Soft-Body Crash Physics; Yes or No?

[OHM_fusion]

Do you have a source? Because you say it would be a fact.

Well I can find plenty of people from forums of various racing games saying the exact same thing, but that's irrelevant since I can't find an official statement from a car company or a developer (even though it exists somewhere because I remember reading it). It's basically common knowledge. But the evidence is around you, take a look at the racing games. Games with unlicensed vehicles almost always have a better damage model than ones with licensed cars. If anyone can find an official source, it would be appreciated.

You might use some games with licensed race cars as an example, but since race cars are not indicative of the safety level of a production car, manufacturers allow greater damage to them. Anyway, you really don't have any evidence that manufacturers allow heavy damage on cars in games (especially sims).


EDIT: google found this:

In order to avoid licensing issues, many games simply create fictional car brands.
Brands names are protected in America by copyright, trademark, and intellectual property laws. These draw their power from the United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8). In order to use a trademarked name, a game developed must obtain a license from the trademark owner. This is difficult and often costly, so many games simply create their own fictional car brands.

Reasons
Public Perception Concerns
While one would think that many car brands would enjoy the free advertising associated with having their brands featured in a game, there wide variety of in game uses causes concern. For example, it would probably not be good advertising is a car with a Toyota trademark was seen on a nightly news segment in GTA running over pedestrians.

Additionally, in the automobile industry, it is widely considered bad practice to ever show cars damaged in any way. A rare exception is the series of Volkswagen television ads showing the cars getting into accidents, while the occupants remained unharmed. Due to this, games that do use real car brand licenses typically do not show car damage. For example, Gran Turismo licenses many car brands, but does not have car damage modeling, even if it allows for car damage to affect performance.

Additionally, the trademark holder may be concerned that their licensed vehicle may appear in the game in a manner inferior to the real model. For this reason, licensed vehicles have to be painstakingly programmed according to real world specifications, and most license agreements are subject to the trademark holder's final approval.

Therefore, it is common for games that wish to show cars either damaged or performing illegal activities (such as street racing) to simply avoid licensing troubles and invent their own car brands.

From: http://www.giantbomb.com/fictional-car-brands/92-5156/

EDIT2: also this:

Polyphony seeks to once again bring the esteemed Gran Turismo franchise to yet another level in this new generation, and that of course will involve enhanced graphics, physics, and a better overall sense of realism. In order for this to happen, they're going to have to include vehicle damage this time around for a truly simulated feel.

However, according to MaxConsole, series creator Kazunori Yamauchi says they're still talking to all the different car manufacturers about allowing this to happen. Ferrari appears to be one of the manufacturers who don't like the idea of their cars getting smashed up in Gran Turismo 5, although we're certain there are others. This was an obstacle Yamauchi and Polyphony didn't want to deal with in past GT installments but they're reaching for the stars now, and these talks are necessary. The only question is, if the game truly is "simulated," would the addition of car damage make the game unplayable for most? Some will say other games have included vehicle damage before, but not a one can be considered to be an accurate road race simulator (yeah, we're talking about you, Forza). If Polyphony wants to get this right, a car that jostles into the front left of you can flatten your tire and thereby eliminate you from a short race.

From: http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4106.html

 

[Griffith500]

Doesn't mean visual damage (and mechanical damage) can't be improved. Just look at some iRacing crashes on YouTube.

This is more like the route PD is likely to take (and, arguably, has already made inroads on in GT5). They'll have to improve their multi-(rigid)-body physics simulation first, it's a long way behind most sims.

 

[ch3ng]

EDIT: google found this:

From: http://www.giantbomb.com/fictional-car-brands/92-5156/

The first source talked about why GT don't include car damage and still GT5 and Forza have a damage model. This proofs their wrong.

They used GTA as an example. In GTA you use weapons and you can kill people with your car. I have no doubts that manufacture don't like this. But car damage is another story. The source also says:

Due to this, games that do use real car brand licenses typically do not show car damage

Forza, GT5, GRID, Shift, Project Cars and so on. Yeah they typically don't show damage. Rolleyes

EDIT2: also this:

From: http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/4106.html

I agree i think car msnufacture don't like cars getting smashed in racing games. The question is do they allow it?

I think manufacture don't like standard cars and worse sound too. But they accepted it or do not care.

