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

[frag 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.

LOLL good point about the job.

I guess very advanced physics engine will be common in 5-10 years from now... considering the speed at which things get developped those days!

[Zickefoose 1]

I dont believe BI has the required assets to pull this off. It would likely cripple all of our machines. EA will keep pioneering the way through Destructible Environments. One day, we will have a sandbox BF with destruction... GG FPS world after that.

[Fuse 1]

Maybe in another 10 or 20 years, depending on how hardware goes. It's fun to dream, tho. :)

EA will keep pioneering the way through Destructible Environments. One day, we will have a sandbox BF with destruction... GG FPS world after that.

lol wut? EA is just humping BF's corpse until it goes cold, and the original Red Faction (THQ) had more impressive destructible environments.

BF's destructible environment is just canned effects. They're better than nothing, but not what they should be. Hitting a wall on the corner and having a standardized hole open up 2 feet from where I shot is not pioneering. I hesitate to even do it the honor of calling it destructible. By those standards barrels that explode when you shoot them or shattering window glass counts.

[Sanguinius 1]

Hmmdeed...

I go back to the wonderful game Red Faction: Guerilla. Now THAT was a sexy destruction system.

It would be (one) of the missing links to making this a Game of the Year. (well, considering the legitimacy of the reviewing sites... probably PC Game of the Year.)

The 1 thing I want more than destructable buildings ( in terms of environment) is just... splintering trees. When they get hit by an RPG, they splinter and you get hurt by shrapnel. And maybe your tires.

Really, wouldn't that just be awesome?

[kyang03 10]

Although that video shows CE3s own physics which is nice and all and like some said it wasnt in Cry3 as much but then again they do have CE3 to make mods and to just devolope things which ive seen some good mods going on with the CE3. But I do believe as arma 3 gets better the physics will, and the small details will become alot better as well.

[nesponge 0]

That video has absolutely NOTHING to do with Crysis 3 or it's physics engine.

It is by the team who built rigs of rods and is now working on BeamNG. They simply used the Cryengine to render the graphics... nothing more. The physics themselves are their own work.

FYI they have abandoned the Cryengine 3 as it was too restrictive and are now using the open source Torque3d rendering engine.

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

[simon1279 52]

That video has absolutely NOTHING to do with Crysis 3 or it's physics engine.

It is by the team who built rigs of rods and is now working on BeamNG. They simply used the Cryengine to render the graphics... nothing more. The physics themselves are their own work.

FYI they have abandoned the Cryengine 3 as it was too restrictive and are now using the open source Torque3d rendering engine.

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

and i have to say in a game like ArmA to manage everything including this kind of physx we'll need a space shuttle in our home, and a pc powered by NASA

[badbooooy01 1]

Holy shit! Those physics are amaaazing! I'm speechless :D I only those were in ArmA 3

[r3volution 0]

Fantastic demo. Definitely would be amazing to see something like that in the Arma series. One day. Maybe Arma 5?

[gossamersolid 155]

Man people complain about how ArmA 3 runs right now, if something remotely similar to this was in, we'd have a lot more complaining.

OMG MY COMPUTER FROM 2009 CANNOT RUN A GAME FROM 2013 ON HIGH GRAPHICS!? WTF BIS, DIS GAME NEEDS OPTIMIZATION!

[giorgygr 61]

Some of us are above 40 you bitches!!

We can't afford another decade to play :P

[Fuse 1]

The 1 thing I want more than destructable buildings ( in terms of environment) is just... splintering trees. When they get hit by an RPG, they splinter and you get hurt by shrapnel. And maybe your tires.

I don't see why this can't happen. You can already fell trees, and IIRC ACE includes a mechanic for debris damage from penetrating bullets. Someone just needs to slap the two together!

and i have to say in a game like ArmA to manage everything including this kind of physx we'll need a space shuttle in our home, and a pc powered by NASA

Sorry, not trying to call you out specifically but I see this mistake a lot. Physics != PhysX. PhysX is a prepackaged middleware physics engine (or an expansion card if you live in the 2000s), physics are the effects it and other engines are used to generate or emulate.

PhysX could be used to describe a feature of the PhysX engine, such as those fancy particle effects they've been showing off in Hawken and Planetside 2, but it's not a catch-all for physics in games. That video is a good example of what isn't PhysX. :)

[white 1]

OMG MY COMPUTER FROM 2009 CANNOT RUN A GAME FROM 2013 ON HIGH GRAPHICS!? WTF BIS, DIS GAME NEEDS OPTIMIZATION!

people already say this

and considering arma 3 on ultra only uses 50% my gpu at any given time im pretty sure my gpu could handle that kind of physics running on physix.

[fraczek 4]

:fp: somebody please close this thread.

1) Please search before posting. This video was discussed enough in the past, and I see nothing new to warrant a new thread.

