The War
Headlines
Movies
Screenshots
Alliance Community
2011: We're Back!

Alliance: The Silent War

Community Forums for Alliance: The Silent War
It is currently Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:19 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 9:58 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
..Send people flying in real life? I mean, this is one of the most popular gaming conventions and I'm looking forward to doing this in Alliance.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:18 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 229
Location: Boston, Ma
Grenades no, a rocket may send some one a couple of feet but not much.

_________________
Of the troops, For the troops.

Military Police.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:53 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Hehe
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TjzTYZqWp34


How can something that blow up a washing machine not send someone flying?

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:55 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:44 am
Posts: 853
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Hehe
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TjzTYZqWp34


How can something that blow up a washing machine not send someone flying?
Because that's a washing machine and not a person.

_________________
Johnny Rico wrote:
This is for all you new people, I only have one rule; everyone fights, no one quits, you don't do your job, I'll kill you myself.......do you get me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:00 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
there are a million factors to the question.

does a rocket have enough energy to send a person flying?

probably

in the real world does it do that?

sometimes it probably does, but usually if you're close you're simply going to be evicerated, if you're far it will probably knock you down at most.


its not like the movies where people are knock into the air by explosions but are unharmed.


it also really depends on the type of rocket we're talking about and such.


in video games peoples bodies dont blow up into a fine paste, in real life, if somehow you were next to a rocket explosion, but you were impervious to the explsion, then yes it probably would send you flying, so in that way video games are a kind of accurate, in real life, no.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:01 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
I don't think it's that simple. I mean... How much pressure is required to do that?

Think about it this way. Ever shoved someoen (duh). Do you think that that kind of force would be enough to 'splode da washin masheen?

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:05 pm 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:44 am
Posts: 853
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
I don't think it's that simple. I mean... How much pressure is required to do that?

Think about it this way. Ever shoved someoen (duh). Do you think that that kind of force would be enough to 'splode da washin masheen?
A grenade is not a shove from a hand and a shove from a hand isn't enough to send someone flying and what's a washin masheen?

_________________
Johnny Rico wrote:
This is for all you new people, I only have one rule; everyone fights, no one quits, you don't do your job, I'll kill you myself.......do you get me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:17 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:30 pm
Posts: 431
Location: Hot, hot FL
With grenades I doubt they would send a person flying. I guess it would depend on the circumstances though, as I am not completely sure about it. Usually people just get a butt full of shrapnel.

A bit of a side note, Mythbusters is having a user suggestions only show coming up. You can suggest a myth right now and if they accept it they'll do it on their show. I do not think they've had a myth related to something like this before. Don't forget they've tested many movie myths.

About rockets, I have always come to the conclusion that a person close enough would just be vaporized, or mangled horribly. I guess if one was far enough from the point of impact but close enough to get hit with the blast wave they'd go somewhere.

_________________
!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:26 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
I don't think it's that simple. I mean... How much pressure is required to do that?

Think about it this way. Ever shoved someoen (duh). Do you think that that kind of force would be enough to 'splode da washin masheen?



when you shove someone you're applying force on to large points, your hands onto a large impact zone.


an explosion is not hte same as being shoved.

an explosion impacts your entire body with enough energy on per square inch to penetrate your body.


when you push someone with your hands, you're applying enough energy to move them, but you're applying it to a large area in comparions ot the energy applied.


think of it this way, you push someone applying, just for arguements sake, 30 pounds of pressure, to lets say around 30 square inches, thats 1 PSI applied to the contact point, not enough to penetrate it, so you are in effect pushing the entire bodyweight.


when a bullet applies lets say 1500 pounds of energy to an impact point that is like 0.01 square inches thats 150,000 PSI

the bullet doesnt push you though, because it penetrates through instead of applying all its force instantly to your surface.

now lets take an explosion, and explosion applies energy in all directions, lets say the explosion applies 500 pounds of energy, it applies that energy to every point on your body instead of to a fixed point, so it applies that pressure all over, obliterating your body, and because you body gives way to the explosion, not all the force is applied, some of it is absorbed, and so you dont have the full force of the explosion pushing your body.



im no physics expert, so some of what i said could be incorrect, but i think overall that explains the basic reasons behind it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:28 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
Sasquatch wrote:
With grenades I doubt they would send a person flying. I guess it would depend on the circumstances though, as I am not completely sure about it. Usually people just get a butt full of shrapnel.

