I drive a 1992 mk2 rev2 Toyota MR2 and it has wider rear tyres than front. It is also mid engined like the "uncontrolable sports car" in beamng, but i have to say much like driving my mr2 a lot of consideration has to be paid to when and how much you press the accelorator. Theres lots of comments being thrown around about weight distribution, grip percentages and so on without much consideration to what speed you enter a corner and where the weight is and is being transfured to within the car. Driving the "uncontrolable sports car" in the same fashon as i do my mr2, regarding speed and approach to corneres/bumps, i find it behaves much like my car does in real life although for my mr2 with only 170bhp obviously loosing traction through flooring it is less likely than it is in the game. If i drove my mr2 at silly speeds like i can in Beamng then i would expect to fly backwards into a tree a 90mph, i would expect to loose contact with the ground and spin out. If i didnt ease off the gas before a brow of a hill i would expect to make air and break something on landing. Thats what i LOVE about beamng, i can take my car beyond real world reason and experience the dangeous side of driving on or over the limit!
A little video showing modern cars that jump. They bounce. A little. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7vN5eSAHcw Regarding the grip, how can it be correct with polygon tires? When most of the time only a tiny sliver og the surface (a corner) is touching the ground? Anyone that ever drove a car with unbalanced tires will know the feeling I'm talking about, and the effect on handling,e specially high speed. Mythbusters take it to the extreme, but it's the same effect. http://youtu.be/bG74z3Z4m4s And rubber tire modelling has been the nemesis of every car game developer since some chinese guy invented the wheel. Awesome if you guys solved it, but I don't believe you.
god forbid he forgot to click the second link in his billing email hey? even more classy is the last sentence but after seeing how you respond to things on the ROR forums that is not surprising in the least bit
I feel the " Game is too tough" disconnect is caused by not actually being in the vehicle. In RL you can feel when the car breaks traction, or feel when it is about to roll, or feel how much throttle you need before you burn out. Compared to sitting at a desk and only relying on your eyes and ears to drive. It is missing the "feel" which makes it a tad bit harder to drive. But TBH this is as close to realism as you can get.
VERY stable at launching in a straight line yes.... but not in a turn when the front wheels "understeers" and the advance AWD system trys to correct it and the Diablo is a brick, of course its horrible, i just think the civetta(if thats the name of the super car in BeamNG)(bad memory) doesnt have a stiff enough sway bar at the front since its wiggle wiggle wiggle as shown in one of the videos with the loud music, Normaly the sway bar is stiffer at the front, because of the steering :O mahgurd and if you put a stiffer swaybar in the rear, WELL Sherlock you get more oversteer! since its more stiff, all the power in the car rolling is going straight to the wheels! Take it with a smile EH? Sry for my english
Um, we were on the topic of sports/super cars. And if you look, MOST of them have wider rear tires. Yes, I know it is based on other things, but with the weight transfer and other things, I am guessing ABOUT 60 percent of the grip goes to the rear. But it still proved my point, I wasn't being specific about grip in the rear, I was saying that you DEFINITELY have better launch in AWD, unless you break a driveshaft. Here is a link to prove my point on the tires: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...or_LP_700-4_chassis_-_Flickr_-_J.Smith831.jpg
For you people saying that Gabe is"rude" or whatever: He has dealt with this bullshit for years. After awhile, you just get tired of being nice when people are being rude to you. I don't think it's ego,he's just fed up. If that was me, I would have gotten tired of it and just quit releasing my suff in about 2008. So hats off to you gabe, for dealing with us.
I've been searching and haven't found another post other than this that may be related to my issue. First off, I've read through the thread, and for most of the cars in game everything seems very realistic both with suspension, shocks, handling, etc at least as of the newest game version. I've driven a few vehicles in real life that are similar and the game physics seem on par. The Gavril D15 (stock v8 4x4) appears to be based loosely on an '88-'94 Chevy/GMC truck chassis, body, and engine package. I currently drive a '93 as my daily driver and while it is bone stock, I have considerable amounts of dirt road & off road fun in it on the weekends. The way the suspension reacts and the tire modeling is very realistic to how it is in real life. The issue I have is this; once the vehicle leaves the ground at a moderate 30-40mph, usually from subtle bumps in the road while cornering, it seems to take much longer than in real-life for the truck to overcome gravity (come back to earth). It is almost like the vehicle is too light (though the game says it is not), or if the ability to overcome gravity is wrong. The grip and traction seem fine. Again, the suspension and handling work very well until you go over smaller bumps in the road where the truck tires get a few inches off the ground as the suspension works. It is in this particular situation where the vehicle just seems stay in the air too long. This is compounded when it finally impacts the ground and bounces again, repeating the process only staying in the air for hundreds of feet of travel. I drive the vehicle's counterpart in real-life and I live where rough straight back roads, farm fields, etc are very common. These are my playground and the vehicle in the game seems to mimic what happens in real life ... until it gets a few inches off of the ground. I know a lot of research has gone into everything, it's just very perplexing and bit dismaying I suppose. Gabester and crew, any thoughts on what I may be interpreting wrong or what the reasons may be in the engine to make it feel or act this way? Could it be the spring effect of the tires or something in the suspension values that I just don't understand?
