My dreams about ArmA 2/3

[MulleDK19 21]

This is what I dream about so bad, that ArmA 2/3 could have been.

http://www.pixeluxshop.ch/mainpix/media/movies/PixeluxDemo.mov

(Realtime Physics)

PS: Don't mind the graphics. I'm talking about the physics engine.

Edited May 3, 2009 by MulleDK19

[Thrash 0]

I think we all share the same dreams as you. But unfortunately until it's possible to sync hundreds/thousands of objects online simultaneously to multiple clients in real time, then we're never gonna see it.

But it doesnt hurt to imagine :rolleyes:

[BLSmith2112 0]

I think we all share the same dreams as you. But unfortunately until it's possible to sync hundreds/thousands of objects online simultaneously to multiple clients in real time, then we're never gonna see it.

But it doesnt hurt to imagine :rolleyes:

1 million 3d objects to be exact....over 220sq km. Thats almost the same as trying to get a PC to work with full fledged water physics in a confined space. Every droplet requires CPU power, and we just don't have that kinda hardware these days to be able to handle such loads.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Victor

[Maddmatt 1]

It's not just about syncing objects online. That level of destruction couldn't be rendered in real time with large object-dense areas and lots of action going on. Just imagine the CPU work needed if you called an artillery strike on a town or forest.

Maybe in a few years

It could be simplified to a degree though. It doesn't have to be as detailed as in the video. That could make it more feasible on current hardware.

[evilnate 0]

I'm sure that if someone could include that feature and polish it with a game as grand as arma 2, they would. No doubt that it would create even more sales.

Who's to say that this can't be done as a mod? What would be done if the next Albert Einstein happens to enjoy programing modern military simulations? If it's your dream make it happen!

[PhilippRauch 0]

PS: Don't mind the graphics. I'm talking about the physics engine.

But thats exactly when the alarm clock rings and we have to get up for school .. ahm, you know what i mean ;)

If we wouldnt mind playing in triangular tron like graphics then this might be possible even today... but we DO mind ...

If you already tried those fluid simulations/demos with and without an additional PhysiX supporting card, its quite astonishing whats possible even today already, although still years from what our wet physics dreams are really about...

PS:

Nah, Einstein was more like one of those model stealing jerks, he used other ppls ideas without giving proper references!

Edited May 3, 2009 by PhilippRauch

[Praelium 0]

I like the sound effects from the grenade and the building being destroyed. I can hear the rubble fall to the ground and it's very convincing. BIS should make theirs sound similar, if they hadn't already.

[Thrash 0]

1 million 3d objects to be exact....over 220sq km.

Well you wouldn't have to sync all the objects initially, only the ones that moved/changed as the game was played. Still, thats a hell of a lot of objects.

[IronPyramid 0]

I have had such dreams, and upon reflection I thought of such detailed and intricate environments. While that video is a good demonstration of what things could look like when you blast them apart, think about how a living game world could look.

What I mean by this is, we have ArmA 2 on the horizon, and it will be great, but in no way will the physics be capable of such feats. But like some have said, in a few years maybe, something like this could be possible even if simplified. If BI were to continue ArmA and begin work on a third, they probably understand a solid physical rendition of the situations you may encounter in armed combat would be pretty much required.

But beyond this are some of the things we get from ArmA 2, like civvies, and a virtually living game world. So think about a thriving city, that is populated, like GTA 4. But where you can go inside most buildings (if not all) and true to most cities, construction, demolition, and other such labor is most likely to be conducted. The things I thought of were akin to walking along in a city, maybe patrolling, and being able to watch as civilians erect scaffolding in order to work on something a ways up the side of a building. What if you came back to that spot later on, and the scaffolding was completed, or being taken back down, or even still being risen.

I know, this doesnt really come into play when thinking of things that should be in a mil-sim, and I understand this. But some of the earliest previews about Game 2 (when it was still called that) claimed things like dynamic destruction of buildings, dynamic chain of events which usually resulted in combat, and a consistent playing field. Destroy a tank, come along later and its still there, perhaps being scavenged for scrap.

But since BI have begun an implementation of a more complex civilian livelihood in ArmA 2, why would they stop with what they have?

I'm definitely asking for way too much, but I'll be honest when I say even without dynamic building destruction, or a campaign that would be mildly to entirely different for everyone, or a battlefield that you can come back to and marvel at the fact that you survived such an assault while looking at craters and scorched earth, I'm still very content with what I believe BI will have out for us with ArmA 2. Now this isnt to say I know whats in store for the game, but we all need a little faith.

Now even faith isnt entirely necessary, because of all the wonderful info and media that has been covering this game. At this point we know alot about what we'll be getting, but there have been veiled hints that there is much more which hasnt been let on about (I'm not prophecising anything here, just sayin).

[Maio 293]

This has been discused before . One of the devs or mods, not shure , said that Arma's 2 engine cant integrate that kind of physics . As Maddmat said just imagine the CPU work needed.

