Game physics

[Litos 10]

Eh...even with friction bugs, I bet it would give a good laugh. Although I hope the physix are as good as they can get, and I hope the engine was improved a lot (never played arma but still, common sense), but Im hoping to see some funny moments within the game as well. :D

[NeMeSiS 11]

Eh...even with friction bugs, I bet it would give a good laugh. Although I hope the physix are as good as they can get, and I hope the engine was improved a lot (never played arma but still, common sense), but Im hoping to see some funny moments within the game as well. :D

Lets just hope it will be better then

. :p

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Lets just hope it will be better then this.

OMG, Seen this one a long time ago, could not find it again.

This is an evergreen, should be played all day long on a large screen as an endless loop in BIS premises :D

But hey, nobody can say that AI in a truck is stupid, have you ever seen in any other game that AI is capable of such stunts? :D :D :D

Edited May 7, 2009 by S!fkaIaC

[stanko 10]

In a game this huge, it doesn't have to be next-gen ragdoll. For example, in my opinion first Far Cry has good physics and it's five years old now.

[Pyronick 21]

In a game this huge, it doesn't have to be next-gen ragdoll. For example, in my opinion first Far Cry has good physics and it's five years old now.

Trespasser had ragdoll-like physics. It's 11 years old.

[sidhellfire 0]

Ragdoll is outdated compared to Euphoria (

). If we're looking into future, I would rather look into this kind of solution but then comes a nasty thought:

Our military simulations are not about special effects, great graphics and overall eye-candyness. We do not share same goals as FarCry2 developers. We should aim firstly at functionality and accept visual improvements as just add-on to our experience. I would like to re-remember you, that Poseidon engine uses a lot of CPU power, instead of other games, that almost all they need is strong GPU, and introduction of this level of physics would make game unplayable.

[martin4x4 10]

I would be happy if water effects are realistic as much as possible. I mean all sorts of stuff, but especially when aircraft crashes into it, not just some splash into water. Aircraft crashes into water when plane is falling into it in smaller angles (around 10 to maybe 30 degrees) are spectacular, not some fall into water like a rock. It would be really impressing for players and also good for advertisement clips, I think ;) . And also low-altitude flights above water, when the water is being trowed aside by the force of engine exhausts, but not just some simple effect on the top of water like in any other game. It would be fantastic. And I am not quite sure but I heard somewhere that if some jet flights too low above water, it can suck it into engines and it can cause crash or damage it, didn't it?

Edited May 24, 2009 by martin4x4

[Lou Montana 101]

What I love in these forums is when you have some kind of strange and from-the-other-side-of-the-fence person like Placebo, coming on a thread and telling you "hey, you will be able to swim/there will be less texture lag/other confirmation" ^^

*hint ! hint !*

[heady89 10]

It's not really hard to figure out why rag dolls and/or equalizing physics engines ain't used in any of the Arma games. First of all rag dolls for instance might just look very unnatural, sometimes even animations such as in Arma make a better job in making it look natural. You've also to consider just how much extra load this would cause to the cpus if utilizing a physics engine for each unit and counting that you're playing in a very large and living world a physics system of this sort would mostly likely go insane.

Last but not least in Arma the bodies tend to play a role, you can hide behind them and do things with them such as pickup ammo , move etc which means that if you would've had rag dolls or similar physics you'd have to have them server based / synchronized, since everyone need the bodies to end up at the same spot/position, not like in Cod where physics are client based and one body could be lying at a corner for you while the body for me is laying 2 meter further away or not there at all.

A lot comes down to optimization.. both for performance and gameplay

Edited May 26, 2009 by heady89

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

can anyone tell me about the death animation physics? is it gonna be the same plain physics from arma.. im really keen to see maybe realistic physics for death like one in GTA4

[dmarkwick 261]

It's not really hard to figure out why rag dolls and/or equalizing physics engines ain't used in any of the Arma games. First of all rag dolls for instance might just look very unnatural, sometimes even animations such as in Arma make a better job in making it look natural. You've also to consider just how much extra load this would cause to the cpus if utilizing a physics engine for each unit and counting that you're playing in a very large and living world a physics system of this sort would mostly likely go insane.

Last but not least in Arma the bodies tend to play a role, you can hide behind them and do things with them such as pickup ammo , move etc which means that if you would've had rag dolls or similar physics you'd have to have them server based / synchronized, since everyone need the bodies to end up at the same spot/position, not like in Cod where physics are client based and one body could be lying at a corner for you while the body for me is laying 2 meter further away or not there at all.

