How far away are we from "squeeze" physics?

[Sir_Rule]

Confused? Well, let me put it this way:

We've come along way since the havok engine, with it's INSANE ragdoll physics. We are able to add a whole new reality to games with these ragdoll physics, along with a strong sense of new gameplay. Lot's of games have been using these physics as of late, like Hitman 3, Max Payne 2, Vampire Bloodlines, and of course HL2 just to name a few. Now, with THIS in mind, do you think we're ever gonna have a squeezy/shape-shifty/moldable/rubbery type physics engine in the near future?

So no, from the title, I don't literally mean a, "squeeze" engine like it's something that's already been made. I'm talking about this in a very general form. But anyways, I think you guys get the idea, but here's a few examples/scenerios in case you still don't:

ex: Imagine if that HUGE closing wall after Nova Prospekt had a car in between it. Now imagine that car crumpling and compacting as the wall pressed on. Scraping noises, cracking, snapping, getting crushed like a piece of hard clay.

ex2: What if Dog could REALLY pound that armoured-car, causing realistic dents, and bends. Leaving nothing but a flattened heap of metal.

ex3: What if Alyx pressed her body against a see-through glass window wearing a wet t-shirt, and instead of bad-clipping, her two large-




hands could be seen with their palms flattened against the window. Yep... her big, beautiful, curvy and soft hands.

What?... get your heads out of the gutter guys, jeez :hmph:


Anyways, point is, I'm probably talking YEARS from now. But in anycase, does anyone have any info on something like this being in A game?... in the future of course.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Eventually, physics in games will be so powerful that the computer will simulate everything down to molecular level.

A shame we'll need processors bigger than the average city to do it.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Sir_Rule]

HAhahah! Yeah.

It'll take 100 years to make one game! lol!

 

[nbk]

I wonder if the average human lifespan by then will be around 150 years

 

[Sir_Rule]

You mean I could be 40 and still in high school?

Uh... no thank you....

 

[Naudian]

Eventually, physics in games will be so powerful that the computer will simulate everything down to molecular level.

A shame we'll need processors bigger than the average city to do it.

-Angry Lawyer

Molecular eh? Whats the point in simulating down to that detail?! I dont think it would never happen. Could, but wont because ppl are lazy.

I say instead of simulating molecules, just invent a virtual reality headset where you can see the world as it is through the screen, with models of people/creatures that show up on HUD but arent really there.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Well, the car things aren't so far fetched, Mafia is a couple of years old now but had brilliant realistic real-time car damage so it could certainly be done with dog crushing one.

 

[Bossanova]

hmmm a game so real down to the molecular level... then that would be like real life? whats next smell O vision? :farmer:

maybe I should just go take a walk outside, or is life just a game? wow matrix provoking thoughts. :rolling:

 

[RabidJester]

If you run a search for the world's largest supercompters, you can see that the US Government has tapped it to use for simulations of nuclear explosion scenarios, all the way down to an atomic level.

Very possible.

As for deformable physics, it's mostly a matter of time needed to implement vs. overall effect to gameplay. The racing games that have realistic damage models put those in because they play a significant role. Few games have had deformable terrain ala Red Faction because it didn't add too much to the gameplay.

But the way I see it, it's the future for immersion.

 

[Sir_Rule]

I remember 'Sacrifice' having deformable terrain, but that really dosn't count does it? Since the terrain was more, 'deleted' then anything else.

 

[xiphrex]

If I correctly remember, I saw an xbox2 tech demo of a car crashing into a wall and its damage changing in real time depending on where and how it hit. Is this the sort of physics you mean?

 

[Sir_Rule]

Kind of...

the difference is that they probably put a different code on every part of that car. I mean, it's not like the wall gets a big crater or anything either. But it IS how I imagine the "squeeze" physics would work... almost.

 

[johnshafft]

the correct wordage is mesh deformation not squeeze.

The better engine would be a fully deformable and we are almost there Red faction 1 and 2 both had deformable terrain using the geomod Engine but they never released an GDK (I believe) so we never saw the extents of the engine. Plus the deformable terrain creates a big issue of gameplay. How do you use it to make the entire game fun vs a novelty that wears off you can only modify the surrondings so much before it gets 'old', in multiplay it can create farness issues, plus you couldnt always do what every person wants to do, what if you instead of pounding the side of a van in you wanted to flip it? how would you cntrol that? So we comeback to gameplay. .

 

[Sir_Rule]

That's like saying the havok engine isn't fun anymore. Like the 'physics' in a game are only fun for a short while. 8S

And it's not just terrain I'm talkin about here. Check my examples.

 

[StardogChampion]

Well I think it's about time models stopped sticking through walls. I'm sure it's possible now, maybe not to the degree of your examples though.

 

[Ennui]

That would take absolutely forever for squeeze physics like that to happen, it would take insane amounts of resources.

