Fully destructible Unreal Tournament level?

A

AMD_Gamer

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
18,287
check this out some guy made a simple level using the new Unreal Development Kit and PhysX based destructible walls and floors, pretty much everything can be destroyed.

http://www.gamephys.com/2009/12/02/...st-shows-completely-destructible-environment/

Imagine when stuff like this really starts to get implemented into games and mods, i think it will really change the way we play games and bring lots of new game types.
 
Last edited:
AMD_Gamer said:
check this out some guy made a simple level using the new Unreal Development Kit and PhysX based destructible walls and floors, pretty much everything can be destroyed.

http://www.gamephys.com/2009/12/02/...st-shows-completely-destructible-environment/

Imagine when stuff like this really starts to get implemented into games and mods, i think it will really change the way we play games and bring lots of thew game types.
Click to expand...

Oh man blasting through a wall where someone is camping will be so awesome.
 
That's great unless it requires a dedicated nvidia card for physx. Then it's, nobody will use it.
 
AMD_Gamer said:
Why do you say that? imagine when games have fully destructible environments people will want to play.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you already have a card for PhysX then? Good for you, I don't, and I'd never consider buying one unless it was widely supported. Most people are like that, or did you miss PhysX's failure to succeed in the discreet hardware market?
 
SixtyWattMan said:
That's great unless it requires a dedicated nvidia card for physx. Then it's, nobody will use it.
Click to expand...
Nope, doesn't require it. PhysX will run on your CPU if you don't have an Nvidia card to run it on...but you'll need a bitchen'-fast CPU to handle that.

Also, who said anything about buying an Nvidia card specifically for PhysX? I did what I would do anyway, purchased a newer faster card. Instead of getting rid of my old card, I kept it in my system instead. oh look, dedicated PhysX card and I didn't have to do anything extra.
 
Unknown-One said:
Nope, doesn't require it. PhysX will run on your CPU if you don't have an Nvidia card to run it on...but you'll need a bitchen'-fast CPU to handle that.

Also, who said anything about buying an Nvidia card specifically for PhysX? I did what I would do anyway, purchased a newer faster card. Instead of getting rid of my old card, I kept it in my system instead. oh look, dedicated PhysX card and I didn't have to do anything extra.
Click to expand...

You have to buy an nvidia card, period. You bought one. Just because it's your old card doesn't mean you didn't buy one. If I or many many people purchased a new card right now our old cards will be ATI cards, no physx. Also, nvidia locks out physx if you are running an ATI card as your main card so you would have to buy an nvidia card no matter what. Face it, while the technology is good, it is crap at the same time for requiring an nvidia card alienating a very large user base. Hardware physics is going nowhere fast without a standard everyone can use.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
Also, nvidia locks out physx if you are running an ATI card as your main card
Click to expand...
Where have you been? That limitation was killed quite some time ago.

I fully plan to use an HD 5870 for graphics and an nvidia card for PhysX (as soon as I can get my hands on a 5870 for a reasonable price).
 
Unknown-One said:
Where have you been? That limitation was killed quite some time ago.

I fully plan to use an HD 5870 for graphics and an nvidia card for PhysX (as soon as I can get my hands on a 5870 for a reasonable price).
Click to expand...

With hacked drivers.
 
Unknown-One said:
Where have you been? That limitation was killed quite some time ago.

I fully plan to use an HD 5870 for graphics and an nvidia card for PhysX (as soon as I can get my hands on a 5870 for a reasonable price).
Click to expand...

As AMD_Gamer said yes they did with hacked drivers. Face it, hardware Physx is never going to go mainstream. No one wants to have to use hacked drivers to be able to use their hardware, no one wants to have to keep an 8800GS or better plugged into their system to run only a few games that support the crap. Face it, the only talk about Physx has been Batman AA, even the GTX275/8800GTS combo card they came out with has the fucking joker on it. Shit is dead already.
 
It's kind of neat as a tech demo, but to actually look good and be useful in a game it has a very long way to go.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
It's kind of neat as a tech demo, but to actually look good and be useful in a game it has a very long way to go.
Click to expand...

+1

I kept waiting for big chunks to fall when their supports were cut out. If you cut out the top and bottom portions of a ramp then the middle section should collapse.

I'm sure it is an early attempt anyway. Given time this sort of tech will be in all of the games.
 
Shadowspawn said:
+1

I kept waiting for big chunks to fall when their supports were cut out. If you cut out the top and bottom portions of a ramp then the middle section should collapse.

