PDA

View Full Version : DMM Physics for Episode 3


phillipjfry6
04-03-2010, 04:55 AM
Something like this maybe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36SyPuNjwJg

Although probably not as extravagant, because in real life a building will not fall off a cliff due to a shotgun blast. But, incorporating DMM physics into EP3 would really bring out the best of the source engine. Instead of incorporating DMM into almost all objects, you could incorporate it into dilapidated buildings and props, and maybe even base some puzzle off of it.

michael89
04-03-2010, 04:59 AM
Valve is going to upgrade physics on Portal 2 - source, and the same version of the engine will be probably used also in EP3.

MF_Kitten
04-03-2010, 06:04 AM
do you remember the scene from episode 2 where the advisor is yanked through the roof of the house? lots of nice cinematic physics at play there. i think the engine is capable of that kind of feat already. they've already showed this. remember the original demonstration of the source engine? they had wood breaking very realistically, and it looked very natural. they removed that and just used standard break joints in the actual game. they also have the ability to use realistic metal deformation and bumping etc, but like the realistic wood fracturing, it's a major resource hog.

backstepper
04-03-2010, 06:12 AM
I like to see the kind of explosions we have in Episode 2 on special TF2 maps and in Episode 3 but since we might have another year to wait for it why even bother with that topic.:p

Flamov
04-03-2010, 11:07 AM
Something like this maybe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36SyPuNjwJg

Although probably not as extravagant, because in real life a building will not fall off a cliff due to a shotgun blast. But, incorporating DMM physics into EP3 would really bring out the best of the source engine. Instead of incorporating DMM into almost all objects, you could incorporate it into dilapidated buildings and props, and maybe even base some puzzle off of it.

This is too undefined. Personally, I think that there are not enough points where the entities can break into new entities (think of the Left 4 Dead 2 doors). I am highly against this; it needs a lot of more work.

.n.ty|e$
04-03-2010, 01:14 PM
It's not about "enough" points, Flamov. It should be completely dynamic (therefor, almost infinite). Things should break wherever they are hit and quite simply, the manor in which they break should depend on what they are made of.

I have never used a real weapon, but I think wood and concrete would behave very differently. Wood has a grain, which would give the break some very uneven edges. Concrete on the other hand would be more brittle and tend to keep it's shape less
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUwjfaMJ5JU

It would be kind of like little craters with a pistol an with larger rounds (the AR2) it would probably shatter like in the above video.

Wood has water in it, which helps it to absorb the force a little better..

The OPs video looked extremely fake. This is what DMM is really like
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=9sQl5Ro0f6k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=7q_1t2LSLOE&feature=related

surfrock22
04-03-2010, 01:15 PM
I'm glad you brought up Left 4 Dead 2. Think of how cool it would be to program zombies to dynamically break through a surface in order to get to survivors (yes, I know this would be very tough to do). One zombie punches a small hole through the top portion of the door, the next kicks a hole in the lower corner, maybe the next pulls a chunk from one of the openings. Would look pretty ♥♥♥♥ing cool. :D

Or a charger just rams his ♥♥♥ right through a wall that the survivors deemed "safe". Would introduce a whole new dynamic to the game!

Or, say, survivors are hiding behind a metal door. You can see each zombie putting a nice fist sized dent in the door, until enough force is applied and the top or bottom portion is bent enough for zombies to squeeze through. Would look pretty awesome. This would also call for true dynamic pathing, where zombies are able to quickly "think" of how to get past or through objects.

Metroidman1
04-03-2010, 02:16 PM
This is too undefined. Personally, I think that there are not enough points where the entities can break into new entities (think of the Left 4 Dead 2 doors). I am highly against this; it needs a lot of more work.

Flamov he doesn't mean useing that system specifically, but the concept of the system.

.n.ty|e$
04-03-2010, 02:51 PM
Yeah, one of the things that I have really come to not like in games is how only specific parts of the world can be damaged. For example, you can knock out the windows of a building but then launch half a dozen rockets into the wall and it will come out good as new.. Especially rockets.. No game really conveys the power, both physical and psychological, that a rocket projects. I mean, these things are loud and when they hit anywhere near something, the effects can certainly be felt. We should have come along way since the days of quake where people can fire off dozens of rockets and only have to worry about what feels like 2 feet of splash damage.

HLs RPG is a ton of fun (being able to control the rocket's trajectory mid flight) and it would be nice if there were different kinds of ammo for it.

I'm glad you brought up Left 4 Dead 2. Think of how cool it would be to program zombies to dynamically break through a surface in order to get to survivors (yes, I know this would be very tough to do). One zombie punches a small hole through the top portion of the door, the next kicks a hole in the lower corner, maybe the next pulls a chunk from one of the openings. Would look pretty ♥♥♥♥ing cool.
Agreed.. although would an infected conceivably be able to break through a wooden door? I mean, we see zombies going through windows all the time, but breaking through a solid door might be a different story.. A charger might be able to do it though.. And a tank looks like very strong as well.. Hmm.. it would be nice to have in game situations that demonstrate the capabilities of each infected..

David-B-737
04-05-2010, 07:47 AM
DMM in realtime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFBuseEx64

David-B-737
04-05-2010, 07:56 AM
DMM goes pretty well with havok physics, I see no problem to put that in the source engine too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgM2wVbBUtU&feature=related
Tell me that this isn't awesome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCfSKe8KaAU&feature=related

gamezombie
04-05-2010, 11:09 AM
That would be AWESOME well except for the fps we would get BUT IT WOULD BE COOL.

Flamov
04-05-2010, 11:14 AM
It's not about "enough" points, Flamov. It should be completely dynamic (therefor, almost infinite). Things should break wherever they are hit and quite simply, the manor in which they break should depend on what they are made of.

