Physics

[wamingo 1]

Well is this supposed to be a next generation game or what? It should be pretty standard to have some sort of physics engine. It just ruins the immersion seeing somebody explode, land on the ground in an animation that I've seen a hundred times, still holding his rifle.

Go to IGN or any other major game review site and look up the 10 games they advertise and be merry. They have the games you want to play I think.

According to them there are only about 10 games worth playing each year and they're utterly defined by "next gen" features like physics, lip syncing, folds in clothes, dx10 and other screenshot worthy gimmicks that no one really cares about after a few hours playing anyway, and you probably wished they hadn't bothered with them in the first place when you find out the game is just 6 hours long to compromise.

Other games like ArmA receives a notice only in some obscure place of their websites and maybe a bit more if they get paid advertising money.

Our perception of what is good gaming is completely distorted because of a few overfunded, overadvertised and ridiculously over-media-covered games.

[Heatseeker 0]

I hate how somtimes you hear a high pitched rev of an BMP engine, then notice this flying tank falling back to earth, it really ruins everything...

I have only come across the flying tank in Evolution, when a tank spawns on top of a building or something like that, in normal circunstances i havent seen it happen.

About ragdolls i wouldnt like the game any more because of that, infact with so much room for improvement i would feel ofended if such a feature was ever a priority.

On top of my head...

Damage model.

Vehicle and weapon performance/behaviour.

Artificial inteligence.

[MeNeZ 0]

Really simple explanation; you want rag-dolls or really funny physics...IMO; this game isn't for you if thats the case, why? A lot of reasons why, you need a game that has a smaller map, close range fighting, pretty standardized (its now a protocol from what is seems..) fps.

Someone mentioned bf2; how friggen hilarious to see the wacky arm flailing inflatable arm flailing tube man get shot, its like seeing the wacky arm flailing inflatable arm flailing tube man...do stuff? I can't think of much more to say about that...except for.. the wacky arm flailing inflatable arm flailing tube

Anyway; physics, ragdolls...I think its cool, yes, but it imagine this game with them, it would be kind of absurd, the amount of processing the game would have to do solely for that would be immense, especially when you have an island this big.

If I had a choice, I'd drop the idea and stick with what they have in that aspect, for the time being...that is.

Why? Basically, ArmA needs a patch, and actual things smoothed out before people wanting more items in game...Just an opinion I guess.

-Back to my coffee.

Why is it when we try improve on something the first thing people say it, "play another game"

I was asking about the feasibility of it being introduced into this game because I used to play Americas Army alot and now ArmA is the only game I play. The tracers and ragdoll effects in AA are really good and is why I asked the previous questions.

Fine, if the engine cant handle it then its end of story...

But imagine a year from now, with addons being released daily and patches tweaking little things here and there... Eventually this game will turn into a masterpiece and very well rounded fps.

[enven 0]

Really simple explanation; you want rag-dolls or really funny physics...IMO; this game isn't for you if thats the case, why? A lot of reasons why, you need a game that has a smaller map, close range fighting, pretty standardized (its now a protocol from what is seems..) fps.

Someone mentioned bf2; how friggen hilarious to see the wacky arm flailing inflatable arm flailing tube man get shot, its like seeing the wacky arm flailing inflatable arm flailing tube man...do stuff? I can't think of much more to say about that...except for.. the wacky arm flailing inflatable arm flailing tube

Anyway; physics, ragdolls...I think its cool, yes, but it imagine this game with them, it would be kind of absurd, the amount of processing the game would have to do solely for that would be immense, especially when you have an island this big.

If I had a choice, I'd drop the idea and stick with what they have in that aspect, for the time being...that is.

Why? Basically, ArmA needs a patch, and actual things smoothed out before people wanting more items in game...Just an opinion I guess.

-Back to my coffee.

