Showing posts with label effects. Show all posts
Showing posts with label effects. Show all posts

Sunday, 30 September 2012

The Most Impressive Physics Engine You’ve Never Seen

The effects of a real life high-speed collision on a car are catastrophic. In video games, however, things are different. Technical ceilings, licensing hurdles and other factors have long conspired to keep car damage relatively superficial; a pre-canned layer beneath the surface, peeled back gradually whenever the game detects the player should be seeing a few token dents and scratches.

When’s the last time you played a racing game, or perhaps an action game with a driving component, and marvelled at the realism of the crashes? For every one that gets even mildly close there are handfuls more that suffice with the bare minimum of slightly crumpled panels and scuffed paintjobs.

Surely it doesn’t have to be this way? No, it doesn’t.

And earlier this year a small start-up company called BeamNG proved it.

Watching BeamNG’s debut reel is a little like the automotive equivalent of the first time we all saw NaturalMotion’s euphoria engine in action way back in 2006, in that tech trailer of the Indiana Jones game that never came to fruition. Just like euphoria gave us tumbling bodies that look like real tumbling bodies, here were car crashes that looked like real car crashes.

This is soft-body physics.

You may have come across this video before; it chalked up two million views in just three days when BeamNG published it back in March. Perhaps you saw their second video, released in July, or the pair of single crash clips they uploaded just days ago. Or perhaps you’re a Rigs of Rods aficionado, an open-source driving sandbox game loved by fans for its soft-body physics (although they’re not as good as those on display in the videos here).

Where you haven’t seen these amazingly realistic vehicle collisions, however, is in a big budget commercial racing or driving game.

In October 2011 the Rigs of Rods team decided the potential for the sort of soft-body physics on show in their game was too great to ignore. They began work on a new a new physics engine from scratch. It was built upon the same physics concepts, just more refined and optimised.

The BeamNG team illustrate to us in a little more detail why they chose to focus on real time soft-body physics and how they differ from the norm.

Soft-body simulators are way more CPU intensive and do not like tweaks that get them away from physically correct behaviour.

“There are basically two types of physics simulations,” explains the BeamNG team, who’ve asked that their responses be attributed to the entire group rather than individual crewmembers. “Rigid body simulators and soft-body simulators.”

“Rigid body simulators are the dominant physics simulation paradigm as they are less CPU intensive and easier to ‘tweak’ for special behaviours. These systems simulate objects as a ‘whole’, where each different category of an object needs some programmer to code its behaviour. The artist is allowed to tweak some parameters of the programmed behaviour of each object.

“Soft-body simulators are way more CPU intensive and do not like tweaks that get them away from physically correct behaviour. They simulate objects as the sum of their parts where the object’s behaviour is emerging from the behaviour of all its parts. If the programming is clever and correct, the same system can simulate a wide gamut of different object classes.”

So basically, the artist is free to design whatever they wish and the design itself will define the object’s behaviour. The team explains that, due to the freedom that a soft-body simulator provides an artist (because they don't need to find a programmer to code any behaviour of a new type of vehicle), soft-body simulator games tend to foster highly engaged creative communities around them.

[T]he way physics is being done in today's games is too simplistic and artificially touched up.

“The accurate physics and freedom that a soft-body simulator has, as well as the inspirational and creative communities that emerge around them, are what originally attracted us to the field,” continues the BeamNG team.

“In our opinion, the way physics is being done in today's games is too simplistic and artificially touched up. In most games, it has nothing to do with reality anymore and more with ‘appearing’ physically correct. The underlying physics are tuned until the artists are pleased with the results.”

BeamNG assembles its vehicles from around 50 separate parts.

So what’s going on under the hood here? How does it all work? The team explains.

“First, we have only very simple entities that are simulated in our physics core. These are mass points, nodes in our parlance, and the connections in between them, beams. That's it. We do not have one line of code describing how a car should behave.”

We’re told to try and compare the concept to this construction toy. The balls are the mass points and beams are what connect them.

“In addition to the basic node and beam entities we have special entities that simulate more elaborate behaviour. Some examples of these are, hydraulics which are beams with the ability to expand/contract, and engines which are nodes with the ability to create rotational forces.

“So, when you want to simulate a car, you build a frame of nodes and beams, plus hydraulics and engine, that looks like the shape of a car. Similarly when you want to simulate an airplane you build a frame that looks like an airplane. The same applies for all other things that you could think of: bicycles, boats, ragdolls, etcetera.

“The traditional approach to above would require to have specially programmed code for each type of object class... Each of these different object classes would require a person with domain knowledge, car physics, airplane physics, to describe in code the whole object's behaviour.”

Perhaps what seems most stunning is not that a small team of four could put together such fascinating tech in the first place, but that in 2012 there’s still a hole in the industry big enough for them to do so. The game industry pursues realism tenaciously, and yet today’s games still do not feature cars that behave, flex under stress or deform as realistically as this.

