Game physics

[Commando84 0]

Quote[/b] ]As above...vehicle handling! These programmers have never driven a car from the road onto grass I'm sure of it! Cars just don't decrease their speed considerably when driving from the tarmac to off road but they do decrease in the steering. Sandy areas....yes, the speed does drop greatly...but not on the grass!

And motorbikes don't do wheelies going up hills all the time. How about adding leaning forward and backward to keep the front wheel down?

the part about motorbikes i agree on! It would be sweet with a GTA 3-4 style lean forward or backward while driving a motorbike. To shift weight and stuff. Dunno how much work it is, i think it will be alot, to animate it properly, code it and all.. adding controlls..

I dunno if arma engine supports doing things inside vehicles like that...

[maddogx 13]

Animations inside vehicles are currently static. Not sure what's going to change in this respect, but Suma did indicate that there may be a possibility for passengers to shoot from vehicles in ArmA2. Maybe this will loosen some other restraints too.

[Alex72 1]

EDIT: If this is implemented then wow sorry. Have to try harder then as i never managed to safely put down a heli in arma that had the engine shut off.

Auto rotation on helicopters maybe? As helicopters at engine cut out dont crash in reality, would be nice to see that implemented. Dont know if the auto rotation applies to all models, but those who can do it would be nice if it got into ArmA2. It doesnt seem like a too big mission to get it in (im no coder so i might be wrong), but im not asking for ArmA to become a flight sim - just one little realistic feature more on the helis

Regards

Alex

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Mate, autorotation exists in ArmA. I proved its existance in ArmA quite a while ago. If your rotors start to lose RPM (i.e. the engine cuts out), you just drop your collective and they'll keep turning as long as you don't try to gain more height. Try it out and see.

[Alex72 1]

What? lol

I think its time for me to try harder then.

EDIT: btw i take it you got a HOTAS cameron? Seems to me that since either 1.12 or the new software from Saitek (i have the X45) that the helos and jets start gain throttle at 50% thrust. Very annoying as i had the whole range on my throttle before. Now its Uber sensitive at 50% and up. So i can barely gain thrust slowly, to do that i have to move my throttle in nano steps. Most uncool.

EDIT2: Managed to get the cobra down every time without crash but the cockpit glass still blows out. Shouldnt do that at successful auto rotation landing - then again, mine wasnt 100% successful maybe. Any words on this? Anyone manage to land a heli without engine from substantial height and not have the windows blown out? If no - then that would be nice in ARMA2? If yes - i shut up from now on One more thing though, looked at a kamov 50 engine off landing and tried to mimic that. They flare hard in the end just before landing and its at that time the helicopter really stops from crashing hard into the ground. I try this (flaring) in arma with the KA50 and it doesnt stop the fall at all. Am i doing it wrong or isnt it possible? Again, if not possible in ArmA - please make it possible in ArmA2

[max power 21]

Different helicopters have a different ability to autorotate. The cobra seems pretty heavy. I think that if you have some forward speed and you flare to get the rotors really going, then increase the collective just before you hit the ground your landing may be softer. In actual helicopter flight, there is a flight envelope zone called the 'dead man's curve' where surviving after an engine failure is unlikely. I doubt there's a perfect simulation of this in ArmA, but you can convert both height and forward speed into lift as in real life, so you may want to take a look at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height-velocity_diagram

[Alex72 1]

Thanks mate, will take a look.

[bigdannylong 0]

It would be great to have a truly destructable environment. Say you're about to enter a building but think the door is booby-trapped, you just smash a window and climb through.

If an enemy shoots at the wall you're behind, fragments should fly in the air.

Tanks and explosions should shake the ground, like in Ghost Recon.

Almost forgot lol, would be nice to be able to climb over things as you can in Cod 4.

[Vultar 0]

How about allowing Barrett M107 to shoot trought walls and kill enemies hidden behind it?

And vehicles which won't explode if there's no fuel left?

My dreams about ArmA were to see interactive environment in ArmA2, same as in GRAW =)

[dale0404 5]

How about allowing Barrett M107 to shoot trought walls and kill enemies hidden behind it?

And vehicles which won't explode if there's no fuel left?

My dreams about ArmA were to see interactive environment in ArmA2, same as in GRAW =)

Actually an empty fuel tank is alot more dangerous than a full one.

[baddo 0]

How about allowing Barrett M107 to shoot trought walls and kill enemies hidden behind it?

And vehicles which won't explode if there's no fuel left?

My dreams about ArmA were to see interactive environment in ArmA2, same as in GRAW =)

Actually an empty fuel tank is alot more dangerous than a full one.

Yeah if you are going to weld a fuel tank, better fill it with water first as much as possible to make as much of the gas come out as possible!

But it depends what kind of fuel there was. Gasoline, very flammable. Diesel, not even nearly as flammable as gasoline. Basically, the "heavier" the fuel, the less danger there is for a gas explosion.

[stakex 0]

How about allowing Barrett M107 to shoot trought walls and kill enemies hidden behind it?

And vehicles which won't explode if there's no fuel left?

My dreams about ArmA were to see interactive environment in ArmA2, same as in GRAW =)

Actually an empty fuel tank is alot more dangerous than a full one.

Yeah if you are going to weld a fuel tank, better fill it with water first as much as possible to make as much of the gas come out as possible!

But it depends what kind of fuel there was. Gasoline, very flammable. Diesel, not even nearly as flammable as gasoline. Basically, the "heavier" the fuel, the less danger there is for a gas explosion.

Well if you want to get really technical about it... gas itself does not explode, or burn very easily. Its the fuems that the gas emits that actually burn, and can also be very explosive in a confined space. Thats why, as dale0404 says, an empty tank is much much more dangerous then a full one because there are more fuems in an empty tank.

[baddo 0]

How about allowing Barrett M107 to shoot trought walls and kill enemies hidden behind it?

And vehicles which won't explode if there's no fuel left?

My dreams about ArmA were to see interactive environment in ArmA2, same as in GRAW =)

Actually an empty fuel tank is alot more dangerous than a full one.

Yeah if you are going to weld a fuel tank, better fill it with water first as much as possible to make as much of the gas come out as possible!

But it depends what kind of fuel there was. Gasoline, very flammable. Diesel, not even nearly as flammable as gasoline. Basically, the "heavier" the fuel, the less danger there is for a gas explosion.

Well if you want to get really technical about it... gas itself does not explode, or burn very easily. Its the fuems that the gas emits that actually burn, and can also be very explosive in a confined space. Thats why, as dale0404 says, an empty tank is much much more dangerous then a full one because there are more fuems in an empty tank.

When I said gas I meant the fumes. I think it is correct to say "gas" because that's what it is. Might be a problem with the English language, it has more than one meaning for the word "gas". I mean of course a non-liquid gas explosion (fast burning).

[JasonH 0]

I don't know why this game has such horrible physics and no ragdolls but it seriously needs them.

Is a license for Havoc really that much to not have them in? Takes away a lot from gameplay.

[Bushmonkey 0]

Needs GTA 4 like physics.

I wish that was possible

[Dwarden 1125]

GTA4 'physics' are still joke ...

im past i would recommend Havok or PhysX

yet Havok is owned by INTEL and free only for non commercial use plus only INTEL and AMD support it

then PhysX is NVIDIA domain tho it's possible to run it on CPU/GPU (officially NVIDIA but also AMD.ATI now as CUDA is 'semi-open' (not so open as FireStream))

in such light support for OpenCL would be enough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL

that mean You could utilize NVIDIA's CUDA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

and AMD's FireStream (includes CTM)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_FireStream

via single open standard

[4 IN 1 0]

i think any engine that are better then the current piece of crap should be good enought

[Dwarden 1125]

incase someone is interested here is nice opensource physics framework for cars http://vamos.sourceforge.net/index.shtml

Quote[/b] ]

Vamos models most major systems of a car. The drivetrain includes a simulation of the engine, clutch, transmission and a limited-slip differential. Tires and suspension are also modeled.

[PuFu 4600]

any confirmed or looked into physics engine for arma 2?

[Baff1 0]

Whoa guys, chill! No need to argue.  

I think Baddo may have slightly misunderstood me. When I said it would be impossible to implement ragdoll for all soldiers in a game, I wasn't talking about Americas Army or something. I was talking about big mutha ArmA missions - say with >100 soldiers.

Not only is this more than you will find in any other multiplayer FPS at any one time, but also there is something many people forget about ArmA. Something which sets it apart from most other games:

Joint Ops has 150 player battles and uses Ragdolls.

Planetside has 500 player battles and uses Ragdolls.

I'm sure it does add to the hardware resources to use it, but it is by no means an unchieveable or never yet done.

Ragdoll tends to be a clientside calculation.

So if we took your example of America's Army, the Ragdoll seen by one player in MP is not seen the same by another. It is not server controlled or relayed to the other users.

It uses exactly the same amount of PC resources in SP as it does MP. Criticly, we can pretty much predict that not all 100 players will die simultaneously and in full view so it is unlikely to ever be a hardware concern.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Whoa guys, chill! No need to argue.  

I think Baddo may have slightly misunderstood me. When I said it would be impossible to implement ragdoll for all soldiers in a game, I wasn't talking about Americas Army or something. I was talking about big mutha ArmA missions - say with >100 soldiers.

Not only is this more than you will find in any other multiplayer FPS at any one time, but also there is something many people forget about ArmA. Something which sets it apart from most other games:

Joint Ops has 150 player battles and uses Ragdolls.

Planetside has 500 player battles and uses Ragdolls.

Corpes cannot be used as cover in those games so they dont need synchronization. (Also, they cant be used as ammo boxes in other games.. )

[Bushmonkey 0]

How about euphoria physics engine?

That uses biomechanics and muscles e.c.t.

BI may be too poor to afford it thou :/

[4 IN 1 0]

i think many ppl will eat them alive if they didnt do something on the physics

[berghoff 11]

i think any engine that are better then the current piece of crap should be good enought

Yes, it was very nice for OFP. Hope they make some changes in this area for ArmA2. There is no need for expensive engines since i think everyone will be happy if there were just good working physics in the game.

[nzdfcrash 33]

A decent physics engine would be highly appreciated for arma2 eg. if u run over a car in a t72 or m1a1 it doesnt go flying off like a boomerang but instead it gets crushed