Do you want Laaagdoll Physics in ArmA 3?

[r3volution 0]

Can I just quietly squeeze in a quick LOL at the overwhelmingly positive response to the negatively skewed poll! ;)

I honestly welcome physics, i mean its not like it could make the performance worse...

[nodunit 397]

Oh you'd be suprised. But at any rate why is this being seen as a "It should be in for X" "It shouldn't be in because of X" rather than a It should be optional so that if you want to use it and can run it you may, and if you can't then you don't...it's simple..

[hobbesy 10]

I hope at least one of you has realized that characters created in PhysX automatically have the ability to simulate ragdoll physics right off the bat. For those of you chomping at the bit for an example of a multiplayer game with ragdoll physics that don't lag, look no further than any game on the Source engine, Company of Heroes, and Starcraft II.

Half-life 2: Deathmatch and Team Fortress 2 are pretty obvious examples, but what I doubt many of you note is that Starcraft II and Company of Heroes make very, very, very extensive use of ragdoll physics with added destructible environments and expensive particle effects. They obviously don't lag so horrendously as many of you have argued, seeing as how both games feature very many units on the screen at one time due to the fact that they're both real-time strategy games.

Before someone argues on how CPU intensive Company of Heroes is, I'd like to point out that you probably can't run ARMA II or III if you can't run Company of Heroes, and that would make your arguing against any updated physics engine in either game mute and null.

Actually, while I'm at this, I'd like to take the liberty to go offtopic a bit and address some of the childishness and ignorance I've noted in only my first month or so of being in this community. It's absolutely saddening how many of you fail on the basic principles of cooperation and brotherhood that I'd come to expect from such a bright and creative community with an active modding scene. You could all get so much more done if you'd stop bickering over who gets the right to what model, and why certain people are obviously so much better than everyone else.

I'm certainly expecting a bunch of rash arguments and stringy logical fallacies to be used against me, not limited to "Hurr durr you're new and you only play casual shooters", so I won't be at all surprised if what I've just said goes unnoticed by anyone. It'd be nice to be proven wrong for once.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Hobbesy

[pathetic_berserker 4]

For those of you chomping at the bit for an example of a multiplayer game with ragdoll physics that don't lag, look no further than any game on the Source engine, Company of Heroes, and Starcraft II. .

Yet to be seen if it can pulled off with the sort of map sizes ,player numbers, and unit diversity we see in ArmA though.

At the end of day I think I think BIS will be the best and only judge as to if and how far they they implement ragdoll. As the situation will be very particualar to the A3 engine, so comparisions to existing games are kind of pointless.

[hobbesy 10]

Walker asked for an example. An example was supplied. It's simply a means to the ends concerning ragdoll physics. As for it being pulled off in a game as large and technologically demanding as ARMA III, I see no reason why it can't. As a matter of fact, I'd rather see Bohemia wear the badge of honor for being the first developer to do so. It might give the ARMA series just the recognition it needs to enter the mainstream, which only means more money for Bohemia in the end.

Either way, they have between now and their projected release date in 2012 to test if it will work or not. It'd probably be better to not frighten them away from the prospect of realistic ragdoll physics and never have the chance to even attempt it.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Hobbesy

[pathetic_berserker 4]

^^ Ok fair enough,

But is I think what this is going to come down too is the compting and network expense of ragdoll deaths vs maybe a sligtly more sophisticated collision and amination system that can greatly reduce the bodies in walls and toe plankers. if you were are business man what would you choose.

The problem with this thread and the others like it, is that they're elevating a solution to a poorly defined problem. And instead of 'options' we get the 'coolest thing on the block'

[hobbesy 10]

They could simply turn off the collision meshes on the ragdolls with everything other than the world after a certain time to save computing and network expenses. It wouldn't be a huge loss, seeing as the current VBS2 engine has no collisions for dead infantry models either.