Why is it when we try improve on something the first thing people say it, "play another game"

I was asking about the feasibility of it being introduced into this game because I used to play Americas Army alot and now ArmA is the only game I play. The tracers and ragdoll effects in AA are really good and is why I asked the previous questions.

Fine, if the engine cant handle it then its end of story...

But imagine a year from now, with addons being released daily and patches tweaking little things here and there... Eventually this game will turn into a masterpiece and very well rounded fps.

You're right, I shouldn't have said that Menez, sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude, and it came off that way.

Apologizes...To you.

As for the future of ArmA, I see a field of dreams in the coming months, year(s), it seems people are starting to familiarize themselves with the game, more and more every week. Its a lot like OFP, majority says, but I see its still taking time to process new stuff.

Pretty stoked on the game, yes I am, but I must say; when the patch comes out, I can't wait to see what will be fixed, and added.

Fixed...

[AWDrift 0]

I'd like ragdoll too. It's not as much an improvement as surpressive fire, but it would do a ton for immersion. Plus I'm not convinced yet that it would hurt performance as much as people say.

[froggyluv 2136]

Im definitely hoping for improved physics in next game as well as proper gravity.

Proper physics adds a strong degree of unpredictablity and yes some "WoW!" factor. Imagine shooting at a jeeps tires ,careening it out of control and plowing into enemy troops or a fuel tank - these things do happen in real combat situations. As we have it now, we know what would happen- the jeeps will turn to rust  

Debris caused from explosions should create real collateral damage in real 3d time as well.

As far as gravity and inertia, vehicles should flip/roll when blazing down a mountainside at full speed and hitting a bump. And soldiers should fall, not float like Mary Poppins in her best summer skirt, when stepping off a ledge.

I know i'm asking alot from this engine and current technology- but this added to Arma's unique gameplay would just take it straight to the top for me.

[PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN 0]

The ragdolls in AA are good, but not as good as the ones in RO. Those are the most lifelike (or deathlike as the case may be) I've ever seen. The only negative is the way that their heads sometimes keep bobbing, but that's unavoidable in the karma engine. I should point out though that the ragdolls in both those games were coded by the same guy; John "RammJaeger" Gibson. RO's were just the new and improved version.

Certainly ragdolls would be nice, but they're not that important imo. Hell, the CoD series hasn't used them yet and IW is still managing to convince people that their games are actually good (which is right up there with "EA make original, high quality games" in the comedy stakes).

On a related note, I see so many people complain about the animations in ArmA and I can't for the life of me understand why. Ok, so the reloads are sketchy, but I think that's part engine limitation with a little laziness thrown in (a lot more detail would need to be added to the models, hurting performance). People don't seem to realise that all the animations in this game are motion captured. i.e. They're not "animated" at all, they're really how people move. If it's such a cause for concern, then perhaps people should be teasing the motion capture models for moving in a funny way, but to suggest that they're unrealistic and in some cases impossible (like the crouch walk) is just absurd. They had to be possible in order to be captured in the first place.

I think people are just so used to the created animations we usually get that they automatically associate anything different as being wrong. Which is frankly quite scary, especially considering the quality of most of the ones out there. Remember how many people thought that CoD (there's that game again *shudder*) had fantastic running animations? I couldn't agree more, assuming real people run like a highstepping hunchback that is. Not to mention with a gait that is actually physically impossible without a lowered mass and a slippery floor. And since I feel like being nitpicky, they also had a complete lack of frame interpolation which resulted in horribly jerky leg movement.

Basically, the animations we've got (reload aside) are as realistic as you can get and the only way to improve them is by streamlining the transition from one to another.

[AWDrift 0]

I'm pretty sure CoD3 had ragdoll. It might have had the system where the death animations transition to ragdoll like in a lot of newer games, but I'm not sure. I think ArmA is behind in this area, even RTS are getting great physics now.

[Heatseeker 0]

I'd like ragdoll too. It's not as much an improvement as surpressive fire, but it would do a ton for immersion. Plus I'm not convinced yet that it would hurt performance as much as people say.

