Game Physics

[Sly]

I have no idea.


But it is just that it has better physics than a lot of games. For example... BF2's physics absolutely suck.

The only beef i had with that is that full credits were given to Valve like they invented it. When Havok physics (which they only licensed, they did *not* make it) was already developed and available long before then.

I just hate it when someone takes credit for something someone else developed.

 

[ryanrule]

You're discussing free fall but not one differential equation has been brought up yet?

dont do it.

 

[arentol]

But do physics add anything to BF2's gameplay? No. I'd rather have bodies that just dissapear when they are killed and better lighting effects than some stupid ragdoll animation that you don't pay attention to. Physics (at this point) really lends itself more towards single player games at the moment. I'd rather not have uber leet physics that will dictate how a gun should fall when someone is killed but instead be able to add an extra 12+ players to the max number of players on a given server using the same CPU utilization.

Once PPU's become ubiquitous then physics probably really will add alot to BF2 (well, more likely BF3 or 4). Not in terms of ragdoll animations and what not, but in terms of both environment destruction, and (more importantly) vehicle damage....

Imagine if the actual surfaces, like armor, and all the vital working parts of a tank, and of the weapon being fired at it, were fully physically modeled. Then every bit of how you hit a vehicle with a round would be vital to determining how much damage it suffers, whether the crew lives, whether it blows up, can still fire it's weapons, whether it is able to move properly still, etc.... No more "3 hits and the tank is definitely dead" stuff. Now hitting the right spot from the right angle could make the difference between virtually no damage and an insta-kill. Same applies to everything else in the game... Imagine firing a gun at a chopper and getting a ricochet inside the hull that hits the fully-modeled oil line. Chopper flies off thinking it's okay, but a minute later it's smoking and the engine is overheating and it has to land for repairs or crash and burn. All this stuff may be doable some day with really good physics cards/engines, and will add alot to games like BF2.

 

[Torgo]

Okay, I've read enough comments on the Holy Grail of Physics Chips that I have to tap the breaks on this delusion. First off, you will not see developers use a physics chip until the vast majority of computers have it come standard with a computer. Unlike graphics where you can turn on and off the pretty colors and adjust resolution, you can't turn off physics.

With today's processors you can do an awful lot in a multiplayer game with ragdolls, gravity, friction, resistance and velocity. But to make a gigantic leap ahead and fully use a physics chip would break the game for anyone who doesn't have the chip. Now I suppose that you could scale some effects it down for those that don't have it, but if you're using the chip to determine collision effects, weapon objects and what not, then if you don't have the chip, you can't play.

So here's how a physics chip would come into reality. Because it's going to so tied into gaming at first, you'll see the physics chip either be attached to a motherboard or a graphics card. I don't see it being a separate card because that baby is going to need some serious bandwidth. Plus, by having it on the MB or video card, it guarentees that the chip will be adopted. It's going to take at three years for enough people to start having this hardware for enough people to have it to make multiplayer games worthwhile.

During that time, you'll have developers making single player only games that take advantage of the physics chip. You'll have that one game that really shows it off (but it'll take two years for that to be developed from scratch) that will help speed up adoption. In five years time, you'll have the first multiplayer games that really take advantage of a physics chip. It'll also feature the next generation of physics chips and the second generation of single player games.

Will it happen? Yeah, but not tomorrow or next week or even next year. If AMD, Intel or Via are smart, they'll make their own standards group for physics chips and make their own. I can totally see them integrating a physics chip into the CPU.

 

[kick@ss]

Once PPU's become ubiquitous then physics probably really will add alot to BF2 (well, more likely BF3 or 4). Not in terms of ragdoll animations and what not, but in terms of both environment destruction, and (more importantly) vehicle damage....

