Game physics

[Balschoiw 0]

As far as I know

Quote[/b] ]Havok

is just a basic engine that can be extended. BIS has it´s own physics engine and employed an extra physics programmer for OFP2. I think there will be a lot of changes and new things for the physics secor like dammage model and all that funny things.

I´d like to see at least 30 damage zones per vehicle (depending on type of vehicle and weaponry) that are able to detect angle of impact and strength. This way a base for damage-dependant deformations would be laid even if they don´t implement them in OFP 2 right away.

Would make it very more real.

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey 1]

I'v played paintball, and I can run with my gun almost on target not like in ofp where you can shoot a guy running along side you when your runing becuase the guns is swinging all over the place. there is a difference between moving fast and sprinting. Look at AA 3 differnt movement modes slow normal and fast.

I know what you mean, I play airsoft and can keep my M4 alot better on target than OFP does. Because I keep the gun up in my shoulder, not under my arm.

[Korpisoturi 0]

Is there gonna be a geomod system. The building explosion thing is bit stupid in OFP.

[Dem 0]

What I would like to see in OFP 2 is more dynamic objects.

For example moving leaves in trees, soldiers uniforms deformed by wind, possibility to move in vehicles or at least more movements for pilots, drivers, crews ( but you don't see them in tanks so... perhaps...) and what else... more moves avaible for soldiers that one could obtain by clicking a combination of keys ( as in MotoCross where you had to push w, x, r or so to get a specific move with your motorcycle ) so I could hit with my M16 one in the head and make him sleep for a while , finaly to have more combat moves to variate the killing experience .

On the other hand it would be nice to take care of some small details that you may say insignificant but that would totally imerge the player in the virtual world .

For example I would like to see my character push a button or drag a rope and see his cockpit break, and the pilot's chute would open in a more realistic way ( btw it would be nice to shoot soldiers when they are still in their chutes even it's not alouded in some convention, but Hitler's troops didn't mind about it ) ;

Other examples is the way players use cockpits to pilot a chopper : it would be nice to have the radar functioning ( of course in a disabling option for players who use low textures ) and see the pilot push some buttons on that attracting pad, same thing for tanks and all vehicles... I really feel bad when I see that radio in the U.S. jeep and can't even do something with it... through it... step on it... , or when I see the bombs on the Blackhawk ( if I'm not mistaking ) I would like to use them dammit! , and the list goes on : why did they put the support one the M60's canon if it isn't used ( if I'm not mistaking ) and threfore to reduce recoil .

To resume my ideas I would like to say that I'd like more interactivity with objects and with my own character, that would be so fun ( I can't reisist giving more examples : imagine hanging myself on a heli's door and firing with one of my hand at enemies, launching them grenades, sticking my knife in their ass, then cut it in 2 halfs with the ninja's sword, and the BMP, why it is written in the little manual I found with the game that the BMP's had some sort of holes for the the transported troops to fire through them : ' it has a system that alouds soldiers to add their fire power to those of the vehicle ' ? it's not true and it would be nice to have )

I'm sorry if someone else said the same things I can't read all the posts but I think i exposed better my ideas, no ?

[Friedchiken 0]

Well, some of your physics ideas may take a little too much time to implement for their limited use but hey, we're talking about the guys who simulated the moon and the stars even at the poles.

What I think would be interesting though is that players should have to climb (not jump) into a blackhawk, walk through the body, and then use the controls there. Though maybe this would require changing the imprecise nature of the animations. And maybe people who are stupid enough to walk around inside moving vehicles could suddenly go into rag doll mode and fall out the back of the truck

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

( btw it would be nice to shoot soldiers when they are still in their chutes even it's not alouded in some convention, but Hitler's troops didn't mind about it ) ;

Disregarding everything that has been said more concisely and more clearly before,

It is NOT against the 'rules' to shoot parachuting soldiers. It IS to shoot parachuting airmen.

[kegetys 2]

Why not use "Havok" physics?

I mean, it's a cheap enough module to purachase and incorperate into a piece of software, and the physics are totally customizeable, and include believable collision detection and the lot.

Why put money into such when you could use a free one instead, like games such as Stalker and Xpand rally do? ;)

(Though the collision detection in ODE isn't quite complete yet, but OFP already has collision detection)

[jantenner 0]

just give the objects some weight.. mustnt be ragdoll details but it would be nice

[Axek/Axyl 2]

Why put money into such when you could use a free one instead...

No Thanks. One particular game hasn't done that very well.