The source says:

Some will say other games have included vehicle damage before, but not a one can be considered to be an accurate road race simulator (yeah,we're talking about you, Forza).

The source you mentioned is clearly a Fanboy. Forza is a simulation no one can doubt that. It has better damage model and so manufacture do allow better damage than GT has.

Project Cars is a Simulation too and has licensed cars with better damage model.

We will see if they allow soft body physics. I have some doubts, but we can see a much improved damage model in GT6 if other racing simulations can do it.

 

[OHM_fusion]

The first source talked about why GT don't include car damage and still GT5 and Forza have a damage model. This proofs their wrong.

I don't think they meant that those games don't include damage at all, I believe they mean that the damage system is pretty basic (and it is).

They used GTA as an example. In GTA you use weapons and you can kill people with your car. I have no doubts that manufacture don't like this. But car damage is another story.

How is car damage another story when you agree that manufacturers don't want to see their car smashed?

I agree i think car msnufacture don't like cars getting smashed in racing games. The question is do they allow it? I think manufacture don't like standard cars and worse sound too. But they accepted it or do not care.

Look, they obviously allow some damage or there wouldn't be any damage in any game with licensed cars. That's obvious. The problem is HOW MUCH damage they allow. But so far you have agreed that manufacturers don't want to see their cars portrayed negatively in the media and that manufacturers don't like to see their cars damaged, so why do you think they would allow people to smash their cars to pieces in games that are marketed as realistic simulators? Sorry, but there is a lot more evidence supporting this theory while you keep saying "I Think".

The source you mentioned is clearly a Fanboy. Forza is a simulation no one can doubt that. It has better damage model and so manufacture do allow better damage than GT has.

I don't know if the person who wrote it is a fanboy or not, but sure Forza is a sim and definitely has a (slightly) better damage model. I NEVER said that manufacturers don't allow more damage than GT5, that is not the problem here (GT is actually quite behind other sims as far damage is concerned). It is not the issue which of those games has a better damage model, we are talking if any of those games would be allowed to have a damage system like the soft-body physics where the car would be reduced to pieces.

Project Cars is a Simulation too and has licensed cars with better damage model.

Do you have any screenshots of PCARS damage model? I haven't seen any, but something tells me that it is going to be a lot closer to Forza or Shift, and not nearly as much damage as the soft body physics. Actually, even without soft body physics, technology existed for years (even since PS1) that allows a lot more damage to cars than GT or Forza allow. Do you really think it is a coincidence that such damage is only used in games with unlicensed vehicles?

We will see if they allow soft body physics. I have some doubts, but we can see a much improved damage model in GT6 if other racing simulations can do it.

They won't use soft body physics. But I want to see the damage in GT improved too, I'm just saying that you shouldn't expect it to be anywhere near to Soft body physics.

 

[Mulan]

I wonder if the manufacturers really can say no damage allowed or if they have to approve the modeling first? I know Volvo had to pay lots of money when a volvo car rolled in a movie and had little damage. They got sued because it looked like the car was safer than it actually is. The car in the movie was of course reinforced with rollcage but it was never clear to the audience because in the movie it was driven as a regular car. I think this could be applied to sim games too if not done properly. Either no car gets damage and the player understands that its not applied in the game, or you have a damage modell but not fully applied to all cars so that some cars get less damagemodeling then others and thus look safer. And regarding safety, shouldn they activate the airbag on roadcars??? I mean if its called a sim then they could get sued if something as important as safety isnt properly displayed.

 

[Samus]

Do you have any screenshots of PCARS damage model? I haven't seen any, but something tells me that it is going to be a lot closer to Forza or Shift, and not nearly as much damage as the soft body physics.

As with most things in the game damage is not finished yet and doesn't feature any deformation at all yet but it does already feature parts completely being removed, something GT5 obviously does not.

 

[gamerdog6482]

As with most things in the game damage is not finished yet and doesn't feature any deformation at all yet but it does already feature parts completely being removed, something GT5 obviously does not.

GT5 does have this. Otherwise the "Beware of Falling Objects" would be unattainable.

 

[coolboy48]

Even if we removed all the legal and 3D model problems, the other big technical problem is optimisation. How will the cpu cope with all the real-time deformation of all the cars on the track?

