Flamethrower particle gravitation (suggestion)
ZycaR
Join Date: 2002-11-12 Member: 8263Members
Join Date: 2002-11-12 Member: 8263Members
Hi,
I would like to suggest that the flame-thrower's flame particles have only forward force, and doesn't have gravitation force on them.
That results into one straight column of light (image #1) .. instead of "real" looking slight bended flame column (image #2).
This suggestion have base on real physics ... when (usually) flammable liquid exit from tip of flame-thrower, it's heavy and fall down .. and then, when it travels some distance, it's ignited and slowly raise up, as it's heated. (you can see on image #2)
This is ma 2 cents ..
best Regards,
ZycaR
sample image:
<img src="http://imageupload.org/di-6129441933612.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I would like to suggest that the flame-thrower's flame particles have only forward force, and doesn't have gravitation force on them.
That results into one straight column of light (image #1) .. instead of "real" looking slight bended flame column (image #2).
This suggestion have base on real physics ... when (usually) flammable liquid exit from tip of flame-thrower, it's heavy and fall down .. and then, when it travels some distance, it's ignited and slowly raise up, as it's heated. (you can see on image #2)
This is ma 2 cents ..
best Regards,
ZycaR
sample image:
<img src="http://imageupload.org/di-6129441933612.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Comments
I would like to suggest that the flame-thrower's flame particles have only forward force, and doesn't have gravitation force on them.
That results into one straight column of light (image #1) .. instead of "real" looking slight bended flame column (image #2).
This suggestion have base on real physics ... when (usually) flammable liquid exit from tip of flame-thrower, it's heavy and fall down .. and then, when it travels some distance, it's ignited and slowly raise up, as it's heated. (you can see on image #2)
This is ma 2 cents ..
best Regards,
ZycaR
sample image:
<img src="http://imageupload.org/di-6129441933612.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Generally flamethrowers work in one of two ways.
Either they are liquid flamethrowers, in which case what you get is a downward arcing stream of petroleum which is on fire. The flames go up, but the overall trajectory is down The goal of a liquid flamethrower is not to throw hot air at people, it's to throw adhesive flammable fuel at them and then set it on fire, so it sticks to them and burns them to death. It doesn't burn up the fuel by the time it gets to the end of the arc. This is why they can do things like set concrete bunkers on fire, despite concrete not being flammable.
Or, you get a gas flamethrower, which is what they usually are in movies, as they are less dangerous. These ones go universally up because burning propane is not signfiifcantly heavier than air, so it goes almost universally up. Or possibly in a straight line. These do burn the fuel up very quickly, which is why they are used in movies, because they don't set the entire building on fire like a proper flamethrower would. The goal of a gas flamethrower is to look cool. I don't think they were ever used as a weapon because they aren't very good compared to a liquid flamethrower.
I have never seen a flamethrower do what you said, and I can't really think of any reason why it would, and it looks really weird.
My only suggestion for the NS2 flamethrower is to make the flame sprites smaller because it looks cartoony. But I understand it's a WIP.
DON'T CROSS THE STREAMS!
Hahaha.
As you sad, the flame-thrower which set thinks on fire are liquid based (an NS2 have obviously this kind of feature).
And steam of fire will look heavier / cooler from first-person point of view.
but it's on dev. team if they implement this feature, I vote for YES :D
Once they rewrite it to use Principe as MOOtant write, the flame will optically bend when you turn around, and of course UWE can apply environmental forces:
like gravity, wind, ... AND mainly calculate the collision with world (walls, objects, etc.).
From here one can add the usual fire puffs and the like along the spline to flesh the flame out (pretty much what is already in the game), and a nice larger group of fire puffs where the spline ends. And if that isn't enough, a ricochet-esque effect describing the behaviour of the stream when it hits an obstacle at less than a certain angle, deflecting off.
But yeah, lots of possibilities, I could draw a diagram for this idea if need be.
Cheers,
Frohman
I hope they read it..
Assuming the bugs wouldn't show up (highly improbable), the ricochet effect would have to be limited to an extremely small angle area, meaning it'd only actually be seen on rare occasions in actual gameplay - making it practically a pointless waste of cycles to calculate.
So narrowing down on my suggestion, it'd be best with no ricochet at all (stream hits something, no exceptions, steam ends) and failing a direct hit, the flamethrower's damage and visual falloff effects applied.
For those who didn't quite understand my request... Think of when you have a garden hose, the water is propelled out in an arc from the hose - if you flick the hose around quickly, the arc bends accordingly, but doesn't break (its still a stream of water). This is, in essence, my suggestion to the flamethrower effect - having it governed by a dynamic curve which bends as one would expect. The effects can remain as they are now (although a more meaty stream of fuel in the center would be nice), with their positions and velocities relative to themselves, not the gun.
Just my 2 cents ... On my own idea.
Cheers,
Frohman
And steam of fire will look heavier / cooler from first-person point of view.
but it's on dev. team if they implement this feature, I vote for YES :D<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well no, a gas flamethrower would also set things that burn on fire. NS2 is probably using a gas flamethrower because:
1. It's the one all video games use, because liquid flamethrowers are really hard to balance, as they basically kill everything over a range of about 50m and set it all on fire. It would be the most overpowered weapon ever and the effects would murder the engine, the short ranged dissolving fire is always the effect used because it's balanced and visually efficient.
2. It's the one the alien films use, and guess which franchise everyone on the NS2 dev team loves?
3. It doesn't create pools of flaming petroleum everywhere it hits, it just sets combustable aliens on fire, which is behaviour consistent with a gas flamethrower.
You realize this isn't Source anymore, right?
As I know it is something like this...
As I know it is something like this...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well no, generally volumetric effects are created by complex maths rather than spawning lots of sprites.
While I guess you could create a volumetric effect for the flamethrower and use a scrolling 3d texture to give it a flame like appearance, it would probably be really hard and really laggy.
Once they rewrite it to use Principe as MOOtant write, the flame will optically bend when you turn around, and of course UWE can apply environmental forces:
like gravity, wind, ... AND mainly calculate the collision with world (walls, objects, etc.).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
they are going to implement it. one of the devs wrote about the bending flame (when you move around) somewhere. I think he called it "lag behind" or something.
I'd say they use gas. Marines need gas Flamethrowers to clear vents.
BTW is anyone experiencing incorrect display of the flame while firing the flamethrower in thirdperson view?