Game physics

[4 IN 1 0]

I know they are Licensed per game, I just want to point out that it's still up to bi to do something on the crappy physics we have now, or not....

[Dwarden 1124]

As far as we know BIA are trying to use havok in future upgrade of vbs2

So we know that it's somewhat possible to use  these "heavy duty" physics engine in ARMA2 as well, but it's totally up to bi to use them or not

Havok ? strange because i already saw working vehicles with PhysX (ex-Ageia now CUDA based NVIDIA propriertary) ...

imho it's impractial because it's not all systems solutions (neither Havok or Physx)

ideal would be if Havok or PhysX supports OpenCL and DX11cs then it's just matter of taste ...

as OpenCL is adopted by all major players in hw industry

[Deathstruck 375]

Fine, it seems that I shouldn't hold my breath for something like Havoc.. just give me some various death anims that are randomly played ala Liberation 41 mod and I'll be happy !

[Pyronick 21]

As far as we know BIA are trying to use havok in future upgrade of vbs2

So we know that it's somewhat possible to use  these "heavy duty" physics engine in ARMA2 as well, but it's totally up to bi to use them or not

Havok ? strange because i already saw working vehicles with PhysX (ex-Ageia now CUDA based NVIDIA propriertary) ...

imho it's impractial because it's not all systems solutions (neither Havok or Physx)

ideal would be if Havok or PhysX supports OpenCL and DX11cs then it's just matter of taste ...

as OpenCL is adopted by all major players in hw industry

Exactly!

PhysX works for VBS2 because it's optimized for specific systems.

The best solution will always be OpenCL and DirectX compute shaders, but that software is yet to come.

I am sure Havok will release their new package with OpenCL/DirectX support (and probably optimized x86 Larrabee support) but Havok is an extremely expensive package.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i'll like to see that the vegetation and busted/broken down trees

block the AI view and if were possible... also see how the broken

trees serve as cover deflecting the bullets or changing it's trayectory

as they pierce through the fallen/broken tree body; rightnow in the

ArmA... the AI have an advantage because of this don't happens,

and it's unfair. Let's C ya

[4 IN 1 0]

ah yeah, i made a mistake there

anyway, atless we know its possible to use such physics engine in this game right?

[Fireworker 0]

hello all,

because it is one of the most important physic effects in current games for believable atmosphere on the battlefield - BIS, please tell me:

will there be swinging antennas on vehicles at last?? will there be clear bowing tanks when they using their brakes from 35 mph to 0??

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE no more ugly hovercraft-tanks like in the past! in all of your videos i couldn't recognize this feature yet and i was deeply disappointed...

once more - please tell me, BIS. it is very important for my choice to buy this game or not!

thanks and have fun

fireworker

[SaBrE_UK 0]

I understand that those features would be good, but to decide not to buy the game just because it doesn't have swinging antennas seems a little extreme.

[Balschoiw 0]

With OFP I had no problem with the static tank behaviour when driving or firing but today I have a problem with it as I think that the weight and mass of a tank is best demonstrated with the movement it makes. In the videos of Arma 2 I´ve seen the tanks are still riding the ground like rollerskates. Tanks have a mass, a big one and this should be reflected ingame imho. It looks a bit absurd that the environment is so well done but when a tank rolls in, comes to a flat stop from a speed of 50 without any movement, fires it´s gun (k the gun is moving at least), but the tankhull is not moving a centimeter, neither does it show any traces of backblast it looks like a year 2002 game. Sorry, explosions may be nice eyecandy, but a tank should at least somewhat behave like a tank today.

They would look much more impressive ( as they are in reality) if theie movement and mass system would get a realistic overhaul. Please do not miss out such details, they are impressive and certainly much more realistic than the skater-tank.

[telejunky 0]

Yeah, for me games don't only look good if there are nice shaders and a graphics update. As said above, I would be happy about sluggish masses e.g. tanks. I don't know about physics implementation, but couldn't exist some kind of scripted physics/Animation?

The tanks drives fast and stops. The tank lifts its bum up to a specific angle. and the angle depends on the speed. So could they make a chart containing different speeds with the according angle?

I think this would be enough to 'fake simulate' the heavy mass of such tanks. And the ingame feeling of 'being in a war with heavy machinery' would be immersive.

Something i would also like to see ingame: If you drive a car in ArmA especially go around a curve, your head is fixed like puppet. I would like to see your head moves a little bit right if you bend off left and vice versa...

[Pyronick 21]

Yes, we need wheel/track spin and blocking.

In Operation Flashpoint it occurred to me that when driving a tank uphill, I could hear the engine RPM go down which is normal.

But even with an automatic transmission you can't dip too low, or either your engine would stall or your torque converter would cook.

In a manual transmission cars it's either wheel spin or your engine stalls.

Clutch slippage doesn't occur that often.

The vehicular dynamics need to be improved, we need more inertia, tyre dynamics (hopefully Pacejka-based), real engine power/torque curves, power loss due to shifting between the gears, etc.

It doesn't need to be a race sim or Need for Speed or sth, but I know Operation Flashpoint 2 will take huge advantage of it's race sim engine abilities.

[Cultivator 0]

I think that would be a good solution telejunkie....

It wouldn´t need to much performance... and t would look good enough...

When they could implement head moves in vehicles when driving it would be also possible to see moving Hands.... But Maruk said in a video (Don´t know which it was) that such things like this will be done if there is a bit time left before the release....

So.... lets wait and see...  

