PhysX Discussion (dev branch)

[JamesSaga 1]

If the man class was changed to be able to walk around on the deck of that large ship a few posts above, would it be as good as the quad that’s driving around or would you still have your avatar clipping/falling through the deck every now and again.

[chortles 263]

According to Rocket, he actually gave a try at "shooting from vehicles" using VBS2's method... only to find it utterly unusable/unsuited. Wouldn't be surprised if that applied to other VBS2 aspects as well...

[JamesSaga 1]

We know shooting from vehicles is doable/usable. e.g. the ST little bird enhancement mod.

Moving around on a moving vehicle seems a trickier task (IMHO)

[chortles 263]

I'm pretty sure that that's scripted -- which pretty much makes it verboten to the current devs, as much as players may be satisfied enough -- as is the solution that someone else showed

As for moving around, it's no coincidence to me that seemingly even the AAA shooters for the most part focus on vehicle-mounted turrets or "fixed in place" seats (for firing personal weapons from) just like ShackTac Littlebird Enhancement Mod... in fact, Metal Gear Solid 4 is the ONLY game that immediately comes to mind when I think about what people seem to be asking for with regards to moving on (and shooting personal weapons from) a moving vehicle, specifically the Stryker segment in South America.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Well, i know many classic games where you can walk on moving objects and get off them freely, such as Ratchet and Clank, Some Sonic games, but... Maybe it has something to do with momentum, and placement. In R&C, you can jump, and you would be moving at the same speed as the object you are on, and jumping would cause slight drag which would make you go back maybe 1 foot if you jumped in place... but i don't think we would have a drag problem in A3, because you cant jump. So maybe that should be looked into? Maybe some scripts dealing with the speed of the object, and the man class object being synced? (im not a scripter or anything, i know nothing about them, but this is just an opinion/guess)

[progamer 14]

According to Rocket, he actually gave a try at "shooting from vehicles" using VBS2's method... only to find it utterly unusable/unsuited. Wouldn't be surprised if that applied to other VBS2 aspects as well...

Shooting from vehicle is slightly different than what this thread is for. With the ability to drive and walk around on a moving ship will also have the ability to shoot from it though this will likely not make every vehicle be able to have players shoot from it.

---------- Post added at 21:57 ---------- Previous post was at 21:45 ----------

I decided to split the man class issues and vehicle issues into two different tickets as they are very different in regards to their interaction with large moving ships.

Edited October 17, 2013 by ProGamer

[das attorney 858]

I decided to split the man class issues and vehicle issues into two different tickets as they are very different in regards to their interaction with large moving ships.

Man shoots out of chopper while it is on the deck of a ship. That's interactionception! ;)

[squirrel0311 16]

As others have mentioned... BF2 did this…and did it quite well in my opinion, or at least more than adequately enough to make the game playable and enjoyable.

In this video you can see people walking on the deck as well as helicopters and planes landing and taking off.

In addition, all of the aircraft carriers and battleships were drivable.

As far as standing on objects and going for a ride… it didn’t work well when you were standing on the outside of a vehicle such as a jet or something moving fast where you could slide and hit part of the vehicle as you fell off, that’s normally what killed people.

But in the case of the CH-53, you could drop the back ramp, have people walk inside, close the ramp again, and fly away. Occasionally people would die when you descended too fast or pitched the nose too steep because they would start to drift up through the roof and get crushed, but I bet that is something that could be fixed.

With land vehicles such as tanks and humvee’s, normally you would just slide off the back or side and land on your feet unscathed. In my opinion though I only care about the aircraft carriers and junk. You’re really not supposed to ride on the top of jets or on the outside of tanks.

For those who complain about slipping off…well you’d slip off of a real one too if you don’t hold on. Most of the major, modern, conventional armies today really frown on soldiers riding on top of armored vehicles and things of such nature. It's against the rules and it could result in punishment or worse...the dreaded Safety Stand Down.

Personally I’d rather see the ability to shoot from vehicles… From the bench seats of the humming bird, the back of the truck, and also from the cabin of both trucks and cars(civ)… maybe even through the windshield. :P

(I put that in my big wishlist on page 213 of the Wishlist NO DISCUSSION…Go read it. :p)

Edited October 18, 2013 by Squirrel0311

[Sniperwolf572 758]

As others have mentioned... BF2 did this…and did it quite well in my opinion, or at least more than adequately enough to make the game playable and enjoyable.

In this video you can see people walking on the deck as well as helicopters and planes landing and taking off.

In addition, all of the aircraft carriers and battleships were drivable.

I think you're confusing BF2 and BF1942, BF2's carriers were static pieces of scenery and there were no battleships.

BF1942's on the other hand could be moved, but in all videos of people actually driving carriers in BF1942, the deck seems to be empty.

[barakokula31 10]

You’re really not supposed to ride on the top of jets or on the outside of tanks.

No rules in Soviet Russia!

[squirrel0311 16]

I think you're confusing BF2 and BF1942, BF2's carriers were static pieces of scenery and there were no battleships.

