ragdoll physics

[leafer]

boowakwala.com, and thanks for the head's up. This is going to be a treat for my KG'er

 

Boowakwala is the best site for kids.

 

Back on topic.

 

Power5,

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'd like to see DCS serries gravitate to. Realistic behaviour to all moving objects. Trucks roll to a stop when hit would be a brilliant start but no scripting, please. This is what multithreaded CPUs are for isn't it? And I'd gladly take that CPU hit for this eyecandy over pretty water, dust cloud, heatblur etc.

[power5]

Yeah, I guess it could be nice to have physics on a thread, however, for it to work, I assume all objects would need to be destructable and I have no idea what that entails for modeling. I would love to see a truck backflip if rocket hits the front, and front flip for rear hits, and sideways for side hits. Much better than just a instant pile of flaming rubble. But bad smoke and flat water and no heat blur will look fake too. I dont mind scripted explosions so much. I am not going to land and watch my target explode and the pieces bounce around. :) Even just 4 different explosions for each vehicle would be much nicer than what there is now. It is not super important to me though. I am glad for the level of destruction in my own vehicle. Not just a few shots and boom, start over. You can actually be damaged to a state where you can no longer fly home, but still try to evacuate the hostile area and hopefully land the A/C. Having parts explode into the air would be much nicer than just some smokey fireball though.

[nscode]

boowakwala.com

 

man...:doh: I use to watch Discoveries Unlimited and Beyond 2000 at that age :/

 

In 20 years, you know the difference between simulator and real life.

 

Not only that. You will also have all FC2 aircraft in DCS level, and that's more important ;)

[leafer]

After rethinking about all of this, the question remains, what's inside the thing nscode is holding that got him so upset in his avatar.

[Succellus]

After rethinking about all of this, the question remains, what's inside the thing nscode is holding that got him so upset in his avatar.

 

He s brain...

Back to the topic. I dont care about bitsa people blown around.

But motorized infantry moving a bit toward reality, ie rolling to a stop, budging when receiving a direct hit would be awesome.

[Poor mans sniper]

Ragdoll physics will hardly be noticed other than on vehicles, but the infantry should at least have varied death animations.

[Slayer]

I'd rather have it. The A10 is mostly being used to attack men on the ground these days anyways. Infantry is the biggest part of any war. You can bomb and strafe everything til your hearts content but you cant win a war unless theres troops on the ground where the meat meets the metal.

 

I'm sorry I don't agree at all with the yesmen I want to see troops fleeing and acting in a somewhat realistic manner. No we don't need little exploding bits of men, but having ground troops that actually move and participate would be ideal.

[Bobby47]

i agree! some troop animations, but what i would really like to see is civilian persons and most definetly 1 or 2 ground crew personel... but yes no need for "ragdoll" animations... hmmm as I wrote this im thinking twice, u wanna play a war similator but take out the hardest part of it, and that is the what happens to a soldier or civilian when under attack... hmm... messes with my mind a bit...

[leafer]

If this is modeled realistically, DCS will be the first sim that have some people pause before pulling the trigger. I wouldn't be surprise if the next installation of ARMA will have this modeled. The mainstream media will eat it up "how real is too real..." and sales will go through the roof. Just saying.

[cctoide]

Uh, what? I really don't see how it would be anywhere near controversial when ragdoll physics has been in widespread use (in the FPS genre and some others that mainly revolve around killing people) for years.

 

Half-Life 2, Battlefield 2, Hitman, Left 4 Dead, Killing Floor and dozens of other titles implement ragdolls, not to mention the ones where they're improved on via inverse kinematics and other techniques.

 

Ragdoll physics is even starting to fall into disfavor now that it's been around for a while - in a lot of cases it looks more comical than realistic, since characters just suddenly go limp and end up in impossible poses. Hence the creation of Euphoria and similar software to better simulate human physics.

 

I'm not saying anything about the merits of ragdolls in DCS, just the notion that they would be controversial. I'm also not saying people can't have moral issues with blasting people apart in a videogame, but they're pretty much the same moral issues as in every other game with a war, ever.

[GGTharos]

It isn't controversial, it's simply not needed, almost not at all. It would just take time out of some other feature that is more useful to implement.

[GRoss]

ragdoll animations are completely unnecessary for this type of game. Waste of time and effort with minimal game quality improvement.

 

no thanks

[element1108]

The details of destruction are always hidden in dust and debris anyway. There doesn't seem much need for ragdoll.

[leafer]

Yeah. I've got some wild imagination and I don't like the feeling I get when from the medication they want me to take. Yeah.

 

You're right. You don't think we need it but I do, however, who am I to say what's best for everyone else. :)

[Total]

Five time combat vet here -

 

The death effects you see in movies is highly exagerated. People do not fly through the air when shot by a bullet. When hit by a rocket, bodies tend to vaporize.

 

Shoot someone in the head and they just fall down. No glorious visual animation to reward the one who just punctured their skull. They just fall with a thud.