Regards -rF- Cultivator

[Fireworker 0]

hello all,

two or three years ago i played the game "joint task force" - some of you will know it, it was a strategic game with only view from above. but you could zoom in enough. however - when i directed my tanks for the first time and they reached their positions suddenly i had this "yes!"-feeling... realistic diping tanks and - you know my favorit - real swinging antennas! ...it was a moment of great joy. i really loved to see my tanks racing through the field. impulsively i remembered my time in the army when i was watching tanks in military exercises. i realized, that nearly nothing creates so much atmosphere in simulating tanks like those features. diping, moving antennas, dust, recoil... very simpel, but really flashing.

and now i come to the point of -rF- $moke. i definitely agree with it, that it wouldn`t need much more performance! look at the simple game joint task force. it`s only a question of addiction to details.

already with arma i waited for those features - and deeply missed them when arma was released. only hovercraft-tanks.

disappointed i thought: "ok, anytime there will come an arma 2"...

so BIS, tell us...

have fun

fireworker

[TankCommander 3]

Agreed. Heavy vehicles, and all vehicles for that matter, need some weight put into them. It definitely would add to the immersion factor if it was done right.

T72 vid BIS can use =p

And another video with more T72s moving and firing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSL7k07NfLs

[telejunky 0]

I don't know if it does belong to game physics but i wont open a new thread. One thing i really miss is the simulation of bullets in Armed Assault, especially the bullets in your magazine and the one bullet in the chamber of the weapon.

ArmA was promising to be realistic and ArmA II even wants to be more realistic than its predecessor. So this would be a must have:

If you fired ten rounds and then reload your weapon ArmA makes a total of 30 rounds aviable to shoot. But at the end of this tactical reloading it should make 31 rounds aviable...

I remember Rainbow six does have the feature. I don't know if it is a mess of code to implement it but i would like to see it in ArmA II

[Pyronick 21]

AMD-ATI and Havok (Intel) are working on an OpenCL/DirectX 11 based physics engine.

Using these standards it works on all OpenCL-compatible hardware so you don't need an nVidia GeForce, Quadro or PhysX card.

OpenCL scales on compatible GPU's but also on CPU's or even compatible DSPs and co-processors. (think of FireStream, Tesla, Cell, Larrabee, etc)

Technically, it could run bits of non-bandwidth heavy physics on game servers with enough processing grunt.

This could be very interesting for Armed Assault 2.

More information will be released during the Game Developers Convention of March 23-27.

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

This would be awesome indeed. I am a huge fan on physics. Although I believe ArmA 2 is a little too late in development - or early, however you look at it - to start implementing something as major as a proper (future) physics engine.

[Dwarden 1124]

yep several videos and documents were released it's really nice considering it's OpenCL (thus any CPU/GPU or even APU with correct drivers may support it)

[JuggernautOfWar 1]

I'm a huge fan of PhysX by nVidia. Only drawback is the technology currently is only on... you guessed it! nVidia cards (which I happen to have)!

I think it's pretty ridiculous that ATi users can't experience the same level of realism and immersion as us nVidia users currently. I think everybody should be able to run it, and the actual hardware of ATi cards are more than enough to run the software. Just marketing. :l:

[Pyronick 21]

I'm a huge fan of PhysX by nVidia. Only drawback is the technology currently is only on... you guessed it! nVidia cards (which I happen to have)!

I think it's pretty ridiculous that ATi users can't experience the same level of realism and immersion as us nVidia users currently. I think everybody should be able to run it, and the actual hardware of ATi cards are more than enough to run the software. Just marketing. :l:

When PhysX was announced back in 2005 I was really impressed by it.

But looking back now, I never understood why they haven't made it more scalable for future hardware.

After the annexation by nVidia, I didn't really care about PhysX anymore as it simply became even more of a marketing tool than it already was.

But with the newer enhanced Havok engine, I think that hardware accelerated physics will start finally break through.

Hopefully we'll have OpenCL-based audio processing soon aswell, as EAX-capable hardware is dying out.

[Cultivator 0]

Good morning community.....

When playing ArmA in SP or Coop you can´t realy see what ArmA physics can do...

There are some things that realy have to be better in ArmA2 ( for example weight.... if its possible ) ...but i think there is some potential in the engine....

A few month ago i saw a youtube video.... in it you saw some barrels rolling down a sandy hill....

I made a little ArmA1 Video, too and you can see that the physic is not the worst in the gameworld...... :)

i hope you enjoy the video....

You can watch it on the following link...

http://de.xfire.com/video/a32ca/

I made it on widescreen.... but somehow it doesn´t worked in the uploaded video... mhhh :mad:

Regards -rF- Cultivator....

[sparks50 0]

I think they are OK in some regards, but at times they feel to me very basic and little responsive.

Very nice video, looks like a tech demo for a much more flashy game.

Edited April 14, 2009 by sparks50

[Cultivator 0]

Yeah.... but its not ArmA1... its "Crisis Utopia" :p

Regards Culti

[Pyronick 21]

What ArmA2 really needs (if they still use the old collision detection) is increasing the refresh rates by at least a two fold, as I mentioned here.

The game should make more use of inverse kinematics, that combined with detailed motion captured animations should give very lifelike animations that work in most situations.

And hopefully hybrid ragdolls based on inverse kinematics or motion captured death animations constrained by ragdoll physics to make sure the in-game character dies on the same spot for all multiplayer clients but yet looks realistic.

As the game gets patched and hardware speeds increase, the refresh rates could be increased in the future for even more precision.

Edited April 14, 2009 by SgtH3nry3

[PhilippRauch 0]

I had some weeks ago nice matches on avgani with some burning barrels rolling down slopes, nice to look at... isnt that enough??? :P nah, just kidding..