StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why does it seem like NFS have weird collision effects?

Say, I just barely whiff a car going the other way: One would think the two cars would have a small vector normal to the original cars' vectors at the site of impact, causing a small deflection and maybe a small yaw moment away from the impact point. But a very large percentage of the time the cars act like rigid square blocks crashing head-on despite the fact the cars are ROUNDED IN THE FRONT and barely had any contact! Or worse, one of the cars will appear to teleport directly into the path of the other at the last possible millisecond, neatly stopping both cars dead cold with a perfectly lined-up centerpunch. Other times I can hit a car (say our bumpers touch about a quarter of their length on the left side) and instead of the expected recoil to the right, the other car bounces exactly the opposite direction, usually back in my way to hit again!

Something similar happens with fixed obstacles like trees: I can just barely catch a tree with the corner of the car, and it acts like the car is a huge square block of balsa wood. Then sometimes when I try to get the tree off my bumper, it suddenly snaps back to the EXACT CENTER of the bumper, similar to the 'teleporting car crash' trick. Sometimes this happens after the nose of my car actually passes the obstacle.

I've noticed this behavior with NFS:HP2 and NFSU. I also found it in a Burnout3 demo I played at the local Gamestop. Apparently this problem is not confined to the NFS series...

Is it too much to ask for a semi-realistic physics engine in a game these days?!

They are arcade racers so they have arcade physics.

Tech^salvager wrote:They are arcade racers so they have arcade physics.

Not an excuse.

better yet They were never ment to be realtisc.

Tech^salvager wrote:better yet They were never ment to be realtisc.

Still not a fucking excuse.

So did you play any of the GT's?

Tech^salvager wrote:So did you play any of the GT's?

Yes.

No fucked-up collision physics, period.

Anyways, has anyone else noticed wonky/weird/buggy physics in any other games?

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Anyways, has anyone else noticed wonky/weird/buggy physics in any other games?

yeah alot lets see NFS series, Burnouts, some arcade games well thats how there made to. Can't remember exact names but some monster truck games. Ridge racer was on the ~ side. rush or whatever it was called. Some Rally cross racing ones. Unless its trying to be realtisc I don't mind.
Moblie forces, C&C rengade, other FPS.

Tech^salvager wrote:

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Anyways, has anyone else noticed wonky/weird/buggy physics in any other games?

yeah alot lets see NFS series, Burnouts, some arcade games well thats how there made to. Can't remember exact names but some monster truck games. Ridge racer was on the ~ side. rush or whatever it was called. Some Rally cross racing ones. Unless its trying to be realtisc I don't mind.
Moblie forces, C&C rengade, other FPS.

I see you still didn't get my point. These games I'm talking about have damn-near realistic graphics. I expect the physics and collision detection to be up to par, no matter how 'arcadey' the game may be.

Ok well I don't expect them to be just casue they have nice flashy GFx. Now I would love to see a realtisc physic engine for NFS:U2 but that isn't happening. I understand what you mean but were on different MO heres. Thats why I don't expect them to.

Though I do get mad cause I would of side swpied a pole but no the car is like a dang box and I hit it flat on.

Tech^salvager wrote:They are arcade racers so they have arcade physics.

So, strategy games have strategy physics? What about console games, do they have console physics? Final Fantasy has adventure/rpg physics?

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Anyways, has anyone else noticed wonky/weird/buggy physics in any other games?

In Total Annihilation you can trick the targeting system to ignore the artifical range limitations and use the weapon's full range dictacted by physics by some clever aiming.

Any computational physic simulation can easily fall apart if you know how to push it a little. Even better if you can alter some of the stats in the game files.

ggs wrote:

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Anyways, has anyone else noticed wonky/weird/buggy physics in any other games?

In Total Annihilation you can trick the targeting system to ignore the artifical range limitations and use the weapon's full range dictacted by physics by some clever aiming.

Any computational physic simulation can easily fall apart if you know how to push it a little. Even better if you can alter some of the stats in the game files.

At least that trick is about getting around a built-in game copout with skill, not having the game essentially playing God on you with obviously bad physics...

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote: At least that trick is about getting around a built-in game copout with skill, not having the game essentially playing God on you with obviously bad physics...

This trick almost doubled the range of the long range weapons it can be applied to, very nasty trick too. Not very accurate, but then again the weapon wasnt that accurate to begin with.

Part of the problem is normally the models used in collisions and other physics stuff is vastly simpler that the graphics models. So it is very posible for a conflict between the graphical display and what the underlying physics model represents.

Painkillerhad several "issues" with its physics engine(this is the same engine HL2 is using) which looked really stupid(but nothing truely game breaking as far as I know), one of the Ultima games also had vasty issues with its physics engine which allowed you to shortcut vasty chucks of the game.

Slartibartfast wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote:They are arcade racers so they have arcade physics.

So, strategy games have strategy physics? What about console games, do they have console physics? Final Fantasy has adventure/rpg physics?

of course strategy games have strategy physics how else will you have tanks that can't fire much further then you can kick a football?

Slartibartfast wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote:They are arcade racers so they have arcade physics.

So, strategy games have strategy physics? What about console games, do they have console physics? Final Fantasy has adventure/rpg physics?

Show me a arcade racing game with realtisc physics. Then I will take back my argument.

Tech^salvager wrote:

Slartibartfast wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote:They are arcade racers so they have arcade physics.

So, strategy games have strategy physics? What about console games, do they have console physics? Final Fantasy has adventure/rpg physics?

Show me a arcade racing game with realtisc physics. Then I will take back my argument.

Gran Turismo 3.

NFS had some funny physics, especially Underground when I hotrodded a Dodge Neon(See ancient story about offroading in one for why I wanted to..). The little bastard can get absurdly fast with all the steering of a rocket-propelled cow on skates. When you can skid across the 'edges' of objects because you hit the turbo at the right moment and got airborne, things are wonky..

Funny, but wonky.

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote:Show me a arcade racing game with realtisc physics. Then I will take back my argument.

Gran Turismo 3.

No it doesn't, cars don't slide the way they do in Gran Turismo, American muscle cars aren't blown away by shit-ass rice cars, and hitting the handbrake in the middle of a turn will not result in a power-slide and quicker times, it'll loop the car around and back it into a wall. Games like Gran Turismo are part of the reason why idiots in rice cars keep crashing and wrapping themselves around phone poles.

Realistic handling & physics. NFS Porsche. Lift the throttle in the middle of a turn in a pre-993 platform 911 and watch as the tail snaps out and you spin out. Hit the brakes in a hard turn and you spin & crash. Get tapped by a car in a hard turn and you guessed it, spin & crash. Shift gears wrong in a turn? Gas it out of a turn too hard? Enjoy power-on oversteer. But if you counter-steer in time you can catch the skid, but watch out because cars have this tendency to snap around and spin in the other direction if you counter-steer wrong, just like they do in real life.

Impressive. In a discussion about collision physics, you posted up a rebuttal all about every non-collision-related bit of physics you can find.

Burnout isn't designed for realistic physics as far as I could tell, but more around creating a massively spectacular and over the top crash. NFS I have no excuse for as I've never played it.

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote:better yet They were never ment to be realtisc.

Still not a fucking excuse.

It's because they don't fucking care.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote:better yet They were never ment to be realtisc.

Still not a fucking excuse.

It's because they don't fucking care.

It's what I gather as well.

P.S. nice Eva av...

SylasGaunt wrote:Burnout isn't designed for realistic physics as far as I could tell, but more around creating a massively spectacular and over the top crash.

I must concur, Burnout is good fun. If only for the races where you have to get a kill count.