• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Game Physics

W

Wrench00

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
3,423
Is it just me or am I the only person NOT impressed by any of these fancy or supposed fancy physics. The Aegia PPU sure looks like a great thing but the physics just seem so unrealistic in every game I have played. HL2, D3, BF2, etc. They all seem like the location is somewhere under water, stuff falls down really slow, and it looks like it has absolutly no substance to the items. It just seems like everything in games is made out of paper. Then there is rag doll physics well let me tell you that human leg doesn't bend 180 degrees. Common can we at least pay attention kinematics a little. Oh and can I comment on the fact that when you shoot some one in the head with a 5.56 nato round their body doesn't go flying 6 feet back ( I shot a lot of guns and not single round ever made anything fly back that had any weight to it). Its fun to see a guy get thrown in the air 20 feet on an explosion but I would have given my right gonad to see his gibs go flying in 20 different directions. Aegia PPU is great at speeding up and adding complexity to scripted physics but why would you want to have 10000 things that look like and feel like they are made out of paper. (Ohhh NOES the 10000 paper tissues will crush me)

Developers can you please spend some time on AI instead?
 
Did accelerated graphics techonology produce life like 3D visuals from the onset? Nah. The bar has simply been raised, thanks to modern day graphics tech. Visuals look astoundingly real, if very very faulty, but the physics aren't there yet.

I absolutely agree. Current physics models need some work. Nothing seems to have the properties it should. Mess around in Gery's mod for 5 minutes, throwing the largest most heavy objects you can find, and watch 'em float back to the ground. Everything seems to fall at a set rate. Very hax. And very disappointing.
 
EgyptBoy20 said:
I think you should conduct a couple of experiments... :eek:
Click to expand...
???
Its been done, get a ball of clay and a similar sized ball of paper, drop, which hits floor first? Think about it.
 
EgyptBoy20 said:
I think you should conduct a couple of experiments... :eek:
Click to expand...

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)
 
speed=gravity x weight...
I would imagine that heavier objects hit the ground first...I may be wrong. Anyway...
 
EgyptBoy20 said:
speed=gravity x weight...
I would imagine that heavier objects hit the ground first...I may be wrong. Anyway...
Click to expand...
Er. Velocity = distance/time. Where did you get your equation from?

People really think that objects of different weight fall at different speeds? High school physics teaches you otherwise ... or at least, it did when I was in HS.
 
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 :D
 
Herulach said:
???
Its been done, get a ball of clay and a similar sized ball of paper, drop, which hits floor first? Think about it.
Click to expand...


Well, from high in the air a clay ball would hit the ground first because it has more weight to build up its velocity and able to withstand more wind resistance.
 
Basic Physics, Galileo tested this at Pizza. F=ma. force=massxacceleration force is the simple force of gravity,which on any object is the same. allowing for resistance ALL things fall at the same speed. That would be 9.8 meters squared, the force of gravity,that is. I think my daughter learned this this year in 6th grade. :D and yes HIT THE GROUND AT THE SAME TIME!
 
Sly said:
Put a feather and a bowling ball in a vacuum (this eliminates air resistance) and let go, they will hit the ground simultaneously.
Click to expand...


Just like most things in science when you hear someone say "all things fall
at the same rate" or "heavy things fall faster" you need to determine all
the conditions under which the statement applies.

Both of the above statements can be true, but under different conditions.
The big difference here is whether we are talking about falling objects in
a fluid or a vacuum.

In a vacuum all objects fall at the same rate under the influence of a
gravitational field. This is not true for things falling in a fluid (like
our atmosphere). Objects falling in a fluid have drag and this effects how
they fall.
Click to expand...

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Jan2003/1043250210.Ph.r.html

You people amaze me. :eek:
 
S0m30n3 said:
Well, from high in the air yes a clay ball would hit the ground first because because it has more weight to build up its velocity and able to withstand more wind resistance.
Click to expand...

The correct word here is momentum, not velocity since the velocity rate changes the same for ALL objects at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.

the object with the greater momentum being equal to mass * velocity, where the object with more mass would have more mementum. But the speeds (ignoring any aerodynamic effects) will be the same.
 
m1abram said:
The correct word here is momentum, not velocity since the velocity rate changes the same for ALL objects at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.

the object with the greater momentum being equal to mass * velocity, where the object with more mass would have more mementum. But the speeds (ignoring any aerodynamic effects) will be the same.
Click to expand...
agreed.but if both are of equal mass they will strike the ground at the same time barring any other influences. :D
 
Lot of misinformation in this thread. Physics isn't something you can reason your way through all the time. I remember being in 11th grade and arguing the bullet scenario with my physics teacher. The one thing in this thread i absolutely disagree with however is that HL2 did not have ground breaking physics. That's insane.
 
magoo said:
you had to go to a web site??? Like I said, elemental physics has proven this and most small children know the answer. True, real world influnces like resistance,fluids and mass will all play a role in speed or velocity. However as I said, all things being EQUAL,F = ma. open a textbook. :eek:
Click to expand...