In Rigs of Rods, from which BeamNG was inspired, even an i7-3770K starts to have performance problems when more than 2 cars modeled with realistic deformation crash together. The game only runs 60fps smooth when it's one such car versus a wall. (So it's only dual-core optimised, but still...)

(If you have a decent PC, I recommend checking RoR out. Look for cars on the official forums by a dude called Gabester. He's also the vehicle guy for BeamNG.)

 

[OHM_fusion]

As with most things in the game damage is not finished yet and doesn't feature any deformation at all yet but it does already feature parts completely being removed, something GT5 obviously does not.

Okay? I never said GT5 has better damage than PCARS? I was telling him it likely won't have a damage system like soft body physics where the car can get totally smashed beyond recognition, and we are discussing that the manufacturers are the reason for that. He is the one who used PCARS as an example for this, not me.

 

[Samus]

GT5 does have this. Otherwise the "Beware of Falling Objects" would be unattainable.

Well it has it on the WRC cars, that's it. pCARS has it on every car possible, here is the licensed Pagani Huayra:

You can do the same to the Zonda R. You can't in GT5.

Okay? I never said GT5 has better damage than PCARS? I was telling him it likely won't have a damage system like soft body physics where the car can get totally smashed beyond recognition, and we are discussing that the manufacturers are the reason for that. He is the one who used PCARS as an example for this, not me.

I know, I was just pointing out that clearly manufacturers will allow damage greater than GT5 but likely not on the level of soft body deformation.

 

[OHM_fusion]

I know, I was just pointing out that clearly manufacturers will allow damage greater than GT5 but likely not on the level of soft body deformation.

Oh, okay. That we can agree on.

 

[Samus]

Oh, okay. That we can agree on.

Yes, we're both trying to say the same thing in a roundabout fashion I think.

Heavier damage with the current damage systems = very possible.
Soft body deformation as seen in rigs of rods = very, very unlikely ever in a game with a large number of licensed cars. You might get one or two to agree for promotional reasons but never on a large scale.

 

[Spagetti69]

GT5 does have this. Otherwise the "Beware of Falling Objects" would be unattainable.

Oh, I thought that was the pig falling out if the sky.

Silly me.

Ironically the rally cars suffer the most damage, I think. Odd when you think there designed to take all the bumps and stress.

Better of taking an arbath rallying. Much safer.

 

[gamerdog6482]

Better of taking an arbath rallying. Much safer.

Well, you wouldn't go over the jumps as fast so you probably wouldn't go airborne. You might be safer.

 

[ch3ng]

How is car damage another story when you agree that manufacturers don't want to see their car smashed?

Damage is another story. GTA you can kill people with your car. Are you trying to compare an crash with the wall with killing humans?

It is a different story.

Look, they obviously allow some damage or there wouldn't be any damage in any game with licensed cars. That's obvious. The problem is HOW MUCH damage they allow. But so far you have agreed that manufacturers don't want to see their cars portrayed negatively in the media and that manufacturers don't like to see their cars damaged, so why do you think they would allow people to smash their cars to pieces in games that are marketed as realistic simulators? Sorry, but there is a lot more evidence supporting this theory while you keep saying "I Think".

And you? Until you don't give a manufacture source you just think too. I never said we will get soft body physics but i said we can see a much improved damage model in the GT series.

Do you have any screenshots of PCARS damage model? I haven't seen any, but something tells me that it is going to be a lot closer to Forza or Shift, and not nearly as much damage as the soft body physics. Actually, even without soft body physics, technology existed for years (even since PS1) that allows a lot more damage to cars than GT or Forza allow. Do you really think it is a coincidence that such damage is only used in games with unlicensed vehicles?

I said Project cars has a better damage model. I NEVER said they have soft body physics

They won't use soft body physics. But I want to see the damage in GT improved too, I'm just saying that you shouldn't expect it to be anywhere near to Soft body physics.

I know. PD would have to do all cars from scratch to integrate soft body physics.

Okay? I never said GT5 has better damage than PCARS? I was telling him it likely won't have a damage system like soft body physics where the car can get totally smashed beyond recognition, and we are discussing that the manufacturers are the reason for that. He is the one who used PCARS as an example for this, not me.

No i didn't used Project cars as an example for Soft Body physics. I used it as an example for a better damage model, because some people keep saying it's the manufacture fault and not PD's that GT has a worse damage model.