Imagine if the actual surfaces, like armor, and all the vital working parts of a tank, and of the weapon being fired at it, were fully physically modeled. Then every bit of how you hit a vehicle with a round would be vital to determining how much damage it suffers, whether the crew lives, whether it blows up, can still fire it's weapons, whether it is able to move properly still, etc.... No more "3 hits and the tank is definitely dead" stuff. Now hitting the right spot from the right angle could make the difference between virtually no damage and an insta-kill. Same applies to everything else in the game... Imagine firing a gun at a chopper and getting a ricochet inside the hull that hits the fully-modeled oil line. Chopper flies off thinking it's okay, but a minute later it's smoking and the engine is overheating and it has to land for repairs or crash and burn. All this stuff may be doable some day with really good physics cards/engines, and will add alot to games like BF2.

You don't need physics for that. Physics is basically going to make stuff fall, in very general terms. Also, that would take a lot of server side processing (the server would have to calculate bullet trajectory for the ricochet then determine what happens) that could be better used in other places (more players). It may be added some day, but it'll probably be a good 10 years away.

 

[Sly]

Okay, I've read enough comments on the Holy Grail of Physics Chips that I have to tap the breaks on this delusion. First off, you will not see developers use a physics chip until the vast majority of computers have it come standard with a computer. Unlike graphics where you can turn on and off the pretty colors and adjust resolution, you can't turn off physics.

With today's processors you can do an awful lot in a multiplayer game with ragdolls, gravity, friction, resistance and velocity. But to make a gigantic leap ahead and fully use a physics chip would break the game for anyone who doesn't have the chip. Now I suppose that you could scale some effects it down for those that don't have it, but if you're using the chip to determine collision effects, weapon objects and what not, then if you don't have the chip, you can't play.

So here's how a physics chip would come into reality. Because it's going to so tied into gaming at first, you'll see the physics chip either be attached to a motherboard or a graphics card. I don't see it being a separate card because that baby is going to need some serious bandwidth. Plus, by having it on the MB or video card, it guarentees that the chip will be adopted. It's going to take at three years for enough people to start having this hardware for enough people to have it to make multiplayer games worthwhile.

During that time, you'll have developers making single player only games that take advantage of the physics chip. You'll have that one game that really shows it off (but it'll take two years for that to be developed from scratch) that will help speed up adoption. In five years time, you'll have the first multiplayer games that really take advantage of a physics chip. It'll also feature the next generation of physics chips and the second generation of single player games.

Will it happen? Yeah, but not tomorrow or next week or even next year. If AMD, Intel or Via are smart, they'll make their own standards group for physics chips and make their own. I can totally see them integrating a physics chip into the CPU.

Not exactly. The only one that really has to have the physics chip is the server. Then again to take full advantage of it would require a game setup specifically for that hardware setup. Otherwise you'd have a totally different gameplay for servers without the PPU but this shouldn't be a problem for centralized servers hosted by the developers (MMO?).

Another drawback is something that Doom3's netcode has shown. Sending tracking and synchronizing data for physics (orientation, velocity, etc. for *every* ingame object including bullets) really really bogs down the network. In the years that passed, Cable and DSL may have become widespread but the top speed you can pass data between PC's hasn't changed at all. In order for those fancy PPU powered bits of the wall to affect gameplay, the server will have to send tracking data for each of them as well (not just the players and bullets) to make sure the same is shown to each player and in perfect sync.

One way to make PPU's easier to implement is to have the engine the games will use support it. I dunno how Unreal3's gonna implement it, but it's a good step to have an engine that's likely to be widely used have it PPU ready.

I still don't know about hardware distribution tho. Having to spend another 300 dollars isn't going to sit well even for the hardcores. The transition really can't be compared to 3D cards, coz it was honestly just eyecandy for the most part, you don't lose much gameplay when switching to software mode. Software vs Hardware players can still play together without penalty so the transition was smoother. Physics is another matter. Whether you're playing at high quality or low, that bullet must still be treated as a projectile or it could seriously hamper the gameplay, this drawback would tend to separate the hardware PPU players from the software ones, transition is gonna be much harder.