That's a very hard thing to do...

So, you're saying if an object is hit at a specific point the engine should compute a pattern of 'breakage' from that point )sort of like a spiderweb)? And, of course, factoring in its material as you said. That sounds good.

.n.ty|e$
04-05-2010, 11:27 AM
That's a very hard thing to do...
It may sound hard on paper, but it's much easier with today's gpus. People think a 4 core cpu is good, but most gpus have hundred's of stream processors. It doesn't have to contain every single possibility fior where it could be hit, just tell it how to break where it's hit.

So, you're saying if an object is hit at a specific point the engine should compute a pattern of 'breakage' from that point )sort of like a spiderweb)? And, of course, factoring in its material as you said. That sounds good.
This is the most important part of having a believably physics simulation. PhysX does it and more (the objects aren't justr fracturing, they are dynamically deforming whereever they are hit)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsoxCEVHEuQ

Or actually, look at a simpler example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nxGkqoBh0A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk&NR=1

It's not as if physx (or crysis) has a precomuted number of ways the cubes/barrels can scatter. It has to be based on where the pile is hit otherwise it just won't be plausible. That would take up a ton of memory. Being able to do things on the fly would actually take up less resources afaik.

I have seen some incredible things in the way of game physics and trust me, having a predetermined set of breaking points is definitely last gen. Merely making it look "okay" shouldn't be the goal. What HL2 needs is more ambition (where the tech and gameplay is concerned.)

surfrock22
04-05-2010, 12:41 PM
I think the "infected" are clearly strong enough to break a wooden door, in groups. I mean, a regular mob of people could probably do that pretty damn easily, just with brute strength, if they wanted it badly enough.

Tell me that this isn't awesome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCfSKe8KaAU&feature=related

:eek:

That is the most amazing and effective DMM demo I have ever seen. Simply awesome.

.n.ty|e$
04-05-2010, 01:46 PM
DMM in realtime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFBuseEx64

See, flamov, this is exactly what I was talking about.

backstepper
04-05-2010, 02:32 PM
I like to see them using physics and making more things in the levels breakable or fragile. Still as long as it has no meaning ofr gameplay its just an extra. Red faction was a nice game to just destroy everything that was in your way but in the end it had other issuses that prevented it from being a real great game. I like it but it has no story or real good and changing gameplay. If they make the new half life and add some physics i would be more than happy about but if not thats fine as well.

Physics and new effects can be great but sometimes these things are just not all when you make a great game. Still i liked Guerilla and Cell factor for the physics but both games are nothing above playing around with physics. So to make it short i like to see it but its not my first priority for any game.

.n.ty|e$
04-05-2010, 03:47 PM
Yeah, it would be cool if the destruction somehow was part of a puzzle.

David-B-737
04-05-2010, 04:41 PM
That would be AWESOME well except for the fps we would get BUT IT WOULD BE COOL.

Combine it with Agiea and your FPS should be awesome to.

.n.ty|e$
04-05-2010, 06:08 PM
Why would you need both? DMM looks a little more advanced than physX (I haven't seen any stuff like the spaceship in the asteroid field from dmm) but still..

surfrock22
04-06-2010, 10:58 AM
DMM is significantly different from PhysX.

.n.ty|e$
04-06-2010, 05:02 PM
How so? DMM is owned by lucasart and PhysX is owned by Nvidia. Additionally, PhysX can run on any Nvidia card that supports CUDA (8000 or above.) Beyond that, where is the difference? When it comes down to it, both are very similar. Both simulate how various materials interact with other objects and the world around them. Both support deformable metal, liquids, etc.

surfrock22
04-06-2010, 06:42 PM
I am not saying I know a bunch about both, but I have yet to see a DMM style physics system implemented in a game with PhysX.

JgcxCub
04-07-2010, 03:09 AM
DMM goes pretty well with havok physics, I see no problem to put that in the source engine too
Tell me that this isn't awesome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCfSKe8KaAU&feature=related

'Tis pretty good. However, is it just me or is everything a... bit too fragile? I mean, the balls take chunks out of the door, instead of just knocking it open. Just saying.

David-B-737
04-07-2010, 06:06 AM
'Tis pretty good. However, is it just me or is everything a... bit too fragile? I mean, the balls take chunks out of the door, instead of just knocking it open. Just saying.

These balls aren't metal, In the video the mass of the balls was a lot higher than the balls really are, But they used really small ones because they didn't want it to block the view of the beautiful DMM physics, Just imagine that they're big.

Oh and, In DMM you can choose the strength and fargilness of materials, See this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdFBuseEx64

IcarusNine
04-07-2010, 04:27 PM
How so? DMM is owned by lucasart and PhysX is owned by Nvidia. Additionally, PhysX can run on any Nvidia card that supports CUDA (8000 or above.) Beyond that, where is the difference? When it comes down to it, both are very similar. Both simulate how various materials interact with other objects and the world around them. Both support deformable metal, liquids, etc.
'PhysX' is a physics engine that runs on the CPU and has CUDA support. It includes 'PhysX Effects', special physics models that are extremely processing intensive and benefit greatly from parallel processing. Dynamic destruction is, so far, not one of these effects, at least that I have seen.

DMM is a destruction and material simulator designed to be embedded within a physics engine, specifically Havok. It is not a physics engine itself.

Compare Havok Physics (http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=havok-physics) with Havok Destruction (http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=havok-destruction).

jimmysmitty
04-07-2010, 04:51 PM
If VALVe updates the physics engine and does use a new one, it will more than likely be the newest version of HavoK.

henno13
04-08-2010, 12:14 PM
Tell me that this isn't awesome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCfSKe8KaAU&feature=related

Do want. If Valve put in a similar system into EP3, they will win the internets due to uncontainable levels of awesome.