Ultra Realistic Car Damage?

It's not the crashes that are realistics just saying it's the physics, because we all hate it when we're in traffic and 50 cars and trucks and tanks obliterate us and demolish a bridge with a giant fireball of metal with rocket cars a spikestrip

 

What? I can't understand your point. this post is giving me a headache....

 

I think some of us are getting confused here a bit so I will just answer the original question...

Yes, you can double the node beam resolution of a vehicle to get better/more realistic deformation. To make it look good you would also need to double the resolution of the mesh (obvious thing is obvious I guess) There would be no reasonable, or in my mind even fathomable, way to do this dynamically with the JBeam... it would need to be done manually... you could technically do it with the mesh... but if we are this far what is really the point. Might as well redo the whole thing from the ground up.

That being said, it was brought up that the nodes would start getting too light for the physics engine to handle. This is also correct. This isn't a question of computer power at this point, but more a question of how quickly can the node accelerate in one physics "tick". If the node is so light that it can accelerate quicker than the physics ticks can handle... then you get vibrations... keep going lighter and your car just explodes as the force/speed calculations just start to get out of control.

If we doubled the physics tick calculations per second (2000 to 4000Hz perhaps?) then perhaps we could also double the amount of nodes... but remember... right now one car runs on one thread on your CPU... so if you have 24 threads... and you double the physics calculations AND then on top of that double the resolution of the structure... you will need exponentially more power on that one thread to actually run the vehicle. All those extra threads and extra cores end up doing you no good. RIght now there actually isn't a CPU on earth that could probably do that as we are talking single core clock speeds in like the 4GHz range at an absolute minimum with double the number crunching performance of what we currently have right now. Everyone makes the joke that "you would need a NASA supercomputer to do that..." but again... we are talking about single core performance... so I honestly think that even NASA doesn't have a computer that could do it either...

So... conclusion... could it be done...

Yes

Will it be done...

Well..........

Stick around for BeamNG 2... perhaps computers will have caught up by then.

Edit: To clarify... while keeping the weight realistic... you could probably increase the node count by about 2/3rds and still have a fully functioning vehicle that doesn't explode upon contact... that or lag your computer out... but the devs have found a good happy medium where they are at now by placing nodes at key points in structures to simulate crumple zones. That is the reason that the vehicles deform so well with such a low JBeam res that we have now. So actually making the 2/3rds just might actually make things worse looking as you would only really have "some" extra nodes and not "all" the necessary ones that would be needed to properly complete the structure.

 

im saying beamng crash physics are realistics, but in the game the way we crash the cars is unrealistic because nobody flies cars off mountains into a train at 2000 mph with no copyright music in the background

 

And what does this have to do with any part of this conversation???

 

Of course it's not realistic, it is a natural behavior and evolution of what the BeamNG realtime deformation physics allows people to do.
BeamNG has allowed us to go off our rockers with wild and insane ideas no other game can even dream of.

 

just saying chill

 

*facepalm*
You know, this entire thread, I dunno how to even reply anymore... I know someone could say this post was worthless, but you can't tell me this thread isn't already full of them.
People just keep on saying you could simply double node counts and be happy happy woo woo, or saying that it'd lag or be spiky, truth is that it's just not that simple to increase mesh and jbeam res to get "better results".

I dunno why this conversation is still going like some kind of revolving door of repeated points.

 

Truth...

Basically seems that he just wanted to have someone say yes it can be done.... that's why I answered the way I did. I answered that yes, its possible, and yes, it would work... but it would just be pointless without much more powerful computers being the norm.

 

im so confused.

 

^

Plus more nodes = more weight, and more instabilities which in turn creates the need for much more physics ticks

Double physics ticks and node density for what probably wouldn't even improve the game much, is far from worth it.. effectively making the game 4x harder to run just in theory alone, assuming 4000hz would even be enough to do that and make it function.

I'd rather simply run more cars at once, and if anything.. the devs should be trying to improve the UI performance rn.

 

WTH is wrong with ppl, this guy was asking about stuff and you all (to be fair not all..) jump him? No matter how silly you think a question is dont act like a effin douche bag. If you cant help then just shut your pie hole.

 

imma step in here and say you have a point, but at the same time this conversation was over with a while ago. Dont know why its still going on.
OP continues to bring up unnecessary points. eg
'It's not the crashes that are realistics just saying it's the physics, because we all hate it when we're in traffic and 50 cars and trucks and tanks obliterate us and demolish a bridge with a giant fireball of metal with rocket cars a spikestrip'
and
'im saying beamng crash physics are realistics, but in the game the way we crash the cars is unrealistic because nobody flies cars off mountains into a train at 2000 mph with no copyright music in the background'

both of these statements have nothing to do with the original post. He was asking a legitimate question which i think we all have wondered about at 1 point or another, and it just got all muddled from there. I think, like atv_123 said, OP wants a yes and in his misunderstanding fails to see the near impossibility of any such thing being added/changed to the game. I think.
It just a cesspool of miscommunication.

 

Cold be so. All i saw was a bunch of negative comments from alot of ppl seeming not to listen to what the OP asked for rather than find reasons why he shouldnt even ask it.

So what can we learn from this? If we behave, are open-minded, are nice to eachother and so on then i dont need to come in late and get aggitated and possibly misunderstand it all. Carry on.

 

does this conversation even have a goal?

 

I'm gonna stop you right there shader man. This guy's been acting like an "effin douche bag" the entire time, even though EVERYONE has EXPLICITLY told him that It wouldn't work/there isn't a point.
TL;DR Shut your pie hole.

 

I enjoyed that comeback very much and i cant do much else but raise my hat and bow, my pie hole is now shut.

 

the problem with this thread is that op keeps changing his point.

 

how can you change a point when there's not one?

 

he wanted to ask for realistic damage even though the game already has realistic damage at first, then he's talking about physics, now he's talking about crashes?