE] Exactly, you don't. They could easily have had a 30 poly or so hitbox system for exterior armor, each hitbox having a set thickness and density. Then they could have put in hitboxes for the crew members and volatile interior equipment; and voila! You have an improved RO:OST style tank system that doesn't require 3 months of development time and 40,000 dollars to make each tank.

*froths at the mouth* /falls over dead (do fucking want)

If I remember from an interview I believe that they stated that there's going to be two tanks at launch and in the next patch there will be two new tanks and two troop transports.

[QUOTE=Nikota;29074423]If I remember from an interview I believe that they stated that there's going to be two tanks at launch and in the next patch there will be two new tanks and two troop transports.[/QUOTE] yeah to the two tanks at launch also semi-destructible environments holy shit

I can't wait for this. It looks way better than the last one, it is going to be good. A clan I play on is going to expand to this game. It just overall looks good.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;29072554]Doesn't really have anything to do with anything I said in my post.... No, I mean really, this post ^ has literally nothing to do with anything I said. This is not about the damage system or the role tanks play, its about the number of tanks that will be included. There's a panzer III for the Germans and a t34/76 for the Soviets. Stark contrast to the huge variety of [B]qaulity[/B] tanks and armored vehicles in RO:OST. Modeling the entire interior as apposed to a 1/2 or 1/3 of the interior like in ROOST is just a waste. Instead of having 13 very good tanks we'll have two [I]slightly[/I] better tanks. All these [I]gameplay[/I] improvements they are doing to the tanks (meaning the damage system..) could have easily been done to RO:OST's current tank lineup. Once again, this post (this post right here) is not about the damage system, the new damage system sounds really cool, but once again, you do not need a fully modeled and textured tank interior (that takes 10x the amount of time to make) to have a good damage system. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] Exactly, you don't. They could easily have had a 30 poly or so hitbox system for exterior armor, each hitbox having a set thickness and density. Then they could have put in hitboxes for the crew members and volatile interior equipment; and voila! You have an improved RO:OST style tank system that doesn't require 3 months of development time and 40,000 dollars to make each tank.[/QUOTE] What I meant was it only makes sense for them to accurately model one of the most potent weapons that is in RO2. Also, you don't run Tripwire, please save all the rage for THEIR forums. [editline]9th April 2011[/editline] The pictures were of a PZIV, not a PZIII.

All of the weapons are equally potent if you know what you are doing. What I gather from TW forums is that the people making them are impressed with the final product but realize it takes forever to make them. There will be 6 armored vehicles (4 tanks) total once all the dlcs are made after the game's initial release. Im hoping the new system allows modders to easily make their own tanks, because no mod team is going to have the resources to create a full tank interior.

Another thing, it won't exactly matter about it taking 4 men to run a single tank, because of the 64 player support.

It takes one man to run a tank with the AI crew. The other three can join in if they want. I think it may actually be 3 total, I don't think the loader is a playable position (would be kind of a waste, too) I don't think the AI crew are counted on the server roster, as well.

I'm pretty sure they said the loader is only AI controlled, once he dies the gun just loads slower.