I can tell you there's nothing wrong with our gravity - it's -9.81 m/s/s, just like the real planet Earth. I think what's throwing you off is the scale and resolution of the bumps. Standard BeamNG maps have a heightmap resolution of about 1 meter per pixel - which is hugely blocky. That, and the bumps themselves are unrealistically big. So vehicles tend to catch air quite easily. How they react in the air and when they land is realistic, I can assure you, but the bumps themselves are not strictly realistic. A good contrasting example is the Oceanside map. The heightmap is very high res, the dirt roads have lots of big bumps that are quite smooth, and you can actually drive over them at good speed and the suspension does its job nicely, soaking up the bumps without too much airborne activity. From what I understand 4096x4096 heightmaps do not work well in the Torque3D engine. For that reason we have to compromise between map size and resolution. Oceanside, while high res, is tiny. Dry Rock Island is huge, but lacks in terrain resolution.
So what we learn about those 5 pages, is that you have all the answers about all the question of the worlds, you know the physics better than anyone, you don't accept criticises, and, your game is better than any other game, because they are all shit. So, why your games is not sold by millions and why are you guys not hired on a big firms like MC soft or sony or whatever ? You are geniuses so why ? Just why the hell are you not nobel prices ? Hermagerd you should i'll vote for you, in the guiness book for the biggest ego never seen on earth. You should talk to people maybe a bit better ... Okay we make criticises, and you don't like that it's normal, but don't say you know everyrhing and everything is good in YOUR game and note in others. BTW I agree that the suspensions are great in Drive, close to reality. That give the feeling to drive an good old car But the truck is very weird xD
Gabester knows exactly which strengths and flaws the physicsengine has. So naturally he has answers of many questions that concern the physicsengine and how it works. The physicsengine works in a radical new way compared to traditional hardbody- and drivingsimulator-physics. This has many advantages but also create many flaws. Remembrer, that the technology behind it is much jounger than the traditional approach. Over the time, many of the problems will disappear. Saying that Gabester blocks or ignores critics is completly wrong. He said more than once, that the tiremodel needs improvements. Huge Publishers don't use the beamNG engine because of very simple reasons. It needs a huge amount of cpupower and it's very new. Publishers don't like new and experimental things, because this increases developementcosts and risks. In 10 years hopefully many games use similar technology as beamNg, since there will be more cpupower accessible and the technology will be more sophisticated and tested.
Lot of criticism comes from some uneducated people who just have some feeling that it isn't right, probably because they are used to something else ( other games or different types of vehicles, also you can't compare what you see everyday on the street with the extreme situations in drive, don't forget that in drive the terrain is infinitely tough). If you give educated constructive criticism then they will accept it. It's clear that their physics is in many aspects better than in any game because they have a very different approach to it. BTW people won't take you serious if you use the success of the engine as an argument against its quality.
All the other games suck in realism and this game doesn't get sold for millions, because: 1: Most games are developed for console, and consoles aren't powerful enough for this type of physics 2: This game isn't marketed well enough to be brought into the attention of mainstream gamers(ie the type of people who only buy AAA titles like Battlefield, Need for Speed, Gran Turismo, Fifa, and that sort of stuff, and have never heard of indie titles because they're not that in-to gaming, which means a lot of people haven't heard about BeamNG). 3: 90% of mainstream players don't give a damn about driving-realism(even though they think they do). What they actually care about, is about how easy it is to drive a 900hp car with a controller/keyboard without spinning out, they care about having real-life licensed cars, and they care about fancy graphics. 4: Most people don't really care about car-crash physics either... They think it's fun and all, but not for more than half an hour... 5: As said in 1, BeamNG is a heavy physics engine. Most people who casually play games don't really have huge monsters of computers like a lot of people on here do, so they're likely not to be able to run the game. Imho, Gabester has a point in like, 99% of what he says about BeamNG, if not 100%...