I'm sure it is an early attempt anyway. Given time this sort of tech will be in all of the games.
Click to expand...

the floors did not collapse but i was pretty sure the walls did fall over a few times, it happens pretty fast so its hard to tell, he may have had it setup wrong or setup not to collapse the way we are thinking, I am not sure.
 
SixtyWattMan said:
No one wants to have to use hacked drivers to be able to use their hardware, no one wants to have to keep an 8800GS or better plugged into their system to run only a few games that support the crap. Face it, the only talk about Physx has been Batman AA, .
Click to expand...

Whatever happened to all the talk about CPU physx that was around when ghostbusters came out? It looked to me like they were doing some pretty neat things going that route and it didn't require nvidia inside....
 
CanesVenetici said:
Whatever happened to all the talk about CPU physx that was around when ghostbusters came out? It looked to me like they were doing some pretty neat things going that route and it didn't require nvidia inside....
Click to expand...

PR fluff..."gostbusters" tried to tell people that limited rigid bodies physics that disspears after 10 seconds was the same as interactive physics...
 
Atech said:
PR fluff..."gostbusters" tried to tell people that limited rigid bodies physics that disspears after 10 seconds was the same as interactive physics...
Click to expand...

lol is that what happens in Ghostbusters?
 
jonneymendoza said:
no it has full destructible enviornments
Click to expand...

Just did a quick goole, seems you are right....and fun part...now the consolepalyers are the ones whining *LOL*
http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/30/293857.page

DICE feels that because the console versions of the game is at such a lower resolution (1280x720), compared to PC resolutions (as high as 2560x1600), that prone was breaking the fast paced action of the game and that it was too camper friendly. When DICE played with prone on consoles other players were nearly impossible to see while prone (until it was too late), and the matches often resulted in a camping festival between the defending team and the attacking team, complete with smores and campfire songs. The overall atmosphere felt slow, and the game wasn’t at its full fast-paced potential. When DICE played the matches with the prone turned off, it forced camping players to put more thought into their hiding spots, and it gave the attackers less of a disadvantage being able to see who was shooting at them and resulted in more fast paced gameplay. People like yourself can go on and on about how in real life prone is the most important battle stance in a firefight, but obviously this isn’t real life, and you should play ARMA2 or something if you really want it, or purchase the PC version
Click to expand...

Damn I hate consoles and their stagnation of technology...I hope more developers follow DICE's lead and use the MAJOR computional advantage PC's has over consoles...I am sooo tired of console ports.
 
Might be wrong but I think I remember reading in one of the other threads that bad company 2 was dx11, so it couldn't be a direct port. I might be completely wrong on that. I do remember seeing bad company destructable environments awhile back and being really impressed.
 
Crash250f said:
Might be wrong but I think I remember reading in one of the other threads that bad company 2 was dx11, so it couldn't be a direct port. I might be completely wrong on that. I do remember seeing bad company destructable environments awhile back and being really impressed.
Click to expand...

After what I read BC2 is two very diffrent beasts on the consoles(scaled down generic version) and then the PC(All sorts of added goodies).

Looks like the console people are getting the shaft this time for change :D
 
What's disapointing is that consolers will complain about the PC version being better, even if DICE does everything for the console that they can do. I just hope some of them realize its the platform and not the devs.
 
Crash250f said:
What's disapointing is that consolers will complain about the PC version being better, even if DICE does everything for the console that they can do. I just hope some of them realize its the platform and not the devs.
Click to expand...

You'd be suprised how many consol owners who have bought into the meme that their consol is a "supercomputer"...when it's more like a old, slow PC...both console have G70/R600 performance GPU's.
 
Atech said:
You'd be suprised how many consol owners who have bought into the meme that their consol is a "supercomputer"...when it's more like a old, slow PC...both console have G70/R600 performance GPU's.
Click to expand...

Well back in 2005-2006 they were pretty amazing! I have to admit that console games still don't look bad, PC games look better but the gap is much smaller than it used to be...
 
450 said:
Well back in 2005-2006 they were pretty amazing! I have to admit that console games still don't look bad, PC games look better but the gap is much smaller than it used to be...
Click to expand...

The small gap is due to crappy porting to the PC.
You won't find anything near the I.Q of Crysis on consoles.

Or BC2 it seems ;)
 
thats pretty damn badass :) That would make a really cool multiplayer experience, although I'm not real sure how it would work. Is it the server or client machine that would be doing the physx calculations?

Talk about adding a whole new dynamic to game play. Make everything destructible with adjustable density levels. If nvidia were smart, they'd entice a development studio to come up with something to showcase it with reasonable performance levels
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top