New aircraft damage? Please?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

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)

whisper, obviously there are 'physics': collisions, bullet drop, gravity as you've stated.

But isn't it obvious I'm talking about ragdolls physics? GTA IV has set the bar very high. In fact, I think there is only a walking/running animation for the pedestrians in that game, everything else is done by ragdolls.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[dmarkwick 261]

whisper, obviously they are 'physics': collisions, bullet drop, gravity as you've stated.

But isn't it obvious I'm talking about ragdolls physics? GTA IV has set the bar very high. In fact, I think there is only a walking/running animation for the pedestrians in that game, everything else is done by ragdolls.

GTA IV may have set the bar high - but it's a single player experience. Excessive physics in a MP game on a scale of ArmA2 is a massive undertaking for many reasons, bandwidth being a major one.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

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.

You must be new to Arma if you think the 'physics engine' is just not properly configured.

We've had the same bugs, same flying tanks (fixed somewhat in 1.05 Arma 2 patch!) since... since g-d damn Armed Assault 1.

Now, Arma 2 on Chernarus island with High/Vhigh is the most realistically looking game/simulator to walk the planet, and it'd be a shame if they keep on improving the graphics engine, while ignoring the thing that applies to all entities - physics.

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 PM ----------

GTA IV may have set the bar high - but it's a single player experience. Excessive physics in a MP game on a scale of ArmA2 is a massive undertaking for many reasons, bandwidth being a major one.

Rework the netcode, physics can be done on 1 core.

A i7 930 @ 3.6 can run anything you throw at it in Warfare, with resistance occupation and difficulty set both on HARD.

Either way, being a 'fan', it gets old when you land with your parachute, unable to move for 2 seconds like it's business as usual, or when that time you do a hot LZ with the UH60, touching the tail first and the engine goes dead etc, et cetera.

P.S. There are solutions and then there is lack of will: physics can be done client-side with each Player Entity having a bubble radius XYZ meters, everything outside it doesn't register for the client. Does a tree fall, if there is no one around to hear the sound? :D

Edited September 9, 2010 by Iroquois Pliskin

[dmarkwick 261]

it gets old when you land with your parachute, unable to move for 2 seconds like it's business as usual, or when that time you do a hot LZ with the UH60, touching the tail first and the engine goes dead etc, et cetera.

I've done a parachute jump for real, and believe me it takes a lot longer than 2 seconds to get up and running ready to fire your weapon. I don't beleive you're doing your argument any favours complaining about a 2 second parachute landing delay :D ;)

As for the netcode - every game I've seen that has ragdoll in MP has one major drawback - the entity in question is handled on a per-PC basis. In other games while talking to friends over comms it became apparent that we were seeing vastly different things as far as body positions were concerned. Syncing every item's position due to ragdoll across an internet game for all clients is a massive drain, and practically unworkable at current internet limits.

[wolfbite 8]

Euphoria is the GTAIV physics engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_%28software%29

Have you not noticed that GTA only handles a very small amount of entities at any given time? And online GTA and Read dead are allmost totally different. I dont think this kind of simulation would be any good for ArmA. ArmA does need to have its physics improved but I have doubts wether these kind of physics simulations could handle a game on the scale of arma. I'm no expert on software though and it does say Euphoria can be incorporated easily into lots of other things.

[dmarkwick 261]

Euphoria is the GTAIV physics engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_%28software%29

Have you not noticed that GTA only handles a very small amount of entities at any given time? And online GTA and Read dead are allmost totally different. I dont think this kind of simulation would be any good for ArmA. ArmA does need to have its physics improved but I have doubts wether these kind of physics simulations could handle a game on the scale of arma. I'm no expert on software though and it does say Euphoria can be incorporated easily into lots of other things.

For sure :) Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see more effective physics in ArmA2, but we have to acknowledge that it would be mostly a single-player enhancement effect, and MP is more of a focus for BIS I think. Even the highly touted Crysis engine vastly reduces its physics engine for online gameplay.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

You must be new to Arma if you think the 'physics engine' is just not properly configured.

We've had the same bugs, same flying tanks (fixed somewhat in 1.05 Arma 2 patch!) since... since g-d damn Armed Assault 1.

Now, Arma 2 on Chernarus island with High/Vhigh is the most realistically looking game/simulator to walk the planet, and it'd be a shame if they keep on improving the graphics engine, while ignoring the thing that applies to all entities - physics.

Based on your account and post history, I think it's safe to say that I've been around this community longer than you have, and have a lot more knowledge about ArmA 2 and its predecessors than you do. Now I have no idea what background you have in game development in general, but everything I've seen you post makes me believe that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Anyway, please leave the physics discussions for the multiple threads that already exist. No need to turn a simple suggestion thread into another "BIS please completely redo some part of the engine" thread.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Euphoria is the GTAIV physics engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphoria_%28software%29

Euphoria is the GTAIV physics engine? Didn't realize that. In fact the first sentence in your link even suggests that is is an animation engine.

Ref: http://naturalmotion.com/faq.htm

Q: Is euphoria a physics engine?

A: No, euphoria is not a physics engine. euphoria simulates the human (or animal) motor nervous system on Xbox 360, PLAYSTATION 3 and PC. One can think of it as biology meeting robot control theory. euphoria integrates with a game's existing physics engine, which provides the basic body physics (commonly known as 'ragdoll physics'). euphoria adds life to the dead physics simulation. In short, ragdolls are dead, floppy bodies. euphoria characters instead are alive and adaptive.

So basically you'd need a new physics engine as well as euphoria. Since Armas physics engine doesn't support ragdoll in the first place. And then you'll end up with a 2-4 player game because you can't handle the bandwidth to keep clients synched with all the physics going on. Or limit it to singleplayer only.

No thanks.

[wolfbite 8]

Ok its the animation engine sorry I got confused. I wasnt saying they need to implement it. I was saying that there would be no point because GTA online is nothing like the single player and single player only deals with a limeted amount of things anyway and said I was dubious about it handling anything on the scale of ArmA.

Have people suddenly started reading the first sentence in someones post and just making up a totally different ending?

[maddogx 13]

Have people suddenly started reading the first sentence in someones post and just making up a totally different ending?

Welcome to the internet. ;)

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Lol, yeah sorry about that one, got me there :D I'm so used to seeing Euphoria mentioned in that other meaning I guess I drew some conclusions a bit early :p Guess I'm a bit square sighted after a night of fighting self inflicted bugs...

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Based on your account and post history, I think it's safe to say that I've been around this community longer than you have, and have a lot more knowledge about ArmA 2 and its predecessors than you do.

I'm sure you do, now run along.

Who are these people? :D

Blocked as a preventive measure for the sake of sparing me reading clueless posts.

---------- Post added at 01:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------

So basically you'd need a new physics engine as well as euphoria. Since Armas physics engine doesn't support ragdoll in the first place. And then you'll end up with a 2-4 player game because you can't handle the bandwidth to keep clients synched with all the physics going on. Or limit it to singleplayer only.

No thanks.

Then we'll be left with the same stiffness we've endured for years, some for a decade.

Arma 2 was picked up on the gamers' global radar. With OA, BIS released a single DLC and now look what happened: you have all these enthusiastic people with their DLC suggestions, that they're willing to pay for -- but the novelty will run out in a month, or two, because we know how gameplay fixes come about in the armaverse.

[dmarkwick 261]

Then we'll be left with the same stiffness we've endured for years, some for a decade.

Arma 2 was picked up on the gamers' global radar. With OA, BIS released a single DLC and now look what happened: you have all these enthusiastic people with their DLC suggestions, that they're willing to pay for -- but the novelty will run out in a month, or two, because we know how gameplay fixes come about in the armaverse.

Gameplay fixes are constant in the ArmAverse, there aren't many companies that make as many so often. I don't think interest will wane after a month because of no ragdoll, and to be fair there has always been a vocal enthusiasm for content in ArmA.

Basically Iroquois I think that the possibility of a really nice physics rebuild is a slim one at least for the foreseeable. As has been consistently mentioned it's a mostly single-player, or at the most a client-side only, enhancement. That's not to say it cannot be improved, but I think for the purposes of this particular discussion (which is about aircraft crash survivability) we need to think about what's possible in the current physics engine.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Well, at least units diapers appear dry now compared to OFP. So something must have happened.

We may get the stiffness, but those other games won't get the coop support either.