The first 3D accelerated game i've seen was BattleArena Toshinden (PCDOS), when CS1.0 came out, it was still commonplace for cybercafes to be running it in software mode and 3D hardware was just starting to become popular. That's about how long it took 3D to be accepted. I imagine it'll be even harder for PPUs.

 

[bobsaget]

But do physics add anything to BF2's gameplay? No.

Not trying to argue... but physics would add a lot to BF2 for me. That is why Havok in HL2 was a very nice feature that I really liked.

 

[Hate_Bot]

FYI, the next gen consoles will have PPUs

 

[arentol]

You don't need physics for that.

Yes you do. I am talking about objects having mass, and density, and other specific characteristics that cause them to interact more like in real life. Yeah, you could create 10 to 20 mini "hit zones" on each vehicle to indicate when a specfic thing, like a turret or a tire, is hit, but that is not what I am talking about at all. I am talking about stuff like an M577 (artillery command center circa 1980's and1990's) being hit by a Sabot round.... Dead on it would pass all the way through the vehicle because the walls are just made from a few inches of alluminium which doesn't have the density to stop the round when it that way. However, from a steep angle it would actually bounce of the alluminum (after gouging it severely) and ultimately just keep going. Finally, from a slight angle it would penetrate the first wall and then probably get stopped by the internal equipment or the far side of the vehicle, ultimately doing the most damage. There is no non-physics based way of making that kind of thing happen, and so I say you do need physics to do it right.

Physics is basically going to make stuff fall, in very general terms.

Yes, Initially it's going to be somewhat limited, but the engine will do a good bit more than just make things fall, and give it time and it will be doing more than you can imagine.

Also, that would take a lot of server side processing (the server would have to calculate bullet trajectory for the ricochet then determine what happens) that could be better used in other places (more players).

Ummm... The processing would be handled by the PPU on the server, and that has nothing to do with how many players you can have anyway.

It may be added some day, but it'll probably be a good 10 years away.

I actually didn't mean to give the impression this would happen right away either. I am thinking about 6 to 8 years to get a single player experience pretty close to what I describe, and more like 10 to 12 years to get all the way there (which is why I mentioned BF3 and BF4, and PPU's being ubiquitous before this happens).

 

[-Sean Casey]

For penetration you don't really need a whole physics calculations just some static values added to hitzones and just stack hit zones.

IE: This example is long but is a demonstration of how you can get the results of penetration and "fake physics" and get something believeable.

105mm artillery round hits turret on tank @ 60 degree angle. Only physics of the shell need to be modeled in a very basic form.

Basic shell specs:
Damage Value = 10
Velocity Modifyer (fast shell is more damage, increments of 100mph) = 10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,100
Shell speed when fired = 1000mph
ExplosiveModifyer (added damage from explosives)=500

So this give intial damage value of 1500, minimum of 510. A basic simulated physics could do basic calculations and slow shell down during its flight.

Step 1= Check direction of shell, since it is hitting at a high angle against this hit zone, have game reduce speed of shell by some arbitrary amount (depending on angle, figure a case statement or a lookup table, every 10 degrees or something to reduce CPU time) and deflect it by maybe 40 degrees outward so it give the perception of a deflected shot.

On new trajectory shell is deflected into top chassis armor at 85% angle (just an example, so bear with me). Due to physics calc and speed reductions from the delfection shot lookup table round is set to hit this hitbox at 700mph so damage from the shell is now 1200.

At this angle the code says the shot is a hit. Perhaps 5% damage reducton due to 15 degree deflection. Damage reduces to 1140.

Ok so big deal...

Step 2: From the tank model this hitbox will sustain up to 900 points of damage. So this shot will do 900 points of damage to this panel leaving it with 0 remaining. Since it is a non critial part, tank will still be alive but all future shots of any type (even small arms) will be considered as penetrated shots. At this hit point 3d model of shell will explode and any furthur tests would just be calculate based on straigthline though the tank model and tested on each hitbox the line intersects.