So many fanboys.... Anyways, I agree with the poster that noticed the gravity "feels wrong", but I think it's more to do with inertia. Also, as I've stated in another of the numerous physics thread, I haven't done indepth analysis of the inertia thing, so I hesitate to bring it up. Regarding the answers from Gabester they are harsh and a little unwelcoming, but I've found that if you keep your tone down and give well thought out answers to his comments it usually works out.
So now people who know things more in-depth about this physics engine are called 'fanboys' if they try to bring the fact up that this engine simulates vehicle weights, inertia and gravity correctly? Just because a few people 'feel' it's wrong due to their Ph.D in armchair physics doesn't mean that we're wrong.
Guys, it's a game, all games are unique, it isn't real life. Deal with it. Also about the "supercar". XBox controller makes it 100% controllable for me (Who would guess a CONTROLler would make it CONTROLable? XD) As well, It's BeamNG not SuperealistictotallyreallifecarsimulationNG. It took alot of work to get to this stage, It's an awesome game, and meant to simulate node/beam physics.
I want to clarify some things. First is that everything in the physics engine is based on physics theories from textbooks and papers. For each and every physics phenomenon that we simulate, an immense amount of studying and research has been done so as to simulate it as close to physics theory as possible (given the processing limitations). This means that the physics simulation does not come from our opinion or "taste" of how things should behave, but from real physics equations. Due to above, it is very difficult for us to make physics "mistakes". Most of the time, we know that something does not follow the proper physics equations, because things tend to explode (if the system's energy is not conserved correctly for example), or behave in crazy ways (cars sliding all around by themselves). Concerning gravity, our gravity acceleration is at -9.81 m/s^2 . It is a little bit bigger than the real life measurement of earth's gravity acceleration at -9.80665 m/s^2 . But other than the 0.04% difference, which you are not able to see in game, the number is correct. Concerning inertia, if our inertia calculations weren't correct the whole thing would explode or it would behave in *very* strange ways. Concerning friction. A normal car (not a dragster) is able to pull up to 1G turns. If you go to the wheel debug screen, and look at the G-meter in there you can confirm it. The main problem we had with the previous wheels (before the 0. 3.03 update), was that they didn't had correct weight distribution resulting in a lot bigger gyroscopic forces (which tend to oppose turning). Fixing this mistake improved the driving behavior. There might be other mistakes that we are unaware of, and when we find them we'll fix them. My guess is that the remaining mistakes are not so serious. Because if they were, they would also have serious/obvious side effects which means that we would have found them a long time ago. We also have erroneous behavior (which we know about) that we haven't yet found a way to simulate adequately enough. A good example of that is the parking brakes. Parking brakes are extremely hard to simulate correctly (without faking them). The "jitter" that you see in BeamNG' parking brakes is due to us not wanting to "fake" their simulation. Nevertheless, even if our parking brake simulation is not perfect, it can still hold a vehicle (which took an immense amount of work to achieve in a physically correct way).
Gabester, thank you for the response! That really does help me understand why some things might 'feel' off on some maps while the physics remain correct. I was not able to find Oceanside; did you mean Oceanfront? I loaded up that map and if this is indeed the one you were referencing, things seemed to 'feel' correct at least from a 'flying down the road and catching a little bit of air' regard. On this map the suspension did not get unrealistically bouncy and reacted exactly as I would expect it too in real life which is pretty cool. Perhaps this isn't quite the correct thread to ask this in but for the user made maps where things still seem a bit off for the D15 when it's bouncing around, are there any values I can change or tweak to help offset this behavior? Would that be an adjustment to the damping effects of the suspension or possibly the spring values inherent to the tires? Just trying to understand what I may be able to tweak on from a vehicle perspective and where some resources are to dig into how to change such things. Again, thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my questions. It has helped me understand how things are setup. Driving the D15 is a lot of fun and BeamNG lets me try things that would be way too expensive to try in real life.
No problem As for tweaking the vehicle to take bumps better - if you take a look at the off-road springs and shocks, you'll see that they have much lower spring rates, progressive spring rates, and some very advanced damper functions (slow/fast damp). The rally Covet suspension has a similar setup. I guess the real "fix" would be to make the bumps themselves more realistic, but we can't do that without sacrificing map size