Fixes? Like twice a day sometimes (Edit: like today, as chance would have it :D), for some of the betas? Seriously, I agree it's slow, but the house isn't comparable to other houses either - yet their game kicks the competitions ass.

As for:

Who are these people?

A simple search would have told you. Your provocative I guess, and your loss. Guess you won't find that out :p I actually found the answer quite fitting wrt what he answered, so... Physics has it's problems, and guess what, just as in any other game. We also have physics and features that no other (single) game has attempted. Can't have it all, that would make us loose all...

Edited September 10, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Cyborg11 10]

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.

Thanks for the link.

But the plane with the lost wing is the destruction model or? Or is the plane still "alive"? :D

[rübe 127]

I think that it would be more realistic, and less frustrating, if the rotor blades simply "disintegrated", for lack of a better term, causing all sorts of dust and noise, as opposed to simply exploding and killing everything withing five miles.

:notworthy:

My last gripe is the unnecessary explosion from landing barely too hard.

:notworthy:

Good points and I really like to see this adjusted.

Where can I vote? ;)

[nodunit 397]

Thanks for the link.

But the plane with the lost wing is the destruction model or? Or is the plane still "alive"? :D

Franze can explain it better than I since he made it but right now he's busy so for the sake of moving along I'll answer.

The plane is alive, it's just lost its wing.

Think of it as hidden selection, you have your normal frame and the damage parts underlying it, when the wing takes enough damage it breaks off, ditto to other damageable parts.

Edited September 11, 2010 by NodUnit

[Big Dawg KS 6]

ruebe has the right idea. Those two things, as well as improving the wrecks "sticking" into the ground, is all that's really needed.

[franze 196]

What happens is that as the damage scales up, parts are affected visually in addition to the physical effects of the damage. So while some light damage to the wing might cause a tendency to roll into the damaged wing, heavy damage can be almost uncontrollable and a destroyed state pretty much forces you to eject in order to survive.

So on a pure technical basis this is all possible within the game. It still needs to be refined for ArmA2, but the functionality is there.

[b00ce 160]

So it is possible? NICE. :D

[[frl]myke 14]

It would be even nicer with some more detailed info how this has/can be done.

@Franze

sorry for OT but regarding your sig...are you working on a F-16? If so, then i could probably stop the work on mine. :D

[franze 196]

Myke;1749160']It would be even nicer with some more detailed info how this has/can be done.

Basically it takes the classic modeling method used in many flight simulations - you build your detail model' date=' build your damage model, and then build your selections based upon the damage model. In the Su-17's case, there are roughly 3 levels of damage per part. The swinging wings can be individually damaged to reveal light damage such as a few bullet holes, moderate where a panel might be missing or a wingtip, heavy where there's a combination of the previous levels of damage, and destroyed where the wing is completely gone. This is done with setobjecttexture - the damage parts are under the undamaged parts and revealed as necessary with the scripting. This could also be done with model.cfg and proxies.

The scripting is a little more simple and relying on randomization rather than location based. Unfortunately this is a requirement as the ways for detecting the location of damage would be too complex to provide a decent experience. For the current armor status, a series of conditions are possible. At 10% you see light damage, then at 25% you see more widespread damage, then 50% you get to moderate and heavy, and beyond 50% you start getting into the realm of catastrophic. This script is set up by having the locations/systems to be damaged and rolled on with the random command to assign the damage. From there the proper effect is applied.

@Franze

sorry for OT but regarding your sig...are you working on a F-16? If so, then i could probably stop the work on mine. :D

My F-16 is quite a long ways from complete and I see no reason to abandon your project. :)

[ray243 11]

They should also make it so that the paint comes off too :D

[hailstorm 4]

currently the game sees how fast the aircraft is traveling prior to impact, and if that value is higher than a set value, the aircraft blows up.

can it be programmed so the game looks at how fast an aircraft is going prior to impact, then look at how fast it's going after impact? then if change is higher than a set value (for the unit) = kill?

if that were to be implemented, it would possibly mean that stuff like armored helicopters like the Apache can have a very high tolerance to hard landing (as it was designed to do), and make stuff like gear-up landings in fixed-wing aircraft (where a slow descent rate and small angle of impact can accurately be factored in and not overall speed) possible.