Well you should be able to control how fast you want the plane to go. It's not like the only speed setting are 0 and 600. You'll travel fast if you're going from one place to another or avoiding AA and plane fire and slow down to shoot at stuff.
For the sake of victory, I'll never climb inside of those. Just hook my tank up to a transporter plane thingy (By god! Tell me there will be transporter plane thingies for vehicles) and drop me near whatever needs to be dead. Or I can try to make dead.
Just a thought.... Why not just hook up to an APC? Or will the Drop pod have better armor or some other advantage?
It would be funny if people were to be made to spawn NEXT to the APC, and then going around flying in circles with an APC to the craft.
Better yet, be able to pick your opponents APC and fly around at 10,000 feet while your opponents spawn into the unsuspecting apc, then let them do a little skydiving in a full apc.
You know you can evade that by jumping out right before it hits the ground, right? Your fall speed's reduced to 0, and you have a normal drop.
But that would be a bug unless it can be worked out with code. Like say fall for X seconds disable jump...
I don't think that it would be too difficult to transfer relative motion to players and objects exiting vehicles. All it would need to do is grab the vector of the vehicle and apply it to the player or object upon exit. And while we're on the subject of sending players flying, it would be neat to see something where after a player has traveled a certain distance without touching a surface (horizontally or vertically) it would automatically set them to prone, so players don't just get knocked 50 feet back by an explosion and land on their feet. I could see it possibly chewing up a bit of the CPU, but if done right I don't think it would affect performance much at all.
How about you can only exit vehicles when they are going below a certain speed. Realistically, you don't jump out of a jeep whilst it's still going at 40mph. Of course parachuting from planes would be different.
Yea its been talked about but so far nothing concrete has been said by the dev team. There problebly not wanting to worry about it untill airplains are being worked on.
If you wish to use BF42 as a reference, here are some numbers: BF42 1 unit = 1 meter (39.37 in) HL2 1 unit = 1 inch Maximum Source map brush at 1:1 scale = 32,768 in x 32,768 in (832 meters x 832 meters). BF42 El Alamein = 2,048 meters x 2,048 meters. A Source map would need a scaling of 1:2.46 to meet these dimensions. (80,630 in x 80,630 in) An Empires map at 1:16 scale (524,288 in x 524,288 in) would be equivalent to a BF42 map 13,317 meters x 13,317 meters. At 6.5 larger than El Alamein, I think there is plenty of room for aircraft!
I would like to see a 16x map in reality rather than in theory. As I still have a hard time seeing them work on anything less than a super server with T3. (That is if the level isn't just an empty flat piece of land.) I hear I lot of good theories about it but zero concrete proof that its even doable. Has anyone ever made an 16x map for HL2 before?
There should be no notable overhead in scaling a map like that. All the movement and physics and such are simply dealt with on a smaller scale. Keep in mind that the map in actuality isn't any bigger; that players and models are simply smaller.
AFAIK, strain will be no more than on a normal map. With the exception of possibly more detailed textures. In principal it's totally possible.
I understand the principals and methods by which they are done. My question is if anyone has actually proven that they work. Has anyone made or is making one that they have played on?