Games fizz with proper physics

[Bostonmess]

Every computer game takes place in a world far removed from this one, but the carefully constructed fantasy often falls apart because game elements avoid the basic laws of physics.

Every game player has seen computer controlled foes merge briefly with walls or doors or huge explosions that leave walls and windows unscathed.

Many designers are now turning to specialised software, known as a physics engine, to ensure they do a much better job of describing the world and to make their creations more realistic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1840796.stm

[BlueBoy]

They used the Havok engine in Warcraft 3?

[utopian]

Good to see that the real world is being used as a basis for games now :) I liked it how bunny hopping was removed in CS and that the concept of "momentum" came in to play.

[Farbs]

I assume you mean "fizz" in the brown smelly way..?
Games are all about achieving goals within a simple, well defined system. Adding full physical interactivity to a game usually just adds too many new rules, & detracts from the fun. Furthermore, Havok is crap for anything with gameplay impact, which is why it's usually only used for ragdolling.

[utopian]

I dunno, being able to smash a wall, pick up a brick and throw it through a window sounds pretty fun to me.

[a|A]

To me it honestly depends on the game...for example :

I was playing Hitman2 the other day, now for those that know this game, rather, those who have played it, you know the physics are slightly, how shall I say it...crazy...
For example, you pull out your dual ballers, and shoot the fuck outta some guy at close range, he'll go FLYING back about a good 20/30 metres or so ... and you'll have a jolly good laugh at the same time!
Or in Postal 2, you can kick people happily along the ground, sure , designers may have the 'ragdolls' working, but I think they need to give corpses a WIEGHT so they dont fly around the place like they're made of paper.

It all depends on the game ... although I WOULD love to see a Completely 100% realisitic game someday, where anything goes ... it would be an interesting experience...
Life 1.0

[BlueBoy]

Originally posted by Farbs
I assume you mean "fizz" in the brown smelly way..?
Games are all about achieving goals within a simple, well defined system. Adding full physical interactivity to a game usually just adds too many new rules, & detracts from the fun. Furthermore, Havok is crap for anything with gameplay impact, which is why it's usually only used for ragdolling.

You've never looked at an unusable object in a game and thought: " I wish I could smash/pick up/use/push that thing."

Hell, I did that in Deus Ex.
Bring it on I say!

[scathing]

Originally posted by utopian
Good to see that the real world is being used as a basis for games now :) I liked it how bunny hopping was removed in CS and that the concept of "momentum" came in to play.

It'd be nice if they had knock back or knock down. There've been some times when I've managed to hit a guy with the shotgun when he's been walking on a ledge, and it should have propelled him off it.

But yeah, I'd love to see a better physics engine in quite a few games, especially those that aim for "real world" simulation. Its fine that the Quake and Unreal series don't use one, but stuff like Rainbow Six and Gran Turismo would be nicer with it.


There was meant to be a game where you could interact with the entire environment (where you could blow craters into the ground, punch through walls, etc). Can't remember if it was Red Faction or another game, but I thought that'd be cool.

[Farbs]

Originally posted by scathing
There was meant to be a game where you could interact with the entire environment (where you could blow craters into the ground, punch through walls, etc). Can't remember if it was Red Faction or another game, but I thought that'd be cool. Yeah, it was Red Faction. Unfortunately the wall destruction broke the scripting &/or flow in too many of the levels, so they nerfed it such that you could only break "special" walls. Again, real physics doesn't necessarily equal real fun.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Farbs
Yeah, it was Red Faction. Unfortunately the wall destruction broke the scripting &/or flow in too many of the levels, so they nerfed it such that you could only break "special" walls. Again, real physics doesn't necessarily equal real fun.

So they modified the "world" to fit their story, rather than the other way around.

Like I said, for some games that's fine. I don't want real world physics in certain games (can you imagine applying real-world physics to rocket jumping?) but I do want it in others.

