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

[Darkplayer38 1]

Hey guys!,

I have been hearing a lot of information about soft bodied physics in the new CryEngine3. There is a video on Youtube that shows these in action

by Beamng,

I feel this would be an awesome idea if this was introduced to Arma III not likely but would be wonderful. But more so into Arma IV, A system like this would make you think about your mission and the vehicles you have at your hand. For example you would not want to take a Humvee crashing threw rocks and jumping flipping because that could lead to a pretty beat to hell Humvee. It would make the driving aspect of arma the best that would ever to exist for the near future I mean it is a simulator would you guys want the best experience in every aspect of the game, I know a couple veterans in the US military that would practice roll overs. I know in Arma II of my Thousands of hours played rolling a vehicle can be a death sentence depending on the vehicle. If soft-bodied physics was introduced that would revolutionary the Arma franchise and it would put the simulator to an entirely different level. I do see this happening in the next 5 years of gaming something that is revolutionary as this.

You could simulate horrific car crashes, Tanks rolling of cars authentically, and helicopter crashes would be on a entirely new level. I know this is not going to happen for a while and this is just a dream of one of many fans but that would make a game just breath taking if a system of soft-bodied physics was implemented.

If your interested in this I have found a game that involves this more of a show case than anything Rigs of Rods.

What do you guys think?

Sinc,

2LT V.Signorelli

TF303

Edited August 4, 2013 by Dwarden

[paecmaker 23]

The problem is that stuff like that probably takes lots of time and money something a small studio(relatively) may not have, and you must take into consideration that "that" is a tech demo, most of the time it wont be like that in most games using that engine.

[dm 9]

[Sealife 22]

you can do that now and could do since OFP times :)

problem is that's all you can do , there wont be any more CPU left for anything else , I suspect same even for cry engine in MP , regardless of client side mutations or not .

[overvolts 0]

I am just glad and excited that the physics engine is being updated with physX to include ragdolls, the underwater diving, and better vehicle physics. I'm sure developers would want to implement a bunch of newer technology in there game engine but they can only do so much with there team in so much time.

[Shagulon 1]

like i said in the last thread that featured this video... one day, games will be freaking awesome.

[Shatter3D_S0uL 1]

like i said in the last thread that featured this video... one day, games will be freaking awesome.

Yeah,they will be,but until then,we want Arma 3 now!

On topic:

Of course soft-body physics would be really cool in Arma 3,yet more cool if we had Arma 3 built on CryEngine 3.So I don't think it's going to happen,at least not now.As for Arma 4,we have plenty of time before the time comes.

[metalcraze 290]

That CryEngine3 video looks awful

It's like the car is made out of rubber

Damage eye candy looks much better in GTA4

yet more cool if we had Arma 3 built on CryEngine 3

Indeed. Vehicles that have a single HP bar and no armor modelling is a stuff of my dreams.

Edited November 6, 2012 by metalcraze

[froggyluv 2136]

Was one click away from installing Rigs of Rods when I noticed it was about to install like 5 new toolbars/search enging/homepage with no option not to. Lame.

[paecmaker 23]

Was one click away from installing Rigs of Rods when I noticed it was about to install like 5 new toolbars/search enging/homepage with no option not to. Lame.

Rigs of rods???, whats that?

[dragon01 902]

From what we've heard, you'd still don't want to take a HMMVW through too rough terrain in AIII or you'll get it wrecked. Crumpling on collision has been in OFP (from what I've heard), and BIS might bring this back. This won't be full soft bodied physics simulation, but close enough for now.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

....Crumpling on collision has been in OFP (from what I've heard), and BIS might bring this back...

It was for fully destroyed vehicles. If they could tone down the vert crumpling from OFP a bit and make it sesitive to hit location along with damage textures it could be a cheap way of getting a similar effect.

[TxT 155]

Nice idea. but puting this in Arma wound be very cool but just that it is very hard making (synchronise vehicle damage to all players and the physX with it)

And lot of data sending form server to client. Am not saying that our developers cant do that just saying it will be very hard to make, and lot of time. But good idea i was thinking the samething but not for Arma 3. I have been explore physX a lot and real wanted it in Arma when Arma 1 came out. And now that Arma 3 is coming out with physX it's going to be epic.

[NeMeSiS 11]

From what we've heard, you'd still don't want to take a HMMVW through too rough terrain in AIII or you'll get it wrecked. Crumpling on collision has been in OFP (from what I've heard), and BIS might bring this back. This won't be full soft bodied physics simulation, but close enough for now.

That wasnt the same as in the video here. Basically it just changed all the angles of the vertices of the model randomly, stretching and compressing parts of the model, making a destroyed UAZ look like an origami model you sat on.

Edited November 7, 2012 by NeMeSiS

[max power 21]

From what we've heard, you'd still don't want to take a HMMVW through too rough terrain in AIII or you'll get it wrecked. Crumpling on collision has been in OFP (from what I've heard), and BIS might bring this back. This won't be full soft bodied physics simulation, but close enough for now.

It's not really the same thing. The thing for OFP would just animate vertices in seemingly random directions to make vehicles and houses look burned out and wrecked. Unfortunately, since it was random, you could have things like the insides of tank barrels poking out through the outside. It was a nice effect in 2001 but I'm sure it would take a lot of heat now.

One thing to remember that to have things like the hoods of cars crumple, you actually need the geometry there to support the crumpling, which would mean denser meshes and poorer performance. It also might make LODs a little weird.

[Darkplayer38 1]

Was one click away from installing Rigs of Rods when I noticed it was about to install like 5 new toolbars/search enging/homepage with no option not to. Lame.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/rigsofrods/files/rigsofrods/0.38/RoR-Setup-0.38.67.exe/download

Simple to the point

---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 21:01 ----------

The problem is that stuff like that probably takes lots of time and money something a small studio(relatively) may not have, and you must take into consideration that "that" is a tech demo, most of the time it wont be like that in most games using that engine.

I would not personally recognize bohemian interactive as a "Small Studio" Its quite large in fact. I would hate to say it but with DayZ They pulled in quite a bit of revenue on top of their original sales and their others games.But I do see where you are coming from even if they did not go full out you have to agree the current system that is right now is a bit how would you put it dull?

---------- Post added at 21:09 ---------- Previous post was at 21:02 ----------

It's not really the same thing. The thing for OFP would just animate vertices in seemingly random directions to make vehicles and houses look burned out and wrecked. Unfortunately, since it was random, you could have things like the insides of tank barrels poking out through the outside. It was a nice effect in 2001 but I'm sure it would take a lot of heat now.

One thing to remember that to have things like the hoods of cars crumple, you actually need the geometry there to support the crumpling, which would mean denser meshes and poorer performance. It also might make LODs a little weird.

Even without like the major effects on what I linked something close to that would be a very cool concept for Bohemia to strive for that immersion and simulation, Don't Get me wrong I love the damage system on vehicles now *cough* hehe but something to have visual differences the only thing that shows now is loosing a windshield or vehicle turning into a burnt out wreck I mean even if they had Pre-Determined damage models for example a Grand theft auto type model would be respectable.

---------- Post added at 21:14 ---------- Previous post was at 21:09 ----------

That CryEngine3 video looks awful

It's like the car is made out of rubber

Damage eye candy looks much better in GTA4

Indeed. Vehicles that have a single HP bar and no armor modelling is a stuff of my dreams.

Not necessarily made out of rubber but made to act like a realistic vehicle I mean what happens in this video is practically what would happen in real life. You hit a Crown Victoria with a truck like that its going to cause some problems. And with the truck at the beginning it looked like as if the bed was on different suspension then the cab

[rohan11221 1]

Not necessarily made out of rubber but made to act like a realistic vehicle I mean what happens in this video is practically what would happen in real life. You hit a Crown Victoria with a truck like that its going to cause some problems. And with the truck at the beginning it looked like as if the bed was on different suspension then the cab

I've actually seen many trucks like that where the bed will move independently with the cab most recently a few days ago where they had it on display at a car show i was at.

[max power 21]

Even without like the major effects on what I linked something close to that would be a very cool concept for Bohemia to strive for that immersion and simulation, Don't Get me wrong I love the damage system on vehicles now *cough* hehe but something to have visual differences the only thing that shows now is loosing a windshield or vehicle turning into a burnt out wreck I mean even if they had Pre-Determined damage models for example a Grand theft auto type model would be respectable.

That may be so, but you can apply the 'immersion and simulation' argument to just about anything: Realistic tank armour penetration and hit locations, fire control systems, driving simulations, individually animated reload sequences for each of the dozens of weapons, ragdoll, fluid dynamics, firing out of vehicle windows, walking around in the backs of moving vehicles, jumping, clambering, an interactive cover system, damage model for aircraft, stalls, vortex ring state, bla blee bla blee bling bling bla. It loses all meaning because ALL THE THINGS can increase realism and immersion therefore that reason when applied to that feature makes it no better than any other one.

Now, if we're talking about player interest, I think that would be a good feature to have. If we're talking core gameplay, I doubt it would influence it all that much unless the gameplay involved staring at car wrecks and chuckling to yourself. In terms of hardware friendliness, I think it would be a significant hit because of the physics calculations and the denser meshes with underlying structure required... and ditto for dev workload. I would like to see a car folded in half by an explosion as much as the next man, but I really wouldn't want to overhaul my computer just for that.

---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------

I've actually seen many trucks like that where the bed will move independently with the cab most recently a few days ago where they had it on display at a car show i was at.