The BeamNG team explain that the film effects industry and the motor industry have used this kind of simulation for some time, but their simulators are non real-time and require hours to calculate just one second of action.

“Concerning the game industry, while the whole mass-spring idea initially seems very simple, it's extremely difficult to make it work correctly in real time,” continues the team. “Mass-spring systems have very bad stability, they tend to explode, and are very CPU intensive. Also it is very hard to make them work for stiff materials, metals, in real time.

“Hence the majority of their usage is for calculating ‘soft’ materials like cloth.”

The team also expresses that it’s exceptionally difficult to calculate collisions in real-time for stiff mass-spring systems and keep them stable in the face of extreme collisions.

[I]t is natural that most of a game company’s efforts will be spent on ‘how things look’ rather than ‘how things move’.

“Think of a jet hitting a solid wall at MACH-1,” is their example. If you can't picture it, check out this controlled crash test of an F-4 Phantom hitting a concrete block.

“It requires an enormous amount of knowledge, experience, time and effort to solve all of the above problems efficiently,” they continue. “So it is reasonable for game companies to choose the more direct, proven and good-enough approach of rigid-body for vehicles and soft-body for cloths and other special cases.

“In addition the wide held rule of the gaming industry is that looks are the major selling point for games. So it is natural that most of a game company’s efforts will be spent on ‘how things look’ rather than ‘how things move’.”

Perhaps one of the biggest hurdles going forward, at least for developers of games that rely on real-world vehicles, will be the car manufacturers themselves. It seems like a double standard, factoring in what Hollywood does to cars regularly, but automobile manufacturers have historically been very strict about what they’ll tolerate when it comes to video game damage. We ask the BeamNG team if they would suspect this as a factor in preventing their engine being standard in all car-based video games or will things gradually change?

The BeamNG team suspect that the truth is more complicated and that it mostly has to do with expectation management.

“Concerning Hollywood, they have a preference of depicting extreme car crashes for which the viewer's expectation is that the car should indeed be totalled,” explains the team. “[We] don't think that car companies worry about these scenarios because it is naturally expected for a car in these situations to be totalled to meet with the user experience.”

These traditional damage models are in essence interpolations between predesigned car states.

“In a game, vehicle interactions with the world are not always so extreme as in movies. So if a player scratched a car on a wall and the game wrongly reacted by totalling the car it could create the expectation to the player that the real car would behave the same as the simulated car in the game. The general situation becomes worse due to the artificiality of the traditional game damage models. These traditional damage models are in essence interpolations between predesigned (damaged, undamaged) car states.

“So for a car company to be sure that no such ridiculous situation as the one described above would happen, they would have to go and check all the possible actions and damage reactions of the whole game. This isn't so easy to do exhaustively, so the simple solution for the car companies is to just forbid any car damaging.

“In our physics engine we can simulate realistically enough a Euro-NCAP suitable car, so that it won't be that far from the expected behaviour. On the other hand, if we'll be allowed to have such a car fall from 200 metres is a different story!

“Though at the moment, we are not portraying any licensed cars, so what car companies will allow us to do is currently irrelevant for us.”

Luke is Games Editor at IGN AU. You can chat to him about games, cars and how many of the latter he's smashed into other cars on IGN here or find him and the rest of the Australian team by joining the IGN Australia Facebook community.


Source : ign[dot]com

Sunday, 26 August 2012

Why Games That Make YOU a Developer Are a Crucial Part of the Future

The level of connectivity we’ve reached this generation has brought with it a lot of undesirable side-effects. Day one patches. On-disc content sold back to us as downloadable content. Multiplayer that empowers and unleashes the biggest jerks mankind has to offer.

But it’s not without its benefits, and the rise and rise of user-generated content is one of them. More and more games are beginning to embrace the power of user-generated content, or UGC.

LittleBigPlanet developer Media Molecule recently announced that a staggering seven million levels had been created by users for the series. LittleBigPlanet players have made the game exponentially larger than any one studio could ever attempt to make, or any one gamer could ever hope to play. The Forza franchise has built on entire online in-game economy on the buying and selling of car designs players create themselves. Forza owners can choose from thousands upon thousands of custom and replica liveries that have been crafted by other fans with no input from developer Turn 10 whatsoever.

xb-paintedjpg

If you can think of a famous race car, somebody has probably already recreated it in Forza 4.

However, while UGC that’s basically indistinguishable from similar studio-created content may look like an attractive way to have users help offset the soaring costs of AAA development, there’s far more to it than that.

“It’s definitely a nice add-on to the main game, but it’s also one that has to be thought out carefully right from the start of the game,” says Antti Ilvessuo, creative director at RedLynx and lead designer of Trials Evolution. “It’s no silver bullet that you can just throw in there and think, ‘Hey this will make our game popular.’”

