PhysX Discussion (dev branch)

[progamer 14]

Here is a ticket for the fixed wing class on large moving ships: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15540

[progamer 14]

On the latest dev branch I have noticed helicopters now bounce when on the deck and do not sit still like they used too.

[tempestriser 10]

we really need a walkable / driveable ship in this game... its a big mistake to have all this wide sea and underwater environment and leave all of it to some boats and a small SDV...

[chortles 263]

we really need a walkable / driveable ship in this game... its a big mistake to have all this wide sea and underwater environment and leave all of it to some boats and a small SDV...

See above and on previous pages: engine limitation(s) due to maximum model/GEO LOD (geometry level of detail) size.

[progamer 14]

we really need a walkable / driveable ship in this game... its a big mistake to have all this wide sea and underwater environment and leave all of it to some boats and a small SDV...

I think you miss read. This thread is for modding, not the vanilla game.

[Hatchet_AS 201]

Finally got the rig back in working order. In a rush to get some attachment mods out, but almost done with that. Then I can finish where I left off last week the ships here, and put a proper example together. I wasn't having issues with aircraft a couple days ago, hopefully that's not really borked again.

[dmarkwick 261]

I think you miss read. This thread is for modding, not the vanilla game.

In which case this thread would be better served in the modding discussion forum?

[progamer 14]

In which case this thread would be better served in the modding discussion forum?

Why? What can modders do about problems with the vanilla game? This is very likely something modders cannot fix.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

We have physX enabled vehicles now, so we just need a big enough vehicle with a big enough flatbed surface to test this.

As for the man class, I don't think it uses physx for movement, only for death animations? When you are in a vehicle, aren't you actually latched to memory point and forced into a animation? There is no interaction between you and the surface beneath you. Even when you are on a moving vehicle/surface (the ground, a roof,etc) you are just playing a pre-baked animation.

The nimitz mod is a good place to start this kind of testing now. Though, i have tried attachto, but it didn't work.

[Tacti-Cool 10]

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:

Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising

[progamer 14]

Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising

Haven't seen any modern game accomplish this lately. So it could be a major selling point even just for mods.

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:49 ----------

Does anyone know how exactly VBS does what we are after?

[Make Love Not War 10]

The glitchy movement at slow speeds and the new problem of the helis bouncing around the deck on the latest dev branches notwithstanding, my immediate thought upon watching the LCS video is why not create a proxy vehicle, attachTo or place a man class unit into its cargo space, hide the vehicle, and then play the corresponding anims on the man as you move the vehicle around the deck?

Edited November 6, 2013 by Make Love Not War
clarity

[dmarkwick 261]

The glitchy movement at slow speeds and the new problem of the helis bouncing around the deck on the latest dev branches notwithstanding, my immediate thought upon watching the LCS video is why not create a proxy vehicle, attachTo or place a man class unit into its cargo space, hide the vehicle, and then play the corresponding anims on the man as you move the vehicle around the deck?

Likely to result in very strange MP behaviors. i.e. locality of vehicles and man would most likely be different (seeing as pilots/drivers would not be the ones walking about). Horrific lagging and warping would be the result I would expect to see.

[progamer 14]

I see the new tools will bring enhanced modding with regards to ships. Hopefully we can get walking on moving vehicles from it.

[[aps]gnat 28]

I see the new tools will bring enhanced modding with regards to ships. Hopefully we can get walking on moving vehicles from it.

I don't see a link between Buoyancy LODs and "walking", but we'll see.