[BravoBill 0]

That's because Soldner's devs had no real intention of making things realistic. Everything is based on a very simple model. OFP has pretty good phyics as is compared to Soldner. This free one is actually very good if you use it right.

[Friedchiken 0]

Well, in some cases it's better to have faked physics IMO. I think the faked ones when done right take up less CPU power and look pretty good and special effects may be easier to implement.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]I know what you mean, I play airsoft and can keep my M4 alot better on target than OFP does. Because I keep the gun up in my shoulder, not under my arm.

All I know is one of the greatest features about OFP is the fact that it deters the moron counterstrikers from attempting to "deathmatch". Whilst playing.

No circlestrafing. No running and hitting guys at 200m.

This really shouldn't be such a big problem. It's called thinking before you start moving all over the place.

[Hockey112 0]

Something similar to this( http://soldner.jowood.com/screenshot.php?lang=&ss=50 ) would be awesome.. Imagine using an Atomic bomb on the island and everything would be blown to pieces.

[Friedchiken 0]

Too bad Soldner 100% screwed up in that department. They wasted their time doing those stupid taunting animations.

I'd like to put in a reminder for the devs to budget resources like an SAT test: Implement all the things that are easy, then do the ground-breaking, difficult jobs at the end. And maybe if you run out of time, less people will complain about funny things like flying jeeps than computer destroying CTDs.

[bedlam 0]

and plz ... make it possible to assign a destroyed modell to a cfgvehicle.. so that its possible to get rid of those ugly warped modells making it all more realistic.

[Jinef 2]

Instead of having 'damage' points, maybe have a basic mass * velocity = momentum formula. Momentum then is responsible for damage inflicted.

Atm it's hard to find realistic balances, WGL has 'realistic' ballistics but a 5.56 bullet has about the same damage as being hit in the nose with a football. Also the hit points define craters and bullet hole sizes, this should not be so. You can have a small crater from an exposion but a large death radius due to shrapnel.

So basically a more realistic way of dealing with projectiles, while also trying to make it efficient for the CPU ... difficult job.

[sp00n 0]

One thing thats always bugged me, is I could be going 90+ MPH in a topheavy truck of somesort, then just turn real sharp and go completly sideways for about 10 feet then stop. If I did that in real life, Id barrel roll for quite a while. How about the ability to flip your vehical?

[gandalf the white 0]

best thing i'd like to see in Flashpoint 2 is the ability to use real ropes, rapple ropes dangle from under a chopper, humvees swinging from side to side (wich has effect on the chopper) etc, it's possible ; i've seen it in Farcry (though that was a raft with a car on attatched to a boat)

i have this feeling ragdoll is already mentioned, so let me add to that:

most ragdoll games from this moment have started some weird homoerotic threads with pictures....

dudes

sniper

so PLEASE make the spine flexible too! or in any other way try to prevent this!

[Jinef 2]

Maybe get a bit more info on helicopter crashes. There should definitely be survivability to a helicopter crash landed well, not instant death in a fireball.

[xawery 0]

Instead of having 'damage' points, maybe have a basic mass * velocity = momentum formula. Momentum then is responsible for damage inflicted.

Atm it's hard to find realistic balances, WGL has 'realistic' ballistics but a 5.56 bullet has about the same damage as being hit in the nose with a football.

that's exactly the point: momentum isn't the single contributor to the damage caused. Sure, more kinetic energy means a higher probability of knocking you off your feet (something that should MOST CERTAINLY be included in OFP 2, although WGL already simulates that quite nicely), but there is also the matter of bullet fragmentation after it enters the body. I have already written massive posts about this matter on other forums, but I'll restate the conclusions here: disregarding direct hits to vital organs (because then it really doesn't matter what caliber you're using), the 5.56 M885 is more lethal than a 7.62 round. Due to its high momentum the 7.62 flies through the body leaving relatively small permanent cavities behind it, while the 5.56 tumbles and fragments, causing extensive permanent 'tunnels' in the temporary cavity, resulting in massive blood-loss.

In other words: momentum is not the only factor.

The problem is, how are you going to model that without forcing the CPU to perform staggering amounts of calculations for a single shot. Perhaps some sort of LOD could be applied to the damage models? Allow me to explain. The more units are present in a battle, the less detailed the damage calculation model becomes. After all, in anything larger than a skirmish the individual lethality of a weapon is of little concern, battles are won by maneuver...

Just musing...

regards,

Xawery

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Please tell me you aren't seriously claiming that 5.56 knocks people off their feet....