2) Does this really belong in Arma 3 General? How about Off-Topic discussion?

[SASrecon 0]

Oh god not this again...

[Yairweinberg 1]

Let me tell you something kinsman... We're as far away from ArmA 4 as we are far from landing on Jupiter.

[ric 1]

I dont believe BI has the required assets to pull this off. It would likely cripple all of our machines. EA will keep pioneering the way through Destructible Environments. One day, we will have a sandbox BF with destruction... GG FPS world after that.

assets? they delayed the game so they could upgrade to physic 3.0 ...the problem is this is an OLD engine and is hobbled by single core dependency...if the engine was capable of fully! utilizing all 4 cores soooooo much more would be possible.

I remember one of the preview videos said that "all buildings will be enter-able and destructible" so far that is not true...i shot a building with an RPG and nothing happened...

[maturin 12]

Uh, what does smashing cars add to the game except cosmetics and giggly fun? Tell me how it gets us better armored vehicle gameplay, then I'll listen.

[dragonsyr 21]

GTA5 have this physics

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

assets? they delayed the game so they could upgrade to physic 3.0 ...the problem is this is an OLD engine and is hobbled by single core dependency...if the engine was capable of fully! utilizing all 4 cores soooooo much more would be possible.

I remember one of the preview videos said that "all buildings will be enter-able and destructible" so far that is not true...i shot a building with an RPG and nothing happened...

That is not true because the game has not been released yet, what we have here is an Alpha version that has statements everywhere that it is not the final quality of the product.

[white 1]

Uh, what does smashing cars add to the game except cosmetics and giggly fun? Tell me how it gets us better armored vehicle gameplay, then I'll listen.

but its giggly!

well i guess its about phisics in general and descructible environments that go along with it. that could be fun.

[calin_banc 19]

Uh, what does smashing cars add to the game except cosmetics and giggly fun? Tell me how it gets us better armored vehicle gameplay, then I'll listen.

Gameplay wise, a lot. Vehicles would have to be driven more carefully and impact with tress, rock, walls, houses or even high jumps over hill and other stuff, would affect the function of that said car. Moreover, you can add some sort of "crash simulation" in which you'll need to help your buddies get out if the accident is serious and so on.

Other then that, it's about immersion or else we would still be playing with original Flashpoint visual, physics and so on. :)

[LordJarhead 1723]

It would totally kill all the performances of the game. Soft body physics take a lot of performance to render and calculate each flexbodies (areas of deforming material) which are shaped by points (called beams). Between each of these beams is a line. The beams have floating axles in all directions but they are really rigid at first. So when you move one of these beams, because you i.E. touch a wall with the vehicle, the beam is moving to another location, the line between this and the next beam is also rigid and will make the other beam that is attached to this line move also and so on. So you could imagine those beams as polygons. Having ArmA3 polygon counts will make you able to calculate what kind of performance you would need to actually render something like this in real time! Oo

The cars in the Cry3eng Video maybe have around 25 to 30 flexbodies, independently from the polygon count, but ArmA3 vehicles would have, because of their actual shape, form and the way they are build, far more flexbodies. Maybe around 50? And then, there is this REALLY important problem that you just CANT render two vehicles the same time totally fluid! You could, when those vehicles have like 5 or 10 flexbodies, but that wouldn't as awesome as a car having 25 or even 50 of them. So when you have a car with lets say 40 flaxbodies and crash into another car, you would have to render 80 at ONCE!

With all the other shit going on in ArmA the same time, AI, Physics and shit, I wouldn't believe even a 10 flexbodies-car could be crashed smoothly...

[which is sad, I really like this soft body stuff too, Rigs of Rods have it! I LUV IT! :D]

LJ

Edited March 16, 2013 by LordJarhead

[maturin 12]

Gameplay wise, a lot. Vehicles would have to be driven more carefully and impact with tress, rock, walls, houses or even high jumps over hill and other stuff, would affect the function of that said car. Moreover, you can add some sort of "crash simulation" in which you'll need to help your buddies get out if the accident is serious and so on.

Other then that, it's about immersion or else we would still be playing with original Flashpoint visual, physics and so on. :)

But you can do all that procedurally and abstractly. You can damage your car by hitting things already, and the system doesn't need soft body physics to be equally deep. The difference is that then they would have resources left for other features, instead of creating a Jaws of Life Ambulance simulator.

[calin_banc 19]

But you can do all that procedurally and abstractly. You can damage your car by hitting things already, and the system doesn't need soft body physics to be equally deep. The difference is that then they would have resources left for other features, instead of creating a Jaws of Life Ambulance simulator.

You can do it GTA style for heavy game sessions which should be fine now, but at the same time, leave there a switch for light ones, a few player only for those who want a little more. Also, into the future, all player will play with this option enabled. :)