Gmod's phsyics really suck - Garry's Mod

[QUOTE=Apelata;15928378]Episode 3 might have water physics.[/QUOTE] I dont know about that, Valve creates it's engine for HL2 EP3 not for Gmod And give me one fucking reason why HL2 EP3 needs water physics? It's not like kleiner will give you a bottle and says: bring me some fucking water? The game is already as long as it is, No need for it too take even longer before it get's released.

What are you all talking about? Source is a graphics engine, not Physics. Source uses Havok 2 for physics. Even though there are, like, 5 better versions of Havok.

Offtopic: Dejavu o.o Ontopic: Well, isn't Gordon Freeman going to the Borealis?(Just think), I thinke there's gonna be a LOT of water in there :D

The first comparison I really don't understand. I actually think the first picture looks better. I like the Source engine because if the maps are decently made everything looks crisp and totally believable, not covered in haze and post-processing like the second picture is.

its an old engine, that just gets slightly better physics at times and more laggier for me.. if we gave it physics that make Pentium 4's implode with fail then it would be under a different name, not just EP2 or EP3 engine, an edgy name like 'Source II' or something... no wait...

Water physics are a way off. How do you expect the game to understand when the thing you are building is water tight anyway? I mean you could have a user defined area maybe, but this is an old engine, it would be difficult.

its not GMOD its source who doesnt have water physics yet, go make ur own engine and dont whine

I lol'd

[QUOTE=DanielPinoy;15932181]fucking noob, its not GMOD its source who doesnt have water physics yet, go make ur own engine and dont whine[/QUOTE] I know calling someone a noob ingame is pretty bad, but on forums? Also, I wish that you were able to stand in/on a moving object without being pushed/spazzed out.

stress: Post Edited

I just think Call of Duty WaW Dynamic Water (not the reflections etc, the dynamic system when you explode something on it it creates waves) is good for games. If Valve could do something similar would be very nice.

There's a fan tool :downs: And water physics are entirely possible with a few modifications to the Source Engine, but they will be laggy as fuck.

[QUOTE=ferdam;15932541]I just think Call of Duty WaW Dynamic Water (not the reflections etc, the dynamic system when you explode something on it it creates waves) is good for games. If Valve could do something similar would be very nice.[/QUOTE] That's not the Dynamic water we're talking about. The type we're talking about is if you pick up a bucket with the gravity gun it will fill up, or if you make a submarine it wouldn't get wet. The current water in source is just a brush entity. Nothing more, nothing less.

[QUOTE=Killerjc;15933973]That's not the Dynamic water we're talking about. The type we're talking about is if you pick up a bucket with the gravity gun it will fill up, or if you make a submarine it wouldn't get wet. The current water in source is just a brush entity. Nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE] Ok. But I wanted to post my opinion about Dynamic Water.

Proper water physics is years and years away, high end computers today lag on simulating small amounts, and here we're talking about simulating a lake full of water. That Nvidia demo is slow, and it's only simulating a small containers worth. You can fake stuff like waves and forces though (If the wheel is under water, apply a force relative to it's movement speed, or such)

Who even needs water physics anyway. Think about it: you spend years developing a engine capable of rendering fully dynamic water physics at a stable and acceptable framerate. You have dynamic waves, water displacement, osmosis, water droplets, the works. Theres one problem: you need have a gameplay idea thats not a stupid gimmick. A series of water puzzles? No, that would be a gimmick. Fixing holes in a sinking boat? No that would be a gimmick. A FPS with a good storyline, fun combat, interesting weapons, great AI, and a wonderful, lush and atmospheric landscapes? [B]THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU BUILD A MOTHERFUCKING WATER PHYSICS ENGINE? Maybe in fifty years that would be a justifiable addition, but people in the years 2009-2020 will see that as a waste of time and money.[/B]

[quote=the inzuki;15932386] ... Also, i wish that you were able to stand in/on a moving object without being pushed/spazzed out.[/quote] this

Ahem, it is possible to build for example submarines using Lifesupport Mod

Havok and Source are some pretty detailed physics engines, especially for when it was released. In my opinion, I would say that the Havok plus Source engine makes for some very realistic physics. The graphics are also fucking amazing. For 2004, they were absolutely gorgeous. Even today they are still way up there.

The quicker valve drop <dx9 the better the graphics for future source games. Seriously, if you don't have atleast a dual-core and an 8800 gpu, you need to get the fuck out. Shame valve make their textures look more detailed then how they really are using $detail textures :|.

I love how all of the 09'ers with a total of 11 posts are posting in here.

I don't think that matters really, if you wanna be a JD/PC whore then go do it somewhere like oify.

