Soft-Body Crash Physics; Yes or No?

[Samus]

I think it means they'll have the the basis for titles after GT6, just like how the GT5 standard cars have been carried through titles

Yes but you'd be waiting for years to get the game with enough of these new models and physics that would take an age to model when it would be new to PD.

So sure, if you want GT6 on PS4 in 2017 then sure, let's have these physics. Otherwise, no, it's not feasible.

 

[1241Penguin]

I don't think it's necessary either.

Forgive me for sounding like "those GT fanboys plaguing YouTube saying that GT is not a damage simulator so it's acceptable for crap damage modelling", but damage like this is totally unnecessary. Unless PD has some super-awesome crash/damage physics to go along with this, then it's pointless.

 

[Earth]

Thats kid stuff

Here is the real deal

 

[JBanton]

Yes but you'd be waiting for years to get the game with enough of these new models and physics that would take an age to model when it would be new to PD.

So sure, if you want GT6 on PS4 in 2017 then sure, let's have these physics. Otherwise, no, it's not feasible.

By then we'll have PS4 so yes that sounds alright, maybe for Gran Turismo 7.

@1241Penguin What's to say PD won't improve their physics?, the video games market always has been about improvement and advances.

@Earth I won't be able to see your video until tomorrow because the only internet I have is from my phone at the moment.

 

[Samus]

By then we'll have PS4 so yes that sounds alright, maybe for Gran Turismo 7.

@1241Penguin What's to say PD won't improve their physics?, the video games market always has been about improvement and advances.

You don't seem to be following, if they did this they would need to start from scratch on the modelling and physics. The game would take longer than GT5 to release without delays, even longer with the usual PD delays. Is that really worth it for these damage physics when you say yourself games like Grid and Shift with traditionally modelled cars already have pretty good damage physics?

 

[JBanton]

You don't seem to be following, if they did this they would need to start from scratch on the modelling and physics. The game would take longer than GT5 to release without delays, even longer with the usual PD delays. Is that really worth it for these damage physics when you say yourself games like Grid and Shift with traditionally modelled cars already have pretty good damage physics?

1. Yes, purely because it would put Gran Turismo at the forefront of technological development and be a feature that PD could use as a USP at some point.

2. Also they would be giving us the technology to play around with.

3. Just because you think it's a bad idea doesn't necessarily mean it is.

4. I'm off to uni from 2013- 2016 so I won't be gaming much I think.

 

[MSTER232]

YES.

Thats kid stuff

Here is the real deal

O_O, but some of them the damage seems slightly exaggerated considering the crash the car is going through.

EDIT: The more I watch this clip, the more I want soft-body physics in GT6 but that's not gonna happen. Unless PD decides to surprise me.

 

[Griffith500]

1. Yes, purely because it would put Gran Turismo at the forefront of technological development and be a feature that PD could use as a USP at some point.

2. Also they would be giving us the technology to play around with.

3. Just because you think it's a bad idea doesn't necessarily mean it is.

4. I'm off to uni from 2013- 2016 so I won't be gaming much I think.

Unfortunately, it's not actually ready to be used for simulating real cars. There are obvious damping issues for a start, the lattice has a uniform rigidity (i.e. a single material) and it just hasn't been tested against real data.

The fact that the chassis is deforming means that there is a serious impact on the driving physics all the time. You'd have to match the dynamics of the lattice to the real car by using variable stiffness and damping (which I'm not even sure their model allows; at best the current homogeneity might just be a performance consideration) and make sure that any deformation is itself realistic.

PD will be working with manufacturer specs of chassis rigidity where available, and these could just plug into the suspension model, if they're actually a consideration in GT's physics engine. Most sims do it this way, because it's far easier to tame with just a handful of calculations, as opposed to a several thousand degree of freedom lattice, just for the chassis, and it's accurate because they're usually measurements. Given the FEM models the manufacturers use for pre-development are rarely "accurate enough", I doubt this crude, low-resolution, not-physically-based approximation will be anything like accurate without serious work.

With the lattice, the resultant rigidity matrix will be a function of both the individual spring and mass "rods" and their springiness and massiness (which needs to be spatially variable), but also their arrangement. A small change in the structure can cause a significant change in the result, so the designer will be chasing their tail a lot trying to get each number in the matrix correct. I'm not saying it can't be done, and I think these sorts of "complexity from structured simplicity" systems are fascinating, exactly the sorts of systems that dominate in our environment. It just needs to be done properly.

You could just model the "skin" this way, but that's not this method's real advantage, and PD are already working in that direction.
"Soft-body physics" will be everywhere in due time, just not yet.

 

[masterrawad]

Soft Body physics = unfamiliar ground for PD.