A bit of a side note, Mythbusters is having a user suggestions only show coming up. You can suggest a myth right now and if they accept it they'll do it on their show. I do not think they've had a myth related to something like this before. Don't forget they've tested many movie myths.

About rockets, I have always come to the conclusion that a person close enough would just be vaporized, or mangled horribly. I guess if one was far enough from the point of impact but close enough to get hit with the blast wave they'd go somewhere.


its all about how much energy is applied.


for example, if you fall on a grenade, the entire explosive force is applied to your body, thats assuming the explosion is not strong enough to go through your body, and in that case it may be capable of lifting your body.

just life a fire cracker in your hand, open your hand and the energy disperses away from your hand mostly, close your hand, and ALL the energy is applied to your fingers, and you could lose your entire hand.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:06 am 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Well, shall we put this in the context of Alliance? I doubt this is one bit of realism they can reproduce.

Now, maybe the rules will be bent else where (although for different reasons.)

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:13 am 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Well, shall we put this in the context of Alliance? I doubt this is one bit of realism they can reproduce.

Now, maybe the rules will be bent else where (although for different reasons.)


i totally agree it would be kind of hard performance wise to make realistic effects to explosions.

i think the usual ragdoll would be good, although i dont want to see it overdone with bodies flying through the air.


if you have an explosion launch people a couple of feet forward onto the ground that would be good enough in my opinion.

hell, maybe they could make it adjustable, like have an explosion force slider in the realism choices, so you could turn off the flying bodies or for fun you could raise it to the max and see bodies flying 50 feet in the air.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:19 am 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
My point was that no game can be 100% realistic and no game should be because that would produce a fun factor of zero. No game has attempted to be 100% relistic because there are many elements of real combat that do not lend themselves to a good game. Combat in real life isn't much fun but yet it is in games. How do they do this? They bend a lot of rules.

Games create a modified rendition of real life.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:26 am 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
My point was that no game can be 100% realistic and no game should be because that would produce a fun factor of zero. No game has attempted to be 100% relistic because there are many elements of real combat that do not lend themselves to a good game. Combat in real life isn't much fun but yet it is in games. How do they do this? They bend a lot of rules.

Games create a modified rendition of real life.



no game can be 100% realistic absolutely, however i disagree that they shouldnt.

i feel they should strive to be as realistic environmentally as possible.

for example i dont mind that the story and characters are embellished, but i do mind that there are floating healthpacks, or enemies that take 20 rounds to kill.

its all about immersion, good games are the ones that are capable os suspending disbelief, anything that breaks that state of mind is detrimental to game play.

also i would like to point out that you're wrong that combat isnt fun.


you're right that real combat is not fun, however, combat simulations in real life, like paintball, airsoft or even military wargames, are lots of fun, more fun infact than any video game can possibly be, because video games cant manipulate your emotions or physical reactions even to a remote fraction that real life games can do.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:30 am 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Don't pretend like fun factor isn't mroe important than realism.

Many of the conventions we have come to know and love in games have no founding in realism yet they make the game better. In real life, it takes months and months to heal injuried. That would be no fun in a game.

You want another example?

In real life, one shot takes you down.

Look at the most popular games. FEAR and Gears of War. Both won countless awards. None of them were consistent with reality in either of these two areas, or for that matter very realistic at all. In FEAR, you could kill youre enemy in about 10 rounds with an SMG or assault if they had no armor. Then again, oth fired very fast, so that was basically a 1 second kill. FEAR seemeed kind of realistic. It didn't have floating health packs and the movement felt pretty real too. You could also kill your opponent in 1 shot if you had a rocket launcher.

Gears provided ou with a plausible explaination of why you could take so many hits. You had this big ass bulky armor.

Doesn't matter. Realism is clearly not the biggest determinant in a successful game, as FEAR and Gears of war have shown.

Yes, the realism can add fun but only up to a certain point.


Oh, and I suppose you only play the most relsitic games? Congratulations, you missed out on every best game and you wil probably miss out on all 2007s glorious games because none of them emphasise realism.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:32 am 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:44 am
Posts: 853
Fear realism IS a fun factor. It may not be for 12 year old twitch gamers that play CS: S and Halo but it is for a lot of people.

