Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

[dBs]

Im randomly curious if any games on the market have gotten to the level of coded/mathematical sophistication so as to actually take into account the reactive forces imposed by explotions and the like. This game takes into account bullet rickochet so I wonder if it would account for dirrectional blast forces. An example of this would be if a grenade went off an an alleyway, would the splash of the grenade penetrate the walls as though they werent there or would they actually have increased force in the free dirrections?

Probably a dumb question but Im curious if any games out there have that kind of realism yet and if not when such advancements are expected to become reality. Im guessing with the advent of the PhysX card but thats why Im asking

[imported_Soda]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

I thought Americas Army had that kind of thing. Grenades always killed me from a long in distance in thin hallways. But I am not even sure. Me no expertise.

[Fall0ut]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

Nope can't think of any

the most realistic games out there are Americas Army, Operation Flashpoint, VBS1.

But they are not realistic in the way you were talking about. They barely have realistic physics.

[glasseye]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

the most realistic games are always hardcore d&d games.

[rombaft]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

I don't think this is now already here, but at this moment there are already very advanced physics, not in BF2, but more like in HL 2 , that engine can handle physics realy good and realy advanced, I think the feature you are mentioning isn't actualy that hard to put in the game.

But they speak in the future for not only having a videocard but also a card for physics in games, an dextra PCI card with some chip that only calculates the physics in the game, but game developers aren't ready for this yet and are also awaiting the dual core CPU's programability for features like this, at the moment gamedevelopers aren't happy with the dual core CPU because it's realy hard to write games that can fully take the power of a dual core CPU

[Jesse]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

I'd love to see a Battlefield style game that was all about realism with little of this "let's n00bify the game" concepts. Make the physics accurate so that the planes and helicopters require practice to fly (maybe even require you to do a tutorial and meet requirements before you can enter the pilots seat), vehicles, ESPECIALLY tanks, actually have more torque than a remote controlled vehicle from the dollar store, and guns actually KILL people instead of poke them like "Hey, I'm over HERE you moron!". Get rid of the ultra-all-seeing capabilities of the Commander and allow actual stealth for snipers and spec ops and provide more of a chance for them to actually have cover.

Heck, I'd love to see EVERYTHING deformable. Imagine shooting the base of the crane a few times with a tank and it actually comes falling down. Or you put a tank shell in that concrete wall over there and you put a hole in it. Games have had engines that somewhat do this, Red Faction comes to mind, so why can't something like that have a place in a Battlefield game?

[imported_Fig]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

Nope can't think of any

the most realistic games out there are Americas Army, Operation Flashpoint, VBS1.

But they are not realistic in the way you were talking about. They barely have realistic physics.

Actually AA has the most realistic ragdoll physics I've seen in an fps yet. They arn't exxagerated like CS or just plain glitchy and retarded like BF2's.

But, ya, I do think AA has some very complex grenade coding, it actually deals with shrapenel bouncing off walls and stuff, instead of BF2 splash damage, which means, if you are standing this far away from it, you'll get hurt this much. always.


AA examples: I've stood up about 30 feet away from and exploding nade, and didn't get hit at all, yet the 2 people next to me died. I've been in a hallway and took bouncing shrapanel around a corner. I've jumped infront of my freind and took all the shrapenel for him ,and he didn't get hurt at all. I've also literally proned on top of a grenade, and the no one around me (thhere were 3 other guys next to me) got hurt more than just barely bleeding.

of course these are very rare occurances, but they show that AA has some complex grenade coding going, as far as ive seen.

and just for you jesse: www.realitymod.com they have .1 of their minimod out so far, but a lot of the stuff you mentioned is thier longtime goals.

[Donkey]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

I'd love to see a Battlefield style game that was all about realism with little of this "let's n00bify the game" concepts. Make the physics accurate so that the planes and helicopters require practice to fly (maybe even require you to do a tutorial and meet requirements before you can enter the pilots seat), vehicles, ESPECIALLY tanks, actually have more torque than a remote controlled vehicle from the dollar store, and guns actually KILL people instead of poke them like "Hey, I'm over HERE you moron!". Get rid of the ultra-all-seeing capabilities of the Commander and allow actual stealth for snipers and spec ops and provide more of a chance for them to actually have cover.

Heck, I'd love to see EVERYTHING deformable. Imagine shooting the base of the crane a few times with a tank and it actually comes falling down. Or you put a tank shell in that concrete wall over there and you put a hole in it. Games have had engines that somewhat do this, Red Faction comes to mind, so why can't something like that have a place in a Battlefield game?

Networking is the problem with making everything blow up....oh and how realistic can you get sitting at a desk with a keyboard and mouse shooting???????????

[glasseye]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

Get rid of the ultra-all-seeing capabilities of the Commander and allow actual stealth for snipers and spec ops and provide more of a chance for them to actually have cover.

but thats one of the only realistic things in the game.

[LucaBrasi]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

HL2 has the most realistic physics hands down.

[imported_NoRC]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

Check out Soldner... you can demolish entire forrests... and buildings.. the c4 packs in that do serious damage to a squad hiding in a building... take the floor out from beneath them and watch em all fall down... load up some c4 around the base of a guard tower and watch it come crashing down with everyone in it.


(http://soldner.jowood.com/)

[DrunkenPirate]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

Soldner made me want to vomit in rage sometimes.
So much promise, all spoilt.

[imported_NoRC]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

Well like bf2 there is a new patch coming out soon, i havnt played it in a lil while but am tempted to re-install it and have another crack. Project-Zero took over and things seem to be looking up and up for the game. Seems a few bf2 players also play soldner from what i read on their forums. I like the destruction that can be achived in the game, its the only reason i brought it that and the customisable player apearance.

[ud!t]

Re: Have games gotten to this level of sophistication yet?

no we have not got that advanced yet, I mean you can have physics and such (hl2) and you can try to get real life breakable objects (soldner) but stuff like that obviously takes high system specs, not to mention a lot of work. But in the future? I wouldn't say it's unlikely.