It is better for them to keep their current physics engine. it is, after all, what defines Gran turismo the most.

 

[1241Penguin]

Soft Body physics = unfamiliar ground for PD.

It is better for them to keep their current physics engine. it is, after all, what defines Gran turismo the most.

Like, like, the ability to make your BMW M3 look like an M6?

 

[masterrawad]

Like, like, the ability to make your BMW M3 look like an M6?

exactly

 

[whereSTheFUhd]

YES.



O_O, but some of them the damage seems slightly exaggerated considering the crash the car is going through.

EDIT: The more I watch this clip, the more I want soft-body physics in GT6 but that's not gonna happen. Unless PD decides to surprise me.

That particular simulation is more than highly exaggerated. The results are more akin to an explosion rather than a collision. Unless the material properties used in the simulation was for plastic, which would tend to shatter, as opposed to the more commonly used metals (steel, aluminum, etc.), which are more malleable and capable of absorbing much more force, thereby allowing greater retention of integrity.

 

[QuikSlvr223]

That would be too much for a GT game, especially on a console. And no, I do not think that the PS4 can achieve this kind of stuff.

The Playstation 4 is supposedly going to be something like 6 times as powwrful as the Playstation 3. And then there's the fact that the Playstation 3 is pretty powerful to begin with.

 

[IceMan PJN]

If it were to be included in a Gran Turismo Game it would change the way we race; it would be much like real life, where we have to worry about making contact. As drivers we would have to take care not to wreck our car and render ourselves unable to finish a race.

It would also put an end to online rammers.

What is your opinion on this controversial topic?

1) How is this controversial?

2) You don't need a super-elaborate damage model to discourage ramming. You just need damage, even if crude. GT5's damage would have done the trick in A-Spec had it been in the real game. In Forza, damage has long discouraged banging around. I not only always have damage on, but force it online.

 

[HuskyGT]

No. Remember how PD atmitted having problems with the already rediculous damage that GT5 has? The average GT player doesn't even crash his cars. Why make PD loose their time developing such thing instead of making the game that we want? And honestly, I don't think that this will work in a PS3 or in a GT game. And I also think that this would highly interfere with the driving physics.

This would look nice in a GTA game, though I don't think it would work well even for that title since you would feel like you're driving Jello on wheels.

So no.

 

[TexasTyme214]

I said no because the damage model is not the one of the larger flaws in the game. It can be improved without trying to go this route. However, Burnout would be amazing with this.

 

[Earth]

We will never see soft body physics because manufacturers will never allow their cars to show any amount of extreme deformation. As seen from the pre launch GT5 best buy demo here you can see PD can make the damage model much more extreme then what it was in GT5, but removed it either because it was too buggy or manufacturers complained.

 

[Antonisbob]

I say yes, naturally. Though I have my doubts about it ever happening. It would be really great for a Monster Truck, Demo Derby game ect.

 

[OHM_fusion]

I think this is an excuse some developer use for their worse damage model .

I don't think that's true, I remember reading some quotes from developers of different games about this issue (I'll post them if I can find them), but basically not all car manufacturers have the same attitude towards damaging their cars in games, some allow more some allow less. There is a reason that certain cars in GT5 have a lot more damage than others (mostly rally cars and some race cars). Manufacturers don't want people to use a game as an indication of a real car's performance in a crash, especially in a game that is based on realism. It's also not a coincidence that games with non-licensed cars usually have more advanced damage models than games with licensed cars.

Of course, GT5's damage model is not as far as damage can go, Driver San Francisco also has licensed cars too and they get pretty banged up, but my guess is that PD tried to do too much with the dynamic damage which ended up just making the damage look awkward. It's something that should be improved on better hardware.

In the end, no matter what you do you need to make a damage model for every car specifically, which is why this technology wouldn't be plausible, along with the already mentioned facts about having to remodel all cars from scratch (in a different way and in greater detail) and not to mention the resources this technology would use, especially on consoles.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Do I think GT6 should have soft body physics? Yes, why wouldn't I?

Do I think it will be possible on the PS4? LOL!

Crytek already said their engine is too advanced to run at 100% for next gen consoles. Not going to happen.

 

[Antonisbob]

Why not just incorporate current PC multi-core processors and graphics cards into next generation consoles? Then they'll be able to run it at 100 percent. I still believe the PS4 and what have you are a couple of years off, which would make then better than anything we have today anyways. (At the rate technologically is advancing)

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Why not just incorporate current PC multi-core processors and graphics cards into next generation consoles? Then they'll be able to run it at 100 percent. I still believe the PS4 and what have you are a couple of years off, which would make then better than anything we have today anyways. (At the rate technologically is advancing)

And you believe this would cost $300 or less?

