Arma 3 & Soft body Physics (e.g. BeamNG); What do you think?

[DieAngel 0]

As astonishing as that is, I imagine it to be more of a pipe dream really..it was made in CE3 yet we never saw it anywhere in crysis 3. There are some odd bits about physics, I don't think most objects have them yet and that they mostly pertain to vehicles and infantry.

The struts and wobbley are certainly possible, big doubts about the crunchy, you'd need to have a warpable mesh and...woo.

But you're going to need the job to pay for the electric bill to play the game.

Are you sure? Last time i heard of this company they moved away from the cryengine to Torque3D.

[Dwarden 1125]

... grins evilly ... I know theirs RoR for quite some time , this new stuff is neat, maybe when it's mature enough ... one day in future :)

[nodunit 397]

Shoosh and get back to work on physX 2.0

[meester 18]

When we all have optical pcs maybe.

[Dwarden 1125]

Shoosh and get back to work on physX 2.0

You mean 3.0 right ? :)

[nodunit 397]

You mean 3.0 right ? :)

Ahh..woops, yeah..that...so get back to work on it. :P

[Blaf 1]

What would i really love to see is a tank driving over car with these physics... :p (and that tank should have all track segments simulated separatedly, ofc)

Edited March 18, 2013 by Blaf

[dmarkwick 261]

Well the demos are all well & good, especially when it's the only thing being simulated.... but of course there's the whole of ArmA to think about not just the physics. The other main point about great physics like these demos is - multiplay. You got to sync all that stuff over to all machines, unless it's eye candy fluff that makes no difference, like flapping cloth or small rubble or something. Everything else has to be transmitted.

[lee1hy 1]

that video is a script for the showcase. cryengine has deceived the people always show that made by script, not a real engine

For example, tornado footage was a fake video, created by the script before release the crysis1

Edited March 17, 2013 by lee1hy

[Viper_Sniper 1]

Oh I think this would look great in a game like Grand Theft Auto as well! I love games with destruction like that.

[charliemilk 10]

rigs of rods. check it out. Free 'beta' demo available. Crash stuff to your hearts content. (Not my video by the way)

[Guest]

Dmarkwick makes a very good point.

In my opinion, judging by how fast PC's evolve, give it 10 years and most games and simulations alike will feature advanced models like rigs of rods as standard. Just think of a cpu from 2003, to a cpu of 2013. Now think of a cpu of 2023...

:)

[Bee8190 10]

Well I too think such advanced damage is not necessity for arma, although it's obviously nice. What I eagerly am expecting however, is how well can BI manage the vehicle physx as I like to think they haven't really even begun on those, as that would be utterly disappointing. Being fan of sim-racing games too, I really hope I can look forward to far less gamey vehicle handling and to some extend, damage, than in previous titles.

[Guest]

100% agree mate. Coming from sim racing myself, I wouldn't even consider the vehicle physics as "basic". They are like, place holder, pre-basic, pre-alpha.

But, unlike previous titles, PhysX ofers vast potential, so I am hopeful BIS will turn the driving model into something more realistic.

It doesn't need to be amazing, but key things like steering and suspension are simply shocking. The steering take about 5 seconds to center after you turn, there is no wonder the AI can't drive...

[kleutscher 48]

agree with you. it doesnt have to be full simulator but just that i gives you the feel that your driving a real car.

[nesponge 0]

that video is a script for the showcase. cryengine has deceived the people always show that made by script, not a real engine

For example, tornado footage was a fake video, created by the script before release the crysis1

wrong... didn't you read the thread?

http://www.beamng.com/content/

[fixmygame 1]

Maybe I'm just dumb, and I'm certainly no expert, but I don't see what the big deal is with this video anyways. Compared to a real world vehicle, the one in the video just looks like it's made out of rubber...doesn't look all that realistic to me...

...The damage model is nice though...

[Scoggs 1]

I know we now have PhysX but the vehicles in BeamNG are just amazing. Also try the tech demo yourselves, pretty cool!

Apparently they want to have their soft body physics engine be able to be incorporated into any engine. With more polish I think it would be a great addition to Arma! Or any other game with vehicles for that matter.

[Dwarden 1125]

while it's all nice,

it's far from usable state in game engine together with other physical engines ...

a itself it can't replace PhysX or Bullet or Havok ...

also it needs to be updated fo networking and lod system to handle at least 256 objects in visual vicinity

in short ... i know it ... and we're aware about :cool:

Edited August 4, 2013 by Dwarden

[sqb-sma 66]

while it's all nice,

it's far from usable state in game engine together with other physical engines ...

a itself it can't replace PhysX or Bullet or Havok ...

also it needs to be updated fo networking and lod system to handle at least 256 objects in visual vicinity

in short ... i know it ... and we're aware about :cool:

One can dream, right? *drools*

I've been having a load of fun in the techdemo, I somehow landed a triple barrel roll over near the canyon, only damage was a stripped bumper.

[RozekPoland 591]

Having such physics ingame would be awesome!

[P.I.T.A 0]

While awesome, it's best left for ArmA4 or 5, implementing it into ArmA3 will waste alot of time, and probably kill any semblance of performance. Right now some genius needs to make the AI appear not utterly brain-dead, and ArmA3 will become one of the greatest games of all times.

[Scoggs 1]

while it's all nice,

it's far from usable state in game engine together with other physical engines ...

a itself it can't replace PhysX or Bullet or Havok ...

also it needs to be updated fo networking and lod system to handle at least 256 objects in visual vicinity

in short ... i know it ... and we're aware about :cool:

Thanks for the reply Dwarden.

Yeah my suggestion was out of pure excitement. Hopefully we can see more soft body physics in later games.

[valax 1]

In my opinion adding some of the snazzy PhysX is usually just useless eye candy (See Borderlands 2).

[GranolaBar 10]

In my opinion adding some of the snazzy PhysX is usually just useless eye candy (See Borderlands 2).

But very pleasure to play BO 2 with this option :), visual only ok but nice :p and with the universe of Arma who was so static, i take it without problem. In comparaison of another game, the atmosphere of the game was boring, very few animals, very few sound (actually), i don't want to walk in an death atmosphere all the time.