Step 3: Allow shell to move on to invisible (not-rendered) hitbox labled "crew_compartment"
Remaining damage is 240 points of damage. Each player can sustain 10 points of damage.there are 2 players in the tank so they get combined two 20 points and both are killed.

Now at this point you could determine with you want shells to penetrate future of stop at 2 lays. If deeper perhaps the next stop would be ammo storage and allow for a nice big boom, or perhaps floor board and allow shell to badly damage the bottom of the tank. The end result could be a playerless but very damaged tank free for the taking. All of this would take very little CPU time. For game balance repairs could be limited to only parts damaged less than 25% in field, and make the person go to a base with a garage to repair parts damaged to 50% and after that make it non-repairable.

For fine details like oil lines or what ever just have multiple hit boxes and if hte line hits them it can cause damage.
-----------------------------------------

Very believeable results without complex physics calculations.

Games try to do this today, but I think the game development cycle limits the amount of time they spend working on and fine tuning more than just basic hitboxes. Simulators are more likely to actually do this.

IMO the physics engine of a game should only be seen in 3d models, everything else can be approximated, unless you were making a training simulator for the military.

BTW you can tie this into my post about destructable environments in that thread and allow for players to see through "destroyed" panels on tanks. Hell, just make the panel become transparent or replace the texture on it to make that take place.

This could be applied to player models themselves. Say play is hit in the leg the shot would do damage, but what if the round hit the hitbox for the major artery in the leg. Life could be taken away for the wound, but since he has a major artery hit you could start taking points away from the players health and slowly dimming the players view to red or black or blurring it (or both) until a medic heals him or he dies. Lots a possibilities.

 

[kick@ss]

Yes you do. I am talking about objects having mass, and density, and other specific characteristics that cause them to interact more like in real life. Yeah, you could create 10 to 20 mini "hit zones" on each vehicle to indicate when a specfic thing, like a turret or a tire, is hit, but that is not what I am talking about at all. I am talking about stuff like an M577 (artillery command center circa 1980's and1990's) being hit by a Sabot round.... Dead on it would pass all the way through the vehicle because the walls are just made from a few inches of alluminium which doesn't have the density to stop the round when it that way. However, from a steep angle it would actually bounce of the alluminum (after gouging it severely) and ultimately just keep going. Finally, from a slight angle it would penetrate the first wall and then probably get stopped by the internal equipment or the far side of the vehicle, ultimately doing the most damage. There is no non-physics based way of making that kind of thing happen, and so I say you do need physics to do it right.

First of all, see the reply just below your post. Secondly, this is a complete waste of time. If you want realism, join the army. Gamers have spoken with the amount of time spent in online games that realism is NOT fun. You're talking about adding something that would significantly increase the amount of work a client and server would have to do for very, very small returns.

Yes, Initially it's going to be somewhat limited, but the engine will do a good bit more than just make things fall, and give it time and it will be doing more than you can imagine.

Like? Will I be able to do x-ray diffraction and transmission electron micropscopy experiments with it? I think you need to look at real physics for a second, and on the level worth simulating there's just not many things more than I can imagine. There's just not that much stuff.

Ummm... The processing would be handled by the PPU on the server, and that has nothing to do with how many players you can have anyway.

PPUs on servers? You must really think PPUs are going to take over the world. In VERY many circumstances there is NO room for another card on 1U and 2U servers and I don't forsee motherboard manufacturers integrating a PPU on to a motherboard when only a very small number of people would use it. And no, it won't be used for other computations - if that was the case you'd see 6800s in servers. Servers are not some desktop case thrown in a room and hooked up to a fast connection. This is will never happen.

I actually didn't mean to give the impression this would happen right away either. I am thinking about 6 to 8 years to get a single player experience pretty close to what I describe, and more like 10 to 12 years to get all the way there (which is why I mentioned BF3 and BF4, and PPU's being ubiquitous before this happens).

I don't think we'll see what you're saying added ever except maybe in a few unpopular mods and oddball games because it doesn't add that much to gameplay over a simple physics, there's less CPU intensive ways of doing what you want, and it's just not worth the effort.