[QUOTE=Kuwong;15919680]Has anyone else noticed this? If you place a sealed container into water, it is automatically water logged, leaving you unable to build any under water rooms. If you use the wheel tool and place a fan onto an object, that fan provides zero propulsion against the air. Even placed in water the fan doesn't do anything of use, it leaves me wondering why put them in? Fans make terrible wheels. On a related subject, thrusters. They provide no backlash or force output from the flames, should you stand behind them. Yet they are perfectly able to blast heavy objects around the map. Feel free to add your own pet hates with the physics in Gmod.[/QUOTE] Heh, I love your ratings lol.

[QUOTE=Legend286;15938663]The quicker valve drop <dx9 the better the graphics for future source games. Seriously, if you don't have atleast a dual-core and an 8800 gpu, you need to get the fuck out. Shame valve make their textures look more detailed then how they really are using $detail textures :|.[/QUOTE] Well guess what. What makes the Orange Box so popular? It could run on 1.7 Ghz single-core machines. With physics and explosions! It's not really that nice to be telling people to GTFO with bad computers. Sure, I'm building a rig worth 4k this christmas, but I won't be bothering people then! I currently have a P4 @ 2.8, and a nVidia 7600GS that I overclocked! Anyways, gMod has no use on a Dual-Core, since it is only single threaded. Sure, join-date elitism is common here, but computer elitism is not welcome. So sir, I would like to politely tell you, to GTFO.

[QUOTE=Legend286;15938663]The quicker valve drop <dx9 the better the graphics for future source games. Seriously, if you don't have atleast a dual-core and an 8800 gpu, you need to get the fuck out. Shame valve make their textures look more detailed then how they really are using $detail textures :|.[/QUOTE] I'm fine with my ATI X600.

First Op is ignorant as to how physics engines work, secondly, the only problems I see are with the spazzing props while standing in/on them. Also, the first comparrison is bad, since the second picture is high quality, and has motion blur added, and isn't an ingame shot anyway, and the first is a bad quality (especially compared to what kind of picture you CAN get on source) and fairly lame angle with no effects added... The second comparrison is much better... Only real different things I see are shadows don't lag as much (more detailed light maps lag more on source, but can achieve the exact same shadows as any other game if you have the power and determination) and the sprites on crysis are far more detailed. Oh, and add this, source has centrifugal force, which is an amazing addition to physics, and has friction, weight, great gravity that can even be altered, pendulum effects (Air speed friction), and lemme say this again f it didn't get through, CENTRIFUGAL FORCE! That means if you're on a merry-go-round you fly off if it goes too fast. It pulls outwards. Try roping a soda can to a wheel set on a column, and then turn the wheel on very fast. The can flys outwards in a realistic motion.

[QUOTE=pedroion;15924175]Water physics, huh? Try Phun - it's a 2D game, and whenever I place water in it, it gets laggy as hell. And remember, it's a 2D game. Now think about 3D water physics. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSwASbUzt0s[/url] Now Valve just needs to recreate a engine. Piece o' cake.[/QUOTE] Phun sucks try OE-Cake it's better

Gmod not having good physics? No, [b]Source[/b] not having good physics. Don't blame a MOD, blame the ENGINE.

Stop complaining, the SOURCE engine is like 5 years old or something. If you want, you can make your own damn game from some other engine. Try the Frostbite one, looks real nice. And you really should'nt complain about Garry's Mod. It gives you so much and you find a flaw about it. Oh, and it's not the mod that has the "crappy physics". It is Valve and their way of interpereting it in '04 with Half Life 2.

Since I can't make this a reality (I'm not a programmer), I'm hoping someone can. For Dynamic Water... This theory does not involve small particles. It is a layered + networked process. The surface of water consists of accurate animations without any particles, and is a special entity. The surface's height depends on the "variable water-chunks" (The sizes of these physics objects vary, and they slide past each other. They feel a slight force pushing down when they try to pass the surface. If enough force pushes the chunks upward, the surface's height can change)that players can pass though. Virtual pathways will be stretchable lines that connect chunks. Surround the connecting pathways with "psuedo-water" (which is the water in the normal Havok engine or some sort of sprite/3D brush/screen overlay). If there is a physics object (depending on size and choice) in the way of a "psuedo-water" pathway, don't fill that in. For water containers : Scoop up a chunk, and make a new "surface entity" inside the container. The chunk(s) that you scoop up will form new variably-sized chunks. For submarines : Chunks are unable to enter the watertight object, and no pathways are able to cross into this. For submarines with holes : This one is a bit complex. If the hole(s) is/are facing directly down, form a new "surface entity". If the submarine has a hole anywhere besides the bottom, let water in. If there is more than one hole and a hole is on a non-bottom surface of the submarine, let water in (even if there is a hole on the bottom). For a truly legitimate water physics based on my idea, apply a similar concept to air. The concept of air in games has to be rethought. If my concept was applied to air, then the "surface entity" does not need to apply a slight force to water chunks. Air chunks will apply the appropriate force. Air will have less viscosity/density. Feel free to criticize this. My idea isn't very refined, and I might miss some details.