PDA

View Full Version : A good Idea to Improve Explosions and smoke



zimbower1
05-15-2005, 06:55 AM
Hi all,it would be nice to have this fluid engine in il2.
chaosAura is a fluid dynamics engine developed with the purpose of simulating fire and smoke effects based on true physics.
http://www.chaosgroup.com/software/AURA/

Maybe in future game projects http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

zimbower1
05-15-2005, 06:55 AM
Hi all,it would be nice to have this fluid engine in il2.
chaosAura is a fluid dynamics engine developed with the purpose of simulating fire and smoke effects based on true physics.
http://www.chaosgroup.com/software/AURA/

Maybe in future game projects http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
05-15-2005, 10:11 AM
There is a very simple way for Oleg et al to massively improve somke and fires within the existing engine.

The smoke and fire objects added in the last patch are OBJECTS. Make a copy of each of the smoke/fire objects with a DM like buildings or trees. The default state would be empty (invisible), but then give them a DM such that any hit switches them to the damaged state (the current smoke/fire object). Instant more detailed smoke.

For example, but a smoke object on a static plane. Strafe it, and it smokes.

All this requires is setting an object number with an empty object and use the already created smoke as the damaged version. set them to be damages as easily as a motorcycle.

tater

Choctaw111
05-15-2005, 06:14 PM
That is unbeleivable!!!!! I can not wait to see smoke like this in a sim!!! Imagine stafing a locomotive and seeing smoke like that pouring out of it!!!!!!

ImpStarDuece
05-15-2005, 06:39 PM
Very pretty and nice. Something to keep an eye on in the future. I like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

However, i'm not one to try and be negative but I think that there are several limitations to implementing something like this into the game;

1) Its another physics engine. One that looks fairly complicated as well. It looks like it would eat up a lot more system resources.

2) Implementation. While there still seems to be a lot of work going on with the PF/IL2 family I think that it would be safe to say that 1C's main priority is the Battle of Britain. Implementing something like this could take a LOT of work. It may not even be compatiable with the exisiting game/graphics/physics engine. I don't think that it's as simple as turning it into an object and simply dropping it into the game. My guess is that there would be a lot of basic, code level programming to get something like this working.

3) NIHS (Not Invented Here Sydrome). If you had invested close to a decade on a product maybe you would want to keep it within your own specifications. Dropping someone elses program into your game might just rub some people up the wrong way.


More likely keep an eye on this for future games. Once a basic engine like this is available then maybe there will be widespread inplementation. I tend to think that most of BoB will be developed 'in house' by 1C though.

VW-IceFire
05-15-2005, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zimbower1:
Hi all,it would be nice to have this fluid engine in il2.
chaosAura is a fluid dynamics engine developed with the purpose of simulating fire and smoke effects based on true physics.
http://www.chaosgroup.com/software/AURA/

Maybe in future game projects http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It looks great but I think the level of precision is aimed at rendering software and not at game engines.

LEXX_Luthor
05-15-2005, 07:43 PM
What we want is a Fire Fighting sim using Real Physics(tm).

What we need is programming frontline battlefield air warfare environment, or tools for 3rd Parties to easily create them.

The most Arcade game of them all "DOOM~3" tries to use as much Real Physics(tm) as it can. Nothing New here under the FB Sun. Leave the Real Physics(tm) for the aircraft.

LeadSpitter_
05-16-2005, 01:08 AM
I would like to see improvements on ground explosions maybe something like from Rowans BOB 2 if possible, Also for aircraft flipping over crashs/landings it would be nice to see a fx trail of fire from fuel in the direction the plane was traveling.

