Game physics

[ziiip 1]

Again I don't know where to place that idea. I think that it's not fresh - but very important: soldiers in cargo should be able to use their weapons. No longer defenseless opened trucks!

You'll be able to walk freely in vehicles in Game2, so you should be able to fire from them.

What I'd like to see is not only destructable buildings, but also destructable vehicles.

[Adamicz 3]

What I'd like to see is not only destructable buildings, but also destructable vehicles.  

But fully destructible vehicles, that's already know feature

[ziiip 1]

What I'd like to see is not only destructable buildings, but also destructable vehicles.

But fully destructible vehicles, that's already know feature

Holy shi!!! Imagine that something rips off the roof of a Stryker on a night CTI, and you can see the sky and stars while driving in 1st person! Lovely!

[Adamicz 3]

What I'd like to see is not only destructable buildings, but also destructable vehicles.  

But fully destructible vehicles, that's already know feature  

Holy shi!!! Imagine that something rips off the roof of a Stryker on a night CTI, and you can see the sky and stars while driving in 1st person! Lovely!  

Well if somebody do that, I don't think the player could be still alive yet to see that stars and the sky

[AWDrift 0]

Cloth physics. I know it's a visual thing and the gamplay should be handled first, but it would still be nice to see.

It would add to the atmosphere when you are fighting in the middle of a storm or in really windy weather.

I think realistic snow would be nice too, maybe even have a soldier slip and fall every once in awhile.

[funnyguy1 0]

Hmm..what about rolling down the window to a vehicle and listening to the wind as well? Or parachuting out of the air and listening to it and all that yack..hm..

Well, in ofp you could sometimes hear a bird singing Playing with the editor is one thing, wind that affects vegetation is something completely else...besides

ArmA will have wind, and swaying vegetation, so why should they remove this feature from game2?

By 'all that yack' you mean abmient wildlife, HDR lightning, tides on water, swaying trees and so on?

[sniper pilot 36]

They worked miricals into Armed Assault, there gonna work godly things into Game 2...

[kuIoodporny 45]

tides seem to be ideally straight in ArmA :/ that's wrong!

[dan9of9 0]

i just hope that the controls are not the same for the player.

in arma,and ofp,its wayway to lumpy feeling.

ofc i dont mean bf2 massive bunny hopping,but atleast in bf2 you could just play it,without the struggle you get in arma.

i often find that arma is such a battle of controls it takes away its beauty.

and since i played ofp to death,this dont mean arma is easy to play hard to master.

cos it aint,its impossible to play,and bugs make it imposible to master.

pls pls,make game 2 more arcade like,but not to the point where its stupid.

anyone that has played bf2,jotr and other fps games will know,if you just stick an easy controlled player in this game,with its size,it will still feel real if the guns do not have ott random bullet spread.

This means a jump,lean,and no delay on controls,and no extra 4ft steps when trying to stop behind a wall. (and no i dont mean bunny jumps for the jump,just a small jump.

Also dont be so lame about running and gunning.

i can vouch that running with a gun,and holding it infront of you,althou no where near as good as prone,it should not be firing at your feet like in arma.

keep it real,fun,and you will get a massive community,cos if you look at arma,its already falling apart.

seriously its upto you bis to stop feeding your 50-100 ofp players and start thinking about a kick ass title.you already got 80% of it correct.but that 20% is the vital part you miss.

Playability.

[LandrosRadick 0]

Game2, if they really want to not make it so animation dependent, they can use the kit from NaturalMotion which CREATES animations on the fly in the game engine itself.

I highly recommend that BIS take a close LONG look at Euphoria or other naturalmotion products as it can take character animations to a whole new dynamic level!

http://naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm

Also, this is already in use with an upcoming Indiana Jones game (and possibly Star Wars Unleashed): http://ps3.ign.com/articles/705/705489p1.html

[NeMeSiS 11]

Game2, if they really want to not make it so animation dependent, they can use the kit from NaturalMotion which CREATES animations on the fly in the game engine itself.

I highly recommend that BIS take a close LONG look at Euphoria or other naturalmotion products as it can take character animations to a whole new dynamic level!

http://naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm

Also, this is already in use with an upcoming Indiana Jones game (and possibly Star Wars Unleashed): http://ps3.ign.com/articles/705/705489p1.html

I have to agree that it looks awesome, but for 200+ units runnign around at the same time it doesnt sound like a good idea, even if the game is optimized for dual cores.

[LandrosRadick 0]

Euphoria isn't it's own physics based addon though. It integrates directly with whatever Physics engine is already in the game and movement is dictated by the game engine itself. I do agree that large crowds of people might become more of a problem, but I don't forsee 200 units battling it out in Game2 (unless they are upping the scale of combat in Game2 as opposed to ArmA).

It'd be interesting to see what a developer can ACTUALLY do as opposed to just speculating, which is why I urged them to look into it and think about it heavily.. They do include a Learning Edition to get hands on. I think I'll contact NaturalMotion to see how large crowds of 50+ might actually handle in current gen and see if that scales to 100+ on next-gen.

[Heathen13 0]

I'd say jumping was out of the question. What about a "clamber over" type control like in H&D2. Wasn't exactly jumping but you could get over a fence.

