Project Reality Forums

Jonny wrote:Just how crude is this simulation?

I'd like to have a go at getting something where the drag force is proportional to the relative speed of the projectile and the air its in, and that automatically calculates damage based on relative momentum*KE if it would be better than what you currently have.

In BF2 there isn't really any concept of a physics engine that is based on the laws of actual physics (such things didn't really exist when BF42 was developed and no real physics engine was retrofit into BF2).

The crude ballistics simulation in PR2 is based on pretty simple determineation of bullet drop and kinetic engery determine by mass, velocity and gravitational forces. How that kinetic energy is subsequently translated into damage agaisnt different types of objects (brick walls versus human flesh) has not been coded, nor really even discussed much.

I say it's cride because it's just a proof of concept and may / may not represent the way we would do the ballistic model later on. Everything we are doing at this stage is just a learning process and some / all of it may be scrapped as we learn more.

Generally .. if not for everything .. we'll be using physics simulations as opposed to any arbitrary ruleset definitions, so a lot of the research and approaches for this are already defined for us by Newton.

egg

Frostbite anyone?

IF someone have played Battlefield: Bad Company on PS3 or XBOX 360 he knows it's something what BF2 was supposed to be(minus console limits). Too bad it was never released for PC.


GameSpot Video: Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Multiplayer Trailer

The physics engine we will be using for a while is the one that comes with C4 (or more correctly will come with C4 v1.6 and be improved thereafter). We may evaluate PhysX, Havok or Bullet. Only Bullet is open source. To keep things as simple as possible we're going to stick with as much "stock" C4 as we can until we hit limitations.

Drag, while not necessarily Newtonian physics, is physics determined, so basically we would hope to define that as a result of the physics system based on reference data for ballistic coefficients. Not sure if we'll get into altitudes and air pressures.. I don't have enough information to evaluate that at this time.

Regards the "killing power" .. that's where things become subjective. However using a realism based kinetic energy calculation will help "keep it real".

egg

Teuvo wrote:Frostbite anyone?

IF someone have played Battlefield: Bad Company on PS3 or XBOX 360 he knows it's something what BF2 was supposed to be(minus console limits). Too bad it was never released for PC.


GameSpot Video: Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Multiplayer Trailer

You say that but badcompany 2 is being released on pc

Is project reality making money or paying for itself? Well I was wondering if they were making money if they could hire a team to build an engine.

Pretty sure they already have an engine...from winning mod of the year, right?

PBEnthusiast wrote:Is project reality making money or paying for itself? Well I was wondering if they were making money if they could hire a team to build an engine.

You think making an engine is easy? It may take over a year to make a good engine for companies as DICE, its alot better to use an engine who is designed for selling. As what eggman talks about this C4 engine, its not a mod if completed it will be a indie game afaik.

[R-DEV]eggman wrote:The physics engine we will be using for a while is the one that comes with C4 (or more correctly will come with C4 v1.6 and be improved thereafter). We may evaluate PhysX, Havok or Bullet. Only Bullet is open source. To keep things as simple as possible we're going to stick with as much "stock" C4 as we can until we hit limitations.

Drag, while not necessarily Newtonian physics, is physics determined, so basically we would hope to define that as a result of the physics system based on reference data for ballistic coefficients. Not sure if we'll get into altitudes and air pressures.. I don't have enough information to evaluate that at this time.

Regards the "killing power" .. that's where things become subjective. However using a realism based kinetic energy calculation will help "keep it real".

egg

So your saying that body armor is now a true possibility?

I can imagine, having a simple plan of the human body coded, animated and reenacted, and your reactions to getting shot in your eyes, and how you walk, how you bleed, how you die.

Im also hoping it would be possible to have the ability to move objects, and change the world around you, for better cover, for better concealment.

Also, if destroying everything is possible, i would really look forward to having combat in Urban places.

And finaly my hope would be to make a really large battlefield, and then have the posiblitiy to put 512 players there...

Im talking huge though, like 30 km 2. Maybe larger?

I know its hard to do ofc. But it is allowed to dream is it not?

The one thing i hope though, is that nothing is done by the computer, in the way of bots i mean, like there would be only 512 players, no bots no nothing, people interacting and reenacting war on a large scale

gas104 wrote:MW2 engine

I'm guessing you mean Modern Warfare 2? No. Just no. If CoD games are anything to go by, that's completely the wrong road based on what the DEV's want from PR2...

gas104 wrote:MW2 engine

you know of anything this engine is capable ?!?! or just thing it looks uber........


eggman, the c4 engine is sounding very promising (from my uneducated, in game design, perspective) .

