New aircraft damage? Please?

[whisper 0]

Yes, high speed ground contact gets past handleDamage, no clue why, you get killed without EH being thrown

[twisted 128]

I agree,

especially in ARMA it would be nice to survive because in these situations the heli sim turns into a infantry sim.

very true

[dmarkwick 261]

Guys, its perfectly possible for the current engine to deal with this problem, the game physics are more than capable, really. And lets face it, the current game physics is what we HAVE to work within, it aint gonna change anytime soon.

Simply lose the rotors on rotor collision, toughen the helo so it can survive a moderate fall (like for example a tank can), and use the broken glass textured heli as the heli model. Bingo, units can remain in their seats (even if some of them die) and you have a survivable heli crash scenario.

In fact, as an interim measure forget about losing the rotors and simply use the broken glass textured heli, toughen the body & drop it with some statistically-based passenger survival code. That is doable right now IMO.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

No, rotors need to go; or at least lose their collision detection. Still, minus the explosion the current model is actually pretty good.

[b00ce 160]

No, rotors need to go; or at least lose their collision detection. Still, minus the explosion the current model is actually pretty good.

It would be kinda dumb for rotors to not have collision detection. :p

IMO, they shouldn't be able to touch ANYTHING without getting all buggered up. At the very least they would lose balance and the helicopter would shake and oscillate, like in the Apache vid.

[dmarkwick 261]

It would be kinda dumb for rotors to not have collision detection. :p

IMO, they shouldn't be able to touch ANYTHING without getting all buggered up. At the very least they would lose balance and the helicopter would shake and oscillate, like in the Apache vid.

I think he means after the rotor collision, the rotor should lose it's collision geometry, otherwise it will act oddly among trees & buildings when it should just fall between them.

[b00ce 160]

I think he means after the rotor collision, the rotor should lose it's collision geometry, otherwise it will act oddly among trees & buildings when it should just fall between them.

AH, makes much more sense now.

[nodunit 397]

One title: GTA IV. Even being such a poor port, it has decent performance on 2 core CPUs.

As for physics being eye-candy: keep on polishing that GFX engine and you will be left behind, while everyone else focuses on the gameplay part of a game.

The next generation of GPUs will not have the amount of Processing Units doubled, they're working towards quality & features instead.

Render to texture isn't a graphic enhancement it's a major gameplay enhancement, the ability to see things from a computer display is what makes alot of vehicles modern..helicopters with displays, aircraft, tanks all of it.

[Cyborg11 10]

Yes that, before release he showed me a video of the destruction at work, a dogfight up close with a wing breaking off. On the second encounter the AI lost its wing and spun out of control. During a test I lost most of my rudder and was unable to control the swing very well at all, needless to say he landed fine and I made a nice crater.

I've used the addon and played with it during testing, it's alot of fun and nice to see the damage system taken up a notch from the OFP days, hopefully we can apply it to more in the future.

Do you have a link to that video? :)

[nodunit 397]

Do you have a link to that video? :)

http://www.mechmodels.com/mas/downloads/su17_dam_fx.wmv

It's just a short video and nothing super fancy..although if we are to further pursue the damage system I think we might want to explore more in depth videos..anyways.

Edited September 8, 2010 by NodUnit

[ryguy 10]

I made a thread about this a while ago...

[b00ce 160]

I made a thread about this a while ago...

I've done a belly landing in an A-10, taxied, and took off again. :p

[carlostex 38]

Because to be able to scale with RV Engine, the physics engine must be able to handle calculation of physics on over hundreds (thoushands?) of character entities, over places as large as 25 sq km and more, in short, it will face scale limits.

I don't know enough of engines and such to be categoric in saying "it's impossible with current hardware", but you gotta agree this is going to push any physics engine's limits a little bit, don't you think? ;)

I see where you´re going. But you missed the point. I think it is perfectly possible in RV engine even with hundreds of units physics, because physics calculations can be easily done by floating point units, which can be accelarated by SIMD instructions. Fused Multiply Add (FMA) would be suitable for this, and are extremely powerful 128-bit instructions. Quad cores are pretty much mainstream today, and you´ll have at least 4 FPU´s available. In 2011 AMD Bulldozer processor will be capable of 2 FMA instructions per clock cycle if you multiply by 4 you´ll have a lot of processing power there.

If not by CPU then why not by GPU? GPU´s are perfect to execute SIMD like instructions. OpenCL could be an awesome improvement.

The trouble with this is that it could cost too much time and money to BIS until the results are there. It would be an investment. BUt i´m pretty shure it would pay off. All BIS needs is good financing.