BF1942's on the other hand could be moved, but in all videos of people actually driving carriers in BF1942, the deck seems to be empty.

Ah yeah you could be right. For the battle ships you are... It might have been the Desert Combat mod because there was an option to lower or raise the ramp on the landing craft and CH-53.

Though I'm pretty sure they came out with a patch that let you drive the carriers in BF2, maybe not though. I remember driving a carrier though and having JSF's on the deck because I ran it into the ground when I was trying to take it up the river in Dragon Valley.. I think that was the name of the map.

It's been so long since I've played it though..makes me want to dig it out.

ADUILO- You make a valid point, sir. Haha

Edited October 18, 2013 by Squirrel0311

[Ash712 1]

Honestly... off the top of my head I can't recall a single game that actually pulls off the act of walking/driving on a moving vehicle in a feasible manner.

Maybe I just haven't played enough games though. :confused_o:

Novalogic's "Joint Operations" series did it.

It's been nearly 10 years since I've played the games, but I remember walking around in the Chinook for sure.

You could loading vehicles into it for transport also, by just driving a vehicle up into the back (if it would fit)

I think it also worked on boats, as I know it worked on the large hovercraft transport.

I think you may have even been able to ride on a tank if done right lol!

Edited October 18, 2013 by Ash712

[Hatchet_AS 201]

Joint Ops was ahead of its time in so many ways. Which is not to say, other games weren't doing/capable of the same at the time. Few if any though that I recall.

I'm very interested in this topic and hopefully we can get some things working, or answered definitively if nothing else. I'm awaiting next day parts from newegg unfortunately, but hopefully be back together by this evening. Then I can get a couple working examples together. Best I can contribute on the subject matter. If someone else wants to bring things to the table, that is beneficial for all.

At this point in the conversation I'd say the direction of travel should be towards what we do know works (with an example), and what we know does not work (with an example). That being said, if anyone with actual knowledge, could share information regarding the reality of how things are configured in the game currently (e.g. whats different between the classes that we can see in the configs. (DEV branch)). Or anyone who has extensive modeling knowledge that can define rather specifically the limitations we know to exist, it would be helpful, again for all.

Hopefully we can put everything together and have something useful that makes looking at this easier for BIS. If nothing else, so that those of us with true interest in the subject at hand, can sort things better for ourselves. Honestly the rest of the chatter about who's done what, opinions and the like ... isn't particularly useful in achieving the fairly specific goal of this thread. :D

Edited October 18, 2013 by Hatchet_AS
proof read fail

[chortles 263]

Note that the first video that ProGamer posted was experimentation by JDog, while the second video's warship can be found here.

[Gutsnav 13]

In VBS2 they were able to have walkable interiors, even underwater decks on moving naval vessels. That being said, VBS2 is a military training device for command & logistics, is not a game, and is significantly more expensive. In BF3 when you tried to ride vehicles you would be launched in the opposite direction, so in Arma 3 (I assume that Physx would do the same as BF3) it wouldn't be very useful for walking about in a C130J or a boat or something if you just got flung in the opposite direction. I know ARMA 2/VBS2 had terrible physics, but I'm sure they will eventually figure out how to do it. I have no idea how, just my 2 cents :P

[Hatchet_AS 201]

Ah roger, I was curious who did that. For whatever reason I did not equate JumpDog to JDog. I forget about the other thread also, so thanks for that. Consolidation of information is something many topics on these forums could benefit from, or rather people could benefit from. I'll return with my wares tomorrow hopefully.

[chortles 263]

Looking forward to it!

The reason I brought it up is because of the LCS 2 thread OP's clear statement of its state (although what RKSL-Rock said back in the day was a 50-meter nominal limit, while 60 was absolute max):

- PHYSx compatibility. Can carry helicopters without scripting. Strangely, the old 60 meter GEO LOD limit is still there, but only for man class. For other vehicle classes, the ship is quite solid.

I haven't had much time to work on this for the last week and I haven't added GEO blocks to the superstructure so that part is not solid yet, only the hull. For man class (i. e. a pilot that lands a helicopter and exits the chopper on the landing pad) the ship is not walkable, even if I have added a GEO LOD and a Roadway LOD.

And the modder's permissions:

If anyone can tackle this ship I give my permission to tinker, modify or do whatever you want with this model.

[progamer 14]

In VBS2 they were able to have walkable interiors, even underwater decks on moving naval vessels. That being said, VBS2 is a military training device for command & logistics, is not a game, and is significantly more expensive. In BF3 when you tried to ride vehicles you would be launched in the opposite direction, so in Arma 3 (I assume that Physx would do the same as BF3) it wouldn't be very useful for walking about in a C130J or a boat or something if you just got flung in the opposite direction. I know ARMA 2/VBS2 had terrible physics, but I'm sure they will eventually figure out how to do it. I have no idea how, just my 2 cents :P

VBS2 was Arma 2 with a bunch of scripted/hacked in solutions. They are glitchy.