And stardog, models DON'T usually stick through walls anymore. CS is like 4 years old, which is why that happens.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

That would take absolutely forever for squeeze physics like that to happen, it would take insane amounts of resources.

And stardog, models DON'T usually stick through walls anymore. CS is like 4 years old, which is why that happens.

It does still happen though, like Eli's legs sticking out from underneath the coffin thingy.

 

[Ennui]

yeah, we can't be perfect.

It's not like CS though, where you fall through the walls no matter what.

 

[Sir_Rule]

Yeah, CS is DEFINITLY the 'lord of clipping'.

I'm sure this whole squeeze thing is still in 'testing'. I got a gut feeling we're gonna see it in 2-3 years.

 

[Tynan]

You're talking about soft body physics. This already exists as a well-developed field in computing. In fact, a modern computer can simulate a handful of simple soft objects (balls or whatnot) in realtime.

A handful is not enough. And that eats up the entire CPU. And those are rubber balls.

Now the crushing of the car is a physical system which is well developed too. Design programs like AutoCAD or Solidworks used by engineers have the capacity to simulate physical stresses - they even highlight where the highest stress it. We design planes and cars like this.

But those stress calculations take a long time.

The bottom line: what you're talking about already exists, we just need an order of magnitude more processor power to run it realtime.

So you'll have to wait ~10 years.

 

[johnshafft]

That's like saying the havok engine isn't fun anymore. Like the 'physics' in a game are only fun for a short while. 8S

And it's not just terrain I'm talkin about here. Check my examples.

you missed the point because your so intent on seeing a wet t shirt clad videogame character. again it takes the right style of game play to effectivle use it. If the game were Leasure suit larry I would agree with high poly deformable models. QUAKE had deformable mod that allowed models to lose limbs. again its a balance

and the physics sub-engine is differnt than the rendering sub engine all you have to do is modify your pipelines of communication between the two to get your deformations. But at what cost to game play?

but clipping on modern engines should be almost void

 

[Sir_Rule]

you missed the point because your so intent on seeing a wet t shirt clad videogame character. again it takes the right style of game play to effectivle use it.

Is that really all you heard?... pity. :dozey:

If the game were Leasure suit larry I would agree with high poly deformable models. QUAKE had deformable mod that allowed models to lose limbs. again its a balance

... not what I'm talking about here buddy.

and the physics sub-engine is differnt than the rendering sub engine all you have to do is modify your pipelines of communication between the two to get your deformations. But at what cost to game play?

but clipping on modern engines should be almost void

Sounds like you got a sound solution there. Got it ALLLL figured out don't ya?

Well, we'll wait a few years then see who has the last laugh. :smoking:

 

[genocide604]

Who knows how long it will be for this kind of technology... it advances in peaks... who knows 5-10 years from now we could be in virtual worlds, almost like the one we live in

That would take absolutely forever for squeeze physics like that to happen, it would take insane amounts of resources.

Your thinking to conventionally, thinking outside of the box is what gives us the technology we use today... it wouldnt take forever to process that kind of physics, just a brain fart at the right time...You cant think as if the tech used today is going to be used to make the games of the future..

 

[Tynan]

Actually, if anyone's thinking of gameworlds calculated at the molecular level, such a thing is physically, proveably impossible (unless you have a computer bigger than the gameworld you're simulating)

Simulating atoms requires a computer that contains at least as many atoms as are being simulated. This is a physical law. In fact, if you want to simulate physics at the molecular level with perfect accuracy, the smallest computer you can make to do it is to simply make the object itself.

So, we won't be seeing molecular gameworlds soon. We can get theoretically close using approximations.

 

[Sir_Rule]

Yes well, I think it's gonna be in games soon. Nothing EPIC mind you, maybe a rubber ball of sorts.... just to "kick" thing off.

 

[(Fragger)]

I've thinking more about real damage simulations for the next Soldier of Fortune-type game. Maybe have "organs" and "major arteries' modeled inside the model but with nodraw textures, so that if one of them gets shot, you either start losing blood or die immediately. Also, in the event of major damage (grenade, gibbing, etc) have the "organs" spill out and have the texture replaced by a bump-mapped texture. Blood could also flow more naturally using liquid physics instead of using sprites and decals.
Yes, I'm a twisted individual, but I'm not the only one. :E

 

[johnshafft]

Is that really all you heard?... pity. :dozey:



... not what I'm talking about here buddy.



Sounds like you got a sound solution there. Got it ALLLL figured out don't ya?