 

[bipolar]

What about parachutes. They use wind resistance. If I was to strap the same size boxes on the same size parachutes everything identicle except one weighed 90tons would they fall at the same speed?

Well, the problem is I can't imagine any material the size of a parachute weighing 90 tons that would unfurl in the same manner. For the sake of arguement, let's say you're somehow magically teleported 5000 feet up with a parachute made of concrete that is formed to be exactly the same shape as a silk parachute when fully extended. Then yes, it would work equally as well. Landing would be a bitch though -- better cover your head

 

[bipolar]

I think the force of the bullet from leaving the gun creates wind resistance around the bullet sorta cancelling out gravity or adding some sort of "force" around it and hold it in the air until it slows down enough.

Since no one came right out and said the answer, I'll give it: the two bullets would hit the ground at the same time. This was the most counter-intuitive thing I learned in high school physics and even after doing the math I didn't believe it until my physics teacher pulled out a pretty cool device that basically conducted the experiment (with two 60 mm ball bearings, one that got shoot out horizontally with a large spring and one that just dropped straight down, both released at the same time). Hearing only one "click" as they hit the floor simultaneously was

 

[Johnx64]

Since no one came right out and said the answer, I'll give it: the two bullets would hit the ground at the same time. This was the most counter-intuitive thing I learned in high school physics and even after doing the math I didn't believe it until my physics teacher pulled out a pretty cool device that basically conducted the experiment (with two 60 mm ball bearings, one that got shoot out horizontally with a large spring and one that just dropped straight down, both released at the same time). Hearing only one "click" as they hit the floor simultaneously was

Well we are talking about a bullet that has an incredible amount of force behind it creating another force all around it in the form of wind resistance meaning it wouldn't go up down left or right unless another force effected it or until it loses a substantial amount of its lateral force. A ball bearing ejected from a spring isnt gong to have enough wind resistance to be a factor.

 

[dgb]

Oh FFS, the only difference in wind resistance would be in the plane horizontal to teh earth, which would have no effect on how long it took to hit the ground.

S0m30n3, you are a really bad advertisement for your school.

 

[USMC2Hard4U]

Am i the only one in life that smoked weed and got drunk in school? Physics? They wouldnt even let me take that class because I failed Algebra 2....

This thread hurt my brain. Fuckin smart people.

 

[Johnx64]

Oh FFS, the only difference in wind resistance would be in the plane horizontal to teh earth, which would have no effect on how long it took to hit the ground.

S0m30n3, you are a really bad advertisement for your school.

My school was shit. Your wrong dude. The wind force around it would cause it to stay in the air just like a glider or an airplane.

You guys are neglecting the fact that there are other forces acting upon it not just gravity.

 

[bipolar]

Well we are talking about a bullet that has an incredible amount of force behind it creating another force all around it in the form of wind resistance meaning it wouldn't go up down left or right unless another force effected it or until it loses a substantial amount of its lateral force. A ball bearing ejected from a spring isnt gong to have enough wind resistance to be a factor.

Er, no. You think a bullet becomes somehow anti-gravitational when fired from a gun? Why don't we use this anti-grav tech in other ways then?

Here are some links:
http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/pschweig/projmotdemo.html
http://www.physics.umn.edu/outreach/pforce/projectile.html
http://www.chatham.edu/pti/ProofinMathematics/the_death_curriculum.htm

Another crazy question:

A truck is making its way to the pet store, loaded with a couple hundred canaries. As the truck goes over a bridge, it skids on a patch of ice and ends up with the rear of the truck hanging over the edge. The skid made all of the canaries take off into the air in their cages, where they continue to fly around in a panic. The truck is balanced perfectly, so that any increase of weight in the rear of the truck, where the canaries are, will send it tumbling over the edge.
Now the question is: what happens when the canaries calm down and land on their perches? Does the weight of the rear of the truck change when they are on their perch as opposed to when they are flying around back there?