A lot comes down to optimization.. both for performance and gameplay

I've played games that employ ragdoll in MP and the overriding impression I remember is that everyone saw different things. That's not so bad for actual animation, but when you deal with actual body rest locations it's a little more serious.

I think ragdoll would be fine, but the engine MUST synchronise the torso position at the very least. Arms & legs positions (as in still attached but pointing in different ways ;)) I'm happy to be machine specific.

This will most probably manifest itself as minor "warping" as the engine updates positional info. If you do that, then you must do it for all other physics-affected items too, which could seriously bog down the net traffic.

[rcenters 10]

I browsed this physics thread a little bit and I have a few questions that may not have been touched heavily on. Unfortunately I never played ArmA or OFP so I don't have that frame of reference, and have to use Battlefield 2.

1. Collision engine, and specifically, vehicles hitting infantry - in BF2 if you are barely brushed by a relatively slow moving vehicle, you're dead(the only way it just "wounds" you is if the driver is literally just tapping the gas). Doesn't seem realistic. Now, BF2 is played on small maps packing everyone into a small combat zone, so these annoyingly fatal low speed collisions happen a lot more than I suppose they would in a game with a lot more fighting space. There's also another annoying thing, if a vehicle's edge is touching a wall, for example, and you try to jump over it and fail, it can kill you(running into the extremely small space between the vehicle and wall is somehow fatal).

2. Shrapnel/blast fragmentation range, and relative power. Most games I

ve played, blast effects are way too small against infantry, and way too powerful against vehicles. Grenades, for example, need to be placed way too accurately to harm infantry, and people standing outside of a way too small radius from an explosion of any kind aren't harmed. Conversely you can throw grenades at a tank and wound it, which I wouldn't think is realistic either(I don't actually know, but I would guess the only way you could harm a tank in real physics with a normal grenade is by placing it in a tight location where the blast effects would be amplified- you wouldn't think a grenade 5 feet away from a steel armor tank in open space would hurt it much- let alone knock its health down 5%). For that matter, wouldn't even a humvee be able to tolerate a grenade 5 feet away and not lose 40% health(but perhaps the people inside losing more)?

3. Vehicle health: In real physics you could swiss cheese a vehicle's windows, passenger compartent, etc with rounds and if you don't hit anything vital it won't explode . On the other hand, people inside can be hit by penetrating rounds. BF2 handles this by having people inside protected from harm in most cases, only one sniper rifle can penetrate and that's only thru windshields.

4. Tank rounds hitting helicopters. You'd think this would vaporize a helicopter....

Now, I know that other games may have made gameplay equality decisions with respect to the above things. How has the ArmA series dealt with it and more importantly ArmA2 since that's what is coming out :)

[papoose244 10]

Will they ever add the ability to break glass one of the only probs i see with the game.

[ck-claw 1]

Will they ever add the ability to break glass one of the only probs i see with the game.

Was possible in Arma-ish , Deanosbeano was working on such a project.

[froggyluv 2136]

Will they ever add the ability to break glass one of the only probs i see with the game.

You can actually shoot out some glass windows in this game.

[Supasnake 10]

ok rcenters to answer some of your questions I'll cover what I've seen so far in the German game that runs patch 1.02. All Vehicles are suceptable to bullet damage. But of course shooting an Abrams with an M16 won't defeat it. This is were you have to be tactical. Most effective defense against most vehicles primarily LAVs and BRDMs is to shoot the tires. You can blow the tires out of any vehicle in the game. The HMVV's are realistic too. Pretty much a burst into a HMVV will take out the passengers. Same goes with helicopters and their pilots and gunners. Also ArmA is vastly different from BF2 or most other games when it comes to vehicle damage. Vehicles may survive a firefight, but ddepending on the damage, it changes their operability. This is where Salvage Trucks come in handy on Warfare games. Just finish killing off your damaged HMVV and collect the salvage and earn money doing it.

As far as collision detection goes its pretty good. My main gripe is sometimes AI doesn't do enough to dodge oncoming vehicles. Basically the smaller the vehicle the more umph it takes to kill someone. ArmA has improved the look of destroyed and damaged vehicles as well, so no more green and rust.

Lastly about your blast radius ArmA is far superior to BF2. The average hand grenade doesnt have to be spot on to kill a man. But if the man is prone he stands a chance of not being hit by shrapnel. However with grenade launchers or rpgs, you can take out a group in a small radius no problem.

And my only comment on vehicle physics is I haven't seen any rocket blast tthat blew a car in the air (which would be realistic), but I have been crusing on my dirt bike down a hill, hit a bump, went soaring in the air and then crash land and die.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Supasnake

[S!fkaIaC 10]

I haven't seen any rocket blast tthat blew a car in the air (which would be realistic),

I have news for you: Cinema is not reality!

but I have been crusing on my dirt bike down a hill, hit a bump, went soaring in the air and then crash land and die.