The same system is used in Source, and it saves a lot of resources when there are ragdolls flying around the map, especially Garry's Mod. As a matter of fact, Garry's Mod is a great example of this. The maps aren't nearly as big, but the amount of players and ragdolls is more or less the same at times. Unfortunately, Garry's Mod can get laggy as hell, but this is usually due to the amount of players and the huge amount of moving physics props present on the map when people play instead of the ragdolls from dead players. ARMA III could be built from the ground up to be optimized for just this, though.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Hobbesy

[GeneralCarver 0]

Great post brother. I hear you on this. I think BI is falling into the trap of putting in all the "bells and whistles" like what other game makers are doing. They should instead focus on improving game FUNCTION. I.E... deformable terrain, ability to rest weapons, dig trenches, fox holes etc. Shoot from vehicles. Increased number of animations and shooting positions etc. I would rather have those features in the game rather than some LAGdoll physics.

[Trauma.au 10]

Great post brother. I hear you on this. I think BI is falling into the trap of putting in all the "bells and whistles" like what other game makers are doing. They should instead focus on improving game FUNCTION. I.E... deformable terrain, ability to rest weapons, dig trenches, fox holes etc. Shoot from vehicles. Increased number of animations and shooting positions etc. I would rather have those features in the game rather than some LAGdoll physics.

The trap others "fall" into is making games for the console market, BIS don't and adding physics is not the same, also most of the things you mentioned like terrain deformation, foxholes, supporting weapons are physics related. Also they have already got firing from vehicles in VBS, lets hope it trickles down into Arma 3.

[hobbesy 10]

I'm starting to get the feeling this discussion is just going to run around it circles.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Hobbesy

[Trauma.au 10]

It ended when the skewed pole showed a resounding winner, just banter now.

[SPC.Spets 21]

I guess you never played RO. ;)

Bodies will only move if a grenade falls right next to them... and they don't fly. They get pushed over a little bit and get torn up with shrapnel holes all over. Getting shot just drops the player. Depending on where they are standing, shooting them in the back might make them fall over backwards.

Ragdolls have advanced a lot since CS:S. That being said, it is not very important to me.

what is RO? so I can take a look in some video

I think also GTA4 have some good physic effects when a bullet hits you in the chest, arm or shoulder, etc. Anyway, I really dont care as long it doesnt turn into ridiculous ragdoll physics

[nodunit 397]

Red Orchestra

[neokika 62]

I'm starting to get the feeling this discussion is just going to run around it circles.

Unfortunately it will mate,

People seem to know a lot more about physics and rag-dolls then the actual Arma 3 Developers...

_neo_

[SgtBigRig 10]

doesnt matter the poll speaks in volumes. clearly its what we want end of discussion/thread

[DARK-STEALTH 10]

Walker likes ArmA2's lack of physics. What can I say, it is funny shooting a soldier with a tank round and seeing him fly into the air as stiff as a 2x4.

[hellfire257 3]

Oh god, another Walker drama thread...

To the trees!

Voted! :p

[Madus_Maximus 0]

People have been bitching at BIS to add this for the last decade, they finally do, and people bitch they've added it. What is it to be? No wonder BIS are so quiet most of the time, they know people will whine no matter what they choose.

If you want an example of a game that implemented it next to perfectly then look at Hidden & Dangerous 2. That thing had the best implementation of it I've ever seen. Bodies had mass and hit the ground like a sack of potatoes when they died, like real bodies do.

Most games with it aren't realistic because the games themselves aren't. They're mostly arcade style, so they go with the over the top stupid stuff. If you do it right, then the results are amazing.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Madus_Maximus

[OB1 10]

People have been bitching at BIS to add this for the last decade, they finally do, and people bitch they've added it. What is it to be? No wonder BIS are so quiet most of the time, they know people will whine no matter what they choose.

If you want an example of a game that implemented it next to perfectly then look at Hidden & Dangerous 2. That thing had the best implementation of it I've ever seen. Bodies had mass and hit the ground like a sack of potatoes when they died, like real bodies do.

Most games with it aren't realistic because the games themselves aren't. They're mostly arcade style, so they go with the over the top stupid stuff. If you do it right, then the results are amazing.