 

[Earth]

Heavier damage with the current damage systems = very possible.

Not possible, its already been seen


http://www.gtpla.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gt5-bestbuy-damage-round2-5.jpg
http://cdn3-www.playstationlifestyle.net/assets/uploads/2010/09/gt5-bestbuy-damage-02.jpeg
http://www.gtpla.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gt5-bestbuy-damage-round2-12.jpg

Why was it removed from the full version of GT5? Im not sure. Maybe the manufacturers didnt like seeing their cars get deranged that bad. Maybe because PD didnt code the ability for damage to be fixed in pitlane (lazy, lack of direction, im not sure why) they reduced it so you didn't drive around with scrap heaps no matter how much you wrecked

 

[Samus]

How can you say it's not possible then say it's already been seen? Isn't that somewhat contradictory?

 

[gamerdog6482]

He was saying that saying it is possible wasn't correct. Like saying bread is "possible". We already have it.

 

[ch3ng]

Not possible, its already been seen

http://www.gtpla.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gt5-bestbuy-damage-round2-5.jpg
http://cdn3-www.playstationlifestyle.net/assets/uploads/2010/09/gt5-bestbuy-damage-02.jpeg
http://www.gtpla.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gt5-bestbuy-damage-round2-12.jpg

Why was it removed from the full version of GT5? Im not sure. Maybe the manufacturers didnt like seeing their cars get deranged that bad. Maybe because PD didnt code the ability for damage to be fixed in pitlane (lazy, lack of direction, im not sure why) they reduced it so you didn't drive around with scrap heaps no matter how much you wrecked

Well. Developer cut things while developing a game.

The damage model looks not finished. It has bugs and so on. Maybe they need to cut it to get better performance or for other reasons.

I wouldn't say it is not possible, because PD already showed it.

Project Cars damage. Work in progress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBFRv5Kx0fg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

GRID 1

 

[Earth]

How can you say it's not possible then say it's already been seen? Isn't that somewhat contradictory?

Poor sentence structure, thats not what I meant.

Well. Developer cut things while developing a game.

The damage model looks not finished. It has bugs and so on. Maybe they need to cut it to get better performance or for other reasons.

Those images were taken from a demo just two months before GT5's release.

Which begs the question, why is it not finished? They had at LEAST 4 years to work on GT5. Just another example of how inept and disorganized PD is. It doesnt matter how hard or how long they work if they drop the ball on things like this.

I wouldn't say it is not possible, because PD already showed it.

Project Cars damage. Work in progress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBFRv5Kx0fg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

GRID 1

I cant believe manufacturers allowed the cockpit to be intruded like that

 

[1241Penguin]

I cant believe manufacturers allowed the cockpit to be intruded like that

Dude, show me a car that barely gets a scratch in a huge car accident in racing speeds.

 

[ch3ng]

Those images were taken from a demo just two months before GT5's release.

And? Naughy Dog couldn't run Uncharted 2 on a PS3 1-2 weeks before Sony deadline.

Maybe the cut the better damage model to get a better performance or run GT5 on a PS3 or fix the issue with the damage model, before they release it.

I just noticed it. They didn't modeled the engine of the cars. Look at your pictures. It is just black.

So it is 90% sure that they didn't include this GT5 model you mentioned for developer reasons. It has nothing to do with the manufacture as other racing games show.

I cant believe manufacturers allowed the cockpit to be intruded like that

They do as you can see. GRID 1 is already released.

 

[coolboy48]

About that GRID pic, the damaged A pillar is pretty much against the roll cage.
So, can it deform further? Or is that the max as the driver is only just untouched?

Also, was it from a single crash? I noticed that in some games, deformation of that level can be reached but about a hundred crashes are required. Cars are certainly made stronger in virtual reality so a single crash does not disable them outright.

 

[another_jakhole]

Poor sentence structure, thats not what I meant.




Those images were taken from a demo just two months before GT5's release.

Which begs the question, why is it not finished? They had at LEAST 4 years to work on GT5. Just another example of how inept and disorganized PD is. It doesnt matter how hard or how long they work if they drop the ball on things like this.



I cant believe manufacturers allowed the cockpit to be intruded like that

Priorities. They started working on it after Prologue released. That's a fact.

