Game physics

[Pulverizer 1]

It will be interesting to see how well BIS manages to multi-thread ArmA 2 and how responsive it is regarding user input. I expect a major improvement over ArmA 1 in this regard.

Not so sure that it will be possible to separate parts into different threads just like that, on a complex engine that wasn't build from the ground up to run components in parallel.

I think I read something like "2nd core will be used for micro AI". ArmA2 engine cycle might still basically work similar to ArmA, just add that gimmick component to another thread.

[POTS 0]

I think they should put in something that makes your gun and arms push down if your gun is starting to collide with a wall. That way when you spin around your gun will already automaticaly starting pointing down, and when you point out a window it stays pointing out. This makes it so you don't stop simply because your gun makes you, and instead points down.

[max power 21]

I like the way it operates currently, as I use it to hook onto corners and 'slice the pie'.

[Pyronick 21]

I once read a blog piece about the Linda system.

It seems very capable of recreating an entire flora ecosystem.

But since this is a tactical shooter, I'd like to know if it has collision detection along the lines of the system used in Crysis where the player can manipulate the bushes by moving through it?

Not that it's a deciding factor for great gameplay, but it sure makes you feel more as if you are roaming in forests.

Quote[/b] ]I think they should put in something that makes your gun and arms push down if your gun is starting to collide with a wall. That way when you spin around your gun will already automaticaly starting pointing down, and when you point out a window it stays pointing out. This makes it so you don't stop simply because your gun makes you, and instead points down.

A game called Red Orchestra: Ostfront 41-45 has this feature where you can exploit surfaces to rest your handweapons on.

This reduces sway which really helps (semi-)automatic weaponry to hit targets more precisely.

Especially in urban warfare it works like a charm.

[baddo 0]

Maybe you mean animations, nephilim? What have collision models to do with handling of the character being difficult in houses? They are there, they collide, yes, but that's not why it is difficult to handle the character.

Try turning around in a small confined space in arma, you will bump into everything and cant make the full turn.(Or you have to lower your weapon so you can make a 180 degree turn). I think she means that.

I completely agree on your point about controls being to unresponsive on slower computers though.

OK, I know about that problem, it just didn't cross my mind when reading nephilim's post.

It's an annoyance too.

But I think the solution should not be to reduce the size of the collision models or remove them (from the gun for example, so that gun doesn't collide with buildings at all).

The solution should be better, like "flexible" hands when the gun collides with a wall, but this is probably quite difficult to implement. Some sort of "inverse kinematics" could be used.

[sk3pt 0]

Would be nice if they could implement :

Better suspension when starting/stopping a tank

It's kinda 'flat' the way it's now.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i don't know where to write this, so i gonna do it here; will be

pimp if were possible to recreate somehow things like floodings and

forest fires, that are not that rare in some war zones as the weather

allows this to happen and there really isn't anyone there "brave"

enough to go out under the war conditions to stop or fix the damage

of this kind of things. And making floods or forest fires to have an

effect on the mission; change the route of advance, patrol or mission.

And even forcing you to call in the engineers to work a bit instead

be there up their tanks or in the back of their trucks smoking weed,

or drinking beer and "reading" porno magazines doing what they use

to do most of the time: Nothing. So call the engineers from time

to time to help the locals to improve their current live conditions

or just to make the engineers work while you keep walking day

after day and you only see a damn APC back in the base; with

an empty San Miguel on the roof left there by an engineer or

something worst; a sailor. Let's C ya

[Steve JA 0]

although the chance of this happining are minute i do love the idea and relly would make u think u were there it would start to get so imercive i would proberly need to be sent to a home to get back into reality

[Zander 0]

Would be nice if they could implement :

Better suspension when starting/stopping a tank

It's kinda 'flat' the way it's now.

can't it be scripted ?

[sk3pt 0]

can't it be scripted ?

Maybe it can, but it probably never will.

[.kju 3244]

Was done already for OFP by RHS.

Just needs permission and conversion.

[stilpu 0]

This is more of a suggestion for ArmA 3. I remember seeing a post where some physics engines were taken into consideration by BIS, but I don't remember seeing Open Dynamics Engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Dynamics_Engine

It's the physics engine from S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and it's open source. It's most likely old news, sorry if this is the case.

[sk3pt 0]

If possible, move the "pivot point" in cars further back. When you're turning (in A1) at slow speed, the back wheels sort of slides over the ground sideways. Just a minor issue really...

[Sam75 0]

do you have informations about physics in arma2 ? it has been improved or the same than arma uses ?

[Maio 293]

do you have informations about physics in arma2 ? it has been improved or the same than arma uses ?

Well the tank movement is more realistic . But since iys built on the same engine , i dont think there will be any major diferences .

[bravo 6 0]

Not sure if was mentioned already, and no idea if its possible:

- bouncing vehicle's antennas when situation is possible, such as in real life.

- Movement of bushes, trees, clutters when air vehicle pass close to it.

These "small" eye candy can make some differences in human feelings.

edit: I would like to add this:

Quote[/b] ]Can we animate the plants and use physics?

Linda is able to generate special geometry for physical/ animation purposes

source: http://linda.bistudio.com/

Can some one elaborate or explain abit more, please?

Does this mean the vegetation of ArmA2 can have movement due to physical contact? What if a chopper pass near a tree, will the extra wind accelerate the movement? What about clutters?

Sorry for all these questions I shut now.

[Radnik 18]

it would be nice if we could get a small brief from developers about physics in arma2.

if not detailed at least comparison with arma1 .

[mr.g-c 6]

it would be nice if we could get a small brief from developers about physics in arma2.

if not detailed at least comparison with arma1 .

Yes i would also be for more informations i some fields when Arma2 is close to finish.

Not only Physics, but also the MEGA-SEF Sound engine im very curious about....

[dentist guba 0]

i think they have basically just tweaked the existing physics until they are as good as possible without using a different engine. apparently the aircraft are better, there is proper material penetration, better recoil e.t.c. also the new sound engine could be thought of as a physics improvement.

i think sticking with their current physics has some merits-a game which requires as much calculation as this would be likely to have a lot of performance issues and the physics could end up even worse (i can't think of any other games which use current physics engines for realistic simulation type stuff, they couldn't just chuck havok in there and expect it to behave realistically off the bat).

[Pyronick 21]

i think they have basically just tweaked the existing physics until they are as good as possible without using a different engine. apparently the aircraft are better, there is proper material penetration, better recoil e.t.c. also the new sound engine could be thought of as a physics improvement.

i think sticking with their current physics has some merits-a game which requires as much calculation as this would be likely to have a lot of performance issues and the physics could end up even worse (i can't think of any other games which use current physics engines for realistic simulation type stuff, they couldn't just chuck havok in there and expect it to behave realistically off the bat).

There is no need for Havok. To properly do ragdoll physics in a game such as Armed Assault 2 you need blended ragdoll physics.

This means you have a pre-set animation which is play within the restrictions of the ragdoll physics, when the animation is finished the ragdoll physics do the rest.

When the ragdoll body isn't moving you can disable the physics value of the object to save processing power/bandwidth until it is activated through collision detection, all while the final trajectory and positions are synced with the server/localhost.

It however requires properly coded inverse kinematics and a very powerful animation system.

And I don't think that the developers have the time for this.

[Dwarden 1125]

it would be way more useful to have physics on 20 other things ingame than dying and dead bodies ...

be it ground or air vehicles and various objects or parts of wrecks etc or buildings blocks or trees (IK, mass) ...

yet all this need change lot of game mechanics and needs even more time to implement and test

[sparks50 0]

Arma physics test, bunch of barrels rolling down hill:

Just a cool video I found on youtube

[Pyronick 21]

it would be way more useful to have physics on 20 other things ingame than dying and dead bodies ...

be it ground or air vehicles and various objects or parts of wrecks etc or buildings blocks or trees (IK, mass) ...

yet all this need change lot of game mechanics and needs even more time to implement and test

Yeah, you'd need something which is proven and stable though.

The best solution would be to use an existing middleware package and modify that for specific use in games like Armed Assault 2.

Like what Valve did with the Havok engine or the adapted-for-multiplayer-use Havok engine in Second Life.

That works just brilliant, it even simulates the suspension of vehicles and inertia of vehicles.

[4 IN 1 0]

As far as we know BIA are trying to use havok in future upgrade of vbs2

So we know that it's somewhat possible to use these "heavy duty" physics engine in ARMA2 as well, but it's totally up to bi to use them or not

[Pyronick 21]

As far as we know BIA are trying to use havok in future upgrade of vbs2

So we know that it's somewhat possible to use  these "heavy duty" physics engine in ARMA2 as well, but it's totally up to bi to use them or not

They are licensed per game, not per developer afaik.

What Valve did was probably the best solution atm, you take an existing physics engine (Havok), modify it and you are no longer restricted to the license.

The developers of Second Life have adapted it for multiplayer use, which is calculated server sided and disables itself when there isn't any form of interaction to save bandwidth and server processing time.

The problem is that Havok is very pricey and hasn't got any form of offloading to powerful GPU's. But PhysX is nVidia proprietary material, and only works on their hardware atm.

Adapting something like the Open Dynamics engine with offloading through compute shaders would be the best short term solution, but it takes very long to develop such a thing.