In a game like terrorist / counter terrorist operations (I won't name any particular one) it'd be nice to be able to blow a hole through a wall. Or barricade a door with furniture. Or have overpressure when you toss an explosive into a confined area. Or have limb damage affect performance. So on and so forth.

Obviously a balance has to be struck between complete reality and the game (otherwise you'd need a supercomputer to calculate it, and it still probably wouldn't be perfect since you can get supercomputers that just simulate the weather) but a push for a more realistic, plug-in physics engine is cool. Have it adjustable, so the developers can decide what, and how, to use it.

Time that developers don't spend on developing a physics engine is time they can spend developing the rest of the game. Just like OpenGL and DirectX made graphics development for games more streamlined, maybe something like that should happen for physics.

I can see, in the future, gamer machines having a physics coprocessor.

[Farbs]

Originally posted by scathing
Time that developers don't spend on developing a physics engine is time they can spend developing the rest of the game. Just like OpenGL and DirectX made graphics development for games more streamlined, maybe something like that should happen for physics.

I can see, in the future, gamer machines having a physics coprocessor. Mmm... physics coprocessor...
I do like the idea of finding a balance between 3rd party physics and game-specific stuff, which is why the use of ragdolling is cool. I guess I'm just concerned that developer management won't always want these engines to be used responsibly, & might see them as a viable substitute for gameplay.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Farbs
I guess I'm just concerned that developer management won't always want these engines to be used responsibly, & might see them as a viable substitute for gameplay.

Just like graphics are now, but most people don't see a problem with graphics APIs in themselves.

When it boils down to it, you can have a game that's great eye candy but just sucks to play ("Check out that body just twisting in that explosion at 1600 x 1200 @32bit colour pulling 150fps while running FSAA and anti-isotropic filtering. Too bad this is a RPG and none of these NPCs are giving me any useful information, so I'm stuck on Level 1 shooting oil barrels....") regardless of what advances you make to the underlying technology.

The flipside to the old saying is that good tools make a good tradesman even better. Can you imagine iD trying to churn out something like Quake I (let alone Quake III) without OpenGL? Not saying they couldn't, but it would have been far more difficult for them.

Consider a nice physics engine to be the next "3D graphics explosion". When the GPU follows the path of the CPU (ie more grunt than most lusers will ever need), ramping up the physics engine might be the next big thing for hardware manufacturers to make shitloads of money. No matter how realistic graphics look, when its animated it still looks fake because it doesn't behave realistically.

In the future it won't be a case of "get a top-of-the-line graphics card and a middling CPU". It'll be "Get a kick-ass physics card, a top third of the range GPU, and an average CPU".

[BlueBoy]

Originally posted by Farbs
Yeah, it was Red Faction. Unfortunately the wall destruction broke the scripting &/or flow in too many of the levels, so they nerfed it such that you could only break "special" walls. Again, real physics doesn't necessarily equal real fun.

Gotta love those indestructible cubicle walls :D

[Drakin]

Originally posted by scathing
In a game like terrorist / counter terrorist operations (I won't name any particular one) it'd be nice to be able to blow a hole through a wall. Or barricade a door with furniture. Or have overpressure when you toss an explosive into a confined area. Or have limb damage affect performance. So on and so forth.

Would this game also include crying like a baby and going into shock when your shot? As opposed to applying a medi pack whilst running down a corridor shooting three other people at the same time...

So said i think some games suffer to much realism. the getaway was one of these games. They spent so much time doing the scenery that they didnt stop and think about gameplay.

[utopian]

Scorch3d looks promising. While it's not all that difficult to model simple motion of a ballistic, the fact that the terrain changes when impact occurs impresses me.

It needs a shitload more work, but it's very cool so far.

[Farbs]

Originally posted by utopian
Scorch3d looks promising. While it's not all that difficult to model simple motion of a ballistic, the fact that the terrain changes when impact occurs impresses me.

