Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can some of you talented mapper start playing around with physics in your maps?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Can some of you talented mapper start playing around with physics in your maps?

    http://www.ageia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=169

    Ageia has released the beta of their "toolkit" to integrate physx into your maps. I' m not suggesting you design maps exclusively for people with PPUs, but a moderate amount of physics would undoubtedly perform well on most CPUs. Perhaps a simple see-saw puzzle to get to a powerup in a team-based gametype, some movable blocks... I'm sure you guys can think of much better ideas. =)

    #2
    I agree, as long as you dont overdo it, simple physics objects could make for some fun gameplay. To much and CPUs will suffer.

    Comment


      #3
      I'm looking into what possibilities the editor has in terms of pushing beyond standard maps. Specifically I want to try to create in-game procedural maps (either when the map starts or once playing), destructible geometry and physics. If I manage to figure out how to do any of these things I'll do a tutorial and release it to the community.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Atrensis View Post
        I'm looking into what possibilities the editor has in terms of pushing beyond standard maps. Specifically I want to try to create in-game procedural maps (either when the map starts or once playing), destructible geometry and physics. If I manage to figure out how to do any of these things I'll do a tutorial and release it to the community.
        According to Ageia, the tools necessary to perform advanced physics are included in the engine; all of that should be completely possible. Moreover, they JUST released the documentation and tutorials on how to do so. Check out the link in my first post. =)

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Harmatia View Post
          According to Ageia, the tools necessary to perform advanced physics are included in the engine; all of that should be completely possible. Moreover, they JUST released the documentation and tutorials on how to do so. Check out the link in my first post. =)
          That I did already.
          I'm reading into it, but it could take a few days until I actually make anything usable. I'll post any updates in the forums.

          EDIT: I'm getting some ideas for Physics in levels. I'll try some of these out with the Ageia toolkit. As I don't have a PPU myself, one won't be required to run my maps smoothly (I may try to make some more PPU-intensive maps later on, if and when I get my hands on one). I may make an example tech level including all of these, so other modders can see how it works (sort of like a modder tutorial level). That said, here are some ideas that I want to try out. Any other suggestions are welcome.

          1-Destructible metallic walls/gates in specific places in the level (using MetalCloth actors). Instead of just a wall that explodes, you would see the wall bulge and bend as you damage it, until it rips.
          2-Toggable small avalanche (using Breakable Actors) that blocks a narrow path. I was thinking about a Canyon, where you can break some walls. If you do, players and most vehicles can no longer go that way, but a Darkwalker could just, well, walk over the large debris.

          If anybody wants to give more ideas please do!

          Comment


            #6
            There is one big problem: bots are too stupid to recognize movable physics objects. Once i added some kactor boxes on my map remake (DM-Judith), and bots were just stuck on any of boxes that lied on path.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Nawrot View Post
              There is one big problem: bots are too stupid to recognize movable physics objects. Once i added some kactor boxes on my map remake (DM-Judith), and bots were just stuck on any of boxes that lied on path.
              That IS a problem, but I am aiming for having physics only at specific points in the map, so I can probably use Kismet to alter the path priorities depending on what happens (as if the avalanche is toggled on, changing that path's priority to 0 so bots won't use it). Maybe there is even a way to have different priorities depending if the bot is in a vehicle or not.
              This is also part of the reason I want to make a tech level: to see what works and what doesn't.

              Worst case scenario, these maps would only be good with human players.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Atrensis View Post
                That I did already.
                I'm reading into it, but it could take a few days until I actually make anything usable. I'll post any updates in the forums.

                EDIT: I'm getting some ideas for Physics in levels. I'll try some of these out with the Ageia toolkit. As I don't have a PPU myself, one won't be required to run my maps smoothly (I may try to make some more PPU-intensive maps later on, if and when I get my hands on one). I may make an example tech level including all of these, so other modders can see how it works (sort of like a modder tutorial level). That said, here are some ideas that I want to try out. Any other suggestions are welcome.

