IS THERE ANYWAY??!!!

[Wilco]

Hey folks, i was looking around and I saw this thing called ragdoll effect, I noticed it from hitman series, now is there anyway to add this to ofp i.e. from sdk, or is there anyway to edit sdk files into operation flashoint??

Sweet video
http://www.havok.com/havok2/Fallguy.avi

[Baphomet]

I believe it was also featured in the PS2 game, The Bouncer.

First of all I'm under the impression that the proper term for it is inverse kinematics. Basically realtime animation based on environmental variables and an advanced physics system for it. I personally don't think you can script "IK" as they call it into ofp. Secondly, effects like these because they involve realtime animation and often involve complex physics would probably lag the ever-loving bejesus out of a standard ofp game unless someone was running an extremely fast machine.

Secondly, kitschy little features like this in a game with it's focus primarily on large-scale tactical simulation would be a waste of resources. As technology gets better the focus primarily will put toward enhancing the most necessary features. Personally the next computer I get -will- allow me to run OFP with all the features cranked (At least I'm hoping =P) . Large draw distances, high frame rates, improving flight, driving, and ground movement physics, and weapon ballistics, and wounding, more realistic implementation of tactical devices, will (or should) be the focus of a game like this.

You will find things like IK and other "window-dressing" features, like chrome effects... etc, are rather trivial in comparison to the other features I listed (unless you're the type that tries to compare binary garbage like UT2003 to OFP)... and that list isn't complete by any stretch. Still it represents the most sensible progression of design priorities for a game like this, that I can explain at least with my limited grasp of it. =P.

Things such as that (extraneous special effects), or at least for now, until we all have access to faster computers as a whole, will always be relegated to games that place more emphasis on decidedly smaller scale, limited, set-path gaming experiences where the environments and enemies can be rendered in greater detail at the cost of expansive terrain and versatility.

In other words. I don't think so. =P

[Mr_Shady]

Well, they say that God is in the details...

Personally, I think the little sparkly touches are what make you sit up and pay attention. At the risk of sounding shallow, ballistic effects such as richochets, trajectories etc. are great, if you notice them, whereas things like IK physics, shiny things, real time weather effects, fancy lighting effects may only wow you for a little bit, but they get your attention quicker and impress you that little bit more.

And after all, although OFP features realistic ballistic modelling, it also features "window dressing" things like Hardware T&L, random faces and voices, which all add that little bit of realism to the game. The same way IK deaths in UT2003 (and just because you personally don't like something doesn't immediately make it "binary garbage") add a bit of realism to it.

[Baphomet]

Still. If it came down to having a better frame rate and having more troops and generally more things as they are in ofp now... occur 2x or 3x  better because of a lack of IK physics or chrome effects. I'd take it. Those little details mean a hell of a lot less when the versatility of the game is sacrificed. Those who would rather the opposite, need to stick to UT and other niche games that pander to said interests. Judgement of the quantity of presence of such features in a game versus the quality determines how shallow the appraisal of the game is from the person.

I say if the effect improves the overall picture of the game. So be it, however consideration for them should always remain subsurvient to the overall purpose of the game. The reason why I think games like UT are garbage is simply because they are shallow, more than half the guys I know who are hardcore into it say they're usually so busy circle strafing at 500 miles an hour trying to lead their targets with weird projectile firing contraptions that they usually stop noticing it after the first few hours of initially playing it. They admit themselves that after they start cracking out hard on games like that they actually wished that it performed a bit better mainly because their focus has drifted from aesthetic appreciation to trying to actually hit something.. These are people who work with computers are can access some or own, the best machines I've seen built.

I simply prefer substance over the initial bewilderment over great yet, possibly detremental effects to the overall performance and enjoyment of the game.

Personally I think OFP for what it is and what it achieved is perfect as it is. BIS did something that nobody else could achieve with as much success, I recall one game that was vaguely similar called "Muzzle Velocity", and that was an old game.

[Mr_Shady]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should sacrifice depth for spangly bits, but I'd rather play a game that immerses you because you feel like you're "there" rather than something that is kinda rough. I think this is where OFP falls down, as there are too many things that slap you in the face and say "oi, big nose, you're playing a game." I've started playing it in Vetenarian mode just to get rid of a few annoyances like the subtitles and the reticule. When you ignore the ability to rotate on the spot without moving you legs, and the way you teleport into vehicles after touching the door, OFP is a hell of an experience, but when you've played it since release, seeing the same old deaths, watching tanks crumple like tin foil and go black, and seeing popcorn fire grates. Hell, I still feel cheated after seeing the explosions on the back of the Res box and then realising they were touched up pictures  

I'd disagree with the idea that OFP is perfect as it is, as it's full of silly restrictions, like wheeled vehicles and boats being unable to use a missile weapon, or the inability to swim, or the awful collision detection. Also, games like UT and Quake are not niche games (first person shooters are the most mainstream genre in PC games, next to real-time strategy), whereas OFP is, since it's a serious military simulator. Anyone can pick up UT and get into it after getting to grips with the W,S,A and D keys and the mouse, whereas OFP needs not only reflexes and skill, but a grasp of basic (at least) military tactics, such as flanking, supressive fire, advance from cover etc. And because something is shallow doesn't mean it is bad. UT has no pretensions of being the War and Peace of PC games, it's just an accesible blaster, but it does what it sets out to do. To be honest, there are times when I can't stomach OFP because I'm not in the mood to be creeping up a hill for five minutes before shooting three troops 500m away. It's times like that when I need a quick fix, which OFP sadly can't deliver to the same extent that a balls-out, explosions everywhere, rockets-screeching-past-me-at-a-million-miles-per-hour shooting fest can.

I do agree with the fact that games that push their graphics over gameplay usually do pander to the 13 year old "woa d00d taht rox0rs LOL!!1" crowd, but games like UT are honed to the point where their gameplay mechanics are tuned to perfection, whereas a more ambitious game like OFP sometimes has the occasional flaw in it, or the odd feature underdeveloped. I'm not saying that we should only play games that look good. But here's a nice analogy I just thought up:

You're employing someone to work in your business, and you've got the candidates down to two people. The first is presentable, and knows what they're meant to do, and they can do that to the best of their ability. They do what you tell them, but they're no Einstein. The second is ambitious and has potential, but smells funny and looks a bit dodgy. They attempt to do what others won't try, but sometimes don't quite pull them off, and have a habit of not working without any logical reason. Who do you employ?


And yes, it's a stupid analogy  ;D