Author Topic: Bullet physics? (Read 9779 times)

jm82792 · « **on:** December 18, 2010, 03:05:26 am »

Would integrating bullet into trem be a bad idea?
Maybe the devs could consider it?
Currently they are working on integrating SPH particles(fluids, gasses, goops, etc) and open CL cloth.
That's some nice features that are going to be cool.
We'd get in the end real physics that are fast and look good.
And no I don't code and don't have a clue on how hard it would be to implement.

CATAHA · « **Reply #1 on:** December 18, 2010, 08:13:51 am »

Most of Bullet features useless in Trem. And implementing physics engine w/o renderer upgrade? Sounds like waste of time for me.

kozak6 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 21, 2010, 12:02:01 am »

Why bother?

There's two very compelling reasons not to.

1. Tremulous isn't about hardcore realism.

2. Most fighting in Tremulous happens so close you would never even notice a difference. Do you have any idea how fast a bullet is? If a bullet takes a couple hundredths of a second to get to a target, is it even humanly possible to tell it's not hitscan?

jm82792 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 21, 2010, 01:59:30 am »

I am not talking about bullets, however I agree implementing it won't happen and probably isn't easy.
http://bulletphysics.org/wordpress/

Ingar · « **Reply #4 on:** December 21, 2010, 11:54:10 am »

(Note: I do write code but I don't write code for Tremulous, I used bullet in one of my projects)

Tremulous is written in C, Bullet is written in C++. While this isn't a problem per se, it does introduces a whole new set of issues.

Bullet basicly does two things: collision and movement constraint solving (think of it as 'skeleton animation')
It would be reasonably easy to implement bullet collision (load the map as a triangle mesh, add all entities as bounding box bodies)
but there are no tremulous map entities to support things like movable/throwable crates, swinging objects hanging from the ceiling
with a chain, or other 'kickable' stuff.

@CATAHA: yes, I think it's a waste of time, but not because of the renderer, more because
the maps have to be redesigned.

CATAHA · « **Reply #5 on:** December 21, 2010, 12:38:21 pm »

Quote from: Ingar on December 21, 2010, 11:54:10 am

@CATAHA: yes, I think it's a waste of time, but not because of the renderer, more because
the maps have to be redesigned.

Maps redone not so hard. Most of time taking textures re-align. =D
Im thinking about recompiling current maps for 'different footsteps' mod we using in our server and some work done already, so i know how much time it taking. Mostly even destructable objects enough for Tremulous, its already affecting gameplay much. Personally i dont think 'movable' object will improva gameplay. May be they even will make gameplay worse. =D

jm82792 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 22, 2010, 01:38:27 am »

I wasn't thinking along the lines of peppering everything with a new feature.
It's rather akin to bloom, and all the stuff(everything has it's use in the correct quantity) people pepper their XReal maps with.
Shells, grenades, pieces of buildings, etc(exploding alien buildings...) could be dynamic along with weapon particles.
In new maps people can choose to take advantage of entity dynamics or not.
Maybe cloth and the SPH solver(fluids, etc. I've gotten some nice effects from Blender's SPH solver) could be eventually used.....
It's just a thought, not an extremely serious proposal.
If it's not easy/idiot proof then you're better off utilizing your efforts into something else.

CATAHA · « **Reply #7 on:** December 22, 2010, 04:37:37 pm »

Most of Bullet functions still not usable for Trem. Do we really need cloth for example? Just think about it... Its not single-player game. Full human base on ATCS already laggy a lot. Imagine what you will get with cloth processing. And in most cases you have no time to take a closer look on cloth or something. And without the new renderer is still excessive and unnecessary features.

jm82792 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 22, 2010, 06:54:30 pm »

It's just an example. But yes cloth would have minimal uses,
I'd be more into ridged body dynamics than anything else to add a dash more of realism involving what I previously mentioned.

rotacak · « **Reply #9 on:** December 23, 2010, 02:36:07 pm »

Quote from: CATAHA on December 22, 2010, 04:37:37 pm

Full human base on ATCS already laggy a lot. Imagine what you will get with cloth processing.

If clothes will be computed by cpu, then yes. But if will be computed with gfx card, like for example nvidia physics features, then it will be ok.