Yeah people need and should find resources to back up there claims. We arent talking about things being equal and in a controled environment....
 
bipolar said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
So I suppose we can teach children from the internet. You have to learn the elemental physics or any other dicipline before you can apply the abstract. Thats why you have textbooks and why you go to school. Its obvious from this thread that people dont understand basic physics. To put it another way, one has to learn the rules before bending them. A website does not replace a solid education. :D
 
magoo said:
So I suppose we can teach children from the internet. You have to learn the elemental physics or any other dicipline before you can apply the abstract. Thats why you have textbooks and why you go to school. Its obvious from this thread that people dont understand basic physics. To put it another way, one has to learn the rules before bending them. A website does not replace a solid education. :D
Click to expand...

I dont even know wtf your talking about :confused:
 
S0m30n3 said:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/Jan2003/1043250210.Ph.r.html

You people amaze me. :eek:
Click to expand...
You had to go to a website that was wrong too? Weight has no effect on air resistance. Make a golfball out of lead and put it next to a real golfball, then drop it out of a plane, both will stilll hit the floor at the same time (assuming same winds for both etc)
S0m30n3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
What you think and what actually happens are two different things, unless this all your dream. Assuming a bullet is axially symettric down the lenght, then there will be no lift created by it passing through a fluid, maybe some drag, but there should only be forces along the axis, not up or down.
 
Herulach said:
You had to go to a website that was wrong too? Weight has no effect on air resistance. Make a golfball out of lead and put it next to a real golfball, then drop it out of a plane, both will stilll hit the floor at the same time (assuming same winds for both etc)
Click to expand...


The lead golf ball because it can gain more momentum?
 
S0m30n3 said:
The lead golf ball because it can gain more momentum?
Click to expand...
Momentum is not speed, hell, its not even velocity.
An F-150 going 15 mph has a damn site more momentum than me on my bike at the same speed, does that mean its going faster? No, because p=mv
 
Herulach said:
Momentum is not speed, hell, its not even velocity.
An F-150 going 15 mph has a damn site more momentum than me on my bike at the same speed, does that mean its going faster? No, because p=mv
Click to expand...


Whats your point? Going 15mph is going 15mph? If it was on a hill the f-150 would gain momentum faster than you on your bike granted they arent regulated by the speed they are allowed to travel to a certain distance. Also it would take more force to stop it.
 
So in high school I learned a massier object *will* fall faster than a less massy object (in a vacuum). The difference is just so miniscule that it's hard to measure.

So... Everyone's right and we're all idiots. Happy people, it's Friday! :p

Like the second (third?) poster said, physics will evolve just like 3d graphics. It's going to be a good thing. The physics in HL2 weren't the best in the world but they did add a very nice element to the game. I'm looking forward to more.
 
eggrock said:
So in high school I learned a massier object *will* fall faster than a less massy object (in a vacuum). The difference is just so miniscule that it's hard to measure.

So... Everyone's right and we're all idiots. Happy people, it's Friday! :p

Like the second (third?) poster said, physics will evolve just like 3d graphics. It's going to be a good thing. The physics in HL2 weren't the best in the world but they did add a very nice element to the game. I'm looking forward to more.
Click to expand...
Not true, or at least i (4th year of an undergraduate masters in physics) dont know of any reason why it should be.

HL2 physics did rock, but it still felt a bit scripted, the actually objects were cool, but the way things broke wasnt quite right (floorboard + pistol round != what happened). I will admit though, its a long time since ive been amused by anything as much as putting the little doll on the seesaw and chucking breezeblocks on the other end. :)
 
magoo said:
That is the problem. :D
Click to expand...

I dont think you knnow what your talking about. Atleast show me some resources so I can understand and learn.
 
Herulach said:
Not true, or at least i (4th year of an undergraduate masters in physics) dont know of any reason why it should be.
Click to expand...

It was fifteen years ago so perhaps it was simply another of the debunked hypothesis. If I remember right our science teacher got the info from Scientific American (which has all sorts of speculative info.) It was pretty esoteric and involved either subatomic material or planet-sized objects... I don't remember. Supposedly there was a 'proven' difference in the rate of acceleration.
 
S0m30n3 said:
Whats your point? Going 15mph is going 15mph? If it was on a hill the f-150 would gain momentum faster than you on your bike granted they arent regulated by the speed they are allowed to travel to a certain distance. Also it would take more force to stop it.
Click to expand...
The point is that which one gains momentum faster is not related to which one gains speed faster, for example, to go back to the golfballs, assume the lead one weighs 5 times as much.
You drop the both from standstill so initial speed = u = 0
Acceleration due to gravity = 10 m/s/s (ish exactness isnt required to illustrate the point)
We know:
v^2=u^2 + 2*a*s
v= final velocity, s = distance travelled.
so after theyve both gone 5 meters v^2 = 100

However momentum = mass * velocity, so the momentum of each object is different,
for the normal golfball, (say it has a mass of 1) the momentum = 10, but for the lead ball, momentum = 5*10 = 50.

