PhsyX - What else?

[Smurf 12]

Right now it is used to handle ragdolls, vehicle physics and not much more (?). What are the plausible possibilities for it, both on official and modding sides?

Small objects, fences\walls when run over by, debris (like doors on explosions...), furniture, ejected shells\brass, cloth...?

And before someone else does:

Ty Sniperwolf

[dmarkwick 261]

I guess it could also be used for clientside eyecandy effects too - flapping cloths, scattering rubble, smoke particles etc. This sort of client-side stuff is also suitable for nVidia hardware enablement. (The other stuff is not.)

[dunedain 48]

Very good looking stormy sea.

http://youtu.be/H4ACKAUU3O0?t=3m50s

Smokes and explosions that don't glitch through walls.

[Simas 12]

Fast-roping?

[-ghost-tf 12]

Dismemberment as a result of explosions.

[PuFu 4591]

Very good looking stormy sea.

http://youtu.be/H4ACKAUU3O0?t=3m50s

Smokes and explosions that don't glitch through walls.

both possible via APEX i suppose. Still, not really gonna happen

Fast-roping?

nothing to do with physx. But yes, in theory the rope could behave more like a rope, i'll give you that.

Dismemberment as a result of explosions.

nope. this is not a guess game btw

@smurf: for now, there is no way modders have direct access to a physx module

[-ghost-tf 12]

nope. this is not a guess game btw

Limbs flying in different directions after an explosion has nothing to do with physX?

I meant as a possibility on the official side.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Serious version of that signature would probably be something along these lines:

• Variable length soft links (Like ropes, 2 point linkages for vehicle to vehicle towing, cargo slinging, attaching backpacks to paratroopers)
  
• Variable length hard links (Like tow-bars, same as ropes but a solid connection instead of soft)
  
• Exposing the ragdoll to scripting (Triggering ragdoll state without workarounds)
  
• Fixes for the current bugs that have been caused by the PhysX implementation (PhysX LOD not being hidden by hideObject, disableCollisionWith. Result of this is that two PhysX enabled entities will collide even if one of them is hidden.)
  
• Improving the vehicle implementation (Toggleable manual gearbox for vehicles. Removal of the auto-flipping.)
  
• Video option for allowing particles to collide with more than just ground
  
• Eyecandy clientside cloth/"jigglebone" simulation (Bits of dangling shemags, flapping sideskirts on armor, basically to increase the immersion factor as most currently models feel very static.)
  

I don't hold much hope for the last two as it would probably tax the CPU way too much for it to work on all cards and I somehow doubt BI would be willing to expose themselves to the complaints of AMD owners. First two might also be of the same fate depending on how taxing soft/hard linkages would be.

[Smurf 12]

@smurf: for now, there is no way modders have direct access to a physx module

Oh yeah, the tools. Forgot about them. :o

Is it eating much MP performance?

Thank you for the info the guys.

[zooloo75 833]

Still can't believe there isn't a ragdoll scripting command...

[Kerc Kasha 102]

Still can't believe there isn't a ragdoll scripting command...

It seems like the idea was to allow us to do so but it doesn't seem to work - as there's a 'ragdoll' config entry for animations but it doesn't seem to do anything

[CaptainObvious 95]

I don't hold much hope for the last two as it would probably tax the CPU way too much for it to work on all cards and I somehow doubt BI would be willing to expose themselves to the complaints of AMD owners. First two might also be of the same fate depending on how taxing soft/hard linkages would be.

This is something I don't understand, just because AMD users can't get the eyecandy PhysX makes possible, (cloth, particles, smoke and whatnot) the Nvidia owners won't get it either, why is that? It's not like something is taken away from AMD users if the other guys get some extra. :confused:

[progamer 14]

Physx could give us the ability to move around on large vehicles being driven by other players or AI: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?166815-Discussion-of-problems-that-affect-walking-and-driving-on-drivable-ships-and-vehicles

[dunedain 48]

This is something I don't understand, just because AMD users can't get the eyecandy PhysX makes possible, (cloth, particles, smoke and whatnot) the Nvidia owners won't get it either, why is that? It's not like something is taken away from AMD users if the other guys get some extra. :confused:

Well for consistency sake some of those effects would probably end up being turned off in multiplayer anyway, like waves and smokes. Moreover it would require BiS to attribute more ressources only to please a portion of the community. Although I really wish they could fix the smokes for everyone...

[CaptainObvious 95]

Well for consistency sake some of those effects would probably end up being turned off in multiplayer anyway, like waves and smokes. Moreover it would require BiS to attribute more ressources only to please a portion of the community. Although I really wish they could fix the smokes for everyone...

True that regarding waves and smoke, those would affect gameplay in MP and possibly bring some unfair advantage to others.

But just the eyecandy, I can't see why it shouldn't be used, more than half of Steam users have Nvidia, I think it's wasted potential to not implement PhysX fully.

Of course there are numerous other aspects that need the dev's attention before this, and I'm glad that's exactly what the devs are doing.

[Smurf 12]

I would take functionalities over eyecandy any day. Ropes can be very useful (on the "early Arma 3" they even mentioned a towing side mission; combined with this command* logistics can be taken to whole other level), trailers and vehicle interaction (namely, salvage operations).

* = there is one similar for A3, coldn't find.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

* = there is one similar for A3, coldn't find.

Yes, these ones they seem incredibly useful for simulating mass distribution changes with attachTo, but they lack complementary commands that would make them usable for more things than just one-off changes.

[PuFu 4591]

Limbs flying in different directions after an explosion has nothing to do with physX?

I meant as a possibility on the official side.

Not that physx doesn't help, but because mainly you would need to update/redo the character models and implement a limb selection of some sort. VBS has it, so RV engine is able to do it, but then again, BI expressed that they won't do 2 things: kids and gore. So here how it goes out from your "official side"

Oh yeah, the tools. Forgot about them. :o

Is it eating much MP performance?

Thank you for the info the guys.

what is eating MP performance? physx?

Truth be told, i doubt the new tools will be anything more than improved existing ones, with no such "tool" to access physx libraries

This is something I don't understand, just because AMD users can't get the eyecandy PhysX makes possible, (cloth, particles, smoke and whatnot) the Nvidia owners won't get it either, why is that? It's not like something is taken away from AMD users if the other guys get some extra. :confused:

Simply because it is not needed. I don't really buy into AMD vs nVidia thing, but i would say implementing APEX needs to be done during development not via a patch.

True that regarding waves and smoke, those would affect gameplay in MP and possibly bring some unfair advantage to others.

But just the eyecandy, I can't see why it shouldn't be used, more than half of Steam users have Nvidia, I think it's wasted potential to not implement PhysX fully.

Of course there are numerous other aspects that need the dev's attention before this, and I'm glad that's exactly what the devs are doing.

Not really gonna happen.

[Dwarden 1124]

before wanting more from physX i would wait first before version 3.3 is final ... ;)

[CaptainObvious 95]

Simply because it is not needed. I don't really buy into AMD vs nVidia thing, but i would say implementing APEX needs to be done during development not via a patch.

Well for immersion's sake it would be great, little rocks and sparks flying on you when under fire etc.

I thought APEX was so modular on purpose so it could be added later on with relative ease, I'm no expert tho.

Not really gonna happen.

One can only hope ;D

before wanting more from physX i would wait first before version 3.3 is final ... ;)

Oh you, such tease :icon_twisted:

Edited November 9, 2013 by CaptainObvious

[progamer 14]

before wanting more from physX i would wait first before version 3.3 is final ... ;)

What version do we have now?

[Dwarden 1124]

What version do we have now?

3.2.4.1 (shall be the last stable one)

[progamer 14]

3.2.4.1 (shall be the last stable one)

Will it be locked down? Or can changes be made after?