Next gen consoles will not be "better than anything we have today anyways."

Don't take my word for it... take the word of the Crytek CEO.

 

[sinbad]

Pointless added complexity. Until they have tyre and suspension working flawlessly this should be way down the list of things to do.
Crumpling cars in big crashes are just entertainment for infants that have too short an attention span to drive a car without wanting to wrap it around the end of a pit wall.

 

[Antonisbob]

And you believe this would cost $300 or less?

Don't take my word for it... take the word of the Crytek CEO.

I don't know what they will cost, nobody does as far as I understand.

Next gen consoles will not be "better than anything we have today anyways."

That's like saying computers, or phones, or automobiles won't be more advanced in 2 years than what we have today. Everything evolves. It's the same thing with consoles, any junk Nintendo makes will surely not be better, and the next unreliable 'Box' Microsoft makes won't interest me at all. I probably won't even buy the Next PlayStation until their price HAS gone down to $300.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

I don't know what they will cost, nobody does as far as I understand.

That's like saying computers, or phones, or automobiles won't be more advanced in 2 years than what we have today. Everything evolves. It's the same thing with consoles, any junk Nintendo makes will surely not be better, and the next unreliable 'Box' Microsoft makes won't interest me at all. I probably won't even buy the Next PlayStation until their price HAS gone down to $300.

Lol.

You're not a PC gamer are you?

 

[JBanton]

As Griffith500 mentioned it would take a lot of time and effort but in the future things will be much the same as now, where technological advances and development are what will keep products at the front of the scene.

Including well-executed soft-body physics would help PD in the respect that they would have another USP for their product.

As for the thread question, yes I would want it, because it would simulate real life and would be a huge step up from GT5 where people can just hit cars because it has no, or little consequences.

Controversial? Very much so; some people think it's great and some hate it.

 

[Foxiol]

One "small" detail is not that we can´t see this only because of the hardware specs that we don´t really know yet...i can tell you that Rigs of Rogs destruction and deformation needs a lot of processing power,and added to Cryengine 3 (which i use to make maps, etc) it requires a little bit more because you must add the graphics to the whole package.

The "small" detail is that if you want to implement this in the game you MUST REMAKE EACH CAR FROM SCRATCH AGAIN so you can have each part deformable and destructible piece per piece.

Imagine if PD needs to do all the Premium cars again...GT6 release date in 2479. lmao

Too much work but still possible. PD can use something similar with their own engine and current cars. I felt that we did not see all features of the engine in GT5 at all. We can expect some surprises.

 

[MSTER232]

One "small" detail is not that we can´t see this only because of the hardware specs that we don´t really know yet...i can tell you that Rigs of Rogs destruction and deformation needs a lot of processing power,and added to Cryengine 3 (which i use to make maps, etc) it requires a little bit more because you must add the graphics to the whole package.

The "small" detail is that if you want to implement this in the game you MUST REMAKE EACH CAR FROM SCRATCH AGAIN so you can have each part deformable and destructible piece per piece.

Imagine if PD needs to do all the Premium cars again...GT6 release date in 2479. lmao

Too much work but still possible. PD can use something similar with their own engine and current cars. I felt that we did not see all features of the engine in GT5 at all. We can expect some surprises.

I'm pretty sure everyone here right now including Kaz would have died by then. Getting back on topic, we already have some deformable parts in GT5 on both rally cars and other cars, but they don't nearly deform as much as it would require to have a good soft-body physics engine.

 

[ch3ng]

I don't think that's true, I remember reading some quotes from developers of different games about this issue (I'll post them if I can find them), but basically not all car manufacturers have the same attitude towards damaging their cars in games, some allow more some allow less. There is a reason that certain cars in GT5 have a lot more damage than others (mostly rally cars and some race cars).
.

There is a reason that certain cars in GT5 have a lot more damage than others. PD.

I know Shift, Grid, Forza and licensed Project cars cars which have a better damage model as the same car in GT.

How do you explain that? I think it is an execuse. I think the manufacture don't like it, but allow the developer to do it.

 

[MSTER232]

There is a reason that certain cars in GT5 have a lot more damage than others. PD.

I know Shift, Grid, Forza and licensed Project cars cars which have a better damage model as the same car in GT.

For Shift and Grid, car manufacturers allow the cars to get damaged as much as they do in-game because many people see them as arcade games which are not supposed to be realistic. For Gran Turismo, car manufacturers are a little more strict on damage because if the cars got damaged easily, people would think the car would probably be unsafe in real life, and therefore affecting the sales of that car.

For Forza Motorsport, some people see it as an arcade game, and others see it as a sim. That's how Microsoft/Turn 10 probably got away with damage in those series.