Game physics

[gossamersolid 155]

I can't recall any other popular modern game that doesn't have a physics engine. IF you want this game taken seriously, physics are a must.

@Gossamer: OFP1 came out in 2-freaking-001. A little bit doesn't count.

Call of Duty 4 and Call of Duty 5's "Physics Engines" are pretty laughable.

If you think a game won't be taken seriously without physics, then I think you need to remember the fact why we play games... FOR GAMEPLAY, not bells and whistles.

[Rayers12 19]

The difference between COD and ArmA is that CoD doesn't really have many events that would require physics, really. However, case in point BOUNCING TANK.

[Flash Thunder 10]

Call of Duty are you kidding me?!

Thats the most basic of basic physics, when you die thats all rag doll which is why its so glitchy most the time.

Im pretty positive that Arma 3 if made will have very good physics because by then we should have very efficient Physics hardware/better Cpu's.

Most of the problems currently for me are collision detection related.

[Dwarden 1125]

i probably repeat myself

no need to rely just on Havok or PhysX (which both are proprietary formats (fees))

better to utilize P.A.L. (Physics Abstraction Layer)

then use as base physical engine e.g. Bullet Physics Library

DMM2 (Digital Molecule Matter) is freely available for Bullet now http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/?p=175

this way You get easy access to cost effective (no license fees) OpenCL accelerated physics

You can also then interact Bullet via OpenCL (again open standard)

NaturalMotion Euphoria/Morphme are nice yet quite expensive

so any proper real-time (semi/full)procedural animation blending would be enough ...

there are similar middle-wares around with better price tag ...

for example Locomotion used for proper walking (and movement in general)

Edited June 7, 2010 by Dwarden

[gossamersolid 155]

i probably repeat myself

no need to rely just on Havok or PhysX (which both are proprietary formats (fees))

better to utilize P.A.L. (Physics Abstraction Layer)

then use as base physical engine e.g. Bullet Physics Library

DMM2 (Digital Molecule Matter) is freely available for Bullet now http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/?p=175

this way You get easy access to cost effective (no license fees) OpenCL accelerated physics

You can also then interact Bullet via OpenCL (again open standard)

NaturalMotion Euphoria/Morphme are nice yet quite expensive

so any proper real-time (semi/full)procedural animation blending would be enough ...

there are similar middle-wares around with better price tag ...

for example Locomotion used for proper walking (and movement in general)

you repeat yourself too much :D

[dm 9]

I can't recall any other popular modern game that doesn't have a physics engine.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that A2 does not have a physics engine?

IF you want this game taken seriously, physics are a must.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to stop being retarded :j:

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Are you seriously trying to suggest that A2 does not have a physics engine?

Yea... saying that is just completely wrong. ArmA 2 has pretty decent physics, they aren't completely unrealistic either like many games (where it's like there's moon gravity... ugh). Yea, they aren't incredably detailed, but it's really not worth the costs (both to BIS and to the game's performance) to make them so.

Certain improvements would certainly be welcome, but please stop trying to justify full-blown over-the-top physics simulation in ArmA 2 with the fact that other games have it...

[jeza 5416]

we play games... FOR GAMEPLAY, not bells and whistles.

Thats what stands out with arma so anything to help the gameplay rather than hinder it :).

[dmarkwick 261]

i probably repeat myself

no need to rely just on Havok or PhysX (which both are proprietary formats (fees))

better to utilize P.A.L. (Physics Abstraction Layer)

then use as base physical engine e.g. Bullet Physics Library

DMM2 (Digital Molecule Matter) is freely available for Bullet now http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/?p=175

this way You get easy access to cost effective (no license fees) OpenCL accelerated physics

You can also then interact Bullet via OpenCL (again open standard)

NaturalMotion Euphoria/Morphme are nice yet quite expensive

so any proper real-time (semi/full)procedural animation blending would be enough ...

there are similar middle-wares around with better price tag ...

for example Locomotion used for proper walking (and movement in general)

I hadn't realised that PhysX was a fee-pay solution, I had thought it was "free" (as free as it can be when you need to purchase an nVidia card anyway :)).

I expect, aside from costs and licensing, that network suitability will play as large a role as anything else. As bodies in ArmAx need to be synchronised across MP games, that would surely impact on the suitability of ragdoll or any other kind of physics enhancement. I've often said that torsos should be synced across networks, but allow each machine to ragdoll the limbs only, giving some amount of visual dissonance across bodies. One thing about rigid animation systems is that once you learn the poses for dead people, you can quite easily tell if a body is dead by seeing its pose even at distance. (although I do like SLX solution of this, which is to force an unconscious body into a dead pose then possibly "resurrect" it later on. It forces you to put a few extra rounds into a body, just in case ;))

[froggyluv 2135]

i probably repeat myself

Could you repeat this more to the Dev's -possibly after a night of hard drinking?

:D

NaturalMotion Euphoria/Morphme are nice yet quite expensive

Don't you think that the PC gaming world's response to seeing these effects mixed with the already ginormous scale and high quality models of the Arma series would cover the costs in the end tenfold? A few Richiespeedback videos with Euphoria (or the like) implemented would create quite the Rawr methinks.

