PhysX

[metalcraze 290]

I have to agree, I can make a mission like that myself already.

You just have the interior shake while inside then when you dive out the Hercules switches to the flight version and flies off convincingly into the distance.

You can look up how in the scripting section in the editing forum, plenty of examples.

The dude moving out and jumping from the plane looked pretty damn cool and convincing.

Formation flying and that "gonna open" hand movement as well as very smoothly animated parachute - looked really awesome.

[-=Grunt=- 10]

Would be awesome to have something like this... In perhaps ArmA 4?

Edited May 29, 2012 by -=Grunt=-
Fixed embed.

[Smurf 12]

Would be awesome to have something like this... In perhaps ArmA 4?

Maybe not?

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132956-Will-ARMA3-feature-realistic-tank-armor&p=2159218&viewfull=1#post2159218

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132956-Will-ARMA3-feature-realistic-tank-armor&p=2158632&viewfull=1#post2158632

[james2464 176]

Hahaha that sort of physics won't be in arma 3. The physx just apply's to the driving simulation.

[neokika 62]

Hahaha that sort of physics won't be in arma 3. The physx just apply's to the driving simulation.

:confused:

[metalcraze 290]

Yeah one thing is a techdemo of a car crash, the other applying it to the real game with as much stuff going on in it as there is in ArmA3.

The only difference between not having that kind of crash physics and having it in ArmA3 is the increased number of threads called "ArmA3 is an unoptimized piece of s" in the latter case.

For some reason people always think that their PC, no matter how old it is, can take on everything.

[no use for a name 0]

Yeah one thing is a techdemo of a car crash, the other applying it to the real game with as much stuff going on in it as there is in ArmA3.

The only difference between not having that kind of crash physics and having it in ArmA3 is the increased number of threads called "ArmA3 is an unoptimized piece of s" in the latter case.

For some reason people always think that their PC, no matter how old it is, can take on everything.

Probably because they're used to playing console ports developed on 5+ year old tech lol! The other thing they don't seem to realize is the amount of work that would have to ensue to make each model with specific and detailed destruction physics for the MANY vehicles...I just don't see it happening with any game for quite some time. I'd just be happy if it was easier tell when something gets destroyed

[dmarkwick 261]

I actually liked the OFP method of destruction, which was to jumble the verteces of the mesh up. I don't know whether thiss effect was random each time or whether it was the same distortion each time, it was just effective.

One day I would hope to see vertex distortion done via PhysX so that some amount of representative damage could be shown, unique for each instance.

[Dingo8 1]

One day I would hope to see vertex distortion done via PhysX so that some amount of representative damage could be shown, unique for each instance.

Like this?

I think they may have used this method in GTA IV.

[dmarkwick 261]

Like this?

I think they may have used this method in GTA IV.

Yep, like that :)

[CameronMcDonald 146]

I actually liked the OFP method of destruction, which was to jumble the verteces of the mesh up. I don't know whether thiss effect was random each time or whether it was the same distortion each time, it was just effective.

Ah, the old paper-crumpling tanks - I used to love how helicopters would warp out of recognition before exploding... and then detonate when hitting the ground.

It was kind of a weird thing to see the crew sticking out of the wrecks, though.

[danny96 79]

Ah, the old paper-crumpling tanks - I used to love how helicopters would warp out of recognition before exploding... and then detonate when hitting the ground.

It was kind of a weird thing to see the crew sticking out of the wrecks, though.

But with some improvements It can look effective!

[gambla 10]

I'm really interested in this topic, but this is a long discussion here. Could we please make a summary of facts regarding A3 / Physx ?

[maddogx 13]

I'm really interested in this topic, but this is a long discussion here. Could we please make a summary of facts regarding A3 / Physx ?

Currently confirmed PhysX facts:

* Arma3 will be using version 3.x (probably v3.1?) of the PhysX API.

* Basic physical calculations like collisions are CPU based, therefore GPU independent.

* It is currently unknown if there will be extra GPU based (NVidia only) calculations, such as particles, cloth, liquid etc. (See NVidia APEX for what is possible.)