I've read it from BIS staff a while ago i believe, something about them having made some "experiences" with ragdoll with negative performance results.. i dont know if its because of the ragdoll itself or because Arma is already very cpu intensive.

The rigid flying bodies are easy to fix, they would just have to make it so that corpses dont 'fly', like it was in early OPF versions.

Anyway i dont understand why people prioritise such trivial, cpu wasting candy, when there are so many things that would make the game(s) better (more realistic).

Making the artillery work is an example.. oh well..

[dmitri 0]

Yeah, discussions like this don't serve much purpose, an exercise in wishful thinking.

This is just an iteration of the OFP engine. OFP didn't have it, they had 5 years to add ragdoll and didn't, and I doubt we'll see it any time soon in Armed Assault. And that's fine.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

I'd agree that there is a whole list of things that they should

worry about first. The game still falls far short of a valid

representation of a battlefield - and it isn't because of the

physics. Many tabletop wargames rules still capture this much

better than ArmA does.

[sniper pilot 36]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eMh8dUSfhRI

That was the most bland spam known to this forum, I wish i was a mod...

Anyways, ArmA has good physics i guess for a game as big as it is.

[Ezekiel 0]

Hmm, ragdoll physics would make some cool thing possible mind.

Imagine your surprise when your helicopter copilot takes a bullet in the eye, you bank sharply to the right and his bloody face rolls over to stare at you...

And performing tight maneuvers in an MH-6 with 4 flailing corpses strapped to the sides would be truly comical.

[BLSmith2112 0]

ArmA 2 or Flashpoint 2... I only ask for perfection. Or it shall not see my 50$.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Ragdoll physics you see in games does not happen here in reality. So why would we want to waste CPU on unrealistic physics. A shot that would move a body like in the holywood movies or unrealistic games like Battle Field would in reality just tear a chunk of the body and the body would just fall to the ground in much same way as it does in ArmA.

The flying bodies ragdoll rubish just never happens. Standard weapons right up to Uber sniper rifles do not kick a body about.

Bodys fall when shot dead.

That is all.

Except for wounding where they often do not even fall and may not even be aware they were shot.

Kind Regards walker

[PsYcH0_Ch!cKeN 0]

The only real benefit of ragdolls is that it would fix the problem where a soldier will finish whatever he's doing, then die. In the interests of keeping everything smooth, BIS have not allowed interruptible animations. To do that means unnatural movement, which they want to avoid. Ragdolls get around this by cutting the current animation short and letting the body go limp from whatever position it's in. It's seamless and would allow enemies to die the instant they're shot without it looking jerky.

Atm it could be a problem for performance I guess, but in future it won't be. Ageia PPU's do all the work on the Ageia API and Havok 3's making use of the GPU to do it. People with SLI video solutions (and Crossfire too I guess) would be able to run far more advanced physics without a performance hit.

In any case, it's irrelevant atm. It's not going to happen in ArmA. Game 2 perhaps, but ArmA's done and dusted as far as things like that are concerned.

[AWDrift 0]

Hi all

The Ragdoll physics you see in games does not happen here in reality. So why would we want to waste CPU on unrealistic physics. A shot that would move a body like in the holywood movies or unrealistic games like Battle Field would in reality just tear a chunk of the body and the body would just fall to the ground in much same way as it does in ArmA.

The flying bodies ragdoll rubish just never happens. Standard weapons right up to Uber sniper rifles do not kick a body about.

Bodys fall when shot dead.

That is all.

Except for wounding where they often do not even fall and may not even be aware they were shot.

Kind Regards walker

The ragdolls can be made too look realistic, as they have in many games.

[Saden 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hi all

The Ragdoll physics you see in games does not happen here in reality. So why would we want to waste CPU on unrealistic physics. A shot that would move a body like in the holywood movies or unrealistic games like Battle Field would in reality just tear a chunk of the body and the body would just fall to the ground in much same way as it does in ArmA.

