Physics Engine
t0x1kw4st3
Join Date: 2008-04-27 Member: 64167Members
Join Date: 2008-04-27 Member: 64167Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Please have a decent physics engine and include mass damage</div>Physics is a super important field in video games these days; to have as close to real life object movements, energy transfer and calculations, as possible. So, skimping on the physics would be lame, but incorporating at least a decent flight engine would be acceptable. I'm not sure how other aspects of physics could incorporate into NS2, but there surely is a huge application for physics in any game. (Source engine being a big name in physics engines)
So, it would be nice to hear a list of the physics concepts you have incorporated into NS2. I can already assume the physics of flight will make it in. How about Kinetic and Potential Energy for non-static objects or something else like that.
Thx.
Pieces
So, it would be nice to hear a list of the physics concepts you have incorporated into NS2. I can already assume the physics of flight will make it in. How about Kinetic and Potential Energy for non-static objects or something else like that.
Thx.
Pieces
Comments
And I'm pretty sure UWE already has some kind of physics implemented.
And I'm pretty sure UWE already has some kind of physics implemented.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it's based off the Havok physics engine. VALVe did modify it slightly for their needs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Since they licensed and integrated it into Source, Valve have been tweaking and adding to Havok to the point it's virtually a new animal. Almost every aspect of the Source engine follows on from the physics — including the sound, graphics, AI and animation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Source: <a href="http://www.hlfallout.net/articles.php/article_2/4/" target="_blank">http://www.hlfallout.net/articles.php/article_2/4/</a></b>
Honestly, the Euphoria engine is the way to go, what with dynamic character animation.... but since this game concept doesn't need NPC's, it might not be so noticable...
However, I concur that ragdoll deaths are a staple of modern games, and I can't stand playing a game without it (Even Total war).
When I play this game, I want to see the enemy I just killed slump to the floor like a sack of crap. If I kill someone running for a ledge, I want their corpse to slide over the rail and fall lifeless to the floor below. These kind of freak chance occurances are SO much more satisfying than repeated death animations (Even if there are 10 unique death animations... it still gets tiresome)
For humans.... it's a common thing to see.... but for the different alien types, it's all the more interesting... especially since they'll be climbing on the walls and etc.
ONE LAST REQUEST THAT'S DEATH RELATED!
If you can incorporate gibbing for certain deaths (such as grenade kills or mine kills or the alien suicide kills), that would be awesome frantic fun, with server wide LOL's and youtube frap grabs of certain insane explosion/carnage/gibbing situations.
Having corpses flung around the room with explosions and physics engines is certainly entertaining.... but I really miss the hillarity of gibbing when the kill was uberkill.
It's an intense feeling if you can smack the crap out of the other players, just like in Condemned or Left 4 Dead melee.
Now think you're a fade and punch the marines in a tiny room and their're just flying around like sacks and screaming for help. Haw.
I agree. The only way physics other than ragdolls would be useful in NS2 is if you filled the levels with crap to get tossed around by the physics, and that would suck.
IMO, a large Physics Engine might be a tad bit overkill for NS2, but since it will most likely be implemented into the Engine itself (did they ever decide on a name for the thing!?) I think it would be a safe bet to look into the future. If we look back a few years to games like Unreal, they had no "Physics" engine at all. Most of their physics code was built into the game play code. You could shoot certain objects and they would move somewhat realistically. Collision detection was pretty top notch, and the weapons were "simple" but still satisfying. You don't need a high end physics engine (don't they get royalties?) to get a lot of eye candy. Rag-dolls weren't implemented until UT2003 (and possibly, some games that used a different generation engine that was prior to the release of UT2003) so all there was, was death animations (1-2 per monster?) that were loosely affected by the "physics" of the game. Monsters attached to the ceiling would fall when they were killed, you could push monsters off a bridge/cliff with a rocket launcher blast, etc. The quality of the game was not really affected by that, partly because at the time, that was pretty much the only capabilities of the technology, but also because the game play itself was awesome and made up for not being able to see your opponents dead body squirm.
Particles that should be effected by smoke are a different story. While decent looking particle systems can be implemented without a fully fledged physics system to back it up (i.e. calculate the dispersion when a player walks through smoke), it would take some time (and probably be somewhat difficult).
I've heard some discussion that building a physics engine is quite hard indeed- requiring lots and lots of math knowledge. I have always maintained that it couldn't be as hard as some people state, but I've never come across a situation where I needed to use something more advanced than applying gravity+wind to a player, and really, I think that is pretty much all a Physics Engine is (except I think Physics Engine specifically have a greater influence over polygons and what not, which give us our beloved rag dolls.).
To get back to the point, NS2 doesn't need a physics engine that can calculate per polygon the deformation an Onos' corpse when a large object comes into contact (like erm... a train car). We don't need to see something as detailed as Adam Savage getting slapped: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLRMF__9Nx0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLRMF__9Nx0</a>. We just need something that can apply different forces to a model at certain points of the model. So the head of the model should be able to freely rotate, arms, legs, etc. We don't want jelly rag-dolls, do we? However, the developers should (and most likely are/have) consider the possibilities (and head aches!) a Physics engine, rich with features, has to offer.
All and all, I think watch a lerk and shot up in mid-flight and hit the ground rolling would be an awesome sight, however I would sacrifice that for a lesser quality death physics for improved game play.
Having done a few physics unit at university I can guarantee you that physics beyond the basic velocity-and-distance-in-a-straight-line level is extremely complex. The amount of maths required to analyse everyday occurrences (like an object reacting to a kinetic force) is really daunting sometimes and can go well beyond a few pages of equations.
I could only image how hard it would be to have to know all the maths plus write codes for it.
gorge spit kill = hang corpse from rafter