Maybe in a future engine and on better machines

[MulleDK19 21]

This has been discused before . One of the devs or mods, not shure , said that Arma's 2 engine cant integrate that kind of physics . As Maddmat said just imagine the CPU work needed.

Maybe in a future engine and on better machines

The engine is already being used in about 9 games.

A word from the developer:

Think about a Quake Arena-style game where when you finish playing with your friends, the arena is totally trashed.

Also, the engine is very fast, allowing dozens and dozens of objects. (Was improved heavily since the release of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed)

DMM is exactly the kind of technology that makes multicore CPUs and high end GPUs relevant because its capabilities scale with improvements in hardware performance.

[Spoock 3]

After ArmA2 release, I expecting new expansion (more as OFP Resistance) for this game, than thinking about next game. ArmA3, If will be, it is so very far-away project. If we thinking about improvement, we must firstly direct on gameplay.

[maddogx 13]

The engine is already being used in about 9 games.

If one of those games has a 225km² map with millions of objects, please post a link.

[SaBrE_UK 0]

BIS are using every inch of resources PCs currently have. I think such simulation is possible in the future, but not for a good decade or two and after multiple internet infrastructure upgrades.

[dunedain 48]

This video reminds me old promises from BIS talking about Game2, years ago, that would be awesome but somewhat out of range for them.

Edited May 3, 2009 by dunedain

[PhilippRauch 0]

I remember to have read somewhere from BIS when they developed the engine later known as OFP, that they planned already ahead of what actualy high-end PCs could deliver (at that time)... just think of the viewdistance slider, even back then it 'could' be set to 10000 (if you where into slideshows back then) .. setting it to 10000 is something you could do within OFP only lately with newer PCs ... so i think they (BIS Developers) are still very much into creating an engine that will tax even the next generation of CPU/GPU coming!

[Maio 293]

The engine is already being used in about 9 games.

I was talking of implementing that kind of physics in Arma 2 .

[thaFunkster 0]

This video reminds me old promises from BIS talking about Game2, years ago, that would be awesome but somewhat out of range for them.

Hey yeah, you are right. Wasnt one of the promises that there would be a totally open, dynamic battle environment (ie non scripted battles) and that the campaign would be totally non linear as a result? How close are they coming to that?

[MulleDK19 21]

If one of those games has a 225km² map with millions of objects, please post a link.

Doesn't need to apply the physics on every freaking object. If somebody shoots a rocket at a building the server tells every client to do a simulation of the explosion.

Since all clients simulates the explosion on the same building at the same position and with the same amount of force, the outcome of the simulation is going to be the same on every client.

Also simulation is not needed unless the things to simulate is within a specific range and/or visible to the player.

And if something is destroyed miles away, and the client has not simulated it, the server can send information about the end-result, allowing clients to recreate the outcome.

It's very well possible.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

Since all clients simulates the explosion on the same building at the same position and with the same amount of force, the outcome of the simulation is going to be the same on every client.

thanks for the lol :)

you forgot the time. you have to sync up everything. beside simulation isnt cheap (cpu power), one rocket in one building could work but what if 5 guys with a BM-21 decides to fire into a town?

i think you know the crysis videos where a guy play with thousands of barrels. it tooks more then 10minutes for one real time minute^^

[bravo 6 0]

Better then the main idea of this thread (destruction physics) i dream that some day Bohemia Interactive Studios creates a perfect vehicle simulation of all vehicles that exist for ArmA2.

Ie, all vehicle interiors, every single feature detail, sounds, feelings, behaviour comparing to real life equipments. That is my dream.

[MulleDK19 21]

thanks for the lol :)

you forgot the time. you have to sync up everything.

I intentionally left out the time.

beside simulation isnt cheap (cpu power), one rocket in one building could work but what if 5 guys with a BM-21 decides to fire into a town?

Go read up on DMM. It can handle an enormous amount of objects shattering, breaking, exploding, and still keep it real-time. DMM takes full advance of multi-core CPUs.

I'm not saying it'll be super duper, I'm just saying that it's possible. And it's possible without too many performance issues, and network problems.

[S!fkaIaC 10]

Since it is obvious that ArmA 2 will not meet my (always to high) expectations I hope there will be a ArmA 3. With a revolutionized engine.

What a dream....

[Pyronick 21]

The problem is not the processing power. There is plently of processing power, if the developers raise the bar to a minimum of multithreaded CPUs and unified shader GPU's.

It's the internet connections we have, most of us still have low bandwidth connections under 20 Mbps.

And even those who do have 20 Mbps connections, don't have enough upload bandwidth.

By 2011 most of us here should have fiberoptical internet connections.

Those that are stuck with DSL/cable connections will probably have better bandwidth aswell due to offloading the grid by adaptors of fiberoptical internet connections.

The year 2011 will drastically change the whole computer world, starting with x86 CPU's which will finally have the floating-point operation(due to vector extensions, MUL/MADD, fused multiply-accumulate, etc) grunt it should have.

[Chaos 0]

Technology which must be in ARMA - YESS! *thumbs-up*