Advanced DX11 and PHYSX features

[dm 9]

I found this gem, very detailed demonstrations of PhysX in VBS2, most of the vehicles tested have fully articulated suspension...

...Humvee has full suspension, Stryker at the end of the video simulates independent shock absorbers

And all the vehicles since OFP have had fully articulated and animated suspension, so why is this some kind of amazing new feature?

loading an M1 onto a HEMTT platform, walking in transport helicopters - full freedom... watch your step,

CEAT8cMuhYY

HEMT truck confirmed for ArmA III. :)

Except that the video shows a HET, not a HEMTT, so wrong there too...

[NeMeSiS 11]

I dont like your optimism about the ArmA3 feature list.

[nodunit 397]

And all the vehicles since OFP have had fully articulated and animated suspension, so why is this some kind of amazing new feature?

Because that system takes into account only the animation, not tire grip, weight distribution or impact. For example, send a humvee up a slope to gain some air time, you can see the shocks animate, yet when you come down and land the springs go stiff and lock, causing the whole vehicle to suddenly go rigid unlike this

Likewise we can see in that the humvee video that the chasis

rocks with repeated turns, whereas in A2 it remains rigid.

Likewise when climbing the vehicle does not exert much weight based on suspension, the chassis remains fully rigid, following a center line only offset by the vehicles own motion, there is no rocking or tilting, likewise the wheels do not inhibit climbinb abilities outside of relatively flat surfaces in most cases. If you go to a rock and flatten the tire against it, then slowly apply more gas, the tire won't slowly "walk" up the obstacle. For example, when the HET runs into the crate we see the corner catch under the bumper, this upset the center of mass and causes the vehicle to lift. When the box slides to the center and offsets the vehicle, the whole thing raises and tips, causing it to effectively be stuck. In A2, if we did such a thing either the front would jerk crazily, or simply "Thump" into the box with no after effects.

As a whole it's not about the animation, but the physics itself, since that would now be the cause, and have universal effect, for example the truck towing the abrams, the abrams outweighs the truck so now the majority of weight is shifted to it, going uphill requires significantly more thrust and downhill requires less.

Edited September 16, 2012 by NodUnit

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

NodUnit, that's a wasted effort, discussing the main aspects of the game with people who don't actually play it.

PhysX simulates everything from individual wheel torque to vehicle mass and (de-)acceleration momentum - if that doesn't tell you anything, then sucks to be you, DM.

[dm 9]

I'm pretty sure I know more about what physX can and does do for the RV engine than you ever will.

If you don't know why, then sucks to be you, Iroquois Pliskin. ;)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I hope you aren't the one responsible for coding & fine-tuning the current RV physics,

sGnFy5NzNjA

J7wcAAitfCk

QDwp6QeYveg

PFoy7hdMD1c

N42xf0a9k60

DPMk-a2gvXU

Nope.

DM confirmed to be a clueless troll.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[dm 9]

Nope.

Edited:

DM confirmed to be a clueless troll.

Well thats nice for you and all, but in this case, I'm pretty sure its you who's clueless.

I had nothing to do with the original RV physics, but when it comes to physX...

Protip: you might wanna look up who I am...

Edited September 22, 2012 by DM

[Tonci87 163]

Nope.

Edited:

Well thats nice for you and all, but in this case, I'm pretty sure its you who's clueless.

I had nothing to do with the original RV physics, but when it comes to physX...

Protip: you might wanna look up who I am...

Good luck with that :p

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I had nothing to do with the original RV physics, but when it comes to physX...

Protip: you might wanna look up who I am...

Uh, some Nogova police modder? You're not bringing anything to the discussion, thus troll.

[PuFu 4591]

Uh, some Nogova police modder? You're not bringing anything to the discussion, thus troll.

dude, you have been spamming all over a3 threads with no good reason, and most of your posts are uninformed, erronated in one way or the other, or purely pointless.

so before you put down yet another masterpiece of yours showing of your knowledge, or better yet the lack of, might want to take second thought about how much you actually know about what you're going to write.

Edited September 22, 2012 by PuFu

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

dude, you have been spamming all over a3 threads with no good reason, and most of your posts are uninformed, erronated in one way or the other, or purely pointless.

so before you put down yet another masterpiece of yours showing of your knowledge, or better yet the lack of, might want to take second thought about how much you actually know about what you're going to write.

Details, s'il vous plait. Go point by point and point out any errors, if present.

[max power 21]

Alright, that is enough.

I hope you aren't the one responsible for coding & fine-tuning the current RV physics,

I fail to see what, if anything, any of that has to do with the current topic. Let's get back on topic and stay there, please. This goes for everyone.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Let's get back on topic and stay there, please. This goes for everyone.

Thanks. :) Just a demonstration and a contrast to what is possible in ArmA III, and what we're lacking under current mechanics.