Obviously momentum = 0 at start, so in the time its taken to fall 5 metres (same for both because they are accelerating at the same rate) the lead ball has gained 5 times the momentum of the normal one.

The logic that heavy things fall faster comes mostly from the things we see in everyday life, light things (feathers, papers etc.) usually have high drag, meaning they fall slower, but when considering identical objects the rate of fall is the same
 
eggrock said:
It was fifteen years ago so perhaps it was simply another of the debunked hypothesis. If I remember right our science teacher got the info from Scientific American (which has all sorts of speculative info.) It was pretty esoteric and involved either subatomic material or planet-sized objects... I don't remember. Supposedly there was a 'proven' difference in the rate of acceleration.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could do it if you went into relativity, seeing as how time runs slower for more massive objects, but the effect would be so tiny as to hardly be worth mentioning.
 
Getting back on the topic, I understand what the OP is trying to get across. You drop a giant crate on the ground, and it's not going to dance around on it's corner for a while before finally deciding to drop and come to a stop. And I agree that this is a weak point. Somebody earlier mentioned their opinion on a possible parallel to 3D graphics; that 3D graphics were not particularly polished when they debuted, nor were they realistic. I think that the comparison falls short because graphics are more important to a game than physics. Look, physics is one of those things that's going to take a long time to do right, and also isn't *that* important. It's going to be a long time until we can model every apparent aspect of our world, and until then, everything's going to feel off. Now, some things I think I can accept because I understand the current level of technology making my suspension of disbelief easier (graphics, audio, the controls). But when you start adding things that are unnecessary AND then do them poorly, it detracts more than it adds. I guess this might just be my opinion, but I'm not too convinced with the current physics in games, nor do I really care about it and am more than willing to hold off on better physics systems until our systems are more powerful.
 
bealzz said:
NERD WAR!
Click to expand...
not really, considering the responses by the ill informed, most of them dont have the cognitive capacity to be considered nerds.
 
bealzz said:
NERD WAR!
Click to expand...
Youre posting on a forum, go figure.
Getting back on the topic, I understand what the OP is trying to get across. You drop a giant crate on the ground, and it's not going to dance around on it's corner for a while before finally deciding to drop and come to a stop. And I agree that this is a weak point. Somebody earlier mentioned their opinion on a possible parallel to 3D graphics; that 3D graphics were not particularly polished when they debuted, nor were they realistic. I think that the comparison falls short because graphics are more important to a game than physics. Look, physics is one of those things that's going to take a long time to do right, and also isn't *that* important. It's going to be a long time until we can model every apparent aspect of our world, and until then, everything's going to feel off. Now, some things I think I can accept because I understand the current level of technology making my suspension of disbelief easier (graphics, audio, the controls). But when you start adding things that are unnecessary AND then do them poorly, it detracts more than it adds. I guess this might just be my opinion, but I'm not too convinced with the current physics in games, nor do I really care about it and am more than willing to hold off on better physics systems until our systems are more powerful.
Click to expand...
Fair point, although a lot of the physics is there, just only in certain aspects, racing sims for example (sims, not need for speed) have had very realistic car behaivour for a good couple of years, and forza is incredibly good.

To a certainn extent i think developers put physics in to enhance the game, yes we all know people arent ragdolls, but, its cool to be able to stake someone to a wall by their head and spin them round by shooting their feet. Real world physics isnt were games will go, at least not most games, primarily because its just not fun, for example, how high do you think people can jump from standing? Would make for a dull game me thinks.
 
Herulach said:
Fair point, although a lot of the physics is there, just only in certain aspects, racing sims for example (sims, not need for speed) have had very realistic car behaivour for a good couple of years, and forza is incredibly good.

To a certainn extent i think developers put physics in to enhance the game, yes we all know people arent ragdolls, but, its cool to be able to stake someone to a wall by their head and spin them round by shooting their feet. Real world physics isnt were games will go, at least not most games, primarily because its just not fun, for example, how high do you think people can jump from standing? Would make for a dull game me thinks.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, but they place significant restrictions on you to achieve that level of realism. I mean, you can only be in a car driving around on a track; there's an inherent limitation in the possible number of physics actions allowed, you know? And I'm fine with that, because as you mentioned, the physics are, in fact, incredibly good.

Maybe I'm mixing my threads, but this seemed more tailored towards FPSes or anything else that lets you roam a large area with a great deal of possible interactions. And I think we're agreeing here, just in different ways. I like game-y gameplay. I don't want to jump just a foot off the ground. You mentioned the staking and spinning, and that's just pretty much not possible with real-world physics, yet that's what these games are touting. And yeah, it's cool, but does it really add to the game? Sure, the developers will specifically throw in "physics puzzles", but it ends up feeling more like a tech demo than a real gameplay enhancement.

Do physics when you can do it right. It seems like that time is now for driving sims, and that's good. That time doesn't seem to be now for more "free" games though, which makes me think that developers should focus on other aspects of the game (know your strengths and play to those, don't wear hip huggers if you've got a gut just because they're cool) and bring in physics when it can be done a little better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top