 

Adding ragdoll physics would just tax people's computers for unrealistic effects. 90% of computer gamers and programmers have never really shot anyone, they have no idea how unentertaining it is in reality. This being a sim and aiming for realism over Hollywood, then it's best such effects stay out of it.

[evilnate]

I vote to save the CPU cycles to calculate dynamic campaign ;)

[Slayer]

Everyone here seems to be equating the ragdoll physics with just blowing up infantry and watching them flailing through the air.

 

I'm not sure what the OP had in mind here but whatever you call it the way it stands now you may as well be shooting at paper cutouts.

 

It's not a waste of time to animate infantry movement. After you play the game for a few weeks and get your head around all the flight model and controls it becomes somewhat booring to shoot at the same targets. You know exactly where they will be and they will just sit there whilst you rain death and destruction down on them. Not very realistic at all.

 

At least in ARMA when the AI sees bullets hitting the ground near them they react and start going for cover and going prone and looking for you. Granted the AI in that series is terrible too but at least they do SOMETHING. It's never the exact same mission twice because they don't always act the same.

[Speed]

Yea, I agree. It would be nice to see animated infantry (sometimes, even infantry that is supposed to be animated goes into the knee- sliding mode). It would be nice to see infantry that scatters too, that stops firing to "put their heads down" when rounds inpact near, and that gets blown t pieces when hit with a 30mm round. A problem with AI, and something that worries me a bit for A-10C, is that if you put the script for them to take evasive action automatically, you can't turn it off and select when you want evasive action in response to fire and when you want them to ignore enemy fire. You might need both to get some mission working- like if they go evasive, they get stuck because they are going down a pennensula and they evade right into a beach and the AI does not know how to go into reverse. Just an example. What DCS needs is an ability to specify tactics (respond to enemy fire, ignore enemy fire, engage air targets only, that kind of stuff) on a per-waypoint basis, and/or via triggers.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Speed

[GGTharos]

What does ragdoll physics have to do with AI actions/reactions?

[159th_Viper]

What does ragdoll physics have to do with AI actions/reactions?

 

Apart from having an almighty good chuckle at your Wingman as you watch him rearranging his tackle after a particularly long and uncomfortable flight.....nothing much I would have thought :D

[Krunkskimo]

i supose you could do it in the mission planner.

 

if infantry man X dies. Infantryman 2,3,4,5,6 walk away to waypints set into a spreadout pattern.

 

can infantry walk i've never seen it ingame?

[sweinhart3]

Everyone here seems to be equating the ragdoll physics with just blowing up infantry and watching them flailing through the air.

 

I'm not sure what the OP had in mind here but whatever you call it the way it stands now you may as well be shooting at paper cutouts.

 

It's not a waste of time to animate infantry movement. After you play the game for a few weeks and get your head around all the flight model and controls it becomes somewhat booring to shoot at the same targets. You know exactly where they will be and they will just sit there whilst you rain death and destruction down on them. Not very realistic at all.

 

At least in ARMA when the AI sees bullets hitting the ground near them they react and start going for cover and going prone and looking for you. Granted the AI in that series is terrible too but at least they do SOMETHING. It's never the exact same mission twice because they don't always act the same.

 

Because thats what ragdoll physics is. You are talking about having some AI and infantry animations. I agree we need some infantry animations and reactions. I disagree that waisting cpu cycles to compute thousands of math problems to decide which way a persons leg is gonna fold underneath him as he falls down is necessary.

[leafer]

Guest I had used the wrong term to describe what I wanted? What I meant was something along the line of the famous saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I'd like to see this behavior modeled for humans, vehicles, buildings etc. I'm aware it takes computing power away from the meat of the sim and people should turn it off if they don't care for it.

 

We know ED can give us very convincing feeling of flight but we need more than that to complete the experience.

[leafer]

I vote to save the CPU cycles to calculate dynamic campaign ;)

 

After everything else then why not. ;)

[leafer]

Five time combat vet here -

 

The death effects you see in movies is highly exagerated. People do not fly through the air when shot by a bullet. When hit by a rocket, bodies tend to vaporize.

 

Shoot someone in the head and they just fall down. No glorious visual animation to reward the one who just punctured their skull. They just fall with a thud.

 

Adding ragdoll physics would just tax people's computers for unrealistic effects. 90% of computer gamers and programmers have never really shot anyone, they have no idea how unentertaining it is in reality. This being a sim and aiming for realism over Hollywood, then it's best such effects stay out of it.

 

I know that when a human is shot, in real life, that person just toppled over and sometimes come to rest in the weirdest position. However, have you seen that video of president Reason's bodyguard's body lifted off the ground by a bullet fired at him? I've also read an account, from a tank unit serving in Iraq, of bodies riding the top of an explosion.

 

And not trying to be a Richard but I saw a guy shot, fell on the road, and shot a few more times while he laid there trying to shield himself with his had. Live in a 3rd world long time you're bound to see a gruesome event or two.