It needs a shitload more work, but it's very cool so far. Could you provide a link? There seem to be a lot of projects by that name.
I suspect however that the market will soon be filled by this little beauty (http://www.worms3d.com).

[utopian]

Scorch3d is in the broadband special of APC magazine.

[scathing]

Originally posted by Drakin
Would this game also include crying like a baby and going into shock when your shot? As opposed to applying a medi pack whilst running down a corridor shooting three other people at the same time...

So said i think some games suffer to much realism. the getaway was one of these games. They spent so much time doing the scenery that they didnt stop and think about gameplay.

Like I said, it depends on what you're aiming for in your game. In real life, field medical attention under fire can only stabilise you, not heal you. As for shock, etc, perhaps or perhaps not. Like I said, there's a line drawn and its up to the developer as to what functionality of the APIs they use.

From what I understand of Bishi's review (http://forums.zgeek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8458), the Getaway isn't all that realistic. Making the scenery look nice doesn't make it "realistic". Its a game, not a photo, so just because the graphics look really nice doesn't make it realistic.

The cars can pull stupidly high speeds down London streets, and he can jump off ramps without trashing his car (this is ignoring the other "realities" of being able to hear police radio without a scanner, and the local populace wandering around with assault rifles). Where exactly is this realism you're on about?

[scathing]

Originally posted by utopian
Scorch3d looks promising. While it's not all that difficult to model simple motion of a ballistic, the fact that the terrain changes when impact occurs impresses me.

It needs a shitload more work, but it's very cool so far.

Funnily enough, this was the game I was thinking of when I thought of a "graphics not replacing gameplay" example.

The 3D version of Scorched Earth was cool, and just as addictive as the original. It looked relatively good for a home-brew affair, but it'd be nice if you could build your own worlds too (since it half looks like they use the Terragen engine for world rendering). Still, even with flash 3D graphics, the gameplay itself is what carries the game.

Mind you, I've never gotten the magnetic deflector to work in the 3D version. I keep taking hits even with it on. :(

[utopian]

Where'd you get this from? I've only got an old demo.

[alcor]

The engine for Halflife 2 is the bomb.

It is gonna be the next phase in realistic game physics.
4 sure.

Watch the E3 demo video if you don't believe me.

So impressive.

The mods will be coming thick and fast too.

[scathing]

Originally posted by utopian
Where'd you get this from? I've only got an old demo.

I just googled it (using Google of course, to pacify their legal department :)) and there are a few versions out there, it would seem.

The one I've been playing is at: http://www.scorched3d.co.uk/

[utopian]

That looks like the one I was playing, only further developed.

[druid]

Just some quick notes that came into mind:

there are also freely available physics APIs like the Open Dynamics Engine (http://opende.sourceforge.net/)
a physics coprocessor would be rather pointless since it's really about maths that is not different to what our CPUs do now and the results gotten from the coprocessor would need too much integration with the actual game objects (as opposed to GPUs where you have a lot of one-way bandwidth and the concept makes sense.) More GHz I say!
making your own physics engine is indeed tedious but it may reward you with features that better suit you
HL2 physics look cool
some games do have decent physic engines but they've set the parameters way off
if everything can be interacted with (like if any wall can be blown off) it creates a nightmare for the developers of the 3D engine in visibility optimization alone, hence only certain walls can be holed


If you want to see how physics can make a game fun/slow/weird, check out BlockoFighter (http://blockofighter.kicks-ass.net). In that game (though the area is a very limited one), everything that touches something has an effect.

The only engine (that I know of) capable of extreme dynamicity with high polygon counts is the Umbra (http://www.hybrid.fi/gfx_main.php). It will be used in Everquest 2 and some other new games so time will tell how well it performs IRL. I was in a demonstration and it was certainly impressive. Some of those demos should be available for download (http://www.hybrid.fi/dpvs_download.html).

Now back to work...

