Damage Realism in GPL/N3

Hi All, The one thing that bugs me about GPL, is the total lack of realism when it comes to the damage model... What I mean is, nothing else is canned, but the damage, since day one of sims I guess, has been. In GPL I expect, with realistic damage, to be able to bend the suspension up, if I were to hit the wall at 45degs at 20mph. These care weren't that strong were they?? Here we are with the pinnacle of computer racing sims. and the damage modelling seems as advanced as ICR1. Was it Coulthard at Adelaide who crashed a Williams in the pit entry? Do this in GPL with realistic damage and you may not even get a flat, heck people cheat at the Lesmos at 180Mph. Does anyone agree here? GPL's physics engine is awesome, every aspect is modelled, tiny bit too much brake, the wheel locks, but only if XYZ conditions are also true. I am no expert on this, but from all I have read it is VERY realistic. However, when the car comes into contact with anything, it's back to some very simple maths equations, and only 3 or 4 canned "types". To me, and this is where I'll state me opinion, this does matter... Maybe it doesn't for many, but I would like to know. I get the idea having no visual clue that you have a flat is a pain, but I see it more deeply as: why can't we knock the toe in, squash the front tyres in toward the car body, like ICR2, but with greater calculation of how far/bad that suspension gets crushed in. Have the wheel go all wibbly-wobbly, then maybe drop off at a certain time later. I appreciate with body damage, that in GPL it's hard to model crumple zones. These things were pretty solid wern't they? I don't know really so I won't go on, but this is very important I feel for N3. Clips with the wall in N2 can have really dodgy impact sounds but F9 reveals nothing is damaged. A slightly lesser impact and you may be surprised to hear the spotter start "looks like..." In N3, with NROS and general online racing, I think it's really going to be necessary for N3 to show us a damage model that allows as much simulation as the car itself. Every little scrape will need to have an impact on the body of a stocker, and this should play as much a part of a car's speed in a race, as the calculations with the tyres and the road.. Thanks for listening, -:[link lost in import]

You crash? Not me, the real fun is racing. Don

writes: I'm not a programmer, but what you're describing sounds like a lot of work to me, and I'd rather have the sim now than at some time in the next century. ;-) Besides, it's a RACING sim, not a crashing sim. Regards Pinebox

% Hi All, % The one thing that bugs me about GPL, is the total lack of realism % when it comes to the damage model... <snip> I would assume that you are not driving in Pro Damage... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

You're right. It's a simulator, it should simulate. I can understand wanting to put more attention to driving than crashing, but not to the extent that the damage is inconsistant, or has a lack of effect on driving. What about it, Papy?

Quoted text (52 lines)

>Hi All, >The one thing that bugs me about GPL, is the total lack of realism >when it comes to the damage model... >What I mean is, nothing else is canned, but the damage, since day one >of sims I guess, has been. In GPL I expect, with realistic damage, to >be able to bend the suspension up, if I were to hit the wall at 45degs >at 20mph. These care weren't that strong were they?? >Here we are with the pinnacle of computer racing sims. and the damage >modelling seems as advanced as ICR1. Was it Coulthard at Adelaide who >crashed a Williams in the pit entry? Do this in GPL with realistic >damage and you may not even get a flat, heck people cheat at the >Lesmos at 180Mph. >Does anyone agree here? GPL's physics engine is awesome, every aspect >is modelled, tiny bit too much brake, the wheel locks, but only if XYZ >conditions are also true. I am no expert on this, but from all I have >read it is VERY realistic. However, when the car comes into contact >with anything, it's back to some very simple maths equations, and only >3 or 4 canned "types". >To me, and this is where I'll state me opinion, this does matter... >Maybe it doesn't for many, but I would like to know. I get the idea >having no visual clue that you have a flat is a pain, but I see it >more deeply as: why can't we knock the toe in, squash the front tyres >in toward the car body, like ICR2, but with greater calculation of how >far/bad that suspension gets crushed in. Have the wheel go all >wibbly-wobbly, then maybe drop off at a certain time later. >I appreciate with body damage, that in GPL it's hard to model crumple >zones. These things were pretty solid wern't they? I don't know really >so I won't go on, but this is very important I feel for N3. >Clips with the wall in N2 can have really dodgy impact sounds but F9 >reveals nothing is damaged. A slightly lesser impact and you may be >surprised to hear the spotter start "looks like..." In N3, with NROS >and general online racing, I think it's really going to be necessary >for N3 to show us a damage model that allows as much simulation as the >car itself. Every little scrape will need to have an impact on the >body of a stocker, and this should play as much a part of a car's >speed in a race, as the calculations with the tyres and the road.. >Thanks for listening, >Jon.Guest >-:http://www.simproject.com/ccg/