* The current state of PhysX as seen in the videos is far from finished, since they only recently switched from v2 to v3 and had to start some things from scratch.

[svenson 10]

Currently confirmed PhysX facts:

* Arma3 will be using version 3.x (probably v3.1?) of the PhysX API.

3.2 is released and supports tank and 4+wheel vehicle models out of the box. 3.1 makes no sense for me....

[maddogx 13]

3.2 is released and supports tank and 4+wheel vehicle models out of the box. 3.1 makes no sense for me....

In that case probably 3.2 then. Since they're switching to 3.x it would make sense to go with the latest.

[gambla 10]

Currently confirmed PhysX facts:

* Arma3 will be using version 3.x (probably v3.1?) of the PhysX API.

* Basic physical calculations like collisions are CPU based, therefore GPU independent.

* It is currently unknown if there will be extra GPU based (NVidia only) calculations, such as particles, cloth, liquid etc. (See NVidia APEX for what is possible.)

* The current state of PhysX as seen in the videos is far from finished, since they only recently switched from v2 to v3 and had to start some things from scratch.

Thanks maddogx for your quick and good reply. So as A2 is already using all my 4 cores, we can expect that PhysX will/would reduce the Overall performance ? I

[Gabkicks 10]

I think one of the devs said the demo rig they used @ E3 had an i7 960, GTX 580, and ssd, so you should be okay.

[metalcraze 290]

Thanks maddogx for your quick and good reply. So as A2 is already using all my 4 cores, we can expect that PhysX will/would reduce the Overall performance ? I

Of course it will. Strange question.

[nikiforos 450]

Ok so it will affect performance , I rather keep the old PhysX then :)

[dm 9]

All of this is pure speculation and assumption.

Also, there is no old physX, there is old physics, new physX and newer physX

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

All of this is pure speculation and assumption.

Also, there is no old physX, there is old physics, new physX and newer physX

You - one liner troll. :)

Can the Devs clarify what's the issue with PhysX at the moment? Wrong mass values/other variables, or something much more serious that requires a lot more work than tweaking the weight of objects?

Appreciated. :)

I am not sure this was already discussed in the open somewhere but there is one massive change being done under the hood of Arma 3: migration from PhysX 2.x to PhysX 3..X . This may sound trivial but in reality it is basically switching to completely new physical simulation system with all consequences (a lot of work lost, delay of the entire development schedule). But we decided to make this transition, otherwise Arma 3 would be locked to PhysX 2.x for long time. It was basically now or never for the game...

The transition phase is on-going and neither PhysX 2 nor PX 3 branch are really tuned or polished at the moment.

Also, physical libraries only do part of what is needed and in no way guarantee that everything is going to react as it should: a lot of work on simulation, tweaking, testing, tweaking, AI routines, tweaking, fixing, testing is required with any type of physical simulation and in case of game this complex it really takes a lot of time and effort.

[dm 9]

Performance issues are ALL speculation.

Processor core use issues are ALL speculation.

Damage model changes are ALL speculation.

Nikiforos said he wanted "old physX" and since a build of any BIS game has never been released with physX, there is no such thing as "old physX", only new physX (2.x) and newer physX (3.x). Neither of which have been performance benchmarked within the community, so to claim that one may be better than the other at this stage is ridiculous. Lern2English and 2Logic.

The ONLY thing Marek confirmed is that they're using physX library 3.? rather than 2.X

And again, you dont know anything about how the implementation works, so are making assumptions about what he means when he says

Also, physical libraries only do part of what is needed and in no way guarantee that everything is going to react as it should: a lot of work on simulation, tweaking, testing, tweaking, AI routines, tweaking, fixing, testing is required with any type of physical simulation and in case of game this complex it really takes a lot of time and effort.

Ballistics need to be tied in, AI behaviours need to be tied in, the actual physical behaviour needs to be tuned, networking needs to be addressed. Its not just plug and play, and is a massive amount of work.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Perhaps, your highness should quote the addressee next time he states, "All of this is pure speculation", so I wouldn't bother replying. ;)

[Tonci87 163]

The Feature that will be really performance heavy is RTT for sure. I guess that is why the RTT displays have a quite low refresh rate