Real-Time Physics in Source

[chili pepper]

Do a google for Chaser demo. Lots of places to get it.

The demo gives you a small taste of rag-doll physics, specular graphics, and some breakable physics, none of which are implemented very well.

Other than that, the game sucks. :x ;(

 

[Peks]

what if each hl2 plank of wood has 1000 breakpoints? it would literally break where you shot...without anyone zooming in at a molecular level and analyzing anything...so it would be good enough.



edit: moral of the story is:

no one knows how its implemented except for valve and gamespy? who had a shot at the playable demo and they said the wood broke where they shot it. whether or not it was .5 mm away from the actually impact is trivial.

 

[LoneDeranger]

Originally posted by Peks
what if each hl2 plank of wood has 1000 breakpoints? it would literally break where you shot...without anyone zooming in at a molecular level and analyzing anything...so it would be good enough.

That's really not necessary. What you didn't notice that the wood splinters a lot in the video (up to 1 foot worth of wood or more). What that means is if you shoot the wood somewhere within that 1 foot it will still be realistic (in real life wood just doesn't snap in half if you shot it). So you really need only 4-6 breakpoints on a descent-size piece of wood.

 

[FlyingAnts]

Good point. If HL2 had real life physics then the wood wouldn't break at at, it would just make a hole and splinter out the back. That would suck for gameplay.

 

[Phisionary]

Originally posted by BWMASTER
Physics is not part of the destructability of an object.

Yes it is.

This is awfully confrontational for such a mundane topic. I don't see why eveyone is so defensive...

I can very much see the reasons for the dissapointment of the original poster (whoever that may have been. If someone said, I forgot it). While I will reserve my complete judgement until the game has been released, I can see obvious downsides to a system using arbitrarily placed, pre-modeled break points. I don't think that it is a real substitute for a system that would allow for dynamic and real-time simulation of object destructability. Yes, perhaps it is beyond the capabilities of current computers, and especially that of valve's target audiance, but I'm sure that wont be true for much longer. I don't expect a ballistic simulation accurate enough for an engineering analysis of a projectile or whatever. Everything that is simulated is just 'faking' it in some way. Objects arent textures, surfaces are not polygons, and ray-tracing is not real light. But I appreciate the desire to have these functions simulated to a realistic level of realism in games and computer graphics mediums. I fail to see how the physics modeling of destructable objects is any different. It maybe be a somewhat unrealistic expectation for half-life 2, and I am certain that whatever system of simulation HL2 uses will be handled well, and was very probably a 'design decision' as Gabe is fond of putting it, and not a technical limitation of computers in use today. Besides the issues of processor utilization of the end user, I'm sure that such a development would have been technically complex to implement and integrate into the existing physics simulation.

However, as any simulation is just faking it, to some level, there is not inconsiderable merit in trying to fake it better. Until things in a game universe are indistinguishable from real life, there will be just reason to attempt to develop a better and more realistic simulation.

I submitted such a potential situation, in discussion of a structure being damaged by gunfire or explosives. To appropriately simulate the collapse or partial collapse of this structure, it seems that a simulator would need to do a great deal more that simply have 'break points' with associated pre-modeled geometry.

Does it mean I won't be happy when the game comes out? No, of course not. I'm sure it will be too amazingly fun to worry about break points or whatever.

Conversely, am I convinced that it will not be distracting to not having wood fracture *exactly* where I shoot it? No. Sometimes I'm a bit of a nitpicker... Especially when there is a noticeable improvement in one aspect of the realism of a game like this, it highlights other failures. Gabe referanced one such occurance with the facial simulation. It looked so good, that for the clothing sim to match they would have overextended their polygon budget. So they had to scale back the realism a bit...


Besides, I always wanted to have these trees in a game, and you'd shoot them, and they'd split open and splinter and look really bad ass as the tree fell down. I still don't see how that could be done as I imagine it with this system... Until it can, I'm still not satisfied. :E

And about FlyingAnts post (and whoever he was complimenting, I cant see who right now), that is a good point. What I really want isn't realism... Realism isn't why I like CS. Rainbow Six was a much better T/CT approxmation. I want something really really cool. 'The Matrix' (the movie) isn't real, but it is really cool. :E Real life is realistic, but it isn't always fun, you know??

Well, I guess this was something of a rant. I always find myself defending some crazy idea.... Oh well.

-Phision

 

[RabidMeatloaf]

Originally posted by Joeyslucky22
OH NO! the source engine sucks now! It wont break wear I shoot it! omg.. im not buying HL2 now.. screw that... bah.. All I wanted was breakable wood were i shoot it.. man.. this sucks.. HL2 sucks.. the world sucks... im going to commit suicide now!

....:rolling:

Lol @ that ^^^^^^:cheers: :cheers:

 

[el Chi]

Oh huzzah! I was waiting for someone to get all disappointed and upset with Half Life 2 before it's finished. AND over something so pointless.

