Dear Devs, why haven't you done a few things that seem blatently obvious?

I'm going to first give credit where it's due. The pairing of Beam with Automation was a stroke of genious, this is exactly the kind of thing that Beam should be doing with itself. It's lovely to see beam venturing into things like this. However I've always wondered at a couple of things.

1. everyone and their grandma's PC can handle a 1 car on a track format. Why haven't you created a rally game out of BeamNG? I've been wondering this for years now. Why has nobody told the vehicle team to design a bunch of light european and japanease style cars, rally configs and the like and then come out with a dedicated rally career mode?

• Your damage simulation is second to none
• The pure physics approach to vehicles is lovely, the cars react to uneven ground and are going to react to uneven ground more realistically than any rigid body simulation of a car could hope to
• Vehicles are going to crash more realistically than any simulation could hope for
• ever since the overhaul of tyres, the vehicle handling is near simulator quality.
  
• you have a map creator that actually does a wonderful job of creating these organic maps, that you can lay a thousand technical routes and circuits along. the upcomming Italy map he's creating just makes me think... "I want a rally game"
  
• you created a lovely array of different interactions vehicles have with different surface types

All the ingredients are there for me to be wondering why you don't create a way for a co-driver app to exist, set out a bunch of specialist rally maps and stages, ask the vehicle team to gear toward things that would be used for rally and create a proper rally game as a first serious project.

2. Texture changing has existed for decades. I remember PS1 games where dirt appeared on cars. Hell, I recall SEGA Rally's dirt simulation. Seems like one of those pre-existing bits of technology that could be implemented to add another layer of visual depth and immersion. Doesn't quite feel right when I finish driving over filth for 20 minutes and my car is still clean. Where's the dust and filth that I should have picked up?

3. on the topic of things you can do with textures, why no scratches and dents? Even GTA manages to put decals on your car. I can skid my roof on the tarmac all day and be missing pieces of my car, but I have extremely wear resistant paint it seems.

4. you have a wonderful damage engine here, why was there never developed a way to micromanage damage repair? It would be nice to have utilities to realign and repair suspension on damaged cars would be a really neat feature to have in general.

5. why does the engine simulate objects that are at rest? we had physics sleep in RoR and it was nice to have when there where a lot of objects in the sandbox, but we weren't interacting with them all at once.

I love this game, but a few decisions have really perplexed me over the years. It would seem like the most obvious thing while computer hardware is still incapable of handling multi-vehicle scenarios without special investiment into the CPU to go along the route of a rally simulator for a while. There's an audience for hardcore simulations in Rally, look at the reception to Dirt Rally.

 

Because the engine has far more uses. It'd be like buying an iPhone X literally just to call people.

Even then, that'd be more of a banger/derby game base.

Because there are more things than your limited ideas.

Because the game is still being worked on, and not sure if these dynamic textures can be done in Beam with appropriate realism.

As above - still worked-on, possible limitations.

That could work, but Beam's suspension geometry is also connected to the car's geometry.

5. why does the engine simulate objects that are at rest? we had physics sleep in RoR and it was nice to have when there where a lot of objects in the sandbox, but we weren't interacting with them all at once.

Instead, you can do anything, from rallying, to trucking, to cruising.

 

Just to address literally your whole response, I'm going to point out that I did not ask why they don't exclusively make a rally game, and that making one wouldn't preclude the ability to do other things. Therefore I dont' understand the point of your post.

 

"Why haven't you created a rally game out of BeamNG?"

"Rally game" implies a game strongly focused on rallying.

It would, through time constraints.

That's your problem.

 

but it does not imply an exclusive focus. We currently have a sandbox game. It could also be a rally game too, as I specified the creation of a rally themed career mode. We had a senseless destruction career mode earlier, which weirdly didn't exclude other ways of playing BeamNG drive. You took the time to quote me, but apparently not to read those quotes.

I did take the time to specify that we actually have a lot of the ingredients you'd need. Maps, driving model etc. What's missing from the rally experience in the sandbox is the co-driver. All that needs creating beyond that is... stage scenarios and a career mode to string them together lol. Most rally games seem to have the structure of you having a car you tune and upgrade, and then drive through a number of timed route scenarios. How bad can the time constraints be when you have most of what you need and whats left are the simpler bits of games that have existed for about 30 years?

I have an idea, I've actually made the overarching menu and game structure for a rally game in a University game jam lol. Compared to the faff of the bits BeamNG has already solved, it's not a huge undertaking.

 

Gravel tire physics are so vastly different from solid surface that doing that right might be quite bit of challenges, WRC rally car stops and accelerates faster on gravel than some sports cars on pavement, yet tires are still slipping a lot, cornering defies all grip coefficients and other generalizations, it is more about interlocking gears and soil's ability to hold together, lot of this is what you have done with mud physics, but then there is that solid part to it too, everything wonderfully complicated.