[Pyronick 21]

I hadn't realised that PhysX was a fee-pay solution, I had thought it was "free" (as free as it can be when you need to purchase an nVidia card anyway :)).

I know PhysX is free. But AFAIK the SDK to integrate it isn't.

You also run the risk that older nVidia cards will be disabled, like what happend to the Ageia PPU.

Also, PhysX takes exactly 50% of the GPU. Leaving only 50% for rendering.

Usually this is no problem, but with newer games like Batman Arkham Asylum you'll definately notice a decrease in performance.

OpenCL does not reserve stream processors, it uses native threading.

I expect, aside from costs and licensing, that network suitability will play as large a role as anything else. As bodies in ArmAx need to be synchronised across MP games, that would surely impact on the suitability of ragdoll or any other kind of physics enhancement. I've often said that torsos should be synced across networks, but allow each machine to ragdoll the limbs only, giving some amount of visual dissonance across bodies. One thing about rigid animation systems is that once you learn the poses for dead people, you can quite easily tell if a body is dead by seeing its pose even at distance. (although I do like SLX solution of this, which is to force an unconscious body into a dead pose then possibly "resurrect" it later on. It forces you to put a few extra rounds into a body, just in case ;))

Synchronizing ragdoll poses and location has been done in MMORPG's for years.

Of course, having to synchronize every single physics object is different cake.

[stick_hogue 10]

If you think a game won't be taken seriously without physics, then I think you need to remember the fact why we play games... FOR GAMEPLAY, not bells and whistles.

Here's an example of Arma2 gameplay that suffers due to poor physics. I have a map on which designated Engineer units can build several kinds of objects, including camo blinds. We routinely put blinds over our vehicles in enemy territory to help prevent the enemy patrol chopper from finding and destroying them.

Under some circumstances the poles of a camo blind can touch a helicopter "in the wrong way", setting the helicopter into a jitter frenzy, trapped under the camo blind, until finally it explodes! It's hardly a "bells and whistles" situation to expect a helicopter to NOT jitter and explode because a small aluminum pole touched it. It should've knocked its own camo blind down before damaging itself at all, and it should not have jittered at all anyway as a result of a small pole hitting it.

Having engineers build blinds is a perfectly legitimate example of Arma2 game play, the kind that distinguishes it from simpler games. And this is an example of how the vehicle physics ruins this superior game play.

It's taken me a while to warm up to the way Arma and now Arma2 handle helicopter flight, and now I'm a fan, so I would not want the flight simulation to be ruined by changes to on-ground physics. That is, if going to a realistic representation of gravity and weight ruins the flight simulation, don't do it, but if you can apply weight to ground vehicles and aircraft that are on the ground, please do.

Thanks.

[David Schofield 10]

You know, this game was supposed to be a Military Sim, physics aren't much of a necessity, just a few tweaks here and there and that's all you really need. Sure, jumping a hummer off a cliff isn't exactly fun in this game, but, what soldier in real life would be stupid enough to waste a $130,000 dollar piece of machenery like that? The crashing planes and copters are good though, and the building destruction is just fine.. If you want to take everything apart then go out and Buy Red Faction guerilla or Red Faction 4, if you want a realistic survival of the fittest type game then stick with Arma2. Not sugar coated, but neither is life.

Edit:

This game pretty much expects you to act professionally, not like John J Rambo, nor Mattias Nilsson for that matter... though that would be fun... They have the base necessities for a strategic military sim covered plus a little more. If they threw in anything else you would probably need 2 discs to install, no biggie really and as a matter of fact i'd preffer it, but what was on this is just fine to me.

Edited June 13, 2010 by David Schofield

[DaveP 66]

It would be nice if soldiers reacted a bit more to inclines using a euphoria style system for steeper inclines (so you slid down them) but this is one of many 'wants' that are slightly unfeasible without a really big update to the effect of an expansion/sequel

[deathil93 10]

I'd firstly try and understand how game engines works, before suggesting stuff i am not aware of...

I know what is Euphoria's main job, but it is also used to simulate realistic physics (tho I gotta say, PhysX appears to do a better job on the enviornment physics).

You know, this game was supposed to be a Military Sim, physics aren't much of a necessity, just a few tweaks here and there and that's all you really need. Sure, jumping a hummer off a cliff isn't exactly fun in this game, but, what soldier in real life would be stupid enough to waste a $130,000 dollar piece of machenery like that? The crashing planes and copters are good though, and the building destruction is just fine.. If you want to take everything apart then go out and Buy Red Faction guerilla or Red Faction 4, if you want a realistic survival of the fittest type game then stick with Arma2. Not sugar coated, but neither is life.

Edit:

This game pretty much expects you to act professionally, not like John J Rambo, nor Mattias Nilsson for that matter... though that would be fun... They have the base necessities for a strategic military sim covered plus a little more. If they threw in anything else you would probably need 2 discs to install, no biggie really and as a matter of fact i'd preffer it, but what was on this is just fine to me.