[druid]

Originally posted by BlueBoy
They used the Havok engine in Warcraft 3?

I don't think so. That game has hardly any physics and those two names weren't actually connected in the article. The rendered picture was a bad example anyhow.

Originally posted by BlueBoy
since it half looks like they use the Terragen engine for world rendering

I wish :(, Terragen isn't realtime at all (or available as an engine) and it doesn't produce polygons (I understood your use of "half" though) and it would be next to impossible to interact with those terrains.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by scathing
I just googled it (using Google of course, to pacify their legal department :)) and there are a few versions out there, it would seem.

The one I've been playing is at: http://www.scorched3d.co.uk/

My GOD!! I didnt know they made a 3d version of this! I remember playing it on my old computer, it actually introduced me into the world of Worms, which is an awesome line of games as well...I think was second in line in my games like this behind some game i remember playing on my OLD computer with two apes that threw bananas at each other with given trajectories.....ok back on the subject, i love realism in games....the engine in Red Faction (the first one) in which you could blow tunnels through levels was incredible, i loved just blowing holes in the place and hiding out...or blowing holes out from under the people i was fighting against...

[pliskin]

Originally posted by druid
Ju
if everything can be interacted with (like if any wall can be blown off) it creates a nightmare for the developers of the 3D engine in visibility optimization alone, hence only certain walls can be holed

Now back to work...

this would also disrupt the playability of very linear FPS games. what would the fun be if when trying to navigate a hospital wing ( soldier of fortune double helix ) if u were able to use a rocket launcher to blow away every wall in the path to the exit.

i too have seen the demo of HL2, it looks bloody awesome. any idea what specs for pc and graphics card u will need to run this game yet?

[scathing]

Originally posted by pliskin
this would also disrupt the playability of very linear FPS games. what would the fun be if when trying to navigate a hospital wing ( soldier of fortune double helix ) if u were able to use a rocket launcher to blow away every wall in the path to the exit.

Well, if it happened in real life what would the enemies do? Either run the fuck away from some loon firing rockets in an enclosed space, or move to cut off and flank. That you can't detracts from the realism and playability. Why take their route when you should be able to make your own?

It'd also be realistic that, if you were to heavily use rockets through walls and stuff, that the roof would collapse from the lack of support (hence not making it a viable option). There should also be other penalties (like a more realistic blast radius, with overpressure given the walls, as well as deafening the user) to compensate.

Of course it wouldn't work with some FPS' since they're designed without this functionality. Programming in a fully "realistic" world would require a shift in coding thought. Games like Doom wouldn't work for the reasons mentioned, but the plotline / objective of Doom wouldn't have occurred in the first place due to that.

If someone was to do Doom today, people would bitch about the lack of gameplay in it. Open some doors, flick some switches, run to the other end of the map. Try to kill things at the same time. While fun in its day, people wouldn't settle for something like that now.

A realistic physics model, I think, should be that next step up.

[utopian]

Let's make every game extra-realistic so that the soccer moms of the world have an argument that stands up in court, that "Games are so realistic and make our children into killers".

[scathing]

Originally posted by utopian
Let's make every game extra-realistic so that the soccer moms of the world have an argument that stands up in court, that "Games are so realistic and make our children into killers".

This issue would be irrelevant if the games were ultra-realistic.

If we made it realistic enough to cause actual deaths nearby (for realism), since kids mostly play it at home this removes the people who would press charges.

[slaine1]

Originally posted by scathing


It'd also be realistic that, if you were to heavily use rockets through walls and stuff, that the roof would collapse from the lack of support (hence not making it a viable option). There should also be other penalties (like a more realistic blast radius, with overpressure given the walls, as well as deafening the user) to compensate.


Not to mention the fact that if it was really realistic, it would be impossible to carry more than a couple of rockets in the first place, and therefore blowing a path out using rockets would be impossible.

Imagine something like Operation Flashpoint with a realistic physics engine and we would be getting somewhere.