Building / tile collapse logic

[Gauddlike]

In answer to anotherdevil the reason for some randomness is because a completely predictable effect is not as interesting.

Sure in RL the collapse of a building can be predicted with fair certainty by demolitions experts with precisely placed explosives but that isn't what we are talking about here. Even then they sometimes fall in the wrong direction, fail to fall at all, or the collapse is bigger than expected.

I think being able to hit a building that you have troops inside with a rocket launcher, safe in the knowledge that they are stood 2 squares outside any possible harm, is less interesting than having to take the risk of not killing your target or accidentally taking out your own troops as well.

The last couple of ideas don't sound much different to mine except rather than a simple fall/stand mine had a chance of collapse that got higher depending on damage to the area. Would be nice to be able to alter the chance based on material types etc.

[anotherdevil]

Reflecting more on it, I agree that there should be some degree of randomness, but just a degree of it. Maybe a few extra tiles get destroyed, but not the difference between a half demolished and a fully demolished building

[Sathra]

Unless its a small building. Completely flattening a small building (house) with a single rock or charge should be possible, if rare. Because its fun.

[Gauddlike]

Especially if it is one built by a local council, you can do significant damage to them by putting up a picture in the wrong place.

[PotatoMcWhiskey]

If A loses 1 point of strenght does that one fall down then or retract it's strenght to keep itself supported? Will it then steal from C or from B?

Edit: also in your example you have forgotten to strenghten the second topmost middle tile that is very savable. the tile under that might ven be saved with a bit of strenght shunting around while its still only the bottom wall thats been damaged. that rearrangeing will unfortunately cause trouble when you remove the wall at the bottom left.

Edit: I realie i may have ignored the "adjacent tiles combined 4 strenght" rule. but still what is preventing the tiles at the top from shifting around integrity strenght and causing problems when they realigne due to new circumstances? If the algorith is going to be as intelligent as you want it to be, wouldnt it have to try to equalize the tiles strenght preemptivly?

Everytime a change occurs in the structure the stats are recalculated.

So let us say A=4 B=3 C=1 D=0 E=0 again.

In the previous example A shifts 2 strength to B so that we are left with.

A=2 B=5 C=1 D=0 E=0

Then the strength is pushed through B into C etc leaving us with. A=2 B=3 C=2 D=1 E=0

D and E collapse and the structure returns to stand by. When a piece of the building is damaged again, lets say only A is reduced by 1.

A=3 B=3 C=1

D and E are already gone. A can only push 1 strength through B into C but it is enough to save it all. Leaving us with A =2 B=3 C=2.

Then the logic checks all these as "Stable" and wait until a tile in its group is changed or damaged.

I will admit, its still very rough and it doesn't account for everything I want it to yet, but I can easily see how to expand it and allow for larger more complex buildings while retaining a believable structural integrity without it being too fragile or strong.

The logic only decides to try and move strength around if a tile is considered unsupported. Then it tries to find the closest available strength to support it. If no strength is found under the rules then the tile collapse and the algorithm is run again until the building is stable. If everything is considered stable then the logic awaits damage to the structure to determine when to check if things are unsupported. Pre-emptively moving the strength around doesn't really make sense because theres no where for it to go. It only goes where it is needed. And it goes to the closest place it is needed.

I'm a budding programmer, so I'm really enjoying thought crafting this idea before I try and see if I can actually build it.

I have the idea almost fully structured in my head, communicating that idea is another thing altogether.

[anotherdevil]

Unless its a small building. Completely flattening a small building (house) with a single rock or charge should be possible, if rare. Because its fun.

Especially if it is one built by a local council, you can do significant damage to them by putting up a picture in the wrong place.

This I agree with. But if the randomness is the difference between half a building (what would seem reasonable from the rocket blast) and the whole building, that's a no no

[Parax]

Why not just have a topple down effect if there is no building floor or building wall in the 9 squares below then the floor/wall above collapses.. yes you could remove all the walls and leave the floor and the building would stay up, but any explosion would damage the floor and cause a collapse.

You would have to identify internal floors (load bearing) from external floors, and where you need a bridge effect you'd have to use special load bearing external floors.

(sorry if this has been said, I skipped a few posts)

P.

[Gorlom]

Why not just have a topple down effect if there is no building floor or building wall in the 9 squares below then the floor/wall above collapses.. yes you could remove all the walls and leave the floor and the building would stay up, but any explosion would damage the floor and cause a collapse.

You would have to identify internal floors (load bearing) from external floors, and where you need a bridge effect you'd have to use special load bearing external floors.

(sorry if this has been said, I skipped a few posts)

P.

Would that mean if you shot at the floor in a 3x3 area with a lazer or plasma weapon that the tiles above start falling down? Without a single wall or or roof being shot out? (Assuming the room is larger then 9 squares)

And wouldnt you as a player want to avoid

you could remove all the walls and leave the floor and the building would stay up,

I bet a lot of players would be annoyed with that and think Chris was just beeing sloppy.