[Hatchet_AS 201]

I know I looked at the first model of the LCS 2, think I downloaded a new version today. Will be checking it out again for sure. Although (without being obtuse), my initial thought was something a little more directed would be worthwhile in addressing things properly.

To the best of my knowledge from testing before deciding to tackle the VLCC (late A2 days), was that there is indeed a requirement (issue perhaps) with the GEO lod, and I would fully agree that 50m is the safe working limit. Anything beyond has/can cause issues. Although you can do much better in the vertical axis if I recall correctly. Not sure what that limit was/is. These limits really are not an issue when things are modeled and proxied correctly with the static classes though. Which leads to other thoughts.

I'm still very curious how exactly the man class interacts with the physx system and other vehicle classes in general. If at all regarding collision/walking on things. In my brief testing before my pc was effectively submerged, I was leaning towards the interaction being non-existent. As I was finding myself submerged in all but one particular case (which involved sorcery). In previous testing in A2, I was left wondering if perhaps there is some disconnect between the way models are setup and what the engine actually utilizes per class (e.g. does the roadway lod even actually work with other non static classes?). As this is what is required for walking about on things under the static classes (unless somethings changed?). My understanding is that the other classes utilize the GEO lod for collision. And thus in my mind, the first big difference between things.

Obviously materials play a role to some degree. Although I've not had time to fiddle with them much. It seemed somewhat limited in the brief time I spent collecting config settings, and sorting their functions. Again though, if the interaction with between the classes, models and/or systems is disconnected somehow, this would be a somewhat mute point (and explain things) regarding the man class currently. The fact that there is evidence that things are working between other vehicle classes (and improving); helps maintain the faith here.

[[aps]gnat 28]

VBS2 was Arma 2 with a bunch of scripted/hacked in solutions. They are glitchy.

WHAT ?! Bullshyt !

LOL .... its a SOLID product / sold to military organisations around the world.

..... you just have to look at all the VBS2 video to see it's FAR from glitchy

e.g. does the roadway lod even actually work with other non static classes?

Yes, always has.

Obviously materials play a role to some degree.

No, only for "sound"

As one who has played with ALL this stuff many time (in OFP/ArmA1/ArmA2) I say to a few here, "Less talk, more experimenting". It will answer a lot more of your questions. :)

The new Physx LOD and the "boat config parameters" are my new mystery to solve.

But I will not waste my time using the old tools .......... waiting .......

Edited October 18, 2013 by [APS]Gnat

[progamer 14]

Gnat;2537612']WHAT ?! Bullshyt !

LOL .... its a SOLID product / sold to military organisations around the world.

..... you just have to look at all the VBS2 video to see it's FAR from glitchy

Not everything was but quite a few features were. It had more assets as well and a larger dev team. And unlike Arma, VBS2 is not easy to buy, costs a ton, and how to convince your freinds to buy it? Though this is off topic from this current thread post.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Not everything was but quite a few features were. It had more assets as well and a larger dev team. And unlike Arma, VBS2 is not easy to buy, costs a ton, and how to convince your freinds to buy it? Though this is off topic from this current thread post.

1) I own it

2) There was a major discount offering a ~year back

[progamer 14]

Gnat;2537623']1) I own it

2) There was a major discount offering a ~year back

Off topic from what I created this thread for, this is more suited for a pm conversation. I am not very knowledgable on VBS.

Back on topic, do you have any information to add to the feedback tracker tickes which would help out the developers? You seem like one of the experts on this issue as well.

[Hatchet_AS 201]

Gnat;2537612']

Yes' date=' always has.[/quote']

Fair enough. What do you equate the issue being regarding the seemingly lacking interaction between the man class vs. other vehicle class?

Gnat;2537612']

No' date=' only for "sound"[/quote']

So things relative to PhysxMaterials server no purpose/use here? Will avoid wasting time there if what you say is true.

Gnat;2537612']

As one who has played with ALL this stuff many time (in OFP/ArmA1/ArmA2) I say to a few here' date=' "Less talk, more experimenting". It will answer a lot more of your questions. :)

The new Physx LOD and the "boat config parameters" are my new mystery to solve.

But I will not waste my time using the old tools .......... waiting .......[/quote']

Granted fiddling and testing things is generally more useful at the end of day. It is always nice when people with working knowledge share that knowledge, and help others in understanding, not wasting time, beating faces on desks and whatnot. Thus improving over all productivity for those involved.

And until I can return to testing/producing, chatter is all I got bro. :p

[[aps]gnat 28]

I am not very knowledgable on VBS. Back on topic

You were the one making the wild claim.

do you have any information to add to the feedback tracker tickes which would help out the developers?

Nop. Nothing speculative from me until I get Tools and a Biki

So things relative to PhysxMaterials server no purpose/use here? Will avoid wasting time there if what you say is true.

Sorry, PhysxMaterials wasn't what I was refering to. PhysxMaterials are different. Only limited info in the LCS thread.