earth special forces xash3d engine

Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
253
Best answers
0
cool, have you thought about releasing it?
 
New Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
33
Best answers
0
video of the new explosion
[video=youtube;WxeRRrMQwM8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxeRRrMQwM8[/video]
 
Member
Discord Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
325
Best answers
0
Location
Western Australia, Perth
Probably a few too many rocks for my liking. Try halving the rocks that come out and post this again. Don't spam the beams next time; I want to see the full explosion unobstructed.
Less rocks = will look better, and will run better on older PCs.
 
Lost in space
Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2014
Messages
253
Best answers
0
Probably a few too many rocks for my liking. Try halving the rocks that come out and post this again. Don't spam the beams next time; I want to see the full explosion unobstructed.
Less rocks = will look better, and will run better on older PCs.
indeed
 
Member
Discord Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
325
Best answers
0
Location
Western Australia, Perth
The problem is this: the rocks are all the same size and they stay out in the air for too long. If you imagine an actual explosion onto dirt, the blast shatters the rockface underneath and tosses it into air not as large clumps, but as tiny fragments - mostly dirt/dust. It's difficult to emulate this and I understand. Experiment with different rock sizes; right now the rocks are so big that it is jarring and I immediately notice them. That, and they stay out for too long. One solution is to set them to fade out at different intervals - the bigger the rock, the longer it stays out. The smaller the rock, the quicker it fades out into nothing. Another solution is to have them move faster in the air; they'll hit the ground quicker and you won't have to fade them out - this is a personal preference thing - I don't mind the speed they fall at now. I like the explosion; looks great. I'm not sure about the yellow particle effects that are seemingly anchored to the debris - I assume these aren't final, but as of now they draw a lot of attention as well, and not in a good way.
 
Last edited:
Misanthropist
🌠 Staff
🌈 Beta Tester
★ Black Lounger ★
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Messages
1,406
Best answers
1
Location
Perth, Australia
+ varied rock size/mass and fadeout.
The way that particle effect is anchored to the rock is strange - the rocks move through the air like 2 masses tethered together. What's prompting you to build it like that? I don't understand that.
Also, with slighter smaller gravity and friction values the physics would look a lot better.
 
New Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
33
Best answers
0
because is esf 1.2.3 after all without the source code i can t do anything better for the smoke and the rocks , i have only modified the rock gibs that why the rocks are anchored to the smoke so do you think it would be better to just put smoke or just rocks?
 
Misanthropist
🌠 Staff
🌈 Beta Tester
★ Black Lounger ★
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Sep 18, 2003
Messages
1,406
Best answers
1
Location
Perth, Australia
you can't do a separate instance for each? because the general motion of smoke and rocks are vastly different, esp in terms of friction and gravity. To be honest I'm not too sure how this explosion entity really functions specifically, so I'm only guessing how you are going about making modifications here :p
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom