Game physics

[Dwarden 1125]

i guess he bases this on experimental vehicles showing possible physx support in VBS2 ...

btw. this only indicates ability of engine to be adapted to use any physical engine not just PhysX ...

as start ODE and OpenCL support would be enough :)

[PhilippRauch 0]

:) I think i read somewhere that they dropped physix support, so i 'assumed' it was in there at some point in development...

But i am good with anything they will put in that package which i will pre-order i a few days anyway... :D

[Scrub 0]

Anybody else think that image of the jumped and flipped LAV by Dyslexi hints at better physics? It looks like it made big air, landed and rolled. Big improvement, if so..

[Binkowski 26]

I agree with Scrub. When I saw that flipped LAV, a very big grin appeared on my face.

[Zerst0ren 0]

I don't see how a flipped LAV25 would mean better physics. I just see how it means the lack of physics.

[Scrub 0]

You've just posted in three topics, AI/graphics/physics, all with baseless damming opinion. You 'don't see how a flipped LAV25 would mean better physics. I just see how it means the lack of physics.' Please explain what you mean? Do you not know it takes physics to calculate the roll over of Dsylexi's hotdogging? Do you think he scripted it in that position? Really.. What are you trying to say?

[S!fkaIaC 10]

We need a movie to comment the LAV thingy. Not just pictures.

If you gimme a demo I can do that for you :D

[Zerst0ren 0]

You've just posted in three topics, AI/graphics/physics, all with baseless damming opinion. You 'don't see how a flipped LAV25 would mean better physics. I just see how it means the lack of physics.' Please explain what you mean? Do you not know it takes physics to calculate the roll over of Dsylexi's hotdogging? Do you think he scripted it in that position? Really.. What are you trying to say?

What I'm trying to say? Perhaps it has something to do with vehicles getting stuck in the ground with glue if they flip around? Or maybe the cartoony collisions with other objects?

[Scrub 0]

Where did you see this?

[max power 21]

ArmA had its moments of good and bad physics. I remember playing the CTF mission in the demo as opfor with a couple of friends. We would do circuits around the square of the bluefor town in a brdm until we got a good moment to capture the flag. At one point, a crushed bush obscured one of those concrete park benches in the square. We ran into it and the brdm behaved exactly as you would think coliding with a concrete obsticle underneath the left side of its boat-prow. It lifted up on its left side, drove on two wheels for a second before sliding to a hault on its side. It was very, very cool. I don't think that an upside down LAV really confirms either better or worse physics. The physics engine in ArmA is capable of some cool stuff and also some lame stuff.

[KorpeN 0]

Where did you see this?

Do you want millions of pics with flipped vehicles in ArmA?

And why you dont tell us how the flipped LAV means better physics?

[Kirby 2]

I agree. Vehicles flip in odd ways in ArmA I, and they can and will end up on their side, roof, front, rear, whatever. Seeing a flipped LAV doesn't mean it rolled epicly to a halt.

[mr.g-c 6]

Apart from the unrealistic collisions physics and other stuff, what has made Arma1 physics very bad were the lack of "speed" or "reaction" or let me just say "proper g-force" combined with something like weight...

60 metric tonnes tanks could fly and land soft on pillows, cars could jump and with enough speed fly....

Did you ever though about why there is this magical 130 kph limit for cars in the engine?

Just drive faster than 130 by script and you see when you hit even the flattest slope with a higher speed, your car starts to fly..... :p

And when you accelerate to like 300kph with a car and use a bigger hills as a "ramp", you can fly over half sahrani.... quite funny....

So alone giving the phyiscs some sort of proper g-force and adding general weight to cars and tanks so that they really appear as steel-beasts, would add already very very much in my opinion.

[Scrub 0]

Do you want millions of pics with flipped vehicles in ArmA?

And why you dont tell us how the flipped LAV means better physics?

From bad driving or hot-dogging? yes. I'd like a million pics of that.

I've never flipped a vehicle in Arma without colliding.. Then of course I flew into orbit before flipping. If the sequence of images is of one jump, then the physics is better than Arma from my experiences. It shows getting more air than I've seen, and quite possibly center of mass effects. Ptolemaios, why don't you stop acting like a long term troll? Or should everyone have no hope and no thoughts of possibilities from the development we've only seen a bit of.. And then gripe as if it will help drive the dev team to do better. lol. Glass half empty?

And as for my question, I really am wondering if he saw Arma II footage of what he said, or was he speaking out his ass like before?

Edited April 26, 2009 by Scrub

[S!fkaIaC 10]

So alone giving the phyiscs some sort of proper g-force and adding general weight to cars and tanks so that they really appear as steel-beasts, would add already very very much in my opinion.

Confirmed - for ArmA 3 if it will ever be. :cool:

[mr.g-c 6]

Confirmed - for ArmA 3 if it will ever be. :cool:

Why?

This basic system is already included, i think you just need to "tweak" some values to make it reacting quicker or just double the g-force which is currently set by the engine....

[Scrub 0]

There also has to be a limit, friction or some other counteracting force.. I don't know, but something like that is missing from Arma 1, as seen by the barrels going downhill at mach 2. I'm looking forward to seeing what they've put in store for us this time.

[Sanyix 0]

Hi!

What about the GPU accelerated physics in arma2? Cuz i see, vbs2 using physix so arma2 should be able too (if bis don't want to use directx10/10.1 to make gameplay smoother in fps...). Soon physix will be released on opencl base, so i'll work on ati gpu-s too, not just on nv gpu-s like now.

[Pyronick 21]

Hi!

What about the GPU accelerated physics in arma2? Cuz i see, vbs2 using physix so arma2 should be able too (if bis don't want to use directx10/10.1 to make gameplay smoother in fps...). Soon physix will be released on opencl base, so i'll work on ati gpu-s too, not just on nv gpu-s like now.

BIS decided to go down the DX9 (D3D9) exclusive route.

So don't count on hardware accelerated physics.

[max power 21]

Wasn't the physX vehicle thing in VBS2 just some experiment?

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Wasn't the physX vehicle thing in VBS2 just some experiment?

Forget it. If you think 100 years about implementing a technology it is very likely that you implement something outdated.

IF BIS might develop an ArmA 3, only IF, then there will be the next chance to implement a total different technology to simulate physics.

I have the strong feeling that we will see all the oddities known in ArmA 1 again in ArmA 2.

Meanwhile I can live with it, ArmA 2 suddenly without the previous mentioned effects would feel "wrong":D

Edited May 4, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[maddogx 13]

I have the strong feeling that we will see all the oddities known in ArmA 1 again in ArmA 2.

Not necessarily. It was stated in an interview that the physics and tank simulations were being overhauled. With any luck, flying tanks are a thing of the past. :)

[S!fkaIaC 10]

overhauled

Well, could mean all or nothing. It was 2 times in the change logs for ArmA 1 and it was not significantly improved. OK, BMP-soccer was not possible anymore, but if ArmA2 is an evolution of the ArmA 1 engine....I rather concentrate my hope on ArmA 3 :)

[max power 21]

Forget what? I don't understand. I was saying I think they were toying with PhysX experimentally at BIA. This doesn't imply any time frame at all.

Forget it. If you think 100 years about implementing a technology it is very likely that you implement something outdated.

IF BIS might develop an ArmA 3, only IF, then there will be the next chance to implement a total different technology to simulate physics.

I have the strong feeling that we will see all the oddities known in ArmA 1 again in ArmA 2.

Meanwhile I can live with it, ArmA 2 suddenly without the previous mentioned effects would feel "wrong":D

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Forget that we benefit in ArmA 2 from that toying which I did not expected anyway.

It is not dramatic as such, even in ArmA 2 we can live with those sometimes strange effects for a while. But IF BIS is going for ArmA 3, I do not think that they can serve the same physic simulation again. It is hard to digest now in ArmA 2, almost impossible to sip it down in ArmA 3.