1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What happened to Physics Engine???

Discussion in 'General StarCraft 2 Discussion' started by johnnyxp64, Jun 2, 2008.

?

Do you want Physics Engine in SC2?

  1. Hell Yea!!! its about time!

    18 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. No i dont want.I prefer plain - flat explosions

    3 vote(s)
    11.1%
  3. I dont care.

    4 vote(s)
    14.8%
  4. Physics What??????

    2 vote(s)
    7.4%

What happened to Physics Engine???

  1. Wlck742

    Wlck742 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,867
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    In your head
    It's fine. There's nothing wrong with links as long as they're not advertising or inappropriate. But why would Blizzard get rid of the physics engine? On most computers now days physics engines are only a small problem. It's not a huge fancy physics engine like in Supreme Commander where there's a million variables attached to a single object. It's just a simple physics engine that makes the game more fun.
     
  2. johnnyxp64

    johnnyxp64 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    yea i am a huge fan of both franshizes as i belive most of you, and i was wondering about why the latest 2 rts games had this in common at the same time!??

    thats all.

    i really think a Q&A could answer this once and for all!

    but i would like to know, (me and Blizzard members that visit this site) what is your opinion you want physics or not? thats why i created this thread too.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2008
  3. LanceLeader

    LanceLeader New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    206
    Likes received:
    1
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Canada
    Jx64

    I THINK YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN!!!

    why do you think both games don't have physics in their engines?????????

    I saw clearly in the video demonstrations that both games have realistic physics.

    nothing to be worried about.

    here watch this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UO2KijY6dvQ

    fast forward to 6:10. Between 6:10 and 6:35 the narrator will mention that there are physics in the game.
     
  4. Chax424

    Chax424 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    411
    Likes received:
    1
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    A
    Why would anyone not want physics?
    and its not like they would just remove it from the game...
     
  5. Jissé

    Jissé New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    222
    Likes received:
    2
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Dublin
    A physics engine is not required regarding a RTS focused on the gameplay: Physics may be interesting in some FPS or maybe RPG, but otherwise it's just a kind of hi-tech special effects generator to me, nothing else. Removing it from SC2 will not harm the game to me, even if that's true a physics engine could save the development team from designing animations for aaalll the death animations and explosions.

    If the game engine is well done (regarding the terrain especially), a physics engine should not require a lot of CPU charge, and I think it will be (if not is already), implemented in the game, maybe through an option in the final version why mot.
     
  6. johnnyxp64

    johnnyxp64 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    lets make somthing crystal clear, I DIDNT say i know there is NOT going to be a Physics Engine!

    i was Wondering if still there is one, cause allmost all explosions and units didnt use it, in the latest buiild
    and secondly
    i would like to make a public poll to hear what other gamers think about having physics engine in RTS.

    thats all and i AM CALM! :mad:


    LOL :D

    p.s tnx for the video i will invastigate it ;)
     
  7. LanceLeader

    LanceLeader New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    206
    Likes received:
    1
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Canada
    My impression was that you were very worried about both games not having physics engines!!! :wacko:

    But where did you notice the absence of physics in the latest builds??? Which videos??? :eek:

    Edit: I personally do want to see a physics engine in the game. I wouldn't mind it affect gameplay somehow. But there should be a menu option to disable physics. It really depends on how much power it consumes.

    World in conflict had an option to lower the physics setting in the game. When I set the physics on high on my mediocre PC I would still get good performance. So it depends on how it affects performance.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2008
  8. johnnyxp64

    johnnyxp64 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    i have seen many korean gameplay videos, check out sc2pod.com the latest 2, in the middle of the 1st one for example when a Huge Thor is destryed you only get a POOF!!!! and the unit is gone..

    now i am prety sure that physics will be applied Only to the absolute finilized units that will stay in the game,
    they already have to make move and attack and idle animations for one unit that survives nly few days!

    it would be stupid of them to make death animation and physics right now for those undesided units and lose lots of time!!! :)

    but there is allways the other opionion that they droped it....for what ever reason..i dont know...lets someome make a question in the Q&A

    p.s i was disapointed with the video, this is the very first Demo video, since then nothing :(
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2008
  9. LanceLeader

    LanceLeader New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    206
    Likes received:
    1
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Canada
    Wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Aren't physics applied automatically to all units by the game engine?

    I mean look at how the siege tank bounces up and down on the terrain and the individual treads bounce independently. I don't think that units needs to have their physics "defined" b4 coming into the game. I think every unit is made up of individual parts and when it is destroyed or moves the game automatically applies the physics effects to those parts.

    I think the reason you saw the Thor go poof when destroyed is because it wasn't programmed to have itself split into a bunch of pieces.

    I could be totally wrong.

    I really don't know what to think. :wacko:
     
  10. Babmer

    Babmer Guest

    The siege tank going over bumps etc is im guessing, a collision triggered animation :p.
    eg: the tank hits a bump, it plays the raised animation on its treads and the lower animation while corresponding to the collision height of the ground, that is not physics per say :].