Like studded tires, which is winter rallying theme, there has not been simulation that has got that right and thanks to complexity involved (it has to do with melting of surface under the tire etc) I doubt there will be any short term at least, it is funny how grip of the tires is playing with different rules in different driving situation.
I remember one scientific paper about tractor tire grip on field work, grip did increase as wheelspin increased, something about breaking static state of soil bits I guess, but ridiculously complex compared to pavement.


That aim to do things right is really something that separates BeamNG from the rest and oh yes how much a curse it can be, I'm sure of that, but it is what makes BeamNG unique among competition.

This shows how physics have improved a lot, even there is bit less FPS with new version than with the old, but that is UI / CPU graphics / maybe even changes done to level / vehicle graphics, but physics, they run much faster, even my potato CPU is limiting FPS by CPU graphics. (I get only 40MBeams/s with 1 car / 161MBeams/s)

Some 20% improvement per CPU thread on physics, when/if CPU graphics part is getting improvements, these physics improvements will be really helpful (or when my new CPU arrives which should be ~30% improvement on CPU graphics CPU pool).


Anyway, rallying kinda is there, one just has to use hotlapping app, there is some gravel roads, especially at East Coast USA, I have wrapped plenty of RWD Pessimas around trees there

 

I once tried to see what's the biggest banger race I can hold on Agassiz without my computer (i5, 1050 graphic card, 8GB RAM).

With atrocious framerate and minimum settings, I had 22 vehicles, from a Pigeon to a T-Series.

 

well, thanks for the response. I'm encouraged to see that it is at least on the dev team's radar in some ways. I'd thoroughly enjoy seeing BeamNG pick off as much 'low hanging fruit' as it can throughout the game's natural lifespan but I understand the need to be careful about your approach. There's a lot that can be done that I'd enjoy seeing.

I'm also interested particularly on what you're doing on the front of debris distribution on vehicles and how you're thinking you might handle it. Because the idea of a physics based solution to it does appeal to me greatly. That as a topic sounds interesting and I wonder if you'd be kind enough to share a little reading material

 

I have both BeamNG and Mud Runner and I wish there was a game that combined them together. Mud Runner has excellent dynamic mud, soil, water & vegetation effects, including vehicles getting wet, dirty and scratched up. Plus there are actual missions to accomplish. This is mostly missing in BeamNG. On the other hand, Mud Runner lacks nice interiors, properly working transmissions, vehicle deformation, and the physics on dry roads aren't as realistic as BeamNG's. But BeamNG could use better AI since chases & races are one of the few things that we can actually do in this game. Better AI would make the game a lot more fun.
--- Post updated ---

Sure, but why make perfect the enemy of good. Just as you've done with sounds, let it be an evolutionary process. Some texture changing is better than none. It can always be improved with time. Same goes with the mud & vegetation effects. Basic effects would be better than none. I always find it weird looking when I run over a bush or run through water, and nothing happens to the bush or water (the bush goes through the car).

 

I guess one problem could be that if they would add something, then decide they need to take it out as there is no way to make it work with some other future coming addition, that would cause a revolt, it is far easier to manage adding just a little than taking one tiny slightest thing away, people would climb to walls.

 

Im gonna pull my pants down and let my ass make the talk and assume stuff but i find it necessary.

BeamNG isn't JUST about the game persay, but about the engine. That's why they are making a big deal about modifying T3D to do this kind of shit, because even if their game is limited in scope or not very succcesful i -PRESSUME- they would allow companies to use that same engine to pull things in a different or bigger scope. That's why they care about simulation of parts and mechanics in levels that the game itself doesn't really touch without mods, like aircrafts, air density with altitude, waterborne vehicles, etc. etc.

A theory is that a company with money to buy licenses could get another license to use this engine, and add real life cars into it and make it a driving training software, or the physics can be modified to make it a track car racing simulator, or like in the original idea, someone can make a derby simulator out of this.

If im wrong let a dev correct me, but the great thing isn't the game proper but rather the engine.

The same is very much applied with Outerra. Its not about them making a super slow developing crappy and boring game that is stuck in development hell, its about them creating a massive 1:1 scale of earth as a playable setting.

 

Dont worry. I wasn't implying that. What i meant is that even if someone wants the game to go in a direction the staff doesn't want to the engine is still there, available to be used in another game.

 

Already posted, but whatever...

 

you think there should be more body variants of the same vehicle, like the guys that make a Minivan of the old hirochi and the wagon out of the ETK 300 series?

 

No, I mean more different body styles for the cars currently in game (ex: a Burnside wagon, a Moonhawk sedan, just to name a few). Yes, I do know that there are some mods for these, but whatever.

 

So..... You mean exactly what i said?