Realistic Damage Modelling

[S.T.A.L.K.E.R]

People say how good the physics in Half-Life 2 are. But what about the damage?.

Possible Spoiler: It wasn't until I was swinging containers around with the crane in 'Highway 17' that I realised the need for damage modelling. You swing a container into that warehouse and all it does is bounce off. That's the trouble with physics in games today. Great for picking barrels up and smashing crates. But what about the effects of force, impact and inertia? A container being swung into a warehouse is going to have a tremendous effect on it's integrity.

Surely this is the next step for developers? Realistic damage modelling to provide better immersion.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

yeah there is damage to many objects, they will break and smash etc. If you've heard about the leak, in that if you walked into a barrel apparently they would bend from the pressures on the metal. This was taken out though, im not sure why, but it wasn't much point in having it in...it adds a little reality to the game, but i get more of that immersion from the environments and the physics the game uses, which are much more important for HL2.

 

[v1p3r]

Do you have the slightest idea how much processing power would be needed to simulate an entire building being destroyed?

You could easily build such a map, but even the highest end systems around would get 0.00000001fps.

 

[S.T.A.L.K.E.R]

But weren't we saying this 5 years ago? You could not of imagined the processing power required to drive the graphics of Doom 3 back when the original Half-Life was released. Real-time lighting and shadows, bump-mapping, physics. It's not totally out of reach.

 

[KagePrototype]

yeah there is damage to many objects, they will break and smash etc. If you've heard about the leak, in that if you walked into a barrel apparently they would bend from the pressures on the metal.

Dunno where you heard that one from, but it wasn't true. They just fell over.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Do you have the slightest idea how much processing power would be needed to simulate an entire building being destroyed?

You could easily build such a map, but even the highest end systems around would get 0.00000001fps.

Red Faction had entire buildings in mp maps that would crumble to the floor if key supports were removed, you can "cheat" and make partially simulated damage modeling followed by scripted destruction.

 

[ratm9200]

realistic damage would cause many gameplay problems. A rocket launcher would be able to make large holes in walls. This would allow a player to simply go through instead of around pretty much any obstacle

 

[KagePrototype]

realistic damage would cause many gameplay problems. A rocket launcher would be able to make large holes in walls. This would allow a player to simply go through instead of around pretty much any obstacle

*Cough* Red Faction *Cough*

And even then, it wasn't used enough.

 

[kirovman]

realistic damage would cause many gameplay problems. A rocket launcher would be able to make large holes in walls. This would allow a player to simply go through instead of around pretty much any obstacle

You could do it, but you could limit it. Eg you could destroy a stone wall but not thick metal plates. And you cant destroy a stone wall with a crowbar or machine gun.
And you only have 3 rockets at most, unless there is a box of ammo lying about, so in some cases you could make it so 5 rockets would destroy the wall, but you only have 3, so no way through. Of course the playtesting would take even longer, to make sure the levels were good for play.

I agree that in the future developers might look into this kind of realistic environment.

 

[S.T.A.L.K.E.R]

Red Faction was shit. Remember the adverts? 'Move over Half-Life'

As far as gameplay problems are concerned - making holes in walls and moving through them? The only answer would be a combination of thoughtful level design and ammo restrictions.

 

[WickedWing]

I remember that Red Faction had steel mesh in the concrete walls that could not be destroyed. That's what kept level integrity. It was very fun for multiplayer, though. We used to blow a hole high in a wall and them use a jump platform to get in it. It was a great sniping position. There was also the rail gun that could shoot through walls and had a thermal imager. Good times.

 

[PvtRyan]

Most that you can do is make a building out of pieces and tie it together with constraints, like Soldiers: HoWW2 did, combined with lots of particles it makes some nice destruction. This can be done in Source if you like, but comes with limitations.

Real-time piece by piece destruction of complex models is YEARS off. I doubt it can be done pre-rendered (no one is crazy enough to put their time into it).

 

[Teta_Bonita]

Do you have the slightest idea how much processing power would be needed to simulate an entire building being destroyed?

You could easily build such a map, but even the highest end systems around would get 0.00000001fps.

