Sign in to follow this  
Ermac

Physics

Recommended Posts

I think it would be very cool if Ground Branch had havok physics to enable a high degree of interaction in the world. For example, the player finds themselves in a house and knocks a glass over with their gun and the glass falls to the ground and breaks thus alterting the enemy of the player's presense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can dig out of both my memory and some older posts, Ageia PhysX is planned to be a part of the game, though I do not believe that a PhyX hardware card will be required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can dig out of both my memory and some older posts, Ageia PhysX is planned to be a part of the game, though I do not believe that a PhyX hardware card will be required.

 

 

Correct... the engine uses PhysX but a HW card is NOT required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we clarify that and say whether or not advanced physics will unlock if a physics card is present?

 

 

That remains to be seen. Technically, the functionality is in there and we can do it. It comes down to team resources and time.

 

Something like a specific free add-on level like they did in GRAW 2 would be doable if we can't fit it into the full game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That extra level thing really didn't do much for me. Just seemed like an extra advertisement for Ageia.

 

The extra environment details such as windblown objects and trees etc, that come with having the card, are definately big factors on the immersion scale though.

 

Having shrapnel from a blown up truck stick in your helmet is neat too. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That extra level thing really didn't do much for me. Just seemed like an extra advertisement for Ageia.

 

Yeah, I can see that.

 

The extra environment details such as windblown objects and trees etc, that come with having the card, are definately big factors on the immersion scale though.

 

 

We don't need a PPU to do wind blown trees and grass. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need a PPU to do wind blown trees and grass. :thumbsup:

 

You know, that just gave me a flashback to OGR. That creaking sound from the moving trees.... one of the best sounds ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, that just gave me a flashback to OGR. That creaking sound from the moving trees.... one of the best sounds ever.

 

And part of the proof of life thread we were talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trees for the most part are alive right? They help to create an enviornment and the sounds from them all show life of some sort. If there were no trees and just a barren map, what sort of life would you expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he's talking about how the term is usually used for verification of a hostage/kidnapping victim's condition.

 

but i still think it applies pretty well to the discussion....in the "proof of life" thread anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no idea how many dead tumbleweeds I have produced in GRAW2.....lol

 

Jsonedecker, will the Ageia Phyx platform allow better ballistic modeling in game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] will the Ageia Phyx platform allow better ballistic modeling in game?

 

Admittedly, I'm not the resident PhysX expert; However, I will attempt to explain this to you as simply as possible.

 

The cut-and-dry: not really.

 

The Ageia PhysX technology is not really that helpful for such small (and numerous) object calculations that you'd experience when dealing with bullets or shrapnel. To calculate actual physics simulations - per projectile (in-game) - would be a task so daunting that you'd need an impressive render farm and a handful of PPUs to even consider it. These sorts of values are better left hard-coded with certain true/false/distance variables (based on ballistics tables) within the engine (which can replicate the effects of ricochet, penetration and bullet drop, respectably). This is a necessary compromise. The good news is that these effects are still believable. The better news is that the game engines these days can handle these calculations without suffering a major performance hit.

 

In sum, the physics engine (and hardware) merely enhance the physics experience (mostly visually). They do not revolutionize it in the ways that we all dream about at night.

 

The technology has not matured enough to be used for anything besides flashy explosions and various other eye-candies at this point. I doubt you'll see a physics engine that can create anything close to 1:1 simulation of in-game ballistics (read: numerous projectiles in a rather high-end game) any time soon. It would, however, be possible to do this as a stand-alone simulation (minus the game portion).

 

Of course, you will have to wait for the obligatory thumbs-up or thumbs-down from John on this issue.

Edited by Grendel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no idea how many dead tumbleweeds I have produced in GRAW2.....lol

 

Jsonedecker, will the Ageia Phyx platform allow better ballistic modeling in game?

 

 

No.

 

Bullets are not actually physics objects in that sense. Besides, we do not want to require the use of a PPU.

 

 

 

In sum, the physics engine (and hardware) merely enhance the physics experience (mostly visually). They do not revolutionize it in the ways that we all dream about at night.

 

The technology has not matured enough to be used for anything besides flashy explosions and various other eye-candies at this point. I doubt you'll see a physics engine that can create anything close to 1:1 simulation of in-game ballistics (read: numerous projectiles in a rather high-end game) any time soon. It would, of course, be possible to do this as a stand-alone simulation (minus the game portion).

 

Of course, you will have to wait for the obligatory thumbs-up or thumbs-down from John on this issue.

 

 

Fairly accurate. We could do a true physics ballistics model, but all you would see on screen is pretty much bullets hitting flat walls. A typical game world's collision is way to complex for 1000's of bullets flying around. Bullets need to be accurate in game as well and even the best real-time physics are still approximations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want the destructable foliage that the Cry Engine 2 offers. It wuld be awsome to be creeping through a jungle with your team and hearing all the sounds of the vegetaion moving around your mates then you're detected because you're making too much noise or something which breaks out into a firefight, resulting in leaves being strewn all over the place :o=

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would actually contain so much sweetness. It'd be like that one scene in Predator, when Arnie and his squad basically mow the jungle down. That would be good times in this game. Especially as it's set in Borneo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want the destructable foliage that the Cry Engine 2 offers. It wuld be awsome to be creeping through a jungle with your team and hearing all the sounds of the vegetaion moving around your mates then you're detected because you're making too much noise or something which breaks out into a firefight, resulting in leaves being strewn all over the place :o=

 

 

Sorry to disappoint, but we won't be having all that destructible foliage this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If doing a HALO jump I want to see the player beeing able to change his flying course, but if jumping down an object of only two meters height, you should not be able to change the "falling course".

In some games you jump up from stand, hit the sprint key and make a thrust forward in mid air. Before jumping down somewhere, the decision of where and how to jump have to be made before action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I've always wondered what this wanking-pleasure of having a big brand physics engine actually offered.

 

With the notable exception of Half-Life2 and Far Cry(PC) I've seen no game actually take advantage of a physics engine in any sort of constructive manner.

 

Sure, stacking crates etc is neat and surely a technological achievement, but does it benefit the game in any way? On a similar thought 'RAGDOLL' of Unreal is trendy, but does it offer anything except having to pre-animate death animations like old times?

----

 

Physics should be applied as a tool of perceived immersion (battle debris) and when it can 'save time' (such as ragdoll)

 

Good implementation of physics engines is HL2 and Doom3.

Bad implementations (worthless!) would for example be Oblivion. (but then again so much is poorly done in the big O)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I would rather have a dedicated Java Virtual Machine (JVM) incorperated into my computers hardware rather then a Physics Processing Unit to take the load off the CPU.

 

 

Hey, the had LISP implemented in hardware for years !!!

 

 

Competition

 

The major competitor to the PhysX SDK is the Havok SDK, which is used in more than 150 games, including major titles like Half-Life 2 and Dead Rising.[3]

 

NVIDIA's GeForce 8 Series supports a new GPU-based Newtonian physics acceleration technology named Quantum Effects Technology - which will compete directly with the PhysX PPU hardware.[4] NVIDIA provides a SDK Toolkit for what they call CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture) technology that offers both a low and high-level API to the GPU. Few technical details are available about the physics side of it, and it is not yet clear whether this is part of any existing physics SDK, or a completely separate engine.[5]

 

ATI/AMD offers a similar SDK for their ATI-based GPUs and that SDK and technology is called CTM (Close to Metal) which provides a thin hardware interface. AMD has also announced the AMD Stream Processor product line (combining a CPU and a GPU technology on one chip).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this