Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

Suggestion: buildings that are partially destroyed should some chance of igniting
New, WishlistPublic


I was playing a town assault mission (with helis, mortars and stuff) and the destruction all around was awesome, but I think one thing can make it even more awesome. Imagine if a partially destroyed could catch on fire. And Im not talking about some dynamic fire that will destroy the whole map (and my CPU).

I think that if a building that got partially destroyed would have a some chance of catching on fire and burning partially (or entirely) would be awesome. Because come on, nothing says "war" like smoke and destruction.


Legacy ID

Event Timeline

Valentino edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
Valentino set Category to Explosives.
Valentino set Reproducibility to N/A.
Valentino set Severity to None.
Valentino set Resolution to Open.
Valentino set Legacy ID to 2300669613.May 7 2016, 3:26 PM
AD2001 added a subscriber: AD2001.May 7 2016, 3:26 PM

The buildings are made mostly out of stone and concrete.

True, but you can always add a flamable object that will eventually set the entire building on fire.

tyl3r99 added a subscriber: tyl3r99.May 7 2016, 3:26 PM

also depends what ammunition was used to destroy house :)

for example a HE round above 25% chance etc...

I don't think they'd just fill the houses with flammables in a case of war.

You dont need barrels with fuel and a "shoot me :)" sign for flammables, the average house is FILLED with them. A big closet, a massive bookshelf, a wooden floor, a table. As an ex fire department volunteer anything in the house is flammable, and can be a bitch to extinguish after it was burning for a good while. Now Im sure BI wont be filling houses now with furniture and stuff, but you can always add one massive wooden closet as the flambale item, and once again - wooden floors. So I dont consider finding flammable things in a house to be the issue if thats whats worriying you.

I just don't want houses bursting into flames.

Not only could it be stupid in big urban firefights, but imagine the performance impact.

Upvoted :-)

Firing explosive ammunition at houses will often rupture gas mains causing massive fires that are almost impossible to extinguish.
Just like the aftermath of an earthquake leaving fires spreading as far as the eye can see.

It shouldn't be a chance just anywhere on the house, ammunition type, weather and location should play a role in this feature.

I shall down-vote.
Making this "Fixed" behavior of a generic reduces the use of those buildings under "certain" scenarios.
There was already scripts in ARMA2CO (if not in every ARMA game..)that do exactly what you asking for.

Also..the performance impact was ALWAYS even we had the choice to use those scripts-most times we were avoiding it..

Goose added a subscriber: Goose.May 7 2016, 3:26 PM
Goose added a comment.Jul 17 2013, 8:13 AM

Agreed with ProGamer. Why an arbitrary 25% chance?

Ideally, buildings should go up in flames only if they would ignite in real life, this would require many variables.

I doubt it will happen though - would require lots of work for (arguably) little value.

@Goose - that is exactly the reason it should be about 25%

It would be nice but it would severely cripple performance.

Not necesserily, the smoke wouldnt be much bigger then a blown up car, and you dont destroy that many buildings in the average mission anyways.

But what if you make a "different" mission?

If you make a mission that is already filled with explosions and destroying buildings you already have a massive impact on performance.

D_wolf added a subscriber: D_wolf.May 7 2016, 3:26 PM
D_wolf added a comment.Aug 5 2013, 7:30 PM
This comment was removed by D_wolf.

Fire on destroyed houses would rather look bad=/

If the effects were better then MAYBE I would agree. At the current state it looks better without fire.

gutsnav added a subscriber: gutsnav.May 7 2016, 3:26 PM

My computer would have a 25% chance of igniting, too. :P