[nodunit 397]

NodUnit, that's a wasted effort, discussing the main aspects of the game with people who don't actually play it.

Most people here would play it though I imagine... When I see people talk of physX it generally involves ragdolls and not much else, if a few words can broaden the interest of but even a few people then it's effort well enough worth it to me.

[max power 21]

Thanks. :) Just a demonstration and a contrast to what is possible in ArmA III, and what we're lacking under current mechanics.

I am still wondering why this topic is even open. There have been plenty of physx and dx11 feature threads, and there is a sticky about confirmed features for ArmA III.

Is this thread about physx features in general? Is it about physx features likely to be in ArmA III? Whatever it's about, it is not about arma II. If you wish this topic to remain open, please consider what the topic of your future posts are carefully. I'm only leaving it open because it seems active.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Is this thread about physx features in general? Is it about physx features likely to be in ArmA III? Whatever it's about, it is not about arma II. If you wish this topic to remain open, please consider what the topic of your future posts are carefully. I'm only leaving it open because it seems active.

Wouldn't you agree that VBS2 PhysX implementation is rather relevant, given the lack of any kind of info, or ArmA III footage? :)

This thread is about PhysX on RV in general, I guess; there another PhysX thread in this subsection of the forums, tho it's a bit bloated with 70+ pages.

[max power 21]

I'm talking about your ArmA 2 videos. If you want to force me to make a judgment on VBS videos when we have a clear rule on this forum about only discussing VBS 2 in the VBS 2 thread, keep asking me in public about them. If you have any other comments regarding my moderation, please PM me.

[W0lle 1042]

Wouldn't you agree that VBS2 PhysX implementation is rather relevant, given the lack of any kind of info, or ArmA III footage? :)

This thread is about PhysX on RV in general, I guess; there another PhysX thread in this subsection of the forums, tho it's a bit bloated with 70+ pages.

1) There is a sticky VBS2 discussion thread.

2) VBS2 != ARMA3, no matter if RV engine or not

3) If a moderator tell you to use forum/thread x for something, then you do exactly that and not question his action. Especially not in the public.

Edited September 22, 2012 by W0lle

[Bee8190 10]

I remember it was said somewhere that vehicles could even ''sink'' in mud or sand, is that possible trough physX? How would we go around to recover ''stacked'' vehicles, if that was the case?

What about flat tires, ie puncture from careless driving? One thing that I wished was looked at was when vehicles in A2 lost their wheels, that was game over for them. Perhaps AI could stay in vehicles if tire puncture wasn't classified as = vehicle damaged, get out.

[Nicholas 5]

You can drive a vehicle on 3 wheels if you are very careful.

[Smurf 12]

I remember it was said somewhere that vehicles could even ''sink'' in mud or sand, is that possible trough physX? How would we go around to recover ''stacked'' vehicles, if that was the case?

Yes they said that, it will be one "side mission" to earn some respect with the locals or whatever. Ropes to get them out of there.

But that was a long time ago when 3D editor and all were confirmed :j:

[dunk 10]

I am still wondering why this topic is even open. There have been plenty of physx and dx11 feature threads, and there is a sticky about confirmed features for ArmA III.

Please do not take this the wrong way, I am not trying to be rude at all, I am simply curious as to how I was not able to properly convey the purpose of this thread in the OP?

Essentially I am curious as to the level of integration these two features will have into the engine itself. There is only so much the developers can include and there are many facets to these two technologies that can either be included or excluded. For example DX11 includes certain things beyond shaders such as tessellation. While DX11 is being implemented I know tessellation will not feature in the game itself but at the same time I am curious as to if it will still be coded into the game engine for modders to play with. Likewise with PHYSX and cloth/fluid support.

In summery: I know that only certain aspects of DX11 and PHYSX will be included in the game but at the same time I am wondering if the features left out of the game will still be in the engine for other people to use after the game is released.

Let me know if I was not clear enough as I am trying my best to articulate this.

EDIT01: I was simply hoping that a dev would straight up say either "What appears in the game itself is the extent that we included DX11/PHYSX into the engine" or "Elements of DX11 and PHYSX that did not feature in the game still exist in the engine for you to mod with".

Edit02: I hope I did not misunderstand your statement, even more so given that it was not directed at me.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Dunk
Adding info/ Worrying that I misinterpreted Max

[max power 21]

All of your questions could have been asked, and were probably already answered to the greatest extent possible, in the threads that already exist. Moreover, there have been much more focused dx11 and physx discussions already.

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Maybe one should be chosen and stickied to avoid this problem then? From my perspective, it's some of the more sought after info for A3 regarding engine features.

[kot1k 13]

What I'm really being concerned about is that: will adoption of physx technology solve the problem of collisions of objects? I mean, will grenades still be falling through the ceiling, will you still harm yourself with hand grenade explosion just on the other side of massive concrete fence?