Dude, show me a car that barely gets a scratch in a huge car accident in racing speeds.

Dude, an Arcade game compared to what Gran Turismo 's purpose is. Does GRID have street cars in it? GRID has a derby mode? What the hail?

 

[1241Penguin]

Dude, an Arcade game compared to what Gran Turismo 's purpose is. Does GRID have street cars in it?

You don't seem to get my point. He said that he can't believe that manufactures still allowed cars to be banged up like that, to which I responded that no car in real life can fare any better in those conditions.

He could be taking the picture as a reference to what might happen in real life.

What does the fact that GRID is an arcade game compared to GT have to do with any of this?

 

[ZZ-II]

wow, that looks great in the video! would be awesome to see it in GT6!

 

[another_jakhole]

You don't seem to get my point. He said that he can't believe that manufactures still allowed cars to be banged up like that, to which I responded that no car in real life can fare any better in those conditions.

He could be taking the picture as a reference to what might happen in real life.

What does the fact that GRID is an arcade game compared to GT have to do with any of this?

"He said that he can't believe that manufactures still allowed cars to be banged up like that,"

 

[1241Penguin]

"He said that he can't believe that manufactures still allowed cars to be banged up like that,"

Umm... here, let me give you a hand:

I cant believe manufacturers allowed the cockpit to be intruded like that

 

[OHM_fusion]

Damage is another story. GTA you can kill people with your car. Are you trying to compare an crash with the wall with killing humans?

A crash with the wall can easily kill a human too. I'd say the crash part is even more of a threat to car sales than seeing a car in a violent movie or game. The safety of the cars is the main reason why manufacturers care how their cars are damaged in games. If you have a game with licensed cars and completely realistic crash physics people would surely try to recreate real crash tests (like they do in Rigs of Rods) which could mean a lot of negative publicity for manufacturers.

And you? Until you don't give a manufacture source you just think too. I never said we will get soft body physics but i said we can see a much improved damage model in the GT series.

If you want an official statement from a manufacturer you are not going to get it, because it's there likely isn't one. I've given you a few sources and reasons why it's logical. No one seems to disagree except you. And you still haven't given me a source saying that manufacturers would allow people to realistically damage their cars in games (sims).

I said Project cars has a better damage model. I NEVER said they have soft body physics.

You said they might have soft body physics. And yes PCARS has a better damage model. NO ONE claimed otherwise. GT (and other games) could easily have a damage system like that with stronger hardware and if developers decided to.

I know. PD would have to do all cars from scratch to integrate soft body physics.

Yes, among other problems.

No i didn't used Project cars as an example for Soft Body physics. I used it as an example for a better damage model, because some people keep saying it's the manufacture fault and not PD's that GT has a worse damage model.

You would be correct there. Damage differences between PCARS, GT, Forza and others are a matter of developers, not manufacturers, and that's because the damage system of all those games is not nearly realistic enough to make problems for manufacturers.

 

[ch3ng]

A crash with the wall can easily kill a human too.

But not in racing games.

racing games = no human can die
GTA= Cars can kill people

And we didn't talked about one topic yet. Maybe GTA developer didn't care about licensed cars. Why people want to use manufacture as an excuse so often?

It can have several other reasons. Manufacture are just one possible reason.

If you want an official statement from a manufacturer you are not going to get it, because it's there likely isn't one. I've given you a few sources and reasons why it's logical. No one seems to disagree except you. And you still haven't given me a source saying that manufacturers would allow people to realistically damage their cars in games (sims).

Several sources that think it is not possible. I talked about a better damage model than GT has and this is clearly possible because other racing games show this. Including sims. Again i don't talk about soft body physics.

Released racing game= best source ever

You said they might have soft body physics. And yes PCARS has a better damage model. NO ONE claimed otherwise. GT (and other games) could easily have a damage system like that with stronger hardware and if developers decided to.

No i only said Project cars has a better damage model.

Wait. Didn't your sources said typically racing games don't have a damage model with licensed cars and this was the problem for GT? And now you disagree with your sources and agree with me?

You would be correct there. Damage differences between PCARS, GT, Forza and others are a matter of developers, not manufacturers, and that's because the damage system of all those games is not nearly realistic enough to make problems for manufacturers.

Thx that you agree with me. But how do you know what manufacture want?