PhysX Discussion (dev branch)

[CaptainObvious 95]

again: arma 3 has only part of ragdolls in game, but the dead animation are ragdoll animations and no real ragdolls/physics.

Play the game yourself and you'll see that's not the case.

[xendance 3]

this video was only a example and it does not have anything to do with alpha beta etc

here, this video is from yesterday:

go to 8:30 min and watch when he shoot both civilians how they fell and how they lie on the ground = same animations same position!

or this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYiK9MggQYM

go to 8:50 and look at the 3 bodies that lie on the ground, what you see ? again same position same lie animation!

again: arma 3 has only part of ragdolls in game, but the dead animation are ragdoll animations and no real ragdolls/physics. physx/ragdolls are not fully implented in game.

i can download those ragdoll animations for gta san andreas or battlefield 1942 and for san andreas there is even a mod out which gives REAL ragdolls for civilians/players.

please add FULL physx/ragdoll support in arma. if you want to see how full ragdoll/physics looks in a game then play crysis or gta IV

You're just flat out wrong. Of course you'll get similar death poses when you shoot the skeleton in the same place with the same weapon while they're in the same pose. :rolleyes:

[maddogx 13]

It's easy to prove that the game has ragdoll: just put an AI on the edge of a roof, kill him and watch him fall.

As Xendance said, the reason for ragdoll poses looking similar is because the initial pose is the same.

[Gutsnav 13]

Throw a grenade next to a group of civilians. Then you'll see they are really ragdolls. They should land in completely different positions.

[IanSky 29]

Maybe not for buildings, but I'd love to see PhysX implemented into the environment and possibly even the vehicles.

Ever found those walls and fences falling over in segments a little well, un-immersive? I'd love to see bricks fly while charging a tank through a brick wall...

Also, is there any sight on the horizon for vehicle damage models such as crumpling effects and independent body panels etc..?

[x3kj 1247]

Maybe not for buildings, but I'd love to see PhysX implemented into the environment and possibly even the vehicles.

Ever found those walls and fences falling over in segments a little well, un-immersive? I'd love to see bricks fly while charging a tank through a brick wall...

Also, is there any sight on the horizon for vehicle damage models such as crumpling effects and independent body panels etc..?

Well, it never hurts to dream, but realistically the answer to all of this is - not in the next 2 years at least.

Visible Vehicle transformation by damage takes serious labor, and is only really done in games where it really matters / is key to the game experience ( race sims ) and so far i think has only been done to cars. For it to look realistically you need to know a whole lot about the internal structure of the vehicle - which is secret information in case of modern military vehicles.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Fennek

[artisanal 22]

Well, it never hurts to dream, but realistically the answer to all of this is - not in the next 2 years at least.

Visible Vehicle transformation by damage takes serious labor, and is only really done in games where it really matters / is key to the game experience ( race sims ) and so far i think has only been done to cars. For it to look realistically you need to know a whole lot about the internal structure of the vehicle - which is secret information in case of modern military vehicles.

and

It's not perfectly realistic but at least the damage affects the handling.

[kremator 1065]

Any damage models from GTA4 would be awesome. We don't have anything like it, damage or handling wise .... mores the pity!

[artisanal 22]

Though, I have to admit that this kind of feature is really secondary. You're right on the handling part, but we have to acknowledge the fact that BI made some HUGE improvements!

À propos "physx" affected elements such as walls or fences, I'm wondering if the new renderer, which the dayz sa developers are working on, could make something like that possible...

[Bee8190 10]

and

It's not perfectly realistic but at least the damage affects the handling.

The damage looks wonderful enough and handling while on the arcade side is pretty acceptable as well. Also the car crashes at high speed and the rollovers are quite well done

[x3kj 1247]

and

Have you read the post you quoted?

Arma is not about standard cars... Armored cars do not transform like that. Exactly what i was saying - you have to know how the vehicle will deform otherwise it looks stupid. Cars behaviour is long know and there is plenty of data from crashtests. Now try to get crash data of an APC.

The question is, do you want to play derby/car crash simulator or play combat simulator?

They should improve the effect on vehicles in case vital components get destroyed (engine, etc), because that's the most likely source for damage in this game. And they already did alot with kinda realistic penetration data.

[Gutsnav 13]

Well, it never hurts to dream, but realistically the answer to all of this is - not in the next 2 years at least.

Visible Vehicle transformation by damage takes serious labor, and is only really done in games where it really matters / is key to the game experience ( race sims ) and so far i think has only been done to cars. For it to look realistically you need to know a whole lot about the internal structure of the vehicle - which is secret information in case of modern military vehicles.

Oh man... imagine the amount of work it would take to model a DCS level of aircraft destruction! And the bugs! The never ending bugs!

[fragmachine 12]

Maybe not for buildings, but I'd love to see PhysX implemented into the environment and possibly even the vehicles.

Ever found those walls and fences falling over in segments a little well, un-immersive? I'd love to see bricks fly while charging a tank through a brick wall...

Also, is there any sight on the horizon for vehicle damage models such as crumpling effects and independent body panels etc..?

One of the thing physics - wise i would like to see improved in the engine is physx integration within the natural environment like trees, bushes (yes, including that bamboo thing). In short: blew it, bend it, break it. Same to smaller objects like fences etc. Definitely secondary but would look good for sure. It doesn't need to be detailed like in the case of vehicle based soft-body physics.

