PhysX

[Aussie_Osiris 10]

because its physx, it can be offloaded to any cuda device, just like network overhead can be offloaded to a quality NIC. SDK3 has improved the cpu path speed anyway, so BIS can do some pretty complex stuff with it and still have good baseline performance. Nvidia also support game devs, a lot more than ATI, so its no surprise they chose the nvidia middleware.

ATI/AMD doesn't have a physics engine. Bullet is independent and open source, Havok is Intel owned since 2007

EDIT: Though I believe that AMD has partnered with Bullet and I think to some extent even Havok (AMD and Intel working together... I know crazy, right?)

[krycek 349]

I hope they tweak it a lot more,those red boxes were supposed to be containers right?When that M-ATV hit them they jumped like cardboard boxes.

[Aussie_Osiris 10]

That demo was to only show that physics have been implemented on the most basic level. They still have a lot more tweaking to go before they get the result they say they are going to have.

[NeMeSiS 11]

To be honest i do think this is the moment to cry about it, better during development than having to fix it afterwards again.

[PuFu 4600]

there is a difference between crying about (which most of ppl posting here do) and proper feedback. Plus, it has been said it is NOT final implementation. But again, it is very obviously that the amount of ppl who actually know even a bit about software and game development are just a handfull, the rest...well

[Aussie_Osiris 10]

To be honest i do think this is the moment to cry about it, better during development than having to fix it afterwards again.

You have a point but they are still going to do what they planned before hand. What they really need is a beta, private or public, with people who know how those objects handle IRL and not just from people who only "know" the feel of the vehicles, guns ect. from playing games.

I would love to test it but unfortunately I only know how 2 hunting rifles and a M107 feels and common cars feel. Not quite military grade stuff. :(

[NeMeSiS 11]

You have a point but they are still going to do what they planned before hand. What they really need is a beta, private or public, with people who know how those objects handle IRL and not just from people who only "know" the feel of the vehicles, guns ect. from playing games.

Lets be honest, we all roughly know how falling crates should behave. ;)

[Aussie_Osiris 10]

Lets be honest, we all roughly know how falling crates should behave. ;)

Haha good point. But still I trust BI to have crashed a couple of cars before the game launches

[DieterWeber 0]

One thing they need to remember about the physics...... EVERYTHING in reality falls at the same speed. Unless it creates lift. A huge 5 ton truck will fall at the same speed as a human.

[pettka 694]

One thing they need to remember about the physics...... EVERYTHING in reality falls at the same speed. Unless it creates lift. A huge 5 ton truck will fall at the same speed as a human.

Negative. Look at the leaves falling, or flying chipmunks, speed always depends on the shape :icon_twisted: Or, put otherwise, everything creates a lift force.

Edited June 14, 2011 by pettka

[Aussie_Osiris 10]

Negative. Look at the leaves falling, or flying chipmunks, speed always depends on the shape :icon_twisted:

Yes. Weight is irrelevant. First thing my teacher said in high school basic science. Stuck with me ever since. Then there were a whole bunch of complex algorithms and stuff but I understand physics on a basic level :D

[dmarkwick 261]

I think, for the purposes of ArmA3, that lift can be simplified i.e. very high values applied to parachutes etc. Visual fluff like leaves etc are particles with their own settings.

I am compelled to point out that falling onjects accelerate at the same rate, not fall :)

[maturin 12]

Yes. Weight is irrelevant. First thing my teacher said in high school basic science. Stuck with me ever since. Then there were a whole bunch of complex algorithms and stuff but I understand physics on a basic level :D

A leaf that weighs five tons will fall faster than a leaf that weighs five ounces.

[Derbysieger 11]

not in vacuum

[DieterWeber 0]

Negative. Look at the leaves falling, or flying chipmunks, speed always depends on the shape :icon_twisted: Or, put otherwise, everything creates a lift force.

Wrong. The leaves create a lift like a wing and it causes it to stay in the air longer. Everything else, no matter the shape or weight, is pulled to the ground at 9.8 meters a second.

[maddogx 13]

not in vacuum

How is that relevant to this discussion?

[dmarkwick 261]

Wrong. The leaves create a lift like a wing and it causes it to stay in the air longer. Everything else, no matter the shape or weight, is pulled to the ground at 9.8 meters a second.

Wrong :D

Everything not affected by air accelerates at 9.8 meters per second per second. And everything is affected by air friction, mostly to negligable amounts.

[kremator 1065]

Negative. Look at the leaves falling, or flying chipmunks, speed always depends on the shape :icon_twisted: Or, put otherwise, everything creates a lift force.

.... in the absence of an atmosphere !

[maddogx 13]

Everything else, no matter the shape or weight, is pulled to the ground at 9.8 meters a second.

Look up "terminal velocity". It is not the same for every object, and certainly not 9.8m/s.

9.8m/s² is the gravitational pull of the earth, which is actually a measure of acceleration.

[DieterWeber 0]

You guys are wrong. Get over it.

[dmarkwick 261]

Aaaahhh, I love the smell of stubborn ignorance in the morning :D ;)

DietWeber, 9.8m/s is a speed. Things don't fall at one single speed. They accelerate from 0 and build up speed over time. At a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. That value is correct at the Earth surface.

Edited June 14, 2011 by DMarkwick

[NeMeSiS 11]

You guys are wrong. Get over it.

Thats the best argument ive seen in a while. :p

Anyway, this can all be solved by wikipedia.

[Scrub 0]

DieterWeber: In your calculations, did you forget to add the little factor of "Wind Resistance"? By your limited theory, parachutes would not function. But I can attest: They do.

Something is amiss in your understanding of the subject.

Edit: Wow. Missed a whole page:eek:

Edited June 14, 2011 by Scrub

[Zipper5 74]

The internet is the only place where everyone is simultaneously right and wrong.

[maddogx 13]

DieterWeber: In your calculations, did you forget to add the little factor of "Wind Resistance"? By your limited theory, parachutes would not function. But I can attest: They do.

Something is amiss in your understanding of the subject.

Just leave it. His last comment pretty much disqualified him from being taken seriously in this discussion.