Many biker getting killed this way every year.

As far as collision detection goes its pretty good.

It is as bad as in ArmA 1, which means horrible.

[rcenters 10]

ok rcenters to answer some of your questions I'll cover what I've seen so far in the German game that runs patch 1.02. All Vehicles are suceptable to bullet damage. But of course shooting an Abrams with an M16 won't defeat it. This is were you have to be tactical. Most effective defense against most vehicles primarily LAVs and BRDMs is to shoot the tires. You can blow the tires out of any vehicle in the game. The HMVV's are realistic too. Pretty much a burst into a HMVV will take out the passengers. Same goes with helicopters and their pilots and gunners. Also ArmA is vastly different from BF2 or most other games when it comes to vehicle damage. Vehicles may survive a firefight, but ddepending on the damage, it changes their operability. This is where Salvage Trucks come in handy on Warfare games. Just finish killing off your damaged HMVV and collect the salvage and earn money doing it.

As far as collision detection goes its pretty good. My main gripe is sometimes AI doesn't do enough to dodge oncoming vehicles. Basically the smaller the vehicle the more umph it takes to kill someone. ArmA has improved the look of destroyed and damaged vehicles as well, so no more green and rust.

Lastly about your blast radius ArmA is far superior to BF2. The average hand grenade doesnt have to be spot on to kill a man. But if the man is prone he stands a chance of not being hit by shrapnel. However with grenade launchers or rpgs, you can take out a group in a small radius no problem.

And my only comment on vehicle physics is I haven't seen any rocket blast tthat blew a car in the air (which would be realistic), but I have been crusing on my dirt bike down a hill, hit a bump, went soaring in the air and then crash land and die.

Awesome! One thing....do grenades have unrealistic power against tracked armored vehicles?

[7 0]

I have news for you: Cinema is not reality!

Many biker getting killed this way every year.

It is as bad as in ArmA 1, which means horrible.

No, it's not. This time your vehicle won't float inside objects you collide with.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Yesterday, warfare-crCTI, me building HEAVY-factory while inside the MHQ-BMP; HEVAYFAC was deployed but the nose of the BMP stucked inside the HEAVYFAC. No problem as such, but the way the gameengine solved it was weird: both items must have ZERO speed, but me and my BMP were kicked to the moon. :confused:

[diveplane 0]

tanks take off to quick , no heavyness to them imo.

also tanks should be able to plow through buildings .

[PRiME 1]

Is there friction in this game? just playing with movable carrier and you slide off deck, would have thought they have some incontact detection system so you could have people simply just stand on objects and they move with them (within some friction limit that is, i.e SLIP SPEED = constant x speedobjecton)

[Axel88 10]

In OFP, there is a big problem with friction: I mean the vehicles, chopper, cars, planes, tanks, etc... will slide down the hills too easily, like they where covered with soap (even if the hill is not very steep. Too often, you've to run after you chopper when you disembark, because it is sliding down the hill.

I hope this will be corrected in OFP2.

Hi guys I am new here. Love the game and I am here to try to help it continue to be the greatest.

I have to say that I disagree entirely with Horrido... I was VERY happy to see in ARMA the more realistic vehicle movement. I have worked with heavy machinery and seen how the massive weight can indeed make them slide through dirt as thought it is butter. I was also happy as the delicacy required when handling helicopters and want to see better collision detection on the rotors especially powerlines.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

If anything I always though many of the climbs we did in M113s in Arma1 felt waaay too easy sometimes. No way a vehicle would be able to climb such slopes in real life. In the army we experienced getting stuck with a Bv-202 in the snowtracks of a Leopard MBT. In the end the Bv-202 eventually flipped on the side and cracked the housing.

At the same training event, one Leopard lost traction and was last by our squad seen in the bottom of a deep valley.

And... "Too often, you've to run after you chopper when you disembark, because it is sliding down the hill."

Who lands in a slope so steep that it's sliding? Sliding would mean extremely slopy and well outside the bounds of a real chopper slope landing envelope.

[Coretek 10]

The very most irritating thing about Arma 2 is, that you cant overroll Trees with your Tank. You could even do that in C&C Generals and it gave the game an OUTSTANDING flair.

i cant think of anything else to be as urgent to fix (in terms of physic) as this for the game flair and fun!

€: checked again, my fault, maybe bug?

Edited June 22, 2009 by Coretek