251 passengers.

[fidd]

On 11/16/2021 at 11:14 AM, Mosizlak said:

Before the bias crowd shows up, it happens to the m10 too. 

If you removed the top of their skulls, like opening a boiled-egg at breakfast, a grenade thrown inside would also pass quite freely down without let or hindrance, at least as far as their neck. 

[delems]

Ok, I can stand in the 251, but as soon as it moves I fall out?

Even if lay down, when 251 moves, I fall out.

Need to be able to stand, crouch, lay down in the 251 and not fall out when moving.

[sa43210]

Infantry can walk on the transport ship。Why can't you take a car

[BMBM]

5 hours ago, delems said:

Ok, I can stand in the 251, but as soon as it moves I fall out?

Even if lay down, when 251 moves, I fall out.

Need to be able to stand, crouch, lay down in the 251 and not fall out when moving.

You’ll have to be a passenger to do that, ie be connected to the 251’s position and hitmap. And then as you know you only get to sit.

[BMBM]

1 hour ago, sa43210 said:

Infantry can walk on the transport ship。Why can't you take a car

You mean assume control over a vehicle? That is due to the architecture of the game engine itself, which only allows your persona to control one vehicle at a time - you are the soldier, you are the tank, ship, plane whatever.

Persona refers to your stats and control identity, including spawn/despawn etc. The persona is nontransferable between vehicles but can share space with others (multicrew, passenger).

[delems]

The question is to me, if I can stand on a ship and when it moves I don't get left behind.

How come I get left behind when standing on the bed of the 251?

[jwilly]

I'd like to know, too.

The core problem is that "vehicles" move, and infantry don't pass vertically through vehicle colliders under the influence of game-engine-gravity, but there is no frictional force that would tend to drag along an infantryman standing on a vehicle surface when the vehicle moves

One idea / explanation I recall from years ago was that "vehicles", instead of being built using the Creator tools for .flt files, would be built as "buildings",..and then the buildings would be made able to move around on the X-Y plane at zero height.

Infantry of course can move around on building features that have colliders., But, buildings usually don't move around.

It was said at the time that, if that worked, it would only work at zero elevation. I don't recall an explanation for why that would be the case. Thus it'd be applicable for ships/boats, but not for ground vehicles or aircraft.

[warspite]

On 12/16/2021 at 11:42 PM, delems said:

The question is to me, if I can stand on a ship and when it moves I don't get left behind.

How come I get left behind when standing on the bed of the 251?

It was coded that way, why I do not know but the original RATS must have had a reason, probably to fix an exploit of some sort. 

[jwilly]

There have been community requests since the beginning for an infantry capability to more freely ride on various vehicles, and take actions during that riding other than passively sitting there and having a very limited third person look-around ability.

My guess is that the coding work that was done to the freighter model, rather than being a fix for an exploit involving that particular model, was intended to be a code-prototype and proof-of-concept for similar coding changes to all ground and naval models that have, or should have, ride-on capabilities.

The reason why the freighter model was chosen--I'd think--was that it's (effectively) shared by all of the combatant nations, so modifying that one model wouldn't result in a bias-accusation scenario during the period after the one model was modified and introduced to the game for real-world functionality verification, and before further models could be recoded...as surely would have been the case if the one modified model had been the Opel, Bedford or Laffly, or a single tank.

[delems]

*** It was coded that way

Let's code differently then?

Be really nice to be able to stand, crouch or lay down in 251 while it was moving.

[warspite]

14 minutes ago, delems said:

*** It was coded that way

Let's code differently then?

Be really nice to be able to stand, crouch or lay down in 251 while it was moving.

You have to think of the possible exploits that it could create. 

I'm not sure why we bother talking about adding this stuff to the old game anyway, the coders aren't putting anymore time into it. 

[warspite]

@jwillythere is code that deliberately stops infantry from being able to ride certain vehicles in this way, that's why I said that the original RATS must have added it for a reason. 

[TR6AL]

Speaking as a player ,  i think it was so enemy could not climb on /ride or kill  from inside enemy vehicle . 

[delems]

*** You have to think of the possible exploits that it could create. 

I think of all the fun players could have.  And some new play options.

[jwilly]

Why would it be an "exploit" for a player that drives a tank Rambo-style without support into an area populated with enemy AT infantry, to have enemy infantry climb onto that tank and, using realistic weapons, kill it...?

Sounds as if that likely outcome would force Rambo-style players to adopt a new gameplay approach, and operate in mutually supportive, tactically coordinated teams...which would greatly improve the game's realism.

[jwilly]

Quote

I think it was so enemy could not (...) kill  from inside enemy vehicle. 

Of course it would be bad for infantry to be able to clip into enemy vehicles. Why would being able to (realistically) climb onto an enemy tank enable clipping into that tank, though?

Clipping by standing up under a tank already was fixed. Clipping always should be fixed as specifically as possible...not by blocking a broad range of actions, 99% of which are realistic.

[BMBM]

On 12/17/2021 at 12:42 AM, delems said:

The question is to me, if I can stand on a ship and when it moves I don't get left behind.

How come I get left behind when standing on the bed of the 251?

Ships have a ”walk” object synonymous to the deck, alongside the hitmap collider. Trucks do too albeit their walkobject is smaller and inertia slides you off of it.

[warspite]

15 hours ago, delems said:

*** You have to think of the possible exploits that it could create. 

I think of all the fun players could have.  And some new play options.

Then you are only thinking of it from one perspective. 

PS. Does the 'quote' button not work for you or do you just choose not to use it? 

[warspite]

14 hours ago, jwilly said:

Why would it be an "exploit" for a player that drives a tank Rambo-style without support into an area populated with enemy AT infantry, to have enemy infantry climb onto that tank and, using realistic weapons, kill it...?

Sounds as if that likely outcome would force Rambo-style players to adopt a new gameplay approach, and operate in mutually supportive, tactically coordinated teams...which would greatly improve the game's realism.

That wasn't what I was thinking of as an exploit 

[sa43210]

yes

On 2021/12/17 at AM7点42分, delems said:

问题是对我来说，如果我能站在船上并且当它移动时我不会被抛在后面。

站在251的床上怎么会掉队？

 

Just now, sa43210 said:

是的

yes

[Dre21]

On 12/21/2021 at 11:59 AM, warspite said:

PS. Does the 'quote' button not work for you or do you just choose not to use it? 

We haven't figured that out yet, it's the big mystery with delems. 

I would just like to be able to throw nades into open vehicles , all I care for .