The flying bodies ragdoll rubish just never happens. Standard weapons right up to Uber sniper rifles do not kick a body about.

Bodys fall when shot dead.

That is all.

Except for wounding where they often do not even fall and may not even be aware they were shot.

Kind Regards walker

So you're saying that somebody, when shot will finish reloading or whatever they're doing, do a small fall towards the area that the bullet hit as if they're going to sleep, still holding their rifle, then sink into the ground?

[MehMan 0]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eMh8dUSfhRI

That was the most bland spam known to this forum, I wish i was a mod...

Anyways, ArmA has good physics i guess for a game as big as it is.

It's not spam, it's refering to his post and the overdone effects in BF2. The BF2 ragdoll is just like that vid. The body transforms into a flailing thing and flies 15m after it gets shot. That's a case of overdone ragdoll.

[TrunkzJr 0]

Ragdoll I think could be added if someone was Blown up by a bomb or a rocket, and just use the animations if you die by a bullet (if its possible, if not o well). People complain about not being able to blow up 1000 soldiers at once but it's just not possible unless you open the editor. I think things could be done to improve without adding too much for CPU power. Most people are getting C2D's now, so I think they could do more then the 2.0 GHz Intel Pentium 4 requirement.

"The Ragdoll physics you see in games does not happen here in reality" Do you think ArmA IS realistic then you get blown into the sky then? I mean really, hitting a soldier with a car in ArmA is just sad...

[sniper pilot 36]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eMh8dUSfhRI

That was the most bland spam known to this forum, I wish i was a mod...

Anyways, ArmA has good physics i guess for a game as big as it is.

It's not spam, it's refering to his post and the overdone effects in BF2. The BF2 ragdoll is just like that vid. The body transforms into a flailing thing and flies 15m after it gets shot. That's a case of overdone ragdoll.

You should of Pm'ed me, but ill defend my post, and hopefully you'll learn something too...

Quote[/b] ]

§5)No Spam

We deem spam as making a thread or posting a reply that has no real worth, is irrelevant, useless and offers nothing to a discussion. Messages of banned members are also considered as spam.

Spam will be fined with post count reduction, PR and/or WL.

I deemed that it had no real worth at all to this thread, what would of been worthy is if he said something like this:

"Yeah take a look here this will give you an idea of how physics in BF2 look like (link to a BF2 ragdoll presentation), kinda reminds me of this

Flailing Tube Man"

Anyways,

Here are some Ragdoll examples hat look like it could, maybe, work in a game like ArmA.

[jerryhopper 286]

Physics physics - boom boom!

http://www.armedassault.eu/Work-in....om.html

[Kevlar2007 1]

You want a physics game

simple:

EA's CRYSIS using the Cryengine 2

It even has ......GET THIS...A FULLY MODELED ISLAND they made for the game....

1

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/22195.html

2

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/22212.html

3

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/22238.html

PHYSICS

A dream come true would be the next ArmA or OFP2 to use the Cryengine 2 engine!!

[DBO_ 0]

lol here we go again crytek crytek .

arma could do all those things if you sacrifice the scale and at least when that pressure wave comes down the street the soldier too would be blown away . dont tell me he had antigravitational weight multiplying boots on that double up as nike air ??

crytek smytek . its hollywood it looks nice, but all in all its completely uselsss in multiplayer. look out for this big sign when and if it ever comes out..

"The game will be dramaticly changed in multiplayer "

[Kirby 2]

I ain't red the whole thread, I just wanna write what I gotta say before I forget...

Uh...

Erm...

Ok i remembered:

I think the best "ragdoll" is that stiff ragdoll, almost semi-animation. Look really realistic, I assure you.

Looks nice in Rainbow 6@ Vegas (But that still feels a lil a lil "weightless" compred to one game I;ve played that i cant remember"