It’s no silver bullet that you can just throw in there and think, ‘Hey this will make our game popular.’

“Games and how we play them are changing really rapidly nowadays, so how you define user generated content changes also. Letting users create stuff for a game is definitely a big part of the future of games. I think a big part of that will be creating content creation in way that users don’t notice that what they are doing is creating a lot of the game’s content.”

It’s a sentiment echoed by Bigpoint’s Rune Vendler, game director on the browser-based free-to-play Gameglobe – a game built entirely around the concept of UGC.

“I don't really think of user-generated content as a shortcut to cheap labour, almost the opposite,” says Vendler. “With Gameglobe, the goal was to design a platform where being creative did not feel like hard work, but an entertaining activity in itself.”

“Putting user-generated content into a product massively changes it. Once it went live, it was obvious that we, the developers, were no longer the sole owners of Gameglobe; it's as if the game itself is now owned just as much by the community, and they get to decide a great deal about how the game evolves. For a lot of AAA games, you can't or won't share that kind of control with the users.”

John Drake, Director of Communications & Brand Management at Harmonix Music Systems, looks at UGC success stories as falling into two groups; games that let users share and/or sell created content (like the Rock Band Network) and games that drive users to create as a fundamental part of the experience. Drake cites games like Minecraft, LittleBigPlanet, and Sound Shapes as great examples of the latter.

“Both approaches have big wins and inherent limitations,” says Drake.

If you can give players agency to not only engage in a world but actively create within that world, your universe will be infinitely richer.

“I hope we see companies continue to evolve and embrace user-driven content as a strategy. When it's done right, ‘formal UGC’ – as opposed to general modding done outside the structure of a game – embraces the fact that games are inherently an interactive expression. If you can give players agency to not only engage in a world but actively create within that world, your universe will be infinitely richer.

“Though UGC certainly isn't a perfect fit for every title, I think it's a gamble we'll see more games willing to take as the medium evolves. The value UGC adds to a game goes beyond simple monetisation of a mechanic.

“UGC empowers the player, enriches a community, and makes a game come to life with the passion of its fans. I don't think gamers should pin all of our hopes on it, especially since designing these systems can be as time-consuming and expensive as building more assets in studio, but I think it's an exciting area to be optimistic about.”

rbnjpg

As John Drake pointed out to us, RBN is most certainly NOT 'Baby's First Rock Band Authoring Toy'.

So why is it that more studios haven’t quite embraced this model of conscripting fans to create canyons full of content as well as others?  Are there risks in letting users make and share their own content?

“Allowing for user-generated content is limited by your game’s style,” says RedLynx’s Antti Ilvessuo. “For example, a game that is story driven would need new content that somehow fits into the rest of the game. Then there are issues about game balance, and you have to have a way to monitor and check content for stuff that is offensive. So the game style also has to be the right fit for user-generated content.”

“But still, content creation can be made possible in numerous ways. It’s just not an easy thing to do.”

Bigpoint’s Rune Vendler agrees that the process is not a simple one.

“I don't want to speculate about other studios' development plans, but I don't believe you can conscript anyone to create content,” he says. “Users have to want to make it, and have fun doing so.”

Users have to want to make it, and have fun doing so.

“Creating a game that supports user-generated content well is not trivial. The creative tools in Gameglobe have taken a long time to develop, and are of a completely different quality than what we're used to internally. The infrastructure needed to host and serve the content is substantial, and the technology to drive it all is complex.

"Once we got Gameglobe working, however, it was an amazing experience. We're giving people the freedom to create games and express themselves in a way many didn't think possible. Of course, they can misbehave, but with Gameglobe we've found that almost everyone reacts very positively to being handed this freedom.”

Harmonix’s John Drake also gives us a similar response.

“There are practical realities that keep UGC from being baked into every game,” he says. “Building tools that are accessible to the average player is a massive design challenge, supporting UGC systems for an evolving audience in perpetuity is expensive, curating the excellent from the average can be a struggle, and it's a big gamble that your audience will show up and be excited to create.

Drake points out that crafting a system that truly compels users to create “can't just be about ‘conscripting fans’ and crowdsourcing content.”

“For UGC to really take off, a developer needs to understand what fans love about the game in question, where they'd want to take it if they could, and how to build a pipeline to connect those desires in an accessible and decipherable way.”

“Oh, and then they need to build all those tools and ensure it doesn't absolutely break the core product that it's meant to extend,” adds Drake. “I'm thrilled, for example, that Rock Band Network tracks will work in Rock Band Blitz when it launches this August , but it meant testing for weird edge cases like, ‘What if the song only has drums and guitar?’; cases created by the breadth of content in RBN.”

