Dynamic mud

Yeah I know its a thing, but its preeeety crap. It doesn't need to be complicated its just when you crash hard parts of the body should start to split and break off instead of just squish. Having the crashes be higher resolution would also be great because they arent super high res, but then again this all needs to be real time. but then *again* not all features need to be played on low end computers, you can have them be able to be disabled.

 

Two things. I didn't suggest dynamic mud just because SR/MR/ST has it. I'd like to see it in BeamNG, at some point. I only brought up the other games as a reference. Guns actually wouldn't be out of line either. The game already has a cannon for car destruction. So that's a bad analogy there. But no, I don't need guns in the game.

Second, I only started "throwing fire", if you can even call it that, after people needlessly started shooting the idea down, babbling about how difficult it would be, how low priority it is, as if they were the devs, which they're not. It's those people speaking for the devs that need to adjust their attitude and stop acting like they are the decision makers here.

I didn't suggest anything crazy. It's not like I suggested to get rid of the soft-body physics and go to arcade-style toy car physics. If I did, you'd have every reason to shoot that stupid idea down. But I didn't suggest anything that would go against the concept of the game. And no, I don't expect the devs to drop everything they're working on and start working on mud today. I just want to put it out there on the wishlist, that's all. No need to be so grumpy (that goes for all of you shooting this perfectly reasonable suggestion down).

 

I feel that the kind of mud physics your wishing for is a bit too far too be added. But I can see a kind of terrain deformation physics that might be added in the future. Its a much more simple and easy to simulate kind. First game I can think of that uses it is Steep. All it really does is push the ground down to the tire.

 

Looking specifically at this, I'm sure it is on their wishlist. I'm they'd love to be able to simulate it. Again, it's low priority, as everyone here has said.

 

We are going in circles. On the first page I asked, low priority for you (or whoever was saying it), or low priority for the devs? Are you the spokesperson for the devs? I didn't hear from a dev.

 

More than likely they are going off of a post from probably close to 8 years ago at this point. All's they basically said was that they had ideas but they had other things they needed to focus on first. I am pretty sure I remember reading that as well. But again.... it was SOOOO long ago. So many features are now in the game that literally weren't even planned back then. So its possible that their standing on this may have changed as well unless there was a post much more recently that states otherwise.

Do trust me though when I say this though. The Devs do definitely have their priorities set straight. Right now they are putting mad research into a feature that has also been requested since the very beginning as well (I don't know if I'm allowed to mention what I know, so I won't). The thing is that they can't just use normal methods that every other game uses because the physics engine is unlike any other game that has existed before. Now, visually, it is pretty similar to any other game (except for the mesh deformation perhaps? But other games have done that) but physically, its all new from the ground up. There is a massive amount of research that has to go into each and every feature for the game engine.

So... yes... this would be a difficult feature. Yes... it would take research. Heck, at the very minimum, due to the terrain sizes in Beam, we would NEED some form of dynamic tessellation to get the detail high enough for it to even work... but again... that's doable.

 

now you're gonna get people to speculate what you know. also many great points

 

That's amazing!

 

Isn't this just what everyone else on this thread has been saying? It's possible but there's no reason for nor sign that the devs are prioritizing it.

 

Not quite. He acknowledges that there has been no recent announcement on this from the devs. Other people made it sound like they are the decision makers or the devs themselves have stated recently that it's low priority. Neither is the case.

I'd like to think it has some priority. After all, the mud textures very recently improved. Water splash particles were somewhat recently added. Is mud deformation the #1 priority? Of course not. But I hope it'll happen one day. The game has to keep up graphically, if it wants to stay competitive. It would also be an opportunity to further improve the mud physics, which are pretty basic at this point. A similar thing happened when the water particles were added. We got water current forces. So it's 100% in line with the concept of the game.

 

Well... yes, but no. If that's what you got out of that post then I obviously didn't make my point clear enough.

I was trying to advise "against" doing stuff like that... because your right... that IS what everyone on the thread was saying. Its possible but difficult and there is no reason or sign that the devs are prioritizing it.

My point was this was an Idea/Suggestion. What the Idea/Suggestion board is for is for someone to make an Idea/Suggestion, and then for people to discuss why they think it would be a good feature to have in the game, or not a good feature to have in the game. The dev's (if interested) could then come in, read that feedback, and then decide what to do from there.

What all these threads seem to divulge into though, as this one did, was someone just shooting this person's suggestion down without saying anything about it at all other than its a low priority. Now don't get me wrong... dude didn't use the search function at all as he would have seen about a hundred other threads on the matter. He also read into the responses wrong and kinda got heated about nothing. But still...

Basically all I was trying to say is it was an Idea/Suggestion in an Idea/Suggestion board. Rather than coming in and being like, "I think that this would be a nice feature that would go along with the game quite well" which is what the Idea/Suggestion board is for... most times (its not just this thread, but this is the one I was reading through where it just bugged me enough to post about it) it just starts off with someone saying something like its a low priority without giving any context or about how said feature would lag the game or whatever. If you do have the answer (lets say that the dev's have answered before on the topic) then go find it and post it. At the very least, if you can't find it (as some of these posts are very old) at least make some reference to what you remember reading.

Now if the idea doesn't flow well with the game (thus my joke about GTA style car explosions) then explain why you don't think the idea would work well and discus. If the idea does flow well with the game, then explain why you think the idea would work well with the game.

That... is what I was trying to say.

 

I did use search. Nothing came up with the search words I used. Then a few days after starting this thread, I did another search, and one thread from February came up. Definitely not hundreds. If it was hundreds, then that would show there's a huge demand for this feature. There is some, but I guess not huge.

Another point. The forum discourages bumping old threads. So I really didn't do anything wrong by starting this thread. Even the thread from February came with a warning against bumping it.

 

The search function in the forums is a little funky sometimes, so I don't entirely fault him for not finding any specific threads on mud physics. The thing that really irked me was this post:

No one had said anything close to that, he just assumed that we were trying to say that it was a bad suggestion, and that we wanted the devs to work on something else instead.

 

That's the vibe you were giving with your "soooooooooooooo" and "low priority". And literally the post before mine was already complaining about the potential impact on fps. Even though I don't post here a lot, I've been here long enough to have seen enough of this whining. So maybe I overreacted a bit, but then some of the other posts that came later, like the one about causing "brain damage" just confirmed what I was already thinking.

 

Yeah, fair enough... was just getting a little into what I was typing I guess... granted I searched and got 5 pages worth of threads talking about terrain deformation, thus why I said that.

Also you are correct... it does discourage bumping. They don't do a very good job of that on hear either. The reason they discourage bumping is mostly for the mods section. As anyone can attest to, when your following a mod for a while, but then the thread goes dead for a few months/years only to be brought back by someone saying, "where download?!?!1", that can be very annoying. And it is as every time that happens you see an influx of tons of people who saw the thread pop back up into the "What's New?" section who all got excited only to see that one dumb post.

On discussion threads though, especially threads where we are discussing features or whatever, I really don't think it should be discouraged like it is. In fact I think it should almost be encouraged especially if your coming along with some insightful information to the topic. This would cut down on thread size and actually keep threads like these from constantly popping back up asking about things that have been discussed across hundreds of threads for years because of that exact issue. In fact, correct me if I am wrong, but if a thread is old enough, doesn't it complete stop you from posting all together? Again, in the mods section that makes perfect sense, but in an ideas and suggestions section (or quite a few others for that matter) it doesn't make any sense at all.

Yeah, again, fair enough. I think there was some reading in between the lines from those earlier posts reading into things that you guys were saying... that wasn't really there. I don't know how he pulled that out of the context of the first page of posts, I'll give you that, and that reaction is quite aggressive about it.

I don't know where the part about us running the dev teams decisions for them really comes from. Some people on here do seem to be self righteous about what should and shouldn't go into the game and are pretty verbal about it, I'll give him that much, but from the content of this thread, that was a bit of a reach.

 

The answer has been met stop stirring an empty pot its a waste of time.

 

You probably got a lot of irrelevant stuff by searching every post rather than just the topics. This is what I got using your search terms.
--- Post updated ---
Hey, thanks guys who rated the original post positively. I still would have expected more yes votes though. It could be that most people don't come here reading other people's suggestions. I rarely do. Most responses here have been from the grumpy residents that live on this forum. There was no reason for this thread to go on for 4 pages...

 

Who cares, we're having a civil discussion about it. There's nothing wrong with people giving their opinions on a suggestion thread.

I believe he's exaggerating to drive a point, though here I agree with you, the search function rarely brings up anything relevant.