+1 agreed.. dont understand people knocking back something that can enhance and make a more dynamic experience to the game... besides what makes people think a physics engine is going to be more laggy than a heavily scripted fake physics engine.. I think an efficient physics engine will improve performance over the current setup... only time will tell...

[-GR-Operative 10]

What if you are shot in the legs/arms and die? I suppose there will be a "wounded" condition, where you can still hardly move then start losing conciousness and lie to the ground, so then you die and go for the ragdoll condition.

I must admit carrying around a ragdoll wounded teammate would be much more interesting than carrying a static one.

[rangerpl 13]

Lol what? No game maker has ever made it work?

Battlefield 2 had MP ragdolls in 2005.

/topic over

Edited May 21, 2011 by RangerPL

[walker 0]

Walker likes ArmA2's lack of physics. What can I say, it is funny shooting a soldier with a tank round and seeing him fly into the air as stiff as a 2x4.

Hi DARK-STEALTH

I have no problem with improving the Physics of the ArmA engine. As I pointed out in an earlier post improving the physics for things like ropes and towed vehicles is not something I have an issue with.

In fact if you were to take the time and examine the history of my imput into Moding the RV engine you will find that physics is one of the things I have worked on.

I do however recognise that like any other simulation engine one is up against the the reality of finite resources. Both in terms of programing time and CPU and Bandwidth.

My argument on the validity of ragdoll in ArmA is based on several factors.

1) Ragdoll when generalised looks worse than BIS's current animation system. You have only got to consider the awfull Supermarionation/Team America look of games like COD, Mount and Blade and the Unreal engine products.

2) Ragdoll when generalised uses up far too much bandwidth if it is server side making it unusable in any environment other than a local intranet.

3) Ragdoll when generalised as a client side system is unsinchornisable across the net. I point to the fact that NO GAMES COMPANY has ever achieved it.

The examples so far pointed to all either disapear the body or turn off colision detection, making the dead body a ghost rather than tactical cover which is its only possible purpose for being in the simulation.

All that said others have made valid argument for very limited client side Ragdoll for death scenes only.

My point about this is that it is just not needed you can achieve the same by just increasing the number of death animations and a center of gravity test for bodies in a building.

Kind Regards walker

Edited May 23, 2011 by walker

[dmarkwick 261]

My argument on the validity of ragdoll in ArmA is based on several factors.

1) Ragdoll when generalised looks worse than BIS's current animation system. You have only got to consider the awfull Supermarionation/Team America look of games like COD, Mount and Blade and the Unreal engine products.

Ragdoll is nothing to do with animation. Or rather, it is concerned with animating models that have no other animation i.e. dead things, and only specific dead things for a specific time. You have a general misconception about ragdoll.

2) Ragdoll when generalised uses up far too much bandwidth if it is server side making it unusable in any environment other than a local intranet.

See my numerous explanations about how this can easily be overcome with no more bandwidth use than is already used.

3) Ragdoll when generalised as a client side system is unsinchornisable across the net. I point to the fact that NO GAMES COMPANY has ever achieved it.

No games company has ever had an interest is syncing ragdoll across clients before. That's why it's almost always client-side only eye candy.

The examples so far pointed to all either disapear the body or turn off colision detection, making the dead body a ghost rather than tactical cover which is its only possible purpose for being in the simulation.

Not mine. Also you refuse to acknowledge another very real reason to have ragdoll in ArmA, which I have also several times posted. In this very thread.

All that said others have made valid argument for very limited client side Ragdoll for death scenes only.

I have numerous posts explaining otherwise. You have never acknowledged them. This is aside from the fact that you obviously have a misconception of the term ragdoll and what it is meant to do.

Edited May 23, 2011 by DMarkwick

[NeMeSiS 11]

Well this is retarded.

[dmarkwick 261]

Well this is retarded.

Hmm, yes, :D

And, I suspect this thread has served its purpose, in that an overwhelmng poll result has been achieved.