The payoff for UGC done right, however, can be hugely satisfying.

“It's incredible to see what people have done in the Rock Band Network,” says Drake. “This was a professional suite of tools and standards and, to make it into Rock Band, we expected folks to rise to that level.”

“We had some reservations about whether people would want to invest that amount of time and energy, but all our concerns were silenced when we launched. The enthusiasm was palpable, and the community really self-enforced a quality bar beyond expectations.”

At this point there are over 1,800 tracks available on the RBN, available to Rock Band fans around the world.

“We've had big bands add extra tracks via this system and burgeoning acts find a really passionate audience of rhythm gamers,” says Drake. “It launched us way beyond where we expected, expanding the volume of content we could have ever created for the Rock Band audience at Harmonix.”

“The team who built the Rock Band Network are fans ourselves, so it's infinitely satisfying to see a community form around these creative tools. Harmonix built the system, but the network is really driven and owned by the community of Rock Band authors, and they're doing amazing things.”

It’s tracks of a different sort being built by fans in Trials Evolution, but the RedLynx team are no less amazed at what their biggest fans can put together.

“We as developers are always really surprised at some of the amazing things that our users have created,” says Ilvessuo. “It’s really humbling to see stuff that you never thought possible when making game made by users. It is definitely very satisfying too, to be sure.”

Luke is Games Editor at IGN AU. You can chat to him about games, cars and how Rock Band is a great way to give a four-year-old great taste in music here or find him and the rest of the Australian team by joining the IGN Australia Facebook community.


Source : ign[dot]com

Tuesday, 24 July 2012

Warehouse 13: "A New Hope" Review




Note: Full spoilers for the Warehouse 13: Season 4 premiere follow.


Warehouse 13 has grown up in many ways. It has more action, the characters have transcended their archetypes, the special effects have improved dramatically, and the scripts aren't afraid to raise the stakes and put the lead cast into mortal danger. This season premiere proves again that this show just keeps getting better.


When last season left us with the destruction of Warehouse 13 and the death of Mrs. Frederics and H.G. Wells, it was shocking and amazing. But Artie has a habit of conveniently having a artifact handy, and it wasn't hard to guess that the watch that survived last season's finale was going to make everything right again.


So this episode starts off kind of on the wrong foot since we know what's going to happen. Artie and his team will of course reverse time, undo past wrongs, and all will be well so we can continue the season. Despite the inevitable time reversal, one of the reasons this episode works is that past events have shown us that this series isn't afraid to inflict dramatic physical and mental harm on its cast. Jinks, H.G. Wells, and Mrs. Frederics all bought the big one in the past few episodes. And the opening of this episode shows a hopeless world and everything going to hell in a handbasket (expertly narrated by news personalities Ed Schultz and Lester Holt - thanks, NBC!). It's enough to make you forget that things are supposed to end well here.


Along with Schultz and Holt we have Brent Spiner, who will be forever immortalized in geek lore as Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation. He makes an appearance in a role that doesn't really show off his talents. But SyFy says the Brother Adrian character will be around for at least six episodes, so Spiner has time to grow into the character and hopefully produce something special.



The pace in this story is face and furious which creates exactly the kind of urgency this season opener needed. The stakes are incredibly high and the tension is strong, but it's all tempered by the usual Warehouse 13 humor. As usual, this episode has a number of cheesey moments. If you're a fan of the show you've surely gotten used to this by now. This series has always used old TV tropes (the rapid-fire clue guessing game being one of my most hated), but it doesn't lean too heavily on them and the humor has gradually gotten better over the years as the writers and actors molded these characters. Pete Tebowing was perfect for the character, and the dynamic between Claudia and Artie is hilarious and feels perfectly natural.


The second half of the story is a lot darker though, and this again shows how much this series has matured. It can be all lighthearted and irreverent but still hit hard. A battle with the bad guys leaves Pete on the ground choking on his own blood, and dead. This scene is potently dramatic, with Pete spending his last words asking if he'll remember dying once Artie fixes everything. Yes, we all know Pete can't die. But the writers tucked in a clever little plot piece: Artie will remember everything, and it's going to haunt him.


The end wraps up everything nicely, and as an added bonus Sykes, our villain from last season, gets a moment of peaceful redemption. Add to that the apparent pardon of H.G. Wells and all does indeed seem to be back to normal, except for the foreboding words of Brother Adrian and the strange vision of Claudia poking a dagger-sized hole in Artie's chest. This season's villain may be Claudia herself, and that could make for lots of drama.


This is undoubtedly a great start for WH13. So far this is already looking like the most complex and thrilling season of the series to date. It's rare for a sci-fi show to start hitting its stride so late in the game, but it can't be denied that Warehouse 13 is better than it's ever been.



Source : ign[dot]com