Well, we'll wait a few years then see who has the last laugh. :smoking:

you want to crush a car can be done now with current engines it a freaking mesh deformation look at the racing games the have parts ripping off and 'realistic' damage

your the one that went in to the realm of putting um on the glass

I never said I have all the answers but like you said you wanted to dent in the side of a van hey isnt that a mesh deformation

again it a play vs feature argument. not an actual engine feature because like I've suggested in several differnt engines that what your suggesting is already available. simply when a models vertices collide the softer materials vertices flattens against the harder one. then you just set how much all the vertices can compress or expand (ex. UTs bighead mode).

But as most shooters use bounding boxs and not the actual model to generate the physics thats why we see clipping and some of the less than real feel to the games. The trade off is the game runs faster and multiplay is avail.

Plus you have the tech factor of what hardware does the player have.

 

[Sir_Rule]

Yes, mesh-deformation is part of it, but your talking pre-coded, set-to-look-like, texture-change, old stuff. Stuff you see in racing games wear you bang your car hard enough, and you see scratches/dents. I'm talking about an engine that could have the 'physics' of that, without the '3 level texture change' technique, (if you know what I mean).

I DO realize that we have the technology, probably still being probed at by some game company, so it CAN run in a game, (a GOOD game) some years from now. I'm not some anxious-andy either who's bad at waiting for new tech, but I'm saying that in the FUTURE it's probably gonna be used widely in many a game, (assuming it does indeed exist)... just like the havok engine.

 

[Tynan]

Yes, it probably will, since it's already developed...
but....

we need processors ten times as powerful as the ones we have now. Patience.

 

[johnshafft]

Yes, mesh-deformation is part of it, but your talking pre-coded, set-to-look-like, texture-change, old stuff. Stuff you see in racing games wear you bang your car hard enough, and you see scratches/dents. I'm talking about an engine that could have the 'physics' of that, without the '3 level texture change' technique, (if you know what I mean).

I DO realize that we have the technology, probably still being probed at by some game company, so it CAN run in a game, (a GOOD game) some years from now. I'm not some anxious-andy either who's bad at waiting for new tech, but I'm saying that in the FUTURE it's probably gonna be used widely in many a game, (assuming it does indeed exist)... just like the havok engine.

well some of that is fake deformation which gives you that feeling deformation without actually having it. which is done for the sake of gameplay.

the reason you define the motion of vertices is to simulate how much an object will deform. I'll use the the hand on glass since thats a good example. The bone in the hand doesnt deform so the flesh moves only so much thus you limit the direction the amount and the direction the vertice can deform. Thus you can create that pressure and the bulge of the hand on the glass.

I think what should be coined here is a relational physics and rendering engine. and Im really not sure how much it will improve game play. We both know the advantages of it to a point but I have a hard time see the game play improve just because of that.

I think gameplay would advance by a lot if the game worlds were more interactive and allowed for much larger and complex maps to be developed for more players to interact on. Vs what apears to me as something that makes for great cinematics but doesnt enhance gameplay as much

 

[Barking_Mad]

unless you have a computer bigger than the gameworld you're simulating

What if the gameworld your simulating is also the simulator ;P

42

 

[Sir_Rule]

I see MANY things being improved with this. Do you SERIOUSLY want a list though? :O

Just use some imagination man, and maybe you just might see it my way.

 

[johnshafft]

no I just dont think you thought about you statement like its going to take years before that kind of technology will be available when it has been if the the developers wanted it.

 

[Maxi]

Actually, if anyone's thinking of gameworlds calculated at the molecular level, such a thing is physically, proveably impossible (unless you have a computer bigger than the gameworld you're simulating)

Simulating atoms requires a computer that contains at least as many atoms as are being simulated. This is a physical law. In fact, if you want to simulate physics at the molecular level with perfect accuracy, the smallest computer you can make to do it is to simply make the object itself.

So, we won't be seeing molecular gameworlds soon. We can get theoretically close using approximations.

But, with quantum computers, that will be possible.

 

[Sir_Rule]

Years? Hmm... maybe your right. Let's hope for physics like that, SOON then.

 

[Choscura]

this isn't that far away. i'd give it about five years before we start to see any of it, however.

 

[Death.Trap]

Eventually, physics in games will be so powerful that the computer will simulate everything down to molecular level.

A shame we'll need processors bigger than the average city to do it.

-Angry Lawyer

Quantum computers my friend.

 

[slogbog]

whats a quantum computer?

it seems to me that if u simulate the real world perfectly(right down to molecular interactions), then you would need a computer AT LEAST the size of the game world ur simulating.

 

[Mr.Wotsit]

The thing is, to perfectly emulate the physics of reality, you would have to absolutely understand them.

Until then, computers can only be told to fake it and really, that's all you need.

Perhaps simulation of Newton's laws would need to be programmed into an engine because that's quite mathematical really isn't it, all about transferring force and all that.

It sounds like this is all about force and impact.

 

[Asuka]

Soon very soon. Unreal 3.0 had some insane bending physics. Go download the longer video.