    Howerver i do agree and share the same fear as the OP that the physics/exploding or splitting of units into smaller pieces then going 'ragdoll' may have been removed. Guess main thing to do is hope that blizzard is smart enough to cater to all and add sliders etc, if not for multiplayer then atleast for the singleplayer campaign.
     
  11. LanceLeader

    LanceLeader New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    206
    Likes received:
    1
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Canada
    But isn't that physics right there? Collisions and everything, aren't those interconnected with physics? I know what you mean by automated animation, Its dynamically triggered when the collision detection activates (which has to do with physics)?

    YOU CONFUSE ME MORE. :arghh:
     
  12. johnnyxp64

    johnnyxp64 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    no lets say that this is a predifined physics a fake one! like when units are hight the see more from those lower etc...

    pure physics is 3d object splited (by explosion for example) to many idividual particles random in number - shape - rythm and recevi the force that was applied to them , (a beem cannon for example or laser beam) and move to directions that fully obey the real life physics lows, and not been predifined as an animation.

    for exmple C&c3 and kw use great predifined fake death animation allmost look like physics, with all those particles blown away!!! but its not!
    physics it has to bee fully Dynamic! if more than 1explosion happen at the same time those debriss- particles may hit one its other and take totally different directions from the one was ment to take when they were hit by the laser...bla bla bla....

    i am software engiiner, i have done so good stuff in dx9 but i nevered played with physics :(
    so this is a theoritically point of view that i belive i am right...but the corect answer only a Blizzard developer can give us :)
     
  13. LanceLeader

    LanceLeader New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    206
    Likes received:
    1
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Canada
    Yes I know what you mean by predefined animation (games have a history of it). But what I'm confused about is whether the collision detection which triggers the animation is related to
    the physics engine.

    So . . . . .

    Physics engine --> Collision detection --> Predefined Animation (e.g. Siege tank bumping)

    Well?
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2008
  14. johnnyxp64

    johnnyxp64 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    silly example

    i belive its:

    Physics engine --->particles/colision detection --->creat uniqe animation depending on physics engines lows.

    the animations that has to do with terain highs like the bumping its just like this:


    When UnitMoves ()
    unit.Y= map.Y
    unit.animation=bumping(map.Y)
    End

    'so if the Map.Y = minus or positive the animation functio will make the nimation follow the maps hight and apear to us like the tank is bumping due to the map UP or DOWN.

    but if we have a physics engine then i think it would be like this:

    When UnitMoves ()
    call PhysicsEngine(UnitY)
    unit.Y=PhysicsEngineYResults
    End

    PhysicsEngine (anorder as string)

    Select Case anorder
    Case "UnitY"
    call engine lows about hight potition (lots of mathimatics) :p
    take those low results and apply them to the current uni movement
    PhysicsEngineYResults
    Case "b"
    .....................
    Case "c"
    ....................
    End Select

    to make it more sort, units potition on the map doesn use physics engine! physics engine will be used for particles, exposions, and if any weather effects! they can also apply physics to termac, like the water waves in RA3 that are so Reallistic and gorgeous!
     
  15. BloodHawk

    BloodHawk Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    796
    Likes received:
    3
    Trophy points:
    18
    From:
    CT, USA
    LOL, marines die and float off on the space platform tile set.
    Company of Heroes (Greatest RTS since the original SC IMO. Try it while you wait for SC2) has the best physics I've ever seen in an RTS. I would like SC2 to have the bodies and blood flying like in CoH. Although, in that game you could drastically transform the terrain to affect game play...not something that fits SC in my mind.
     
  16. LanceLeader

    LanceLeader New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    206
    Likes received:
    1
    Trophy points:
    0
    From:
    Canada
    I personally hope it will be like that. Unique animations generated by physics engine laws are much cooler than predefined animations.

    Edit: @ Bloodhawk, yep the physics in COH are very crisp and smooth. What is your imprssion of the Physics engine from World in Conflict, If you've played it that is. Which game has the better physics?

    I find that the physics in WiC are also very good, you can see jeeps gliding through the air when they drive off hills.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2008
  17. BloodHawk

    BloodHawk Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    796
    Likes received:
    3
    Trophy points:
    18
    From:
    CT, USA
    World in Conflict is another damn good game. I've never noticed much about the physics though. I suppose because I rarely zoom in. That's a game where I'm constantly moving and thinking. Looking at the big picture.

    With that admitted I would still say I believe CoH has the better hand. Just because so much is destructible. You can pretty much terraform with howitzers. Where you throw grenades makes huge impact on how deadly they will be. Troops find cover in blast craters or get slowed down by them. Men have to crawl to safty if you lead them in front of a machine gun nest. Everything just moves and behaves so much more realistically and it makes for interesting gameplay decisions as well.

    I'm not saying one game is really that much better than the other. You gotta love the near instant battles in WiC. Not to mention how (most notably in multilayer) one player must choose between infantry/armor/air/ or support. Makes individual goals clearer, teamwork vital, it just works so well. Anyone out there who hasn't played WiC should try it out too. Though it is more demanding on your system and IMO not as good as CoH. If your on a budget get CoH instead...better yet pick up the damn good expansion too. Again, I'd consider CoH just barley better. Both are great RTS's in their own right.