Physx calculations could be rendered only in certain radius to the player with some vital source information like wind direction etc. being already stored on server for less laggy experience.

Edited May 30, 2014 by fragmachine
typo

[kuIoodporny 45]

One of the thing physics - wise i would like to see improved in the engine is physx integration within the natural environment like trees, bushes (yes, including that bamboo thing). In short: blew it, bend it, break it. Same to smaller objects like fences etc. Definitely secondary but would look good for sure. It doesn't need to be detailed like in the case of vehicle based soft-body physics.

It would be possible in VBS2 with scripts; unfortunately these commands are not present in Arma engine.

https://resources.bisimulations.com/w/index.php?title=createJointExt

[JamesSaga 1]

^^ Would be great for immersion, to see things you run into break more naturally rather than just being knocked over in a very unnatural way.

Though this most likely would needs lots of work to implement. :)

[kremator 1065]

Oh this would be awesome to have. How much work would it be to port this over zGuba. Is it a complete engine rewrite, or a simple addition?

[x3kj 1247]

anyone else annoyed by tanks that don't drive straight?

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19164

[semiconductor 309]

Tanks PhysX config seems to be completely screwed in stable, they can't even turn or roll down from a small hill fluently.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

if you manage to go 50 kmh in a tank, when you go over the slightest bump in terrain, it causes your tank or APC to completely stop, even holding down forward. VERY annoying and unrealistic.

[kremator 1065]

^^totally agree an immersion killer. I don't mind stopping if I hit a wall head-on, but not a little bump ! What needs to be changed to give the correct behaviour? Geometry LOD?

[-=seany=- 5]

anyone else annoyed by tanks that don't drive straight?

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19164

Yes! thanks for the ticket.

There are so many annoying things with Arma3 tracked vehicle physics. Every time I get in a Arma3 tank I cringe and wish they had just kept Arma2OA's tracked vehicles physics, they were near perfect and a joy to drive.

Another thing that is annoying me recently with Arma3 tanks is how difficult/ impossible they are to drive at a crawl speed using analogue control. This is very important when using a tank with a human crew. The gunner needs you to drive smoothly at 2-5 kph (often while supporting infantry) while he scans the terrain. This was perfect in Arma2, but in Arma3, lots of the tanks seem to have a weird minimum speed of 14kph or so. So you cant crawl easily at slow speeds, the tank keeps stopping and stuttering. There is also this weird cruise control where some of the vehicles get up to 14kph (approx) and just keeps going by itself...wth is that about?

There is also this problem I reported a while ago about tanks inability to turn AND accelerate at the same time: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=17645

All these little things just add up to make tanks in Arma3 a chore to drive.

Tank physics and sound are probably the 2 biggest problems I have with Arma3 right now. They need some serious attention. Both these things are more annoying due to the fact that both sounds and Tanks Physics in Arma2 where fine for the most part. The definitely didn't have any of the glaring problems that Arma 3 does with these features.

Edited June 11, 2014 by -=seany=-

[x3kj 1247]

but in Arma3, lots of the tanks seem to have a weird minimum speed of 14kph or so. So you cant crawl easily at slow speeds, the tank keeps stopping and stuttering.

This is the case since fake gears where implemented. Additionally to normal gears, the tanks in A3 now have many (up to 8) additional gears with extreme high gearratio. It was done to allow the engine rpm to go up at all.

However, if you drive at slow speed (below 15kph) the automatic gearbox constantly changes gears, as the ratios are so short that they only work for like 2-3kph.

The real reason why the engine does not spin up however is because the clutch (which is simulated in physX) closes automatically as soon as you apply any form of throttle. This is not a physx Problem, its a controll problem. This prevents the engine to go up in rpm and get some torque. The workaround made by zGuba is those fake gears, but they produce those problems.

The real solution should be fairly easy, and that is to delay the closing of the clutch after you apply throttle. Either by a fixed time amount, or better yet, a linear curve (from open (0) to closed (1) in a time period of x - for example 1s).

Let's vote:

Vehicle Stuttering

Engine cant rev up Problem

I agree with you that physx for vehicles is severely lacking because it seems to be neglected. It was implemented and then not cared about once it got to a semi working state... There even is the option in physx for manual shifting, but the controlls for it are lacking, so we cant use it ... apparently flyboys seem to be more important then fixing ground vehicles :j:

if you manage to go 50 kmh in a tank, when you go over the slightest bump in terrain, it causes your tank or APC to completely stop, even holding down forward. VERY annoying and unrealistic.

Do you have a video of that? I have observed another effect that causes vehicles to severely reduce speed on my custom tank, but not on vanilla tanks yet, it might be related

Edited June 12, 2014 by Fennek

[Tonci87 163]

if you manage to go 50 kmh in a tank, when you go over the slightest bump in terrain, it causes your tank or APC to completely stop, even holding down forward. VERY annoying and unrealistic.

This is really annoying.

[vegeta897 13]

< stuff about PhysX and gears >

This is all very interesting stuff. Voted on the issues. Is a mod solution possible, or is this only something BIS can fix/implement? Do you personally think BIS will ever get around to it?

[Bee8190 10]

I've suspected the lack of physical gears for some while and while we may have physx, vehicle handling and terrain interaction seem to pre-date this millenium and although the recent addition of traction parameter were welcome step forward, the overall advances in physx appear to be stand still.

I just hope that just as it may be the case with medical mechanics, physx are yet to be taken seriously