Ragdoll

[Maddmatt 1]

Quote[/b] ]Ragdoll does require physics, however ArmA already has physics.

Yes, but not fully syncronized in all aspects. Throw a smoke grenade and observe that it doesn't land in the excact same place on all clients.

A smoke grenade doesn't use 'normal' physics like vehicles and objects in ArmA. It's basically like a bullet with a high 'deflecting' value in the config to make it bounce (the same way that bullets ricochet). Same with timed hand grenades.

That's why they can act a bit odd.

Mission editor placed objects like barrels use the 'normal' physics.

[Robgunnatkin 0]

Screw ragdoll.

BIS should invest in something like this: http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm

Game 5 perhaps?

[Dwarden 1124]

Screw ragdoll.

BIS should invest in something like this: http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm

Game 5 perhaps?

NaturalMotion always got nice stuff in pocket

but question is ... hows with MP sync ... (catch the dynamic not alawys same results) ...

for SP these are definitely wonderful things

[smiley_ie 7]

Screw ragdoll.

BIS should invest in something like this: http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm

Game 5 perhaps?

NaturalMotion always got nice stuff in pocket

but question is ... hows with MP sync ... (catch the dynamic not alawys same results) ...

for SP these are definitely wonderful things

Ive seen videos of the new GTA that use's natural motion in multiplayer. I no its not the same as ArmA but map size wise to use euphoria may be possible ? Check

 http://xbox360.ign.com/dor....08.html

[Viper23rd 0]

Never seen that NaturalMotion before, but it's just .. wow.

Yours,

[shinRaiden 0]

http://www.arma2.com/ states (as of last year) that ArmA2 is scheduled for release this year (2008). In light of that statement, assuming it is still valid, could any of you provide even a semi-rational explanation about how BIS could integrate in a third-party animation system, convert 10 years of mocap data, debug and test, and have it deliverable before Duke Nuke Forever 2? Wishful thinking about cool tech, and ignoring the realities of a business calendar is what put DNF in the hole that it is.

As 'good' as the rendered results of the Euphoria engine claim to be, there are serious and substantial issues that ought to be obvious to even the casual reader of NaturalMotion's website. Point number one, where do the behaviors come from? They don't magically appear ex-nihilo. That behavior must be developed by someone. And that someone(s) can only do so much work in a 40 hour work week, and that someone(s) requires a salary paid out of money advanced by a publisher based on anticipated revenues.

Another problem, going along with Dwarden's concern about MP consistency is that the scope and scale of the BIS products vastly exceeds that of any other comparable product. While in COD4 etc you might want to see neato effects when you put rounds on a target 20 meters away, in ArmA we 'demand' that same level of detail 100 times that when we put rounds on target 2 km away.

[Robgunnatkin 0]

http://www.arma2.com/ states (as of last year) that ArmA2 is scheduled for release this year (2008). In light of that statement, assuming it is still valid, could any of you provide even a semi-rational explanation about how BIS could integrate in a third-party animation system, convert 10 years of mocap data, debug and test, and have it deliverable before Duke Nuke Forever 2? Wishful thinking about cool tech, and ignoring the realities of a business calendar is what put DNF in the hole that it is.

As 'good' as the rendered results of the Euphoria engine claim to be, there are serious and substantial issues that ought to be obvious to even the casual reader of NaturalMotion's website. Point number one, where do the behaviors come from? They don't magically appear ex-nihilo. That behavior must be developed by someone. And that someone(s) can only do so much work in a 40 hour work week, and that someone(s) requires a salary paid out of money advanced by a publisher based on anticipated revenues.

Another problem, going along with Dwarden's concern about MP consistency is that the scope and scale of the BIS products vastly exceeds that of any other comparable product. While in COD4 etc you might want to see neato effects when you put rounds on a target 20 meters away, in ArmA we 'demand' that same level of detail 100 times that when we put rounds on target 2 km away.

Well, if you read the second sentence in my post you would see that I'm not demanding/expecting euphoria tech to be in arma2. I thought my mention of "maybe in game5" would be clear, apparently not.