[Kirby 2]

Euphoria isn't it's own physics based addon though. It integrates directly with whatever Physics engine is already in the game and movement is dictated by the game engine itself. I do agree that large crowds of people might become more of a problem, but I don't forsee 200 units battling it out in Game2 (unless they are upping the scale of combat in Game2 as opposed to ArmA).

It'd be interesting to see what a developer can ACTUALLY do as opposed to just speculating, which is why I urged them to look into it and think about it heavily.. They do include a Learning Edition to get hands on. I think I'll contact NaturalMotion to see how large crowds of 50+ might actually handle in current gen and see if that scales to 100+ on next-gen.

Uh, I've seen videos of up to 300 units in a long to medium range firefight in ArmA? So 200 won't be "upping the scale" So I think that animation thing would be a bad choice.

[fasad 1]

One simple thing I'd like to seem improved is addition of a single bit (byte?) or two to give the fall of the "tree" destruction model a direction. Objects such as fences could fall in one of two directions, while trees would be fine with 4 or so.

[ryankaplan 1]

Quote[/b] ]One simple thing I'd like to seem improved is addition of a single bit (byte?) or two to give the fall of the "tree" destruction model a direction. Objects such as fences could fall in one of two directions, while trees would be fine with 4 or so.

On top of this, it would be nice if fallen/destoryed trees actually had fire lods, so you could mow a few down and take cover behind it. Or, root one out on top of a road, for the good old ambush.

[Perun 0]

Ability of reaching fence would be nice (not only by getting over, geting through with plies etc. But, in real life, people mostly don't walk over ploughed field, through bushes, in water because its more exhausting, I think this would BIS work out. Ane even, if somebody walk through bush (if it is possible at all), it makes noise. This will make more realism in silence missions

[max power 21]

Uh, I've seen videos of up to 300 units in a long to medium range firefight in ArmA? So 200 won't be "upping the scale" So I think that animation thing would be a bad choice.

I don't think that you can really use ArmA as a reliable source of information regarding the ai load on the cpu, given that the AI in ArmA has a pathfinding precision of meters and the AI in ArmA 2 will have a pathfinding precision of centimeters.

[gL33k 0]

We need ragdoll for soldiers. grenade pleasure quintupled

[dm 9]

Quote[/b] ]One simple thing I'd like to seem improved is addition of a single bit (byte?) or two to give the fall of the "tree" destruction model a direction. Objects such as fences could fall in one of two directions, while trees would be fine with 4 or so.

On top of this, it would be nice if fallen/destoryed trees actually had fire lods, so you could mow a few down and take cover behind it. Or, root one out on top of a road, for the good old ambush.

Trees make for terrible cover. Sure, the foliage makes for goof visual cover, but verses bullets, neither the foliage or the trunk are any good.

As for ragdoll, until they can come up with a good solution to prevent the 99.9% goofy ragdoll reactions, I'd rather stick with the death animations, and just have more of them.

[Mina_Cz 0]

I'm for RAGDOLL Effect and for some indication of physics , becaouse physics in ArmA and OFP is terrible and zero

[-Total- 0]

People seem to have this idea that bodies fly backwards in the air when shot and flop around like rubber balls.

It's quite the opposite. When a person gets shot to the point of dying, it's quite possibly the most ordinary looking reaction.

They jerk slightly and fall over. No bounce, no exagerated twisting, no time spent in the air, and no wierd bending positions.

They just fall over and that's it.

And yes, I've seen this first hand on more than a couple of occasions. 3 were due to my M4 taking them down.

[dm 9]

They jerk slightly and fall over. No bounce, no exagerated twisting, no time spent in the air, and no wierd bending positions.

Amen to that.

[baddo 0]

People seem to have this idea that bodies fly backwards in the air when shot and flop around like rubber balls.

People seem to have this idea that ragdoll physics means that?

Where did you get that idea from?

You will have both animation and ragdoll physics. Ragdoll physics takes over at some point. When it does take over, you can actually have control how much there is movement of the limbs, and at what rate and dampening they move. It is all on the developers' responsibility to make it look realistic.

It is not the fault of the technology if it is used in unrealistic ways.

[max power 21]

People seem to have this idea that bodies fly backwards in the air when shot and flop around like rubber balls.

People seem to have this idea that ragdoll physics means that?

Where did you get that idea from?

You will have both animation and ragdoll physics. Ragdoll physics takes over at some point. When it does take over, you can actually have control how much there is movement of the limbs, and at what rate and dampening they move. It is all on the developers' responsibility to make it look realistic.

It is not the fault of the technology if it is used in unrealistic ways.

As if the technology is somehow different than the implementation. Ragdoll calculations are complicated, and with anything complicated, they are prone to breaking. For real time rendering, you need things to be simple and fast. In order to get realtime ragdoll calculations, you have to cheat... cheat in the number of times you test for collisions, angles, forces, all that jazz. Technology *IS* the exact problem with it. I don't think that BIS have satisfactory cpu / people / money / time resources to make this kind of technology work satisfactorily. Apparently, not even the makers of COD4 did, because that ragdoll simulation breaks down in hilarious ways... AA's ragdoll simulation breaks... I don't think I've seen a ragdoll simulation that doesn't break down, even in these corridor shooter games. My point is that the more complex you make it, the more realistic you can make it by adding controls and solvers. This takes all kinds of resources to develop, implement, and then troubleshoot. I think this kind of expansive game will be the last genre you see anything of the sort plugged in.