Asvarox · « **Reply #10 on:** December 23, 2010, 04:34:28 pm »

Ragdoll would be extremely cool for trem, it'd be great to hit the goon with full charged luci blast and watch it fly 100 meteres away with all it's legs flying around it

Or doing same to your battlesuited teammate

Though it would require redoing the models I think.

CATAHA · « **Reply #11 on:** December 23, 2010, 05:37:07 pm »

Quote from: rotacak on December 23, 2010, 02:36:07 pm

If clothes will be computed by cpu, then yes. But if will be computed with gfx card, like for example nvidia physics features, then it will be ok.

In topic about new engine/xreal a lot of playey cryed that they have too weak pc for running game with improved features. So in this case i only can repeat - w/o engine upgrade Bullet just waste of time, but many players just dont want engine upgrade. =\

jm82792 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 24, 2010, 05:59:04 am »

OpenCL could happen because it's not proprietary, unlike NVidia's physics.

sheridanm962 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2011, 08:39:11 pm »

Quote from: jm82792 on December 24, 2010, 05:59:04 am

OpenCL could happen because it's not proprietary, unlike NVidia's physics.

NVidia's physics are a bitch to run (you need at least an 8800GT) and even then you'd get lag if others are on the server.

David · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2011, 09:49:40 pm »

Does openCL work without interfering with openGL?

sheridanm962 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 11, 2011, 09:54:35 pm »

Quote from: David on January 11, 2011, 09:49:40 pm

Does openCL work without interfering with openGL?

probably not IDK

ask someone that is a dev with opencl

anyway I need to see more details on openCL and see what the difference is with openGL thus making it better and faster than nvidia's phsX

gimhael · « **Reply #16 on:** January 11, 2011, 10:19:26 pm »

OpenCL and OpenGL can work nicely together, you could e.g. compute a texture or VBO with OpenCL and then use OpenGL to render it to the screen. But OpenCL is not a physics engine, it is a language for running computations on the GPU. You can implement a phyics system in OpenCL, but you'll have to do all the algorithms yourself.

OhaiReapd · « **Reply #17 on:** January 11, 2011, 10:20:21 pm »

Fuck bullet physics. I shouldn't have to calculate where I shoot to kill something.

sheridanm962 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 11, 2011, 10:44:48 pm »

Quote from: OhaiReapd on January 11, 2011, 10:20:21 pm

Fuck bullet physics. I shouldn't have to calculate where I shoot to kill something.

unless you had a sniper rifle. Thus making every other gun shoot the old way.

OhaiReapd · « **Reply #19 on:** January 12, 2011, 02:40:51 am »

Nah, its not real, I don't want it to try and be real.

swamp-cecil · « **Reply #20 on:** January 12, 2011, 03:02:10 am »

Make a .particle system that looks very unrealistic.

BriareoS · « **Reply #21 on:** January 13, 2011, 09:44:17 am »

Bullet physics is quite useless in q3 engine since (as far as i know ) you can't handle the collision/physics into the engine itself (since q3 is quite static) and unfortunately changing engine was and idea rejected some time ago.

ULTRA Random ViruS · « **Reply #22 on:** January 17, 2011, 11:51:22 am »

Quote from: Ingar on December 21, 2010, 11:54:10 am

I think it's a waste of time, but not because of the renderer, more because
the maps have to be redesigned.

Also means hard work redesigning radiant or scraping it? Do bsp maps even involve flying stuff? Though what would be awesome without changing map you can do things like getting the guts out like in L4D.

jm82792 · « **Reply #23 on:** January 19, 2011, 06:34:47 am »

This still isn't dead?
I got the conclusion on the second post

sheridanm962 · « **Reply #24 on:** January 21, 2011, 04:48:07 am »

Quote from: jm82792 on January 19, 2011, 06:34:47 am

This still isn't dead?
I got the conclusion on the second post

yeah STFU ^_^ XD

baybal · « **Reply #25 on:** January 22, 2011, 05:42:09 am »

Not particularly "to run programs on gpu", but for parallel dsp programming.

News:

Author Topic: Bullet physics? (Read 9779 times)

OhaiReapd

OhaiReapd