It is of my opinion that if BIS wants to continue to develop unique IPs it will be required to seek out and integrate "neato" external tech. In 3 years mocap will be considered antiquated. Heck, BIS's animation system is considered archaic as of right now. It won't last forever. BIS can't develop everything it needs in-house while other game devs surge ahead. If BIS doesn't integrate innovative technologies into its future game, it will just be a matter of time before another company comes along and does it better with those "neato" effects. It doesn't matter how many loyal fanboys you have at your base, people will move on if arma doesn't do it for them anymore.

As far as I can tell, Euphoria is a bridge. It allows developers to pull AI, animation, and physics together. So, yes these new behaviors have to be developed, but they provide you with the toolkit that makes developing these things much easier. I bet BIS could hire one guy to do it. Why? You feed it general parameters and the euphoria engine does the rest. Then the animator can go in and tweak this or that, add a behavior, tighten things up. In the long run it would probably cost less than doing mocap in-house. Why? You don't need a dedicated space and you don't need expensive external equipment. Lastly, euphoria is advertised as being modular. So BIS is not necessarily locked into using euphoria for everything. It can upgrade its AI or integrate the latest and greatest physics engine while euphoria sits in between. I confess I'm no expert and I don't know everything about euphoria, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the animation system in arma is sad to say the least. Technology like euphoria would would make future incarnations of arma a much better game. I mean comeon, this is primarily an infantry based game where player movement forms one of the foundations of the game. Limiting players to one animation at a time and using redundant "canned" animations will loose you points on a game review and money at the check-out counter. BIS may not have the money to advertise, but investing in new "neato" technologies that will make their game better and get them 9s on the reviews is just as good as tv/web ads. The end result? More revenues, exposure, and experience.

[Yoma 0]

If they'd spend the little time/money they have on stuff like this, they'd get a "2" on the reviews. Because obviously it would take them more time to develop it, take away vital financial resources. I'm no animator but i think all they need to do is cut up the anims that are allready in there, so there are better transitions between multiple anims. That way you don't need ragdol, not for a game of this scale. There is simply NO game that's of arma's scale and detail that uses ragdoll. Thats for a reason. All they need to fix is the general clunkyness of movent in arma, that doesn't mean it needs to be ragdoll or simulated muscledoll ;-)

Besides that, in current gamingculture a game like Arma will never get a 9 on general gaming review sites. It's like asking an 8 yr old what he would like better, a McDonalds hamburger or a decently fresh cooked meal. Modern gamers just seem to want more and more prechewed non-inspired garbage. Arma does not appeal to them, it's too difficult. Sad, but true.

[BLSmith2112 0]

Isn't like ragdoll simulation just that, a simulation? These animated sequences in arma and ofp from getting shot.... Isn't it more work to simulate every single possible scenario's and animate it?

[SHWiiNG 0]

I was thinking the same thing, yes i understnad BIS's budget time constraints etc. But wouldnt it be more time consuming and expensive to buy the gear and manually animate everything, then have an engine what can do it all for you?

Anyway not a request, just a query

[EricM 0]

Intel has just released full-featured free Havok physics and Havok animation SDK (including ragdoll and IK among other nice things), so it may be worth a try to see if it's actually feasable/practical...

The proof is in the pudding.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

Hello. I been trying to follow this thread closely. An I must ask. Is are some of the community trying to make the game/simulation more arcade like. This is after all a simulator first. Game second. Don't get me wrong. I love those games to. And own three copies of the Battlefield Series. But I wish not for ArmA 2 going forward to be genre. Me. My self. Like playing adults. Where as the effects that are trying to be pushed drew child. Witch have no life experience. Have any idea about the military at all (off subject). I just don’t understand. If you wish to add these effects to ArmA. Create the software. An add it. It is a open source you know.

[Raphier 0]

BIs can either work on one wanted thing an if decided to make another(ragdoll), then we're losing the first wanted thing here, so I don't know...is ragdoll worth to lose something?

[Placebo 28]

Considering that 1. there won't be ragdoll and 2. this was a dead thread from June 08 brought back to life for no real purpose I'll be closing this, please don't dig up dead thread unless there's extremely significant, earth shattering new information to post :)