[Parax]

Yes and No...

Yes, the one centre tile would fall.. but after nine damaging blasts why not have some instability nearby! (with 3x3 only one tile falls from above, the second floor above that still has 8/9 supports)

No, I wouldn't mind that... it's no worse than the original.

I think it's been decided that any collapse method is better than none at all. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with quirky physics! it pays homage to the original floating buildings after all, its just a small improvement.. maybe try simple see and how it goes this is alpha testing afterall.

P.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Parax

[IceVamp]

Visualisation:

You could even show the collapse.

The proposed system leads to a domino effect where the tile destruction / collapse can be animated in the exact order it is calculated in.

Walls come down, floor tiles break off and fall down, starting from the "weak spots", until only the stable tiles remain standing.

The best features are usually 90% show and 10% code. =P

^^ Epic. Two thumbs up for that idea. ^^

What he said. They said.

[anotherdevil]

I agree, though it would have to be done quickly so that the payer wasn't constantly waiting if they used explosives, turning them off those weapons because everything took too long to actually break up

[IceVamp]

Yeah, I'm envisioning about three rows of tiles per second. Making it go pretty fast, but still noticeable. Or maybe a random .2 to .5 second delay every second row so it doesn't look too mechanical.

Bam, bam, delay, bam bam, delay, bam.

I really hope this can be implemented. The holding of ones breath and widening eyes as one sees an explosive head for the building your men are using for cover. *gleee*

Edited January 10, 2012 by IceVamp

[Bibidibop]

I wish I knew enough facts and math for this, so I hope I can help anyway.

In older buildings, the facade is load bearing, but past a certain point, large buildings no longer use load bearing facades. For the most part, or to the degree of older buildings.

Assuming load bearing exterior walls, the facade, just as a complete guess, will carry around 50% of the load, or more. You could treat every exterior, non- window or door frame surfaces, as a load bearing column section by dividing all of that by the amount of total wall load. You should end up with each wall section carrying less weight than the sparse existing columns. For instance, a building with a load of 100,000 kg, 50 load bearing facade sections, taking 50% load, and 8 columns, taking 50% load would put 1,000 kg on each working wall section, and 6,250 kg on each column. Then you stack those layers of 100,000 kg. Can that be turned into collapse data?

In a modern construction, the wall doesn't support the structure at all. You'll have more, or stronger, columns, and wall destruction won't do anything. Some structures may be like a hollow, columnless box, except for columns right at the walls. For sake of ease, you could make all structures work modern, even ones which look old.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Bibidibop

[Gorlom]

By modern how modern are we talking about? 20th century? 1950? 1970? 1990? 2010?

[Bibidibop]

Unfortunately I can't say definitely, but 60's to modern times would see a lot of curtain walls, non load bearing walls, except for the World Trade Center which was unique for reintroducing load bearing walls. One thing to watch out for though are steel frame buildings where all the columns are in the outer wall. That's still a curtain wall design, at least I think it is because the wall is secured to the beams, rather than the floors to the walls. Also, lumber houses, using 2X4 construction don't have load bearing walls, but the frame of the house is in the wall and it amounts to a similar effect.

The theme is, if the walls aren't load bearing, you can blast them off, as long as the frame is intact. Blast the frame enough and the building should come down. For me it comes back to just treating the walls like a bunch of columns, and using a variable for how much the outer walls support.

[Bibidibop]

I just thought of something. We can destroy walls, and free standing objects, and floors will collapse. Does this mean we can attack wall/ceiling sections directly to make holes so we can shoot down and up to other levels?

[Sathra]

Hmm, you can currently directly target walls, but not sure about ceilings. I don't think that's in yet.

[Gazz]

not sure about ceilings

Wouldn't that be the same as targeting the ground on the next higher floor...?

[Gauddlike]

Yes but I think the query is more about if you can target the floor tile from the room below it, or if that would technically be out of view.

For example if the targeting system drew line of sight to the top of the tile rather than any part of it.

[ufoFan]

Is property damage calculated in with how pleased the country is with the mission, say like civilians dead?

[Sunshard]

That could become a bit of a nightmare with aliens casually walking through structures.

[irongamer]

Is property damage calculated in with how pleased the country is with the mission, say like civilians dead?

This is an interesting idea. It can often take fewer turns to just blast everything to little bits than to advance troops in a safe manner to building, setup guys for entry, enter building, and clear each room. I like the idea of property damage as it gives an incentive to be less destructive and play with more finesse. Aside from civilians possibly being in the building there is really no down side to just leveling the building in question. I think property damage should be calculated, within reason.

I would expect only your teams fire or explosions trigger by your team would be calculated. Or just make adjustments to the formula to account for some collateral damage or damage done by the aliens themselves.

[Edit]

Oh, this could also have achievements and/or badge: Demolition Man.

Edited February 20, 2012 by irongamer