Here's another, easier one that also has a bit of relevance to the original topic:
We have a gun buried in the ground, facing up. The end of the barrel is flush with the ground so that a bullet can come out, but nothing else of the gun can be seen. The bullet obviously fires straight up. We fire a bullet from this gun that has a velocity, as it leaves the barrel, of 1000 m/sec. The bullet goes up, stops for an instant, then falls back down to earth. Ignoring the minor effects of air resistance (minimal for an extremely aerodynamic shape like a bullet), when the bullet hits the earth on its way down, will it be moving:
a) Faster than 1000 m/sec
b) 1000 m/sec
c) Slower than 1000 m/sec

 

[Moog]

Basic Physics, Galileo tested this at Pizza.

Pisa.

 

[Johnx64]

Er, no. You think a bullet becomes somehow anti-gravitational when fired from a gun? Why don't we use this anti-grav tech in other ways then?

Here are some links:
http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/pschweig/projmotdemo.html
http://www.physics.umn.edu/outreach/pforce/projectile.html
http://www.chatham.edu/pti/ProofinMathematics/the_death_curriculum.htm

Another crazy question:

The force from the wind going around it cancels out gravity until its force is lossed, letting gravity take play.

Please no more questions.

 

[bipolar]

The force from the wind going around it cancels out gravity until its force is lossed, letting gravity take play.

Please no more questions.

lol
So every PhD of physics in the world is wrong, and you're right eh? I smell a Nobel Prize in your future!

 

[Johnx64]

Since we are talking about a gun being shot in our atmosphere were another force is being applied yes they are wrong. If we are only talking about the effects of gravity then yes they are right.

 

[bipolar]

Since we are talking about a gun being shot in our atmosphere were another force is being applied yes they are wrong. If we are only talking about the effects of gravity then yes they are right.

Air resistance will affect them equally, since horizontal motion is separate from vertical motion. They will both face the same amount of vertical air resistance. True story.

 

[Johnx64]

Air resistance will affect them equally, since horizontal motion is separate from vertical motion. They will both face the same amount of vertical air resistance. True story.

No. One is traveling at a high speed sideways acting against another force which is being forced all around it. One will fall straight down for a short distance effected only by gravity.

 

[Johnx64]

Air resistance provides a drag force which increases with speed and points in the direction opposite to the velocity of the bullet through the air. The bullet is traveling very rapidly, mostly horizontally, but with a small downwards component. Air resistance provides a force that increases nonlinearly with speed, and so the vertical component of the air resistance force will be greater for the horizontally shot bullet than for the dropped bullet.

Hmmm....

 

[bipolar]

Hmmm....

Link? Don't see that on any of the pages I referenced.

 

[dgb]

Your wrong dude. The wind force around it would cause it to stay in the air just like a glider or an airplane.

You guys are neglecting the fact that there are other forces acting upon it not just gravity.

Gliders and planes are designed to create those forces. Bullets aren't.

 

[Johnx64]

edit : im stupid

 

[Johnx64]

Gliders and planes are designed to create those forces. Bullets aren't.

But since they travel fast it happens. And they are created to increase that force.

 

[Deadguy]

dude....... what are you talking about?

planes fly because of wings designed to cause differences in air pressure above and below

bullets have no lift properties

no amount of drag, wind resistance or speed will negate the force of gravity

unless a projectile is fired at a speed that would have its descent path equal to the curvature of the earth for a period of time, then a bullet fired and a bullet dropped will hit at the same time.

 

[Johnx64]

dude....... what are you talking about?

planes fly because of wings designed to cause differences in air pressure above and below

bullets have no lift properties

no amount of drag, wind resistance or speed will negate the force of gravity

unless a projectile is fired at a speed that would have its descent path equal to the curvature of the earth for a period of time, then a bullet fired and a bullet dropped will hit at the same time.

Read the links.



Edit: Holy crap I just proved myself wrong! The force is constant all around it canceling the effects out. I think...

edit: Well I slept on it. That doesnt make sense either

The force around it is greater then gravity. The faster it goes the more force it has thus can travel further longer.

