Wow. Very interesting, thank you for all your insights. Avalanche worked with ID or vice versa about RAGE 2. Great contributuon for that OpenWorld and its physics.
only in (vertical) rest, because it takes gforces into account, if the car drops down on it's wheels the wheel load is higher than the mass. if the car is flying through the air the wheel load is zero while the vehicle mass stays the same.
@@haha71687 Phsysics explanation (1) and a game implementation (2). 1. On a hill, the car is tilted. This means you have a component of the force of gravity which acts in the longitudinal direction of the car. This wants to pull the car down the hill, but the static friction between non-moving tyres and ground generates elastic deformation on the tyres themselves even when you are standing still. Just like how you would deform the soul of your shoes if you tried to slide it. This elastic deformation generates a force. 2. In a game, I guess you would probably set an if statement. If the car is going less than a certain speed (say speed < 0.5 kph), then apply the static friction formula to the car/tyres. See Coulomb friction on wikipedia. I would probably do it like this.
This guy is why I get bored driving in most games. For a start everybody drives real cars while distracted, they are very easy to drive. The more sim the easier a car should be to drive. Give me understeer and oversteer FFS, keep it fun.
It’s different when for the most part most people will drive 50-60km/h on a normal day, while in most open world games players would easily push 200+ km/h on tight roads with lots of traffic. More realistic doesn’t make it easier, but there definetely has to be a good balance between realism and gameplay.
You know, you don't have to post something wrong in the comments of a video you didn't understand just because there's a field for it. You can, and should, just do something else with your life. You heard one line at the beginning of the talk about balancing the driving complexity with the gameplay complexity in Just Cause, a game with a high degree of freedom of movement that often interacts with vehicles, and decided this guy was making a boring driving system - while in reality most of this talk is about how to make a system that allows for developer control, solves for complex problems, and fits within a reasonable computational budget. You do not, in fact, have to be an asshole for no reason.
@@LB14745I do think that these explanations are a good resource for eg. hobbyists or indie devs looking for an example of how driving physics can be set up... but, yeah, it's just important to keep in mind that no Just Cause game has good vehicle physics, they're all just awful lmao
Amazing talk, I'm working on a racing game prototype, really helps break down the math I needed.
I hope you took a note about JC4's car damage. It's one of the worst ever in a video game.
Great talk, was there live on this talk :)
Nice talk! I only wish there were more video examples :) (and syntax highlighting in the code snippets)
Wow. Very interesting, thank you for all your insights. Avalanche worked with ID or vice versa about RAGE 2. Great contributuon for that OpenWorld and its physics.
I was waiting for the video of this session!
Regarding 12:48 Isn't total_wheel_load the same as vehicle_mass?
only in (vertical) rest, because it takes gforces into account, if the car drops down on it's wheels the wheel load is higher than the mass. if the car is flying through the air the wheel load is zero while the vehicle mass stays the same.
A wheelie good talk.
It will really help accelerate your learning.
It definitely steered me in the right direction.
How does this system handle being stopped if all forces require slip?
When braking you generate slip, thus a braking force. That will slow down your vehicle until it stops
@@borzonstudios8638 I mean when parked on a hill. No movement, but still needs to generate force to keep from sliding. How do you handle that?
@@haha71687 Phsysics explanation (1) and a game implementation (2).
1. On a hill, the car is tilted. This means you have a component of the force of gravity which acts in the longitudinal direction of the car. This wants to pull the car down the hill, but the static friction between non-moving tyres and ground generates elastic deformation on the tyres themselves even when you are standing still. Just like how you would deform the soul of your shoes if you tried to slide it. This elastic deformation generates a force.
2. In a game, I guess you would probably set an if statement. If the car is going less than a certain speed (say speed < 0.5 kph), then apply the static friction formula to the car/tyres. See Coulomb friction on wikipedia. I would probably do it like this.
Isn't that Mad Max on the thumbnail? 🤔
Nope it’s Just Cause, look at the rocket launcher on the character
Mad Max drives awesone.
Nah, MM didn't have such car.
Thanks for the info, I wish I could understand that math
Just too bad that JC4 had the worst damage model in the series.
That and the physics despite what this guy said were pretty lack luster
@@John_Conner_ Sounds like in their attempt to circumvent proper physics, they created a more complicated fake system...
Jc4 handling sux
Shouldve paid more attention to physics maths n geometry at school
Best _Just Cause_ entry in the series. Don't @ me.
This guy is why I get bored driving in most games. For a start everybody drives real cars while distracted, they are very easy to drive. The more sim the easier a car should be to drive. Give me understeer and oversteer FFS, keep it fun.
It’s different when for the most part most people will drive 50-60km/h on a normal day, while in most open world games players would easily push 200+ km/h on tight roads with lots of traffic.
More realistic doesn’t make it easier, but there definetely has to be a good balance between realism and gameplay.
You know, you don't have to post something wrong in the comments of a video you didn't understand just because there's a field for it. You can, and should, just do something else with your life. You heard one line at the beginning of the talk about balancing the driving complexity with the gameplay complexity in Just Cause, a game with a high degree of freedom of movement that often interacts with vehicles, and decided this guy was making a boring driving system - while in reality most of this talk is about how to make a system that allows for developer control, solves for complex problems, and fits within a reasonable computational budget. You do not, in fact, have to be an asshole for no reason.
Coping lol
It sounds like they ended up overcomplicating the fake physics in an attempt to make a simplified alternative to the real physics...
jc4 has some of the worst car physics. idk how to feel about this.
Sounds like in their attempt to circumvent proper physics, they created a more complicated fake system...
This stuff requires way too much math and physics knowledge than my brain could ever muster. Cool stuff! (I guess?)
But it’s all basic math and physics….
All these calculations didn't actually bring amazing and realistic vehicle physics to the game. That's all that matters at the end.
@@LB14745I do think that these explanations are a good resource for eg. hobbyists or indie devs looking for an example of how driving physics can be set up... but, yeah, it's just important to keep in mind that no Just Cause game has good vehicle physics, they're all just awful lmao
Good talk but he says ahh a lot