Im also hoping aircraft are a bit sturdier when belly landing, carrier landing, steep glide slope so many times you shoot someone down and very few of them try to belly land becuase of the instant explosion even with a gentle glide slope.

ku101-Shrike
05-16-2005, 04:12 AM
I think you will need to explain firstly how its to be plugged into game code (at the programming level) before any developers will take it seriously. Particularily as its not been promoted as been used in a game before, films yes, but not games, this makes me thing its likely to not be possible without hiring the developers, which if you look at their site is the whole idea, as they develop bespoke solutions, this is just a promotional test program. How much does the Source code cost to buy from these people? because that is whats needed, either that or you need to hire the developers (which won't happen as their in Bulgaria which is a long way from Russia, plus may have only ever worked with DirectX OR OpenGL). Also have you any idea how this engine would affect the base required specs for everyones pc's? as this program was made to do 1 thing, making effects for films, using it for something else is bad, everything needs to be tailored to suit the purpose in software.

Sorry if this sounds like a bit of a flame, it wasn't intended to be, however, constructive criticism is good because now you know more about what to look for, and what would be useful in games, and can come up with either more info, or other ideas.

Ailantd
05-16-2005, 04:17 AM
I think these videos are not real time. It looks moore like renders.

ku101-Shrike
05-16-2005, 04:34 AM
Here is more useful info i think LEXX_Luthor was talking about:
http://ve3dboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=18668945

"We've been using the NovodeX Physics SDK with the Unreal Engine 3 for the past year and it has added some awesome effects. It's going to be exciting to see what NovodeX can do once the PhysX chip hits the market." - VE3D_News Domo Arigato

From what i've heard, we will be expecting to have a graphics card, a sound card, and a Physics Processing Unit, or PPU card in our pc's in the future!.

zimbower1
05-16-2005, 04:40 AM
Most of us are sceptical but everythings possible optimizing and tame it we only need a good programmer to do all this work and contact the CHaos team yes those previews are rendered and CHaosaura is still in beta testing.
I only came with an idea now its up to developers to take a look at the fluid engine how it works is it possible to have it in any game and deal with it.And try to come up with an agreement.

ku101-Shrike
05-16-2005, 06:12 AM
zim, your quite right, as a developer myself (not games though), i know this really badly needs an API for sale, however i have a strong feeling the company would refuse to sell it, as its how they make their money, never giving any source code or hooks to it, or dll's, just movies of the results. A good anti-Piracy mechanism that is. Maybe there is room for negotiation, but think of the alternative, these Russian programmers are very good, another hire or 2 to work on this subject alone might be a much cheaper, and will produce work that is workable with the BoB engine, and is their own code, thefore all re-usable if necessary and tailored specific for the purpose.

I like ImpStarDuece's comment, i never heard the term NIHS before, nice one:
"3) NIHS (Not Invented Here Sydrome). If you had invested close to a decade on a product maybe you would want to keep it within your own specifications. Dropping someone elses program into your game might just rub some people up the wrong way."
my personal experience:
When your a carpenter for example, and you make cupboards, imagine what it feels like to be told by an ousider to buy somebody elses cupboard and tweak it a little before reselling it. Yes it may be cheaper, but you know that your placing trust in other peoples work to perform to your high standards, and you feel that people are not taking seriously the huge amount of consideration that you have put into designing it to the exacting requirements of the client. One thing that has been the bane of the IT industry is that so much work is done that the client doesnt see, and to the outsider, the results never do justice to the effort put in. I had to do quite a lot of Web development in my time, and i found that i really didnt like at all the lack of control you have over the code you cant see and the mess of scripts that come from quite literally everywhere which you need to re-write because they crash, or to stop them interfering with your code, much prefer working on windows clients myself, where you can do, quite literally whatever you need to to get everything working great and its all contained neatly in one basket.
Such a good comment from ImpStarDuece that was, i felt compelled to share my experience with you. Sorry bout that, i'm in a chatty mood today. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zim, As i said before though, your right, if something could be done to incorporate this, then no doubt it would be a 'nice to have' for us if it fits into BoB somehow, or would be nice to have more developers at 1C:Maddox to replicate it if they can afford it. Credit where due its a good example.