Game engine limitations?
Apologies in advance if this I has already been answered or is obvious but I haven’t played the game since before Xmas nor can I bring myself to boot the game back up. I’m genuinely curious as ...
Forum Discussion
@LordVader666 The engine is still cabable of such thing
The engine is still able to do this but with 128 players and pure DX12 support the game is more demanding on the hardware. Many players with older systems have enormous problems and with the patch 1.1.0 the general performance became much worse ( I suspect here that DICE used an old branch of the game because many old bugs which were already fixed are back again.)
You can still kill players behind the wall with a tank, AA, jeep or a rocket if you know where the opponent is. I was killed several times this way. But not shooting thru with high calibre LMGs
The destruction at the perimeter was taken back a bit (an impact of a tank grenade still creates a crater but not so deep that you could stand in it as it was in some previous ones. Walls also can be destroyed but not on every building)
But I think this is better for the game flow because there is already less cover and I would say more destruction would be counterproductive here
Fore an Example on Hourglass you can totally destroy the entire side of mud huts so that there is almost no cover left. In Breakthru this creates an imbalance for the defenders.
So overall it was more a design decision and unfortunately a little bit of bad optimization.
Also, you need to consider that every particle and destruction will need CPU power, also every destruction need to be synchronized with 128p in AoW conquest which is demanding on Hardware and Network.
On the one hand, I think it's good that DICE has dared to take the step and cut off old strands like DX11 but on the other hand, they apparently it seems that they have too little experience with DX12, which is reflected in a modest optimization.
Of course, this is all speculation on my part but I have this impression after about 430+ hours of playtime.
The engine is still able to do this but with 128 players and pure DX12 support the game is more demanding on the hardware. Many players with older systems have enormous problems and with the patch 1.1.0 the general performance became much worse ( I suspect here that DICE used an old branch of the game because many old bugs which were already fixed are back again.)
You can still kill players behind the wall with a tank, AA, jeep or a rocket if you know where the opponent is. I was killed several times this way. But not shooting thru with high calibre LMGs
The destruction at the perimeter was taken back a bit (an impact of a tank grenade still creates a crater but not so deep that you could stand in it as it was in some previous ones. Walls also can be destroyed but not on every building)
But I think this is better for the game flow because there is already less cover and I would say more destruction would be counterproductive here
Fore an Example on Hourglass you can totally destroy the entire side of mud huts so that there is almost no cover left. In Breakthru this creates an imbalance for the defenders.
So overall it was more a design decision and unfortunately a little bit of bad optimization.
Also, you need to consider that every particle and destruction will need CPU power, also every destruction need to be synchronized with 128p in AoW conquest which is demanding on Hardware and Network.
On the one hand, I think it's good that DICE has dared to take the step and cut off old strands like DX11 but on the other hand, they apparently it seems that they have too little experience with DX12, which is reflected in a modest optimization.
Of course, this is all speculation on my part but I have this impression after about 430+ hours of playtime.
@CountSero Having correct physics may result in buildings not getting destroyed, because the projectile just goes through the wall, and leaves a hole, but doesn't take down the whole facade, like the current mechanics do.
Currently the damage mechanics in BF2042 are pretty messed up, imho worse than in other titles.
.50 cal shots from the NTW-50 kill instantly. The same round from a vehicle barely scratch a soldier.
Lis Rocket doesn't kill a soldier anymore, unless its a head shot, but does more damage to a vehicle than the NTW-50 round.
Event if the engine could use better physics, with all these exceptions if would still feel wrong.
Currently the damage mechanics in BF2042 are pretty messed up, imho worse than in other titles.
.50 cal shots from the NTW-50 kill instantly. The same round from a vehicle barely scratch a soldier.
Lis Rocket doesn't kill a soldier anymore, unless its a head shot, but does more damage to a vehicle than the NTW-50 round.
Event if the engine could use better physics, with all these exceptions if would still feel wrong.
- @kregora
but that’s not the problem of the engine it is Cleary a design decision by DICE here because we already know that the engine is capable of it
The Nerf of the NTW was short after release of the game, you could kill a vehicle with around 3-4 shots.
Now this gun is only good for one shot players (I don’t know if the anti-material bullets are still good against vehicles)
I mentioned this in another thread, that DICE needs to learn again how to Balance.- @CountSero Yes, the anti-material rounds still do damage to vehicles, but it is so miniscule it is just a waste of ammo, the regeneration of vehicle health is faster than the damage inflicted after factoring in both individual round reload times and magazine changes. Unless a vehicle is already near 'death', don't waste your time.