The sole purpose of a MilSim is to represent combat realisticly, thats why ArmA needs an advanced physics engine. The engine itself is fine (tho I do want to say that there are some problems with the whole particle generation part), hack, its amazing, but the physics engine will only do good.

GTA IVs animation and physics library weighs around 1-2GB, so a game the size of 12GB won't do anything, as there are games that weigh the same already and even more (like GTA IV, which takes 16GB and comes in 2 DVD9 discs).

[Pyronick 21]

I know what is Euphoria's main job, but it is also used to simulate realistic physics (tho I gotta say, PhysX appears to do a better job on the enviornment physics).

Euphoria doesn't do physics. It actually needs an existing physics engine to work.

For instance in the Star Wars: The Force Unleashed series it uses the Havok engine combined with Pixelux's DMM procedural destruction technology.

And in GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption it uses the Bullet physics.

[Bryce23 10]

haha..arma physics. Today i was trying to make an ATV racing mission around takistan. I made all the waypoints and going up hills, through small puddles, around obstacles, etc. It was freakin awesome. Then when i was finally done i tested it...FAIL The course worked perfectly. But the physics dont allow you to drive a light vehicle like an ATV over anything but asphalt unless your going very slowly. I was driving on flat rocky ground (should be fine for any ATV), i didnt hit a ramp or anything. Just a small pebble made my ATV fly 50 feet, do a triple front flip and it landed on its side so it was no longer usable. I was so pissed cause i realized that my dreams of making an ATV racing mission in this awesome terrain are forever ruined due to the horrid physics of the game.

Even when i made the ATV's invincible they still flipped or the player died when it was a non fatal crash. In fact, the physics for the ATV's are so bad i was laughing hysterically at how many flips i was able to do without ever finding a ramp. Or how a small bush no higher than a foot tall stopped my ATV from 80kph to 10kph instantly. I guess i have to give up my dream of making an awesome ATV racing mission. I was gonna make a version where you had to dodge mines and everything. :(

[nuggetz 0]

Please fix the stupid rocks. I hate that I can't squat or go prone on a rock and take out an enemy without me clipping thru them.

An another note, you'd think that a game who flaunts its abiltiy to model bullet ballistics would have proper gravity and physics simulation.

[ediko911 10]

Don't get me started on those rocks. In that OA campaign mission which was supposed to be a hostage rescue, those rocks forced me to restart the mission twice (and I had to restart it even more often cause of lack of time). I was walking downhill getting in position when one of my squad-mates asks where I am. I was surprised since I walked slowly so I issued an move order. He didn't come and I went to see what's wrong there. To my surprise he has stepped on a rock and was constantly jumping up and down. He couldn't get off he was just falling on the ground and then bouncing up again. So I thought I will help him and went behind him to try and push a little. After that I was trapped myself in this never ending loop. This happened twice... Oh and I remember how my abrams hit a little rock and flew 10 meters high, oh and how a suv touched the rock and flew high in the air and flipped. This nonsense is happening all the time. Come on BIS add at least some physics to the game. It gets ridiculous to try and play a serious mission only to get high in the air with a 100 ton tank just because you touched a little rock.

[therev709 10]

I was gonna create my own physics gripe thread . . . but wasn't surprised to see this thread right on top :)

Two big problems for me:

When I was still working for Uncle Sam in his good ol' Army, I don't remember frag grenades bouncing like a tennis ball. First time I through a frag in OA (don't remember it being so bad in arma2) the darn thing bounched half way back at me!

Second . . . when a Bradley IFV was driving over a rock, it bounced up and flipped over. Really? . . . Reeeaaally? How does a simple rock flip over a 27 ton armored fighting vehicle? I mean I know the terrain in Afgha - I mean Takistan isn't ideal for armor, but common BIS!

Otherwise, love what you're doing BIS, keep it up, just pay attention to some really obvious detail ;)

[jblackrupert 14]

I haven't read all 80+ posts but ATV, Mountain bikes and motorcycles need to be dealt with.

ATV's are a death trap, you're lucky enough to make it 100 feet from the starting position before those things go bonkers at any speed.

Mountain bikes/Motorcycles: Virtually unstreerable unless you're going 50km/h

Cars, Hummers and armor seem to be fixed mostly but the above are still

a crap shoot.

[wolfbite 8]

To be fair bombing across mountainous terrain at 80mph+ is suicidal in real life... Unless you're an amazing driver...

[jblackrupert 14]

To be fair bombing across mountainous terrain at 80mph+ is suicidal in real life... Unless you're an amazing driver...

Thats the problem. you need to be going ludicrous speed to be able to properly steer the Mountain bike and motorcyle.

Brakes are virtually non-existant on both stopping forward motion and rolling backwards on hills.

I actually have the bike in Arma 2 (Montague Paratrooper). I'd be long dead if it behaved even 1% of how it does in the game.

The ATV goes into conniptions at any speed regardless of the terrain.

Even when you reach your destination and stop completly the ATV can just

suddenly flip and batter your character into a pulp.

Edited January 21, 2011 by jblackrupert