[max power 21]

I see where you´re going. But you missed the point. I think it is perfectly possible in RV engine even with hundreds of units physics, because physics calculations can be easily done by floating point units, which can be accelarated by SIMD instructions. Fused Multiply Add (FMA) would be suitable for this, and are extremely powerful 128-bit instructions. Quad cores are pretty much mainstream today, and you´ll have at least 4 FPU´s available. In 2011 AMD Bulldozer processor will be capable of 2 FMA instructions per clock cycle if you multiply by 4 you´ll have a lot of processing power there.

If not by CPU then why not by GPU? GPU´s are perfect to execute SIMD like instructions. OpenCL could be an awesome improvement.

The trouble with this is that it could cost too much time and money to BIS until the results are there. It would be an investment. BUt i´m pretty shure it would pay off. All BIS needs is good financing.

Which processor, the GPU or the CPU, would you consider underworked in ArmA 2?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Which processor, the GPU or the CPU, would you consider underworked in ArmA 2?

Any CPU with 4 cores.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

FPDR

How did this simple thread turn into another physics debate?

This is why good suggestions never make it. :confused_o:

[mr burns 132]

-XKCLDsTnYE

There you go, physics in ArmA. Back to topic now, moar/bettar aircraft destruction

[rekrul 7]

I concur with OP.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

FPDR

How did this simple thread turn into another physics debate?

This is why good suggestions never make it. :confused_o:

The subject in question is directly tied to physics.

I'd rather see such things get implemented in the official vanilla game, instead of having to use separate 15 mods just to simulate reverse taxi (thank g-d, in the game as of OA), flares (whoop) et cetera.

Mr Burns, I could shoot some Arma 'physics' vids, but to save time: in a game where can tanks fly, helos often can not.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[wolfbite 8]

The subject in question is directly tied to physics.

I'd rather see such things get implemented in the official vanilla game, instead of having to use separate 15 mods just to simulate reverse taxi (thank g-d, in the game as of OA).

Reverse taxi? I didnt notice you can do that in OA really?

[maturin 12]

-XKCLDsTnYE

There you go, physics in ArmA. Back to topic now, moar/bettar aircraft destruction

Holy shit, I had no idea. Are those all vanilla objects?

[whisper 0]

Mr Burns, I could shoot some Arma 'physics' vids, but to save time: in a game where can tanks fly, helos often can not.

I think his point was that saying "there's no physics in the game" is wrong.

There is physics (gravity and such, and bullets ballistics shows that too), often wrong, and with bad results, but physics anyway :p (as shown in the vid too, I don't think a single AI died from being rolled over by burning barrel)

[carlostex 38]

Which processor, the GPU or the CPU, would you consider underworked in ArmA 2?

No need to talk specifics. Arma 2 does not scale very well past 2 cores. It does get some extra speed thats truebut there is a lot of processing power that is under utilize. A lot of reasons can explain this. Is not easy to optimize a type of game like this, and RV engine is quite old. It´s not easy itself to optimize for x86 Instruction set architecture. Intel invented the x86 ISA, and became such a standard market for PC´s that many other superior architectures vanished. Intel anounced IA-64 (Itanium) 17 years ago, said it would replace x86 and that it was much more powerful and better. When it was released it was a fluke. Intel was defeated by their own x86 ISA and later on server market by AMD64 instructions.

What i´m trying to say is OPTIMIZATION is the key word. I´ve seen so many applications that run faster on Phenom II processors than on I7´s, because of proper optimization. The problem is, it is probably too time and resource demanding for BIS to properly optimize a game of such scale. GPU´s are teraFLOPS monsters as we speak, so the processing power we have!!!

What we don´t have is optimization the key word is OPTIMIZATION.

BTW AFAIK, cryengine 3 will run better than the older cryengine 2 on the same hardware. So in the future people might be playing crysis 2 will more FPS and more image quality than on the older game. OPTIMIZATION

[Big Dawg KS 6]

The subject in question is directly tied to physics.

I'd rather see such things get implemented in the official vanilla game, instead of having to use separate 15 mods just to simulate reverse taxi (thank g-d, in the game as of OA), flares (whoop) et cetera.

Mr Burns, I could shoot some Arma 'physics' vids, but to save time: in a game where can tanks fly, helos often can not.

No, it's not. You just want it to be.

The current physics are good enough, it's just not properly configured. You just don't know what you're talking about... which is typical of most people making "suggestions" here.

[icebreakr 3159]

I didn't check all posts in this topic, but try out Franze's Su-22 (its A1 release, but mostly working in A2/AO). It has one of the best damage systems - I landed without a tail and with jet propulsion missing ;)