1. Issues with the game?
    Check the Known Issues list before reporting!

    Dismiss Notice

A review video for BeamNG...(This is meant as humor)

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Mythbuster, Sep 26, 2014.

  1. logoster

    logoster
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    2,082

    technically, it's not a racing/driving/car simulator, it's a soft-body physics simulator

    but ik what you mean
     
  2. Mythbuster

    Mythbuster
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    782
    c3iL3.jpg

    So, softbody physics vehicle simulator... And: "Racing, physics, driving, realistic" as tags...
     
  3. logoster

    logoster
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    2,082
    lol, they contradicted themselves, main beamng.com page says they are aiming for a soft-body physics simulator
     
  4. SixSixSevenSeven

    SixSixSevenSeven
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,966
    "User defined"
     
  5. Occam's Razer

    Occam's Razer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    1,048
    While the reviewer in question was likely far too harsh and irrational (I say 'likely' since I didn't watch the video, nor do I intend to), I don't think it sound doctrine to state that people should not negatively criticize something just because they can't do it themselves. It'd be like NASA building a new, expensive, complex rocket, but building it upside down, and predictably ramming it into the ground on launch. Then, detracting all criticism for the failure because their critics don't have the budget, resources, or government permission to do better themselves. "YOU try building a multi-billion dollar rocket on a multi-billion dollar launch platform. Oh, you can't? Then don't blame us for forgetting something so minor as orientation!"

    I'm not stating that Beam (or NASA) is effectively doing something comparable to the above, or that critics cannot be irrational. But, for as often as it's used, it is a pretty poor counterargument.
     
  6. Hati

    Hati
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,368
    I don't understand the technical problems here. You can constrain two nodes together with a beam yet its somehow impossible to constrain a rigid body object to two nodes like an axis and maybe use this as the basis for starting to code a tyre simulation around it? Has constraining a rigid body object to a node even been tried? We are going to need to interact with them eventually, that concrete barrier is as rigid as it can be in Node/Beam and its still hopelessly floppy.
     
  7. xTakedown JnR

    xTakedown JnR
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    87
    Beamng.Drive = Beamng.Crash.
     
  8. Dummiesman

    Dummiesman
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4,631
    Well, FFB is at least a high priority.

    - - - Updated - - -

    The BeamNG physics subsystem is custom-build. Merging it with PhysX would take a lot of work.
     
  9. Hati

    Hati
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,368
    I'm not even talking about PhysX, physX is not the sole realization of rigid body kinematics. Source engine doesn't use nVidia's physX for instance. I'm literally talking about a general rigid body physics engine. BeamNG could code their own rigid bodies and its half way trivial to do. I can do it for christ sake. Doing it effectively takes some work but its possible for them to do it from the ground up if they're so inclined.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice