Jump to content
progamer

PhysX Discussion (dev branch)

Recommended Posts

we looking into it, if nothing it may help to sort the crashes faster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we looking into it, if nothing it may help to sort the crashes faster

That would definitely help! It's a surprising move from nvidia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we looking into it, if nothing it may help to sort the crashes faster

That's good, stable game is always welcome! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with the switch to open-source code of PhysX, will the issue wit hthe tankX class finally be adressed?

Right now, they are simply not in a useable state.

Sadly, because big tank battles are the most fun in the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait to see some more development in PhysX related things, and features in the game. For what Arma 3 is, i'm certain there is a broad spectrum of technology that can be used in Arma 3 PHysX wise, weather it be Logistics, moving things around, and the likes. PhysX needs to be more pronounced in Arma 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why there is so much faked and forced vehicle stops at low speed, and very unrealistic, F1-like center of gravity for vehicles? Also very unnatural behavior when vehicle rollover, with clearly visible additional forces applied to vehicle. All that artifical shit and faked forces are killing whole point of using physx, dont ya see? And I still dont have any pleasure driving car in arma3, because it is very artifical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they just went overboard with the anti roll bar setting... and on top of that the antirollbar seems to just generate a torque no matter what. Antiroll bars increase stiffness of the suspension if one side under bigger load then the other. Using a torque to simulate that is only permitted if the angle of the vehicle body to the ground is small. If the angle becomes large, this is no longer physically correct. Instead, a force should be added to the supension on the side with the bigger load.

That's a design error of the physx people, and happens if programmers do physics without validating it :P

The stops for tanks are because of bugs that are not fixed yet, one physx problem and one Arma control problem ... Haven't noticed car stops.

PhysX Vehicle Code only really works for street cars as i see it. Large and heavy vehicles have problems, heavy vehicles in difficult terrain is the worst combination. Steep inclines are not even modelled correctly (if that is physx fault or BI i dont know... you can drive up a 60° angle, which would be impossible with basically any vehicle).

Edited by Fennek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a physx master, but can somebody explain why we need antiroll artificial force/torque? Can't we just setup the joints, suspensions, wheels, body properties properly and let the engine do the things?

Let me join this to the tanks physx. As i know they turn because of artificial side forces. Can't we just have invisible physx wheels which turns on rotation(booth front and back) and spin the wheels instead?

Edit: I think it wouldn't be ever a natural behavior if there are artifical forces. If we have to hack to achieve the expected behavior, we should do that without any artifical things. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but can somebody explain why we need antiroll artificial force/torque? Can't we just setup the joints, suspensions, wheels, body properties properly and let the engine do the things?

Most real vehicles have anti roll bars, often abbreviated ARB's. PhysX approximates the effect of ARB's by applying what you call "antiroll artificial force/torque". Most physical properties in PhysX (and other game physics libraries) is approximated and not exactly simulated and because of that, you might get unexpected results under extreme circumstances. It's just the way it is. There's nothing Bohemia can do about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a physx master, but can somebody explain why we need antiroll artificial force/torque?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-roll_bar

No swaybar -> vehicle easily rolls over during turns.

I think it wouldn't be ever a natural behavior if there are artifical forces.

Artificial is a wrong term. Because all those forces are artificial. Simplified would be correct. You can't have the real thing ingame. Every simulation has to simplify to be still calculable. Therefore, no simulation is "correct" and every simulation is simplified. The faster the simulation has to run, the simpler it needs to be. Simplification also means that you have to know what you want to achieve, and what you can actually simplify and by how much while still getting believable results. For normal roadcars, driving on roads (no stunts) the simplification the physx people is acceptable. For offroad usage and heavy vehicles with high Center of Mass that are prone to rollover it is not acceptable.

Can't we just have invisible physx wheels which turns on rotation

Tanks already are wheeled vehicles with up to 20 wheels.

Edited by Fennek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be glad it's not Project Cars, i heard that sim has something like a few hundred thousand calculations per minute for car physics and feedback. The PhysX (=D) in Arma 3 are fine. The only things that need work on in terms of PhysX, are Amphibious Vehicles, Fixed Wing Craft, and maybe the SUV, which still doesn't perform as well as it probably would IRL. What did annoy me for while is when certain vehicles flip over and automatically flip back on it's wheels. Not sure what annoys me more, when it does that, or when it actually stays flipped. What we need is a Tow-Rope ability. =P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The PhysX (=D) in Arma 3 are fine. The only things that need work on in terms of PhysX, are Amphibious Vehicles, Fixed Wing Craft, and maybe the SUV, which still doesn't perform as well as it probably would IRL.

If it's fine, how come we have numerous people saying it doesnt feel right and handles bad? Just drive a tank for a bit and the bad handling is obvious. It's not fine, and a towing ability won't make up for the errors.

You won't fix the errors by playing a bit around with the config variables either. You have to get to the root and fix it there. Exactly the same as with the Fixed Wing FM.

Edited by X3KJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's fine, how come we have numerous people saying it doesnt feel right and handles bad? Just drive a tank for a bit and the bad handling is obvious. It's not fine, and a towing ability won't make up for the errors.

You won't fix the errors by playing a bit around with the config variables either. You have to get to the root and fix it there. Exactly the same as with the Fixed Wing FM.

Oh, and Tanks. Lol, yeah, the tanks are pretty darn bad. I actually just switched to Dev to test some things out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope information about updates to the physics engine come with the announcement of the new terrain. The vehicles are really uncanny with how they handle and even two years later it bugs me just as much as when the game was first released. Anti-Rollbar, stiff-ass suspension that still somehow absorbs all force instead of

(minus the complex deformations) or
, and a frustrating gearbox system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a TankX, it's a CarX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope information about updates to the physics engine come with the announcement of the new terrain. The vehicles are really uncanny with how they handle and even two years later it bugs me just as much as when the game was first released. Anti-Rollbar, stiff-ass suspension that still somehow absorbs all force instead of
(minus the complex deformations) or
, and a frustrating gearbox system.

I doubt it some how. I made a polite, rational thread in this forum section asking if they could do anything about the vehicle physics, clearly highlighting the main problems...and a Dev (Pettka) replied to the thread.....but to inform some one else in the thread (who was unaware) of how the handbrake is actually functional in Arma3........great.

Given that the expansion will be on Islands (and with dense vegetation), there will be less need for vehicles. This makes me believe even more that we are stuck with the current crappy Arma3 vehicle physics until who knows when....Arma4 maybe....Pretty sad that Operation Flashpoint has better Tracked vehicle Physics then Arma 3....

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?192469-A-Plea-To-The-Developers-For-Some-Fixes-To-The-Long-Standing-Vehicle-Bugs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean: Sitting in a T72 as Driver, upside down, switching to ManualFire, pressing fire, fly around Everon? :D

 

Okay, tbh: Yeah, the ordinary handling was much better then =/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's since been specified that amphibious tracked vehicle support is planned, though I suspect that such a fix is only planned because the Expansion DLC will include one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, now that you have a real tank...

Next time you drive it, you could run some simple tests/measurements for us:

Note down the Gear you are in, the speed you are driving and the associated rpm for various combinations on level and preferably soft ground.

With some research we could find the engine performance (torque-rpm- curve) and the gearbox ratios of the tank (maybe it's even in the manual? if it comes with one...)

This lets us determine the torque that needs to be present at the wheels to move the vehicle (or put differently: the driving resistance).

With this as basis, the physx tank wheel dampening values could be overhauled properly, so that acceleration, deceleration and topspeed will be more realistic, without needing a "fake" maxspeed value that cuts of throttle to stop accelerating to infinity.

Right now it's completely guesswork and also the factors/values are redundant in naming and confusing (damping, dampingrate, dampingrateInAir,...)

I can help with the technical side if you need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be possible to simulate some kind of vehicle sinking into the ground for heavy tanks with physx? The tweaked version of the tank physx is much better than before, but sometimes high speed steep ground collisions compress the suspension and the body collide with the ground and it's slows down the vehicle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with the switch to open-source code of PhysX, will the issue wit hthe tankX class finally be adressed?

Right now, they are simply not in a useable state.

Sadly, because big tank battles are the most fun in the game.

They sure are and are the only reason I play this game.

 

Thanks for all your great work on tanks at RHS and your mods etc.

 

Cheers

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×