                1-Destructible metallic walls/gates in specific places in the level (using MetalCloth actors). Instead of just a wall that explodes, you would see the wall bulge and bend as you damage it, until it rips.
                2-Toggable small avalanche (using Breakable Actors) that blocks a narrow path. I was thinking about a Canyon, where you can break some walls. If you do, players and most vehicles can no longer go that way, but a Darkwalker could just, well, walk over the large debris.

                If anybody wants to give more ideas please do!
                With the physx maps available, the "breaking" tends to be the most intensive part-- as in the, effect of the various splinters, glass, etc. It'd be much less intensive, with the same gameplay effect, if it was something like say... a sheet of metal, that didn't break, but fell completely over. Or perhaps something like that with a tree, useable as a bridge.

                Hm, I'll try and brainstorm physics based gameplay elements...

                Well, user-created bridges are a pretty clear gameplay element. Maybe, to keep the physics load heavy, it could be some kind of spire facing upward, with a forcefield connecting it to the ground. Shoot at the force-field enough and it'll fail, allowing it to fall. No destruction needed, so minimal performance impact. But great gameplay impact. Perhaps if only destroyable by a particular weapon? Doh; shaped charges and redeemers.

                Then, see-saw puzzles. This could add a gameplay element similar to tank-crossing, depending on the size of the see-saw. Perhaps just a small one, where one team-mate has to climb on one end so that another can go up and get a powerup or vehicle. Perhaps a large one, where a heavy vehicle is necessary to do the same thing, opening up an alternate path (perhaps it can be scripted so that once it is lowered once, it can be permanently closed down, perhaps with some cool scripting effect like the bridge in tank-crossing).

                Destructible walkways are prevalent in the physx-maps, but they seem to add very little to the gameplay. Perhaps a CTF or war map could have a very simple path above to get between the bases, created, again, by some kind of force-field which could be destroyed with a shaped charge or redeemer. If they're everywhere, then they just end up getting destroyed or being useless. But as the quickest path for a flag capture, it'd be much more widely used, and have a broader gameplay impact if destroyed.

                Avalanches are always pretty fun. Again, perhaps by shaped charge or redeemer... above an area where enemy vehicles usually have to cross. (A flood might be less intensive)

                A tornado, as used in the physx map, is an awesome idea. However, that map is terrible, and the performance suffers. Perhaps if the tornado only affected players, vehicles, and weapons, the performance would be surviveable?

                Comment


                  #9
                  I was thinking of doing at least a chainlink fence in a future map that you could run through the gate with a vehicle. The gate should twist and distort when rammed through and the chain holding it shut would snap and fly off...

                  Another cool thing to make would be (sort of like Atrensis's idea) a pile of boulders up on a cliff above a mountain road pass. Next to that I'd put a deployable Shaped Charge that you could set off at the base of the boulders and cause a rock fall. If a vehicle or player's under it, they would get crushed and the passage would be unusable afterwards Unless players used more shaped charges to blast a path through the rubble.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Hell, just including some basic traps and destroyable stuff like crates and windows would be nice... Sadly & strangely, interactive maps were more common in UT99 than in 2Kx and UT3, afaik, although both hardware and the engine can handle much more complex physics (etc.) now.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Yeah, but net code and your modem can't handle it. The more individual physics objects you include, the more strain on bandwidth requirements. Every single physics object that can interact needs to be replicated and synchronised to *every* player.

                      A heavy PhysX implementation like that isn't suited to a multiplayer environment.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Bandwidth has also improved a lot since the early days; DSL and cable are pretty common now, at least in the civilized world. Also, most people play offline anyway, so as long as a 'physics' map doesn't rape the average CPU, it's all cool.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          It hasn't improved that much since UT2004. I'd also pity anyone trying to run 2k4 on anything other than a cable connection. UT3 is more bandwidth intensive than 2k4, despite the vast majority of the game being dealt with client side - considerably so. Adding a lot of physical objects only complicates that equation no-end.

                          One or two objects, perhaps can be gotten away with, loads of interactive physical objects are going to cause synch issues.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X