It doesn't matter. Even proper scientific articles will not provide proof to say the term soft-body doesn't apply to games like GTA and NCG, or that they're "only rigid-body" or whatever... Taking the definitions litterally, you will ALWAYS find that they meet the "requirements" for soft-body, at least any definition I've read online... Which is VERY annoying to me, and I'd love to say they're all liars :/.
Well, i know Bugbear for many more sources than just Wikipedia. Anyway, i will go now sleeping, clock is now 1.04 nicely is Friday aaaand alarm will wake me up in 7h54min.
also, my logic still stands though, Bugbear has FAR FAR more many developer's then BeamNG does (beamng has 4 devs, no more, no less) as, according to what you said, bugbear has like, 74 or so
They're much larger than BeamNG (speaking of which, does the BeamNG team have a name besides BeamNG?) but they're definitely not AAA as you said a few posts ago. AAA would be something on the scale of DICE or Turn10, with 300+ employees.
Ok. NCG uses Soft-Body Physics. Interesting discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxU2ye4mIc4&google_comment_id=z12kef0owrrog1ps522gy5jymwvwyt0gr04 (the first shown comment)
(please, no more arguing, you believe what you want, ill believe what i want, (until proven otherwise))sigh, fine, then, until PROVEN(as in 100% true hard cold FACTS) otherwise, i will always say that NCG is rigid-body, as some of the damage you can do to the car's in it is no way in the WORLD, realistic AT ALL (for example, turning the car into a little line of orange, with two wheels, which, isn't possible, and even if it was, in NCG, it still drives and handles as if it was perfectly fine (and, I'm not saying it isnt fun, NCG most certainly is a LOT of fun, its just so annoying to see people saying that NCG's damage is soft-body, when, when the term is used very very loosely, you could say, but, due to what i was just talking about, the line of orange, i just can't believe is true at all, this isnt meant as any hate towards bugbear at all, its just annoying, to have to see people say something's that, when it isn't, but, I'm not discussing this any further, so lets just get back to topic, please? ok, well, slightly back to topic (mostly off-topic though, but has NOTHING to do with the above): most annoying comment i've seen? this: (imported from here) and the part that got cut off: (imported from here) yeah, very very annoying to see that comment pop up
Guys, really. I have high respect of what Bugbear is doing with its current project: played their games when growing up NCG has soft-body physics just in a completely different approach: to deform rigid bodies
absolutely agree, what a ridiculous waste of energy to argue what is or isnt soft body physics you sound like a high school teacher LOL. wikipedia is fineeeeeee. i hate when people act like everything on that site is wrong and lies.
I do say, Flatout was a major part of my childhood too, and I do say that NCG is fun, but at this point I think that anyone who continues to argue is just boosting their post count. We have had plenty of evidence from both sides.
AAA can be anything (anything that is supposed to do AAA games ?). To give my two cents: this terminology sucks, if soft body is anything from GTAIV to ragdoll physics then, the type of physics of BeamNG should get a completely different name like "beam-physics". Beacause clearly the deformation of BeamNG is "cool" and NCG, GTAV... isn't, they are very different things. And I would say that NCG doesn't differ so much from "only rigid body physics" as BeamNG does.
There's a brilliant Idea, MB. Nextcargame are selling on a loosely defined term and somewhat of a misnomer; I wonder if a particular indie dev team can use an advertizing strategy not to annoy people, but something that would distance themselves from NCG so the softbody physics train that particular developer team started doesn't get ridden anymore. The term is subtle:- "true softbody" physics. You know, "ours is True softbody" implying everyone else has faked it which y'know... they have as far as you and I are concerned. You then go rightfully claiming that you're the only developer team that's created such a thing. The terms are carefully chosen to relfect Rigs of Rods' existance, you have a new term which you've defined and only BeamNG and RoR fit it. Its a marketing strategy I love seeing unfold because it kind of puts piggy backers at a loss. "TRUE softbody" or "Real Softbody". BeamNG need only start using a verb to differentiate themselves, and in their advertising define what it is for example. "True/Real softbody physics is a real time material simulation using real world spring and deformation behaviors to simulate structural stress and strain" Something daft like that and people who use rigid body deformation can't piggyback on BeamNG anymore.
I like the idea too. How about "smooth soft body physics" (SSBP for short) for BeamNG style which morphs smoothly using real world spring, stress etc. behaviors and "instant soft body physics" (ISBP for short) for NCG style which changes in the blink of an eye do to it not using real world spring, stress etc. behaviors? Anyway, that's my attempt at naming it.
Yeah, the racing games by Bugbear and NCG are arcade games and Drive is a simulation game. Plus NCG is probably going to be on consoles which probably wouldn't handle Drive well, if at all.
I gotta say that I love the new update. The additional parts and new car are a lot of fun to mess around with.
I love hearing Blackmill out of the blue like that. Wasn't expecting to hear it then suddenly its there.
