PhysX

[[evo] dan 79]

It would be nice to be able to land aircraft on moving ships, walk on moving ships, and of course walk around the inside of a helicopter whilst its flying, will this be possible with physx?

[PuFu 4600]

that i am afraid has nothing to do with physix. It was possible in VBS2 prior to them implementing it.

[djfluffwug 10]

For that, couldn't you just have a collider inside the vehicle, then if the player is inside the collider, check the x,y and z speed of that vehicle, then save that to a global variable, then apply that variable as a speed to the player (Plus the players current speed)?

Plus also, if the current speed of the vehicle is way higher than the players speed, you could just ignore that so they fall out.

Or would it be more complicated?

[dm 9]

that i am afraid has nothing to do with physix. It was possible in VBS2 prior to them implementing it.

Possible, yes. Good? No. Desync in MP was terrible... Its much better now with physX (theres no i in physX, where has it come from?)

Also, it was NOT possible to have movable/walkable/landable big ships prior to physX...

[AviPure 1]

Have the take on helicopter physics improved since the pre alpha some months back where we could trial them inside arma? Because they were REALLY REALLY bad. Random tremors.. over banking, same instability you got in arma 2 where flaring for landing ment you ended up flying backwards at 50mph easily. They were really really bad.

[CameronMcDonald 147]

+50 points for asking outside of the Take On Helicopters forum.

[Bee8190 10]

I hope that cars will also drift a little on gravel and stuff (no, i really dont mean like in tokyo drift :) ) becouse as seen in one of those 'recent' videos, the car seemed to be almost glued like to the surface, even though it was off the road.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Bee8190
somebody slipped typos into my post

[purepassion 22]

I think that's exactly the source of Arma's "sluggish" driving behaviour which somehow feels like you are driving on tracks. Get into a pick-up truck, gain speed and then drive slaloms and try to make it roll on the side. It doesn't work.

PhysX can simulate the slickness of surfaces and could help to significantly improve this problem. By simulating spinning tires and not "gluing" the car onto the surface (propperly jumping over small bumps etc)

is an example :) Edited December 14, 2011 by PurePassion

[Bee8190 10]

Yes that would be much better :) although i have no idea how such vehicle as humvee of something like 3 tons may behive off road at high/er speeds, still seems like its either going backflip or bump and nothing in between?

I'm keeping in mind ist most likely just early physx test but...still hope it will drift in mud or oversteer on gravel for example :)

Dear dude in red...Xmas are coming and only wish...;)

[EDcase 87]

Yeah, You're talking about 'traction' and I hope its part of the new vehicle handling.

PurePassion: That example shows improved collision dynamics but not better handling. It still looks like its glued to the ground. No sliding when turning. I like the flip at 1:56 but that should only happen with a sudden full turn of the wheel.

Edited December 14, 2011 by EDcase

[nodunit 397]

Yes that would be much better :) although i have no idea how such vehicle as humvee of something like 3 tons may behive off road at high/er speeds, still seems like its either going backflip or bump and nothing in between?

Here are a few offroad vids

Weee bouncy.

And here is a video of it jumping at nearly..if not more of an angle than in the video, probably broke something though.

Though of all things if they do impliment traction, there MUST be a mod for this :D

[dmarkwick 261]

I would wish for the controlling mechanism to be more similar to OFP's, in OFP I can drive a landrover along roads quite effectively, in ArmA2 I cannot, even after a few years :)

[NoQuarter 0]

Wake me up when all of this PhysX-related movement talk turns to the really important -and so far uncovered area...that being PhysX-related deformation.

Otherwise, PhysX will be just a waste... in game terms.

[PuFu 4600]

i can assure it won't, the driving and feeling has been improved a lot more, even when comparing with the VBS2 vids available...

[nodunit 397]

I would wish for the controlling mechanism to be more similar to OFP's, in OFP I can drive a landrover along roads quite effectively, in ArmA2 I cannot, even after a few years :)

Yes..miss the mouse center driving :( so smooth back then..

[Tonci87 163]

Yes I wonder why they ditched it....

[Pulverizer 1]

Yes I wonder why they ditched it....

Probably to make driving with a gamepad easier.

[BobcatBob 10]

Probably to make driving with a gamepad easier.

Driving that way in flashpoint:Elite was awsome for me...

Edited December 18, 2011 by BobcatBob

[Wen 10]

I hope it turns out that I'm misinformed, but is it true that for Arma 3 Physx can only be handled by the CPU? Well if so it is another bad news for me because it's more burden upon my 1090t BE, which already struggles at times in OA. How come Physx can be implemented so that it cannot be handled by the GPU?

[maddogx 13]

The basic PhysX engine is always handled by the CPU, in any PhysX game. Only some special parts of PhysX are intended to be GPU accelerated (cloths, liquid simulation etc.), so if the game does not use these features, it won't use hardware simulation acceleration.

EDIT: woops, that was meant to be "hardware acceleration". :D

Edited January 27, 2012 by MadDogX

[Wen 10]

The basic PhysX engine is always handled by the CPU, in any PhysX game. Only some special parts of PhysX are intended to be GPU accelerated (cloths, liquid simulation etc.), so if the game does not use these features, it won't use hardware simulation.

Oh. i see. Nice #post BTW.

[maddogx 13]

Actually, it turns out that my post wasn't entirely correct. NVIDIA apparently developed a new module for the PhysX SDK called "GRB" (GPU Rigid Body) last year which enabled normal rigid body collision calculations on the GPU (Geeks3D.com article).

I can't find much information on this though, except that it was supposed to be used in Batman Arkham Asylum.

[PuFu 4600]

yeah, but bar the Physix GRB, all other physics engines (havok, bullet etc) handles the ragdolls and other things like dampers and alike CPU side. Don't tell me you have seen your CPU strugle with those in ANY other game(that would be 90% of the current game market today) that has the minimum physics (ragdolls).

There won't be any sort of particles and/or cloth simulations in A3 anyways, so i really don't see what is all the fuss about: "Oh noes, Y You Don't Get GPU physix on Gpu, i own an nvidia card etc etc..." (this is not related only to the OP)...

[dmarkwick 261]

It seems to me that PhysX processing is an ideal candidate for having its own thread/core. My CPU is never more than 25% utilised when playing ArmA2 (last time I checked anyway...) which suggests to me that there are unused/underused threads/cores.

[frostwyrm333 1]

Remember that Arma 2 also has physics. (although most people wouldn't call it that, but since tanks don't jump I am happy enough with it)