"Looks like you can't shoot it anywhere and it will splinter anywhere. Major let down #1." - rollthedise

Oh yes, what a dreadful let down. Because I was really looking forward to being able to shoot PLANKS in an infinite variety of ways. Valve really have their priorities screwed up. People don't WANT well-animated character faces, an involving plot, good level and enemy design or any of that rubbish. No no, Valve should have spent those 5 long years working on getting planks to splinter in more ways than any person could count in a life-time.
This is NOT a major let down - it's a minor triviality. Bloody hell, the game's not even finished yet and you're all sad about some tiny tiny aspect of the game that you probably won't even notice. Especially as there'll be so much else to look at that'll be so much better.
For God's sake, if you want to shoot planks realistically go buy a gun, some lumber and go wild:hmph:

 

[Phisionary]

Well, if you would actually read the whole topic, that quote is not from rollthediSe. I imagine that he'd like to have people stop attributing it to him. (LOL, well i guess rollthediSe could also bloody well defend himself, too )

Where's the love, anyway, people?? It's Allll good! :afro:

-Phision

 

[el Chi]

Oh sorry. Well I stand by my comments but redirect them at the moron who said them in the first place.
And as for where the love is?

The love is all around me. I feel it in my fingers. I feel it in my toes.
Was that the Beegees? I know Wet Wet Bloody Wet didnae do it first...
But I just don't have much patience for people complaining about trivialities of a game that's not yet finished and when it IS you know for a fact that youwon't be worrying about planks.

"Planks? Nah, mate. Ant-Lions, that's what you wanna worry about. Looks to me like you got an infestation. I c'n get rid of 'em, but it'll cost ya."

Sorry, I just got a thought of a mix between Gordon, and those glorious Cockney sapce marines from Giants: Citizen Kabuto. Ahaa :E

 

[LoneDeranger]

Originally posted by Phisionary

Conversely, am I convinced that it will not be distracting to not having wood fracture *exactly* where I shoot it? No. Sometimes I'm a bit of a nitpicker... Especially when there is a noticeable improvement in one aspect of the realism of a game like this, it highlights other failures. Gabe referanced one such occurance with the facial simulation. It looked so good, that for the clothing sim to match they would have overextended their polygon budget. So they had to scale back the realism a bit...


Besides, I always wanted to have these trees in a game, and you'd shoot them, and they'd split open and splinter and look really bad ass as the tree fell down. I still don't see how that could be done as I imagine it with this system... Until it can, I'm still not satisfied. :E

Unfortunatelly I can't counter with such a lengthy post, because frankly, I'm not that interested in splintering wood. However it seems my previous comments have gone unnoticed and so I decided to do a bit of PS'ing (a picture speaks a 1000 words after all).

Notice how large the "damage area" is in proportion to the plank. Therefore, shooting anywhere in the damage area would have a realistic effect as you would not be able to tell where the break point was. I know when you get HL2, you will definatelly try shooting a plank at point blank (and I will too), however you will not be able to decide conclusively whether you shot a breakpoint or not because of the amount of splintering that occurs.

As far as trees are concerned, I just want a game developer to show me a real-looking one. Nevermind blowing it up and all that stuff. Stalker comes close, IMO, but still there is a long way to go.

 

[Phisionary]

Originally posted by LoneDeranger
Unfortunatelly I can't counter with such a lengthy post, because frankly, I'm not that interested in splintering wood.

Touche

Originally posted by LoneDeranger (continued)

However it seems my previous comments have gone unnoticed and so I decided to do a bit of PS'ing (a picture speaks a 1000 words after all).

Notice how large the "damage area" is in proportion to the plank. Therefore, shooting anywhere in the damage area would have a realistic effect as you would not be able to tell where the break point was. I know when you get HL2, you will definatelly try shooting a plank at point blank (and I will too), however you will not be able to decide conclusively whether you shot a breakpoint or not because of the amount of splintering that occurs.

Well taken. Good point. I did see your posts, but I still stand by my previous comments.

...Hl2's damage system will be fine, I'm sure. There are many inadequacies in games produced today, in regards to their realism, I mean. We play them and they are very very fun, nonetheless.

Originally posted by LoneDeranger (continued)

As far as trees are concerned, I just want a game developer to show me a real-looking one. Nevermind blowing it up and all that stuff. Stalker comes close, IMO, but still there is a long way to go.

Very good point. Yet another hurdle to surmount before my pointless little tree-thing can be possible...

:E

And in case you're wondering about all these big words, I use dictionary dot com :E

-Phision

 

[Busta J]

Who shoots planks with a handgun anyway?!?! I'm sorry, but crates shall only be smashed with crowbars, explosives, or a flamethrower.

 

[Phisionary]

Yeah. But if i can smash crates with a flamethrower, that would be pretty sad.. I hope they burn and char and crackle away...

Hey yeah! If they dont have a dynamic deformation damage model, it would be hard to have things really burn, at least without a lot of work from the modelers...

But no more naysaying from me. It'll be awesome. All this sweet ass stuff will have to wait for HL3. :E

-Phision