physics

Users who are viewing this thread

Raz

Count
This is isn't a suggestion, because it's been suggested a lot before,
but more like a question.. Any chance of it ever being in?
And what do you guys think of it.. it'd definately add much to the replay value.. I have no clue of what it'd take to get it in.. so anyone?
 
Oh yes, sorry.. I meant it like in terms of havok.. you know, ragdoll knockdown/dead bodies, player mass, horse mass and so on..
I'm not suggesting a havok license but just as an example
 
There's plenty of open/free alternatives to havok. Maybe not as good, but definately good. Open Dynamics Engine (ODE), Newton Gamedynamics, Tokamak just to mention a few.. Newton is great, have used it myself. :smile:
 
I think physics are very overrated for the most part. The ONLY game i've played where i was actually impressed with the physics was half life 2. In other newer games like FEAR, Starship Troopers, Doom 3, Farcry, Bet on Soldier, and Call of Duty 2 i barely notice the physics, if at all most of the time. So unless they're done REALLY REALLY well, and its a game where you are intended to interact with the environment alot(grav gun in HL2), they really are a waste of resources IMO. The time would be better spent on other aspects of the game. I think that adding fairly realistic gore and blood staining the ground etc. adds much more to a game visually than ragdoll effects and bodies sliding down hills. Either that or 2D grass rendered near the character and highly detailed foliage that appears to blow in the wind, none of which really require a physics engine. Just my 2 cents.
 
what woould you ather see on the battlefeild hundreds of bodys in the exact same pose that no-one would ever fall into anyway or bodys with unique positions.. think about it :roll:
 
I think for dying effects, a small death animation should be added (struggling and all that drama for example) then a transition to the ragdoll effect. This would definetly add to the immersion and replay value of the game.
 
The grav gun was probably invented into halflife 2 because they "could" invent it, it was there because of its "coolness". Good physics arent always highly noticeable, good physics isnt 100 dead bodies flying and bouncing off walls etc. The only games that IMO NEED physics is:

1.Racing sims
2.Flight sims
3.Totalwar& mount&blade

Proper physics for horses charging in infantry is highly needed, as long as the indfantry wont act as contortionist dolls. The worst way of doing physics is doing them because its cool, that leads to unrealistic things. M&B would definately benefit from proper physics, imagine:

1.Swinging a sword has a given mass and speed for moving the enemy when hit.
2.Horses charging into several infantry, (coolstuff eh)
3.javelins that almost fells the heavily armored enemy when hit instead of doing piercing damage.

Uh possibilites are endless :smile: :cool:

After all: "everything around us can be represented through numbers".
 
what woould you ather see on the battlefeild hundreds of bodys in the exact same pose that no-one would ever fall into anyway or bodys with unique positions.. think about it
This doesn't take a physics engine, just a few different death animations as someone else stated. It is just easier to imitate physics than create a physics engine.

2.Horses charging into several infantry, (coolstuff eh)
What do you mean? They already charge into infantry and have a knockdown effect. Add a couple of new knockdown/knockback animations and its 90% as good as any physics engine.

1.Swinging a sword has a given mass and speed for moving the enemy when hit.
Again, just a couple new animations for different types of damage representing the power of the weapon they're being hit by.
Its not that i'm against a physics engine, it would be cool, but i think that more and better animations with a bit of randomness to them is almost as good as a real physics engine and much easier to code. Things like ragdoll effects are nowhere near as influential to visual quality as something like decent face detail and facial expression, and just all around good smooth animations.
 
Yup valid points there Dalagga. What i meant with charging into infantry is that ATM you can GALLOP through hundreds of enemy infantry with a charger horse, would be nice to see that it would slow down after a few pushes.

Things like ragdoll effects are nowhere near as influential to visual quality as something like decent face detail and facial expression, and just all around good smooth animations.

Well said. :smile:
 
DaLagga said:
what woould you ather see on the battlefeild hundreds of bodys in the exact same pose that no-one would ever fall into anyway or bodys with unique positions.. think about it
This doesn't take a physics engine, just a few different death animations as someone else stated. It is just easier to imitate physics than create a physics engine.

2.Horses charging into several infantry, (coolstuff eh)
What do you mean? They already charge into infantry and have a knockdown effect. Add a couple of new knockdown/knockback animations and its 90% as good as any physics engine.

1.Swinging a sword has a given mass and speed for moving the enemy when hit.
Again, just a couple new animations for different types of damage representing the power of the weapon they're being hit by.
Its not that i'm against a physics engine, it would be cool, but i think that more and better animations with a bit of randomness to them is almost as good as a real physics engine and much easier to code. Things like ragdoll effects are nowhere near as influential to visual quality as something like decent face detail and facial expression, and just all around good smooth animations.

All good points. However, despite the fact that it's easier to code individual animations, in the end it becomes more difficult than using a physics engine because of the enormous number of variables you'd be dealing with. If you get hit in the legs while you're running, you're going to fall down a very different way than if you were clotheslined with a warhammer. I'm not saying that the game has to have havok 3.0 level physics, but somewhat realistic battle dynamics and again somewhat realistically reactive environments would make things a hell of alot more interesting. Not to mention that all the weapons in the game are indestructable. If you try to block a stroke of my claymore with your quarter staff, the claymore is going to go right through it and keep going.
 
From what ive seen, the only Havokesque physics implemented are broken shield effects. Its fun to go into edit mode and toss a broken shield around. :grin:
 
Juicy_jae said:
I think for dying effects, a small death animation should be added (struggling and all that drama for example) then a transition to the ragdoll effect. This would definetly add to the immersion and replay value of the game.

Something like this was used in Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy. A good example of that would be using the grip power to choke an enemy to death and after they sputter and die they will slump into a heap.

The system was pretty effective but had its drawbacks (one of which, not being available in multiplayer, doesn't apply anyway).
 
However, despite the fact that it's easier to code individual animations, in the end it becomes more difficult than using a physics engine because of the enormous number of variables you'd be dealing with. If you get hit in the legs while you're running, you're going to fall down a very different way than if you were clotheslined with a warhammer.
Oh yes, i agree. But i'm not suggesting that you should attempt to account for all the variables. Just a few new animations, but nothing to fully compensate for the lack of a physics engine.

Something like this was used in Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy. A good example of that would be using the grip power to choke an enemy to death and after they sputter and die they will slump into a heap.
Ahhh yes, that game was much fun online. Never really played that expansion though, just JK2. Choke was an uber deadly attack of much unstoppable death doom and destruction if abused properly online. Find a map with a few bottomless pits, grip someone and instantly fling the mouse in the direction of the pit. They go flying off the ledge and they never have time to push/pull out of it, their only chance is force absorb which had to have been active to beforehand. You are guaranteed to get flamed :lol:
 
darkbane said:
All good points. However, despite the fact that it's easier to code individual animations, in the end it becomes more difficult than using a physics engine because of the enormous number of variables you'd be dealing with. If you get hit in the legs while you're running, you're going to fall down a very different way than if you were clotheslined with a warhammer. I'm not saying that the game has to have havok 3.0 level physics, but somewhat realistic battle dynamics and again somewhat realistically reactive environments would make things a hell of alot more interesting. Not to mention that all the weapons in the game are indestructable. If you try to block a stroke of my claymore with your quarter staff, the claymore is going to go right through it and keep going.

Not if it's my iron-bound staff :twisted:

It is a good idea, but if it was to be implemented I would *hope* to see large speed increases in all weapons that have fewer metal parts, particularly staves.
 
Back
Top Bottom