[bedlam 0]

ehh i think u got it all messed up there...

5.56 has a higher velocity then 7.62

yes it can tumble around.. and the 7.62 cant... ehh why not..

7.62 makes much more damage then 5.56 if u compare a simular trajectory through a body.

no need for 50 cals anymore.. just use 5.56.. :P lol

[funnyguy1 0]

Physics for crashing aircrafts:

If an aircraft is going down very fast, when it`s finally hit the ground it`s not jumping (even when aircraft was burning after ground collision, it was`nt stay on the ground).

It`ll be hard to do physics system that`s holding every object on the ground after a crash.

For example:

Helo is going down from some heigh, its reaching the ground, crashing (maby some animations, like somebody said early),

and stay right in the same place where it was crashed.

so: going down -> BANG! -> NO JUMPING

When the bomb is detonating from above, BMP can not just jump away, it also must smash up into pieces, staying where it was standing... this things are too heavy.

sorry for my english again ;)

[xawery 0]

Please tell me you aren't seriously claiming that 5.56 knocks people off their feet....

I'm not. Please re-read my post and you will see that what it actually says is that things with more momentum knock you off your feet more easily. 7.62 = more mass = more momentum. The 5.56's higher velocity does indeed mean that the pressure at the bullettip is much higher than is the case with the 7.62, but that only means that the 5.56 is more proficient at penetrating armour. Pressure over the area is what determines the likelihood of getting knocked off your feet. The 7.62 being not only longer, but also broader is thus more likely to knock you off your feet. you were quite right to correct me though, I seem to have used momentum and area pressure interchangeably in my original post. Sorry for the confusion.

Please note I'm comparing the Soviet 7.62 round and the NATO 5.56 M885 round.

Quote[/b] ]5.56 has a higher velocity then 7.62

yes it can tumble around.. and the 7.62 cant... ehh why not..

The 7.62 does tumble, but because of its length, it only begins any significant yaw after passing through ca. 25 cm of tissue. The 5.56 M885 starts to tumble after only 12 cm (note that this is the average distance; there appears to be quite a standard deviation from the mean, resulting in a 70% confidence interval between 9 and 16 cm).

Quote[/b] ]7.62 makes much more damage then 5.56 if u compare a simular trajectory through a body.

This is simply untrue. I'm wondering where you get your facts from. First, allow me to quote Dr. Martin Fackler, from his article on patterns of military rifle rounds, International Defense Review, 59-64, 1/1989: "Bullet mass and bullet striking velocity establish a bullet's potential; they set the limit on the tissue disruption it can produce. Bullet shape and construction determine how much of this potential is actually used to disrupt tissue; they are the major determinants of bullet effect."

Second, To illustrate my point further, let's take a look at some wound patterns.

This is the wound as caused by an AK-47 round.

This is the wound caused by a 5.56 M885 round.

Notice how the M885 has caused massive damage long before the 7.62 round has even begun to tumble.

It would really help if people started to base their assumptions on scientific and statistically proven evidence, instead of "Black Hawk Down".

Now, you might wonder, why do some U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan choose to use captured AK's instead of their M16s or M4s, if the rounds used be those rifles are so much more deadly? Because the 7.62 simply has more stopping power. Please note that the above figures and facts assume that a sufficiently fleshy area is struck, i.e., a thigh, or a lung, or even the stomach: doctor's reports from Vietnam state that the typical path through the abdomen caused minimal disruption; holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet. In those cases a 5.56 is far more deadly.

The point, however, remains that you want stopping power. If you hit someone in a sufficiently thin area (say the arm) the bullet will have no chance to fragment and will simply pass through the tissue leaving a neat, clean corridor. If you're using the 7.62, the sheer area pressure will knock the target off his feet. Same applies for obstacles: while the 5.56 has a better armour penetration, things like thick walls will usually stop it due to the bullet fragmenting. The 7.62 will get slowed down due to its bulkier silhouette, but it will pass through.

I hope I've explained my stance on the matter. If you'd like to read some more things about wound ballistics, I suggest looking up some articles in the Journal of Trauma (should be available in most medical libraries).

regards,

Xawery

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I think a few people meant 7.62 NATO rather than 7.62 russian.

Anyway, my only objection was where it seemed that you were claiming a bullet would knock someone down, which is total movie myth. People fall down from the shock of being shot, not from the energy transferred to them from the round, unless its a much larger round than 5.56.

Edit:

and US soldiers are using captured AKs because they can get ammunition for them a LOT more easily than they can get ammunition for their own weapons.