_________________
Johnny Rico wrote:
This is for all you new people, I only have one rule; everyone fights, no one quits, you don't do your job, I'll kill you myself.......do you get me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:51 am 
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 11:22 pm
Posts: 1826
Location: Hayward, Cali
Tell that to the millions upon millions of people who play World of Warcraft. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who play Halo 2.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who play Gears of War.
Tell that to the thousands of people who play FEAR.
Tell that to the thousands of people who will play UT2k7, STALKER, Crysis and all the rest of the awesomeness that will come out in 2007.

_________________
Go pioneers!

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:52 am 
Offline
Major General
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:44 am
Posts: 853
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Tell that to the millions upon millions of people who play World of Warcraft. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who play Halo 2.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who play Gears of War.
Tell that to the thousands of people who play FEAR.
Tell that to the thousands of people who will play UT2k7, STALKER, Crysis and all the rest of the awesomeness that will come out in 2007.
Well this isn't any of those games. Tell that to the thousands that play Red Orchestra, some of the older Rainbow Six's, Operation Flashpoint, Armed Assault, and are waiting for alliance.

_________________
Johnny Rico wrote:
This is for all you new people, I only have one rule; everyone fights, no one quits, you don't do your job, I'll kill you myself.......do you get me?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:21 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Don't pretend like fun factor isn't mroe important than realism.

Many of the conventions we have come to know and love in games have no founding in realism yet they make the game better. In real life, it takes months and months to heal injuried. That would be no fun in a game.

You want another example?

In real life, one shot takes you down.

Look at the most popular games. FEAR and Gears of War. Both won countless awards. None of them were consistent with reality in either of these two areas, or for that matter very realistic at all. In FEAR, you could kill youre enemy in about 10 rounds with an SMG or assault if they had no armor. Then again, oth fired very fast, so that was basically a 1 second kill. FEAR seemeed kind of realistic. It didn't have floating health packs and the movement felt pretty real too. You could also kill your opponent in 1 shot if you had a rocket launcher.

Gears provided ou with a plausible explaination of why you could take so many hits. You had this big ass bulky armor.

Doesn't matter. Realism is clearly not the biggest determinant in a successful game, as FEAR and Gears of war have shown.

Yes, the realism can add fun but only up to a certain point.


Oh, and I suppose you only play the most relsitic games? Congratulations, you missed out on every best game and you wil probably miss out on all 2007s glorious games because none of them emphasise realism.



all these conventions you speak of in gaming are products of limited technology.

doom didnt have ironsights becuase it was not possible for the technology they had.

most "fake" things havin to do with the general environment are only the way they are because technology limits them.

we could not have real bullet physics before, because no one's PC could handle that kind of performance etc etc.


by the way, yes, it should be 1 or 2 shots and you're dead, i prefer games designed around a system like that.


and stop making dumb assumptions about what i have played or not, i prefer realistic games, that doesnt mean i dont play other games.

fear was so so, halo is the biggest pile of digital vomit ive ever laid hands on, battlefield was good in the first 2 games, but after that i didnt like it, doom 3 good, farcry good, both because they offered enhanced realism over many other games, even if that realism is only visual.

half life 2 i loved, cause it has alot of realism in the environment, it feels like a living realistic environment.

for multiplayer my favorites have been OFP, RO, vietcong and the game i have put the most time into ever is world war 2 online, which is probably the most realistic shooter ever made, its not exactly a shooter though its a war sim. in some ways its not realistic but in so many others it is.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:27 pm 
Offline
Sergeant First Class
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:02 am
Posts: 215
Location: Brandywine, MD
.:}_50cA{_|neostyles:. wrote:
Tell that to the millions upon millions of people who play World of Warcraft. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who play Halo 2.
Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who play Gears of War.
Tell that to the thousands of people who play FEAR.
Tell that to the thousands of people who will play UT2k7, STALKER, Crysis and all the rest of the awesomeness that will come out in 2007.



WOW=trash i hated it

halo= worst big name FPS in many years

fear= mediocre ay best, doom 3 is far better

havent played gears of war, and of course stalker and such arent out.



britney spears has sold millions of records, doesnt mean shes a good musician you know.

they cater to the simple players, people who arent looking for a real experience in a game, they're just looking for a twitch game.

some people want more.

interestingly enough, the average age of the players of twitch games is far lower than the age of players for more realistic games.

i cant even stand playing multiplayer in most of those twitch games cause all the immature little kids are annoying as hell, i like to play with mature gamers.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group