No, You get around 12 fps. I've tried it.

 

[CREMATOR666]

I get 7 Time to upgrade *sigh*

 

[v1p3r]

No, You get around 12 fps. I've tried it.

Care to post the map? :cheers:

 

[Vormulac]

In December 2004, Microsoft filed a patent including a number of key elemts including "multi-processor system" and "procedural synthesis" for the X-Box 2 and PC.

The patent, which was uncovered by US website TeamXbox, goes on to describe a system whereby the first ("host") CPU handles normal game tasks, while the other CPUs are set to work creating procedural geometry and "fine-grained processing associated with a game".

The example given of this in the patent is setting a processor to work on generating a realistic tree using geometry data for a leaf and physics data for the world around the tree - technology which would relieve much of the huge burden which generating art resources for next-generation games presents to developers.

If this technology comes through, then it will certainly help towards the destructable terrain and realistic damage modelling

 

[Elkhound]

People say how good the physics in Half-Life 2 are. But what about the damage?.

Possible Spoiler: It wasn't until I was swinging containers around with the crane in 'Highway 17' that I realised the need for damage modelling. You swing a container into that warehouse and all it does is bounce off. That's the trouble with physics in games today. Great for picking barrels up and smashing crates. But what about the effects of force, impact and inertia? A container being swung into a warehouse is going to have a tremendous effect on it's integrity.

Surely this is the next step for developers? Realistic damage modelling to provide better immersion.

Damage would be pretty cool. But as said before it wont be any good for your fps. And it's not easy to damage everything correctly. Like the correct shapes in a wall or somethin. But it would be really cool when they find a way to make it perfect :E

 

[Asuka]

People say how good the physics in Half-Life 2 are. But what about the damage?.

Possible Spoiler: It wasn't until I was swinging containers around with the crane in 'Highway 17' that I realised the need for damage modelling. You swing a container into that warehouse and all it does is bounce off. That's the trouble with physics in games today. Great for picking barrels up and smashing crates. But what about the effects of force, impact and inertia? A container being swung into a warehouse is going to have a tremendous effect on it's integrity.

Surely this is the next step for developers? Realistic damage modelling to provide better immersion.

I would say that they will start adding these things in games around 2006.

 

[sinkoman]

I remember Red Faction 1 did this perfectly. Red Faction 2 was a bit ugh. But I remember building little caves and hiding in them till people would walk by. Great game. Pick it up new for like 20 usd. PS2 btw.

 

[Cukel]

I remember Valve saying something that they tried to add destructable enviorment but they didnt get it working right so they forgot the whole thing.

 

[Flyingdebris]

if someone could combine the physics of halflife, some of the lighting technology of doom 3, the geomod technology of red faction, the dismemberment system of Soldier of Furtune 2, with the fullscale war aspect of battlefield.

That would be gaming bliss and i would never leave the house. Shame that the technology is too damn power hungry

 

[Mr.Wotsit]

Hey that would be so cool if you had different CPUs for various tasks e.g. One for physics, one for graphics, one for AI or whatever all with a more universal set of instructions each that all games could benefit from.

*sighs* Maybe one day.

However, in regard to Half Life 2, the game as it is has no need for this feature. It has been desgined without it and it never comes up as a glaring omission.

 

[xcellerate]

okay, lets say that we will allow this "real life realism" to happen in games. The story line goes to hell. You have to design a much larger level (can you imagine when you first walked outside in the start, if you just stole the truck and drove it through the barracades?) how would the game respond to THAT action. They have to do something to keep headed where "they" want you to go, the game must have some sense of predictability or else its impossable to make. ha!

 

[D€vIL²]

if someone could combine the physics of halflife, some of the lighting technology of doom 3, the geomod technology of red faction, the dismemberment system of Soldier of Furtune 2, with the fullscale war aspect of battlefield.

That would be gaming bliss and i would never leave the house. Shame that the technology is too damn power hungry

thats what i was thinking

 

[D€vIL²]

has anyone seen
www.unrealtechnology.com
unreal 3 engine is going to be amazing
(sorry to post off topic)