• Honda R&D reveals Next-Gen crash testing.
    16 replies, posted
[IMG]http://image.automobilemag.com/f/76114092+w807+h454+q80+re0+cr1+ar0/honda-crash-test-visualization-front-three-quarters.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]With crash tests becoming more and more stringent these days -- but wrecking prototype cars getting no less expensive -- automakers are looking to get ahead of the curve in whatever way they can. For Honda, that means advancing the way that crash tests are modeled virtually, as the company has developed new rendering software in partnership with a company called 3DXCITE that specializes in high-end, three-dimensional visual rendering. This new software, called DeltaGen, essentially allows for Honda to take its existing virtual crash test models and present them in a much more realistic way that’s closer to real-world crash tests performed by organizations like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). All automakers already use digital modeling to engineer vehicles according to these crash test regulations, but according to Honda principal engineer Eric DeHoff, the existing crash test visualizations are difficult to explain and comprehend because of their unrealistic appearance.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d4y74kkE_k[/media] [URL="http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1406-honda-3dxcite-make-virtual-crash-tests-more-realistic/"]http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/1406-honda-3dxcite-make-virtual-crash-tests-more-realistic/[/URL] That's fucking impressive, and here I thought BeamNG was already the best.
If only you could get indestructible paint like that in the real world.
[QUOTE=Cizain't;45245618] That's fucking impressive, and here I thought BeamNG was already the best.[/QUOTE] Its still probably the best for consumer use as it only requires modest hardware (despite its weird flaws). This probably requires an assload of processing power and is incredibly expensive. Still awesome though.
Just get a couple copies of [URL="http://store.steampowered.com/app/228380/"]next car game[/URL] and bother bugbear to give you the mod tools, this isn't hard Honda
[QUOTE=Cizain't;45245618] That's fucking impressive, and here I thought BeamNG was already the best.[/QUOTE] I doubt those simulations in the video are being done realtime
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;45245687]I doubt those simulations in the video are being done realtime[/QUOTE] Nope. At least not on consumer-grade hardware
Looks like the crash test dummy (bless them) is going to go out of business in the automobile industry.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;45245687]I doubt those simulations in the video are being done realtime[/QUOTE] Well considering it's part of a render engine. I'd say it renders in similar fashion to modelling programs and such. So frame by frame and then compiled and render into a single video file.
So when do we give Helix Snake a copy of this
[QUOTE=Jamie1992GSC;45246003]Well considering it's part of a render engine. I'd say it renders in similar fashion to modelling programs and such. So frame by frame and then compiled and render into a single video file.[/QUOTE] That's what I meant, BeamNG is [I]probably[/I] the best for consumer/game applications since it's realtime
The calculations for engineering applications like this are several orders of magnitude more complicated than the physics engines in videogames. There's no reason to make them realtime. The whole point here is to get accurate data. Edit: Also, the rendering engine was probably slapped on top of the physics calculator only to help the researchers visualize their data. You don't even really need one. Source: Mechanical Engineering undergrad and hobbyist programmer :downs:
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45245984]Looks like the crash test dummy (bless them) is going to go out of business in the automobile industry.[/QUOTE] Nah, this just cuts out a huge load of their work. Saves wasting material testing a physical model and finding obvious flaws, test it virtually, iron out the big things then build the physical thing then crash it and see if it reacts the same as the simulation. Crash test dummy still got a job. :v:
[QUOTE=Demache;45245673]Its still probably the best for consumer use as it only requires modest hardware (despite its weird flaws). This probably requires an assload of processing power and is incredibly expensive. Still awesome though.[/QUOTE] This probably took them a day or two to depending on detailed the discretized mesh is, the FEA solver they're using, the sort of loads they're applying and how iterative the data is. Plus obviously how good their super computer is. If you've ever seen any of the calculations and theory behind FEA (Finite elements Analysis) you can appreciate how much number crunching is involved (inverting matrices anywhere from 12x12 to a 1millx1mill). All the same you'd also be surprised at how good your average modern 'normal' computer is at solving these sorts of problems, sure you're not going to touch the complexity of their full on super meshes but you can do a fair bit. [QUOTE=Reagy;45249993]Nah, this just cuts out a huge load of their work. Saves wasting material testing a physical model and finding obvious flaws, test it virtually, iron out the big things then build the physical thing then crash it and see if it reacts the same as the simulation. Crash test dummy still got a job. :v:[/QUOTE] I had a conversation with one of the site leaders at JLR's designing and testing site about this, the general theme they're getting from the various regulation boards is they still want the physical crash tests done regardless, I think they have to churn out about 50+ over the entire testing procedure of the car for the various different tests. While they themselves could probably do with 5 or so just to confirm their data matches. Just to clarify as well, those 50 or so cars won't be made on a leaned out continuous production line, they'll end up being done as a small batch. Which is why each 'test' car costs about 1-3million each-ish. What Honda have done here isn't really massively unique in the auto industry, it's stuff other companies have been up to for awhile. I think it's just a case of the regulatory bodies catching up or coming to a compromise. Though no matter what they'll always be a level of physical testing involved due to the fact these programs are always an approximation and are only as detailed and 'correct' as you make them, plus all the crash testy dummy type stuff that gets done to death but on a smaller scale.
Oh man, I totally want that in a video game.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;45251688]Oh man, I totally want that in a video game.[/QUOTE] Here you go: [url]http://www.beamng.com/content/[/url]
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45245984]Looks like the crash test dummy (bless them) is going to go out of business in the automobile industry.[/QUOTE] Nah. They'll still be around, just probably only used for the later stages of the design process. A digital model only goes so far, at the later stages of the design when most of the bugs are ironed out digitally, they'll want to do physical tests.
GAMES! AWESOME!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.