Wicca wrote:I can imagine, having a simple plan of the human body coded, animated and reenacted, and your reactions to getting shot in your eyes, and how you walk, how you bleed, how you die.

Im also hoping it would be possible to have the ability to move objects, and change the world around you, for better cover, for better concealment.

Also, if destroying everything is possible, i would really look forward to having combat in Urban places.

And finaly my hope would be to make a really large battlefield, and then have the posiblitiy to put 512 players there...

Im talking huge though, like 30 km 2. Maybe larger?

I know its hard to do ofc. But it is allowed to dream is it not?

The one thing i hope though, is that nothing is done by the computer, in the way of bots i mean, like there would be only 512 players, no bots no nothing, people interacting and reenacting war on a large scale

Games that have that have very simple engine and the info needed to go between players needs to be small so it would not even have physic engine. Though, it would awesome to battle with that sum of players

WWII Online- Battleground Europe is prolly closest you can find right now

500 v.s. 500 or something in those digits is to big for a normal shooter style game like PR is. You'd have to make a RPG kind of game for that to work, like BG:E.

50 - 80 players per team is problary the best and most realistic number if you want PR2 to have the same kind if accessibility PR1 has right now.

I'm ambitious for 256 player servers, 50x50 maps, and completely destructible buildings, to start with

Very promising game engine, how does the networking work though? Would there be large limits on things such as dynamic objects (such as the light panels in the demo), destructible buildings and players?

I mean, 128 should be easy to get at least, right? That should be our bare minimum

A 50x50 map?! Wouldn't tht just mean tht ppl would be spending ages looking for eachother I mean we still want to have a game with an element of fun in it. Altho saying tht a 50x50 vehicles map wud b pretty sweet. I would just want something with more destructable scenery realistic effects when you're hit nd also allowing sqds bigger thn 6.

It doesn't mean there won't be any contacts in a 2500km ^2 area, just that you'd have way more space to allow for proper logistics, transport, CAS, combined arms, yadda yadda.

Kinda like ArmA.

Theoretically the C4 engine will allow for unlimited terrain sizes, with seamless paging of terrain from disk (when the terrain engine is complete). Whether that is practical (due to some technical limitation) is unknown. The game play aspects of that are not in our design vision. We're looking to very large maps not because we want arbitrarily large worlds, but because we want to see realistic deployment of a variety of assets.

Jets don't really make sense in PR1, they are very gamey. Artillery doesn't really make sense. Even helicopters are not realistic in the current sized BF2 terrain.

We've thought about aspects of fuel consumption being relevant, so we'll probably accelerate fuel consumption so that Helicopters and such need to consider time to and time on target. Additionally we want to see supply aspects play a larger role. Logistics of a variety of types will be an important aspect of PR2. ArmA Warfare mode with the WACO mod and ACE is a very cool game mode imo. But ArmA itself has innumerable barriers to being a great multiplayer game. A lot of the concepts of Warfare and CnC mode will be incorporated into PR2. We'll probably have other game modes, but there will be a core concept of how PR2 is played that will be more like a real time version of the PR Tournament than the typical public PR server.

There will eventually be bots in PR2, at least with our current thinking. Bots will do stuff like man defensive positions (which will be placed like PR1), anti air positions, drive supply trucks etc. Boring stuff that players don't want to do all the time. Current thinking is also that anything a bot can do, a human player can do as well .. but the bots are available (likely at a logistical cost of some sort).

We're shooting for 100+ players broken into 8 man squads with a commander per team. So 98 players would be 6 x 8 man squads + 1 Commander + Bots. If we can get it beyond that, we will. But destructible networked environments eat up resources. And those are cool

The nature of map size and layout will be affected by the type of assets we want to see deployed. So, for example, a map with jets will be extremely large.. with significant chunks of it just to facilitate there being jets wth somewhat realistic airfield layouts and such. Jets are likely quite low on the initial priority list. It'll start with Infantry, Jeeps, APCs, Supply Trucks and some sort of Helicopters.

I'd say that when we can do those vehicle types (a single type of each to start with) with superb Infantry play and fairly high fidelity simulation of the vehicles we'd look for some money from you lot to play it

But there will be a lot of playable alphas and betas for a long time before we get anywhere near that.

egg