Think of it like this. It's shot from 3ft off the ground when it exits the muzzle of the gun theres a force pushing all around it. Now since it has a force all around it its sorta suspended or held in its path of flight until it slows down enough for gravity to counter-act and start its pull. Take a pen or someting and drop it into 3ft of water. Time how long it takes to hit the bottom. Now take that pen and and launch it sideways in the same water and see how long it takes to reach the bottom.

The downward pull of gravity is making the bottom part of the bullet have more force applied to it. Since the air is counteracting that force its holding it up until it loses some of its force and slowly goes down. Unlike a falling bullet that doesn't have enough force to counter-act gravity.

I think I win. Where's my nobel prize.

 

[Trinitrotoluene]

human motion might seem out of whack in games because when you get blown up your body parts don't go flying in a million directions like they do in real life

 

[Comte]

Or perhaps you should

And here's one that'll really bake your noodle: Imagine a gun that is lined up parallel to the ground and fired (so the bullet goes out parallel with respect to the earth). Say the bullet leaves the barrel at a speed of 1000 ft/sec. Now imagine a device is rigged up so that the instant the bullet leaves the barrel, another bullet is dropped straight down from the exact same height as the barrel. Got that? The gun is, say, 5 feet above the ground and is fired. As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel, a bullet 5 feet above the ground is dropped straight down.

The million dollar question is, which bullet will touch the ground first: the one fired from the gun, or the one that was just dropped. (Neglect the earth's curvature for your calculations ... too small to have an effect in such an experiment)

They will hit the ground at the same time

 

[Comte]

Bipolar's example is something that should have learned in highschool physics! Where have you guys been?!?!

Barring air resistance, EVERYTHING falls at the same rate. Put a feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum (this eliminates air resistance) and let go, they will hit the ground simultaneously.

@Wrench00
Indeed. But i think the current physics system treats humans as rigid bodies, when they're actually more of a solidified liquid (like really really thick jello). Do you think the object really would fly back if it was a human shaped maniquin rather than soft flesh?

Me thinks someone's been playing too much painkiller

If he is refering to painkiller, then the laws of physics may be different there, because its supposed to be hell the game takes place in.

 

[Noodle Boy]

FYI, the next gen consoles will have PPUs

Link? I don't remember seeing a ppu in their specs. The next gen consoles will be using Ageia's novodex software for phsyics simulation, but the cpu would be handling the physics since they are multicore. I might be wrong though.

 

[zRoCkIsAdDiCtInG]

I think you should conduct a couple of experiments...

i hope you dont think heavier objects fall faster

they dont, our physics teacher spent a week torturing us with this/

its only the air resistance via paper etc..

or when its in free fall compared to another which isn't

but in free fall, if you drop a tennis ball and a wrecking ball they fall at the same speed

 

[zRoCkIsAdDiCtInG]

human motion might seem out of whack in games because when you get blown up your body parts don't go flying in a million directions like they do in real life

someone work for this guy and get a nice game made

 

[ryanrule]

They will hit the ground at the same time

unless it is a rifled gun lol

 

[Johnx64]

i hope you dont think heavier objects fall faster

they dont, our physics teacher spent a week torturing us with this/

its only the air resistance via paper etc..

or when its in free fall compared to another which isn't

but in free fall, if you drop a tennis ball and a wrecking ball they fall at the same speed

I know they fall at the same speed because gravity pulls at them with the same amount of force. Put if you dropped a tennis ball and a wrecking ball from a plane its not gonna happen because the weight of the wrecking ball is gonna be able to withstand more air resistance due to its weight.

I dont see how this isn't right.

 

[Hate_Bot]

The force from the wind going around it cancels out gravity until its force is lossed, letting gravity take play.

Please no more questions.

Nothing can "cancel out" gravity. When a bullet is fired, the force overcomes its gravity, but the gravity still takes place.