Yeah, I've seen it too. It's realistic. I remember a car commercial with a truck driving quickly over a gravel bed in slow motion. The whole thing looked like it was made of jello and I really wondered how that was meant to entice you.

[dmarkwick 261]

That may be so, but you can apply the 'immersion and simulation' argument to just about anything: Realistic tank armour penetration and hit locations, fire control systems, driving simulations, individually animated reload sequences for each of the dozens of weapons, ragdoll, fluid dynamics, firing out of vehicle windows, walking around in the backs of moving vehicles, jumping, clambering, an interactive cover system, damage model for aircraft, stalls, vortex ring state, bla blee bla blee bling bling bla. It loses all meaning because ALL THE THINGS can increase realism and immersion therefore that reason when applied to that feature makes it no better than any other one.

All true :). As such the benefits should outweigh the cost of development. I believe ragdoll development is a good example of this, the benefits *seem* to be trivial and eye-candyish, but the actual benefit is in battlefield dissonance, in that a player can easily recognise ArmA death poses after a short while and can easily dismiss shapes as "safe" to ignore. Now hopefully this will change and will force players to more carefully assess ground they intend to move through.

Now, if we're talking about player interest, I think that would be a good feature to have. If we're talking core gameplay, I doubt it would influence it all that much unless the gameplay involved staring at car wrecks and chuckling to yourself. In terms of hardware friendliness, I think it would be a significant hit because of the physics calculations and the denser meshes with underlying structure required... and ditto for dev workload. I would like to see a car folded in half by an explosion as much as the next man, but I really wouldn't want to overhaul my computer just for that.

I wouldn't call it core gameplay as such, but I would place it into the same value league as what I described above: battlefield dissonance. I dislike the precisely-two-states of vehicle damage visualisation, either seemingly undamaged or a rusted wreck. And although OFP's origami-gone-wrong look was also simplistic, it worked well for the time. I might suggest a similar effect but localised to portions of the vehicle. And always dented inward, never outward. It only needs to be roughly aligned with it's impact/damage area, and the effect localised to player's machines. It'd be like ragdoll for vehicles in that sense. As long as the actual vehicle is in the same place for each client, how it looks only needs to be more-or-less the same.

But, dynamic mesh transformations in modern DirectX tech, is it even possible? I'd guess something is possible given that mesh distortions were in OFP and that used DirectX.

[Tonci87 163]

That may be so, but you can apply the 'immersion and simulation' argument to just about anything: Realistic tank armour penetration and hit locations, fire control systems, driving simulations, individually animated reload sequences for each of the dozens of weapons, ragdoll, fluid dynamics, firing out of vehicle windows, walking around in the backs of moving vehicles, jumping, clambering, an interactive cover system, damage model for aircraft, stalls, vortex ring state, bla blee bla blee bling bling bla. It loses all meaning because ALL THE THINGS can increase realism and immersion therefore that reason when applied to that feature makes it no better than any other one.

Now, if we're talking about player interest, I think that would be a good feature to have. If we're talking core gameplay, I doubt it would influence it all that much unless the gameplay involved staring at car wrecks and chuckling to yourself. In terms of hardware friendliness, I think it would be a significant hit because of the physics calculations and the denser meshes with underlying structure required... and ditto for dev workload. I would like to see a car folded in half by an explosion as much as the next man, but I really wouldn't want to overhaul my computer just for that.

---------- Post added at 18:19 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------

Yeah, I've seen it too. It's realistic. I remember a car commercial with a truck driving quickly over a gravel bed in slow motion. The whole thing looked like it was made of jello and I really wondered how that was meant to entice you.

I think this is more important and should really be adressed.

[Minoza 11]

I always liked how damage on cars looks in GTA IV, dunno if something similar would be possible in Arma 3. Dunno how their solution works but it looks pretty good.

[frag 0]

Hi guys,

could you imagine the next Arma having that kind of physic in the next engine! Imagine that it would react the same to explosion shockwave and gunfire as well in a fully 100% destructible environment. I think I would quit my job and play 24/7 lol!

Edited March 16, 2013 by frag

[johncage 30]

call of duty syndrome. talking about arma 4 when arma 3 isn't even out yet.

:rolleyes:

[frag 0]

Reason I am bringing this is. Arma is for me the perfect game, I really believe it. I am spending nights exploring all the corners of the editor, engine and its scripting functionalities.

But I still think that the non-destructible environment of arma is its biggest weakness.

I personally think that a strong destructible environment is the last missing link for a decade award winner!!!!

This being said I am currently playing alpha …and A LOT. And I know that I will still play it for the next few years. This point is not a major shadow over the game for me … but a chair not flying away when a LGB explode 10 feet from it still send me back to reality every time ;)

Edited March 16, 2013 by frag

[nodunit 397]

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.

Edited March 16, 2013 by NodUnit