[progamer 14]

Gnat;2552221']I don't see a link between Buoyancy LODs and "walking"' date=' but we'll see.[/quote']

Maybe it's just a matter of giving Physx to the man class. Or a matter of having the man class experience friction like the helicopter class does. But only BI knows exactly and I hope they are working on it.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

You have no idea how splendid it would be to have a Dev who knows about it pitch in a few helpful facts, ideas, or info on the topic at this point. ^^^

EDIT: Also, i remember a game i played back some years ago. YS Flight sim. Wasn't the most realistic or graphical thing ever, but it did some things well, that i was surprised Arma couldn't pull it off. This topic for example, i would fly my CF-18 in serious wind conditions, and land on an aircraft carrier, that had a set moving path. Never the less, it was moving. You can land on it, and it would work just fine being able to taxi around on it, and take off from the carrier again. Second thing that YSFlight did well, was weight. You could choose payloads, but it would add weight. I remember dropping 8 500lb bombs from an F-15E in order to engage in a dogfight. Taking off light weighted and taking off with more payload was a big deal. You could even choose how much fuel you had in your plane. Those are just a few things YSFlight did, and most were in the form of simple scripts. I cannot remember any of the scripts how ever, that was long ago.

Edited November 8, 2013 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[x3kj 1247]

Would it be possible to implement a limited strength for rotation/movement animations?

Currently if a tank rotates it's turret and hits a solid object with the barrel, it starts to move the entire hull. Which is kind of silly. It's just one aspect that currently makes vehicle handling with Physix feel terribly bouncy bouncy.

What i think should be done is to implement some kind of limitation, propably best defined in the config for the joint in question.

If the limit es set to "on", the animated object can only move it's child (turret is child of Hull, barrel is child of turret). So if the child wants to move, but in some way can't do it without moving the parent object relative to the environment it won't move at all.

If it's off, no such check is done.

Perhaps there is an easier way to make this - idk, i'm just a player.

[tempestriser 10]

I believe that the problem is... ARMA 3 has a great focus on simulating ground forces and we always want a bit more than that, we want the least possible interaction with real ships and aircraft as this would come as an addition to the simulation of ground forces as logistics and transportation.

I really hope the next toolkit offers such features making ARMA 3 more enjoyable and realistic for all of us who want a greater immersion in the battlefield.

[Deadfast 43]

Maybe it's just a matter of giving Physx to the man class. Or a matter of having the man class experience friction like the helicopter class does. But only BI knows exactly and I hope they are working on it.

I would be very much surprised if BIS decided to completely change the simulation of soldiers.

[maddogx 13]

I took the liberty of changing the thread title to more broadly encompass PhysX related feedback. :)

[metalcraze 290]

BIS has to make smoke and explosions be accelerated by NVidia GPUs at least. They are PhysX based anyway but CPU bound and that's not good enough.

Additionally breaking glass should be given an option to be made GPU dependent too when GeForce is present. That way there can be better looking shards, more of them and them not falling through the ground but disappearing slightly later at no FPS hit.

Any FPS saved is good for a smooth experience.

[CaptainObvious 95]

BIS has to make smoke and explosions be accelerated by NVidia GPUs at least. They are PhysX based anyway but CPU bound and that's not good enough.

Additionally breaking glass should be given an option to be made GPU dependent too when GeForce is present. That way there can be better looking shards, more of them and them not falling through the ground but disappearing slightly later at no FPS hit.

Any FPS saved is good for a smooth experience.

I'd be very happy to see this, as well as bouncing dump pouches and other gear.

It is possible to get a dedicated Nvidia gpu for PhysX even in AMD driven systems via 3rd party drivers, no idea how well or if they work tho :j:

[omerc 10]

I'd be very happy to see this, as well as bouncing dump pouches and other gear.

It is possible to get a dedicated Nvidia gpu for PhysX even in AMD driven systems via 3rd party drivers, no idea how well or if they work tho :j:

I'm not in favor for a Nvidia based solution as the dedicated nvidia gpu one. I understand there are some fps problems with the game, but the solution should not be a penalty to amd gpu owners.

[metalcraze 290]

How exactly will it be a penalty to Radeon guys?

I've read this excuse that makes no sense multiple times on these forums but can anyone explain to me how exactly NVidia users saving a few FPS is any more penalizing than playing ArmA3 with Core i5 over AMD FX?

Why lay PhysX potential to waste just because radeon users will be jealous or something?

Edited November 10, 2013 by metalcraze