I agree to a point, but for the most part it's ok. If I go over a curb really hard it will knock the supsension out of whack, but I would like some panel damage ala Viper. JM

Quoted text (52 lines)

> Hi All, > The one thing that bugs me about GPL, is the total lack of realism > when it comes to the damage model... > What I mean is, nothing else is canned, but the damage, since day one > of sims I guess, has been. In GPL I expect, with realistic damage, to > be able to bend the suspension up, if I were to hit the wall at 45degs > at 20mph. These care weren't that strong were they?? > Here we are with the pinnacle of computer racing sims. and the damage > modelling seems as advanced as ICR1. Was it Coulthard at Adelaide who > crashed a Williams in the pit entry? Do this in GPL with realistic > damage and you may not even get a flat, heck people cheat at the > Lesmos at 180Mph. > Does anyone agree here? GPL's physics engine is awesome, every aspect > is modelled, tiny bit too much brake, the wheel locks, but only if XYZ > conditions are also true. I am no expert on this, but from all I have > read it is VERY realistic. However, when the car comes into contact > with anything, it's back to some very simple maths equations, and only > 3 or 4 canned "types". > To me, and this is where I'll state me opinion, this does matter... > Maybe it doesn't for many, but I would like to know. I get the idea > having no visual clue that you have a flat is a pain, but I see it > more deeply as: why can't we knock the toe in, squash the front tyres > in toward the car body, like ICR2, but with greater calculation of how > far/bad that suspension gets crushed in. Have the wheel go all > wibbly-wobbly, then maybe drop off at a certain time later. > I appreciate with body damage, that in GPL it's hard to model crumple > zones. These things were pretty solid wern't they? I don't know really > so I won't go on, but this is very important I feel for N3. > Clips with the wall in N2 can have really dodgy impact sounds but F9 > reveals nothing is damaged. A slightly lesser impact and you may be > surprised to hear the spotter start "looks like..." In N3, with NROS > and general online racing, I think it's really going to be necessary > for N3 to show us a damage model that allows as much simulation as the > car itself. Every little scrape will need to have an impact on the > body of a stocker, and this should play as much a part of a car's > speed in a race, as the calculations with the tyres and the road.. > Thanks for listening, > Jon.Guest > -:http://www.simproject.com/ccg/

>The one thing that bugs me about GPL, is the total lack of realism >when it comes to the damage model... >Does anyone agree here? GPL's physics engine is awesome, every aspect >is modelled, tiny bit too much brake, the wheel locks, but only if XYZ >conditions are also true. Given unlimited processor power and unlimited development time I would like to see realistic damage. Two things however ; 1) Coding such a thing will detract from development time (not a big issue), but also from processor time (this is a big issue). I think we will see realistic damage, but GPL was just a first step along the road within the limits of what time and power allow. Where this will go in future will be incredible. 2) I'm not Ayrton Senna and you're not Michael Schumacher. Racecars are much stronger than your average car in general, but open wheelers are not, and any contact will usually damage them pretty badly. Not that many people would be able to drive a GPL car with realistic damage for any length of time. On top of that I'd say that GPL primarily simulates driving and racing, and the damage is there not so much to be totally accurate but enough to keep you honest by not ramming, grass-cutting or shifting with your foot flat to the floor. Overall you're right, and the damage isn't as ultra-realistic as other parts of the sim, but there are justifiable reasons for this, at least IMO. Cheers! John

>On top of that I'd say that GPL primarily simulates driving and >racing, and the damage is there not so much to be totally accurate but >enough to keep you honest by not ramming, grass-cutting or shifting >with your foot flat to the floor. Overall you're right, and the damage >isn't as ultra-realistic as other parts of the sim, but there are >justifiable reasons for this, at least IMO. To back up John's argument, I'd like to add that you also need to realise the priorities when developing a game. If you're designing a racing sim, you want most of the development efforts to be channeled into the racing experience itself, or if you're designing a combat flight simulation, you'd want most of the development spent on the flight model, weapons, systems, graphics, and AI. What proportion of the game is spent driving and flying vs the amount of time crashing. The crashing is a very minor element, all things considered and I don't know of any sim that has realistic damage modelling. You're right in suggesting that damage modelling isn't good enough - I agree with you, but there are and always will be other aspects of the title that are more important and will be developed further (unless you're developing an impact simulator <g>). What I would say is that every designer and developer likes to improve on what has gone before them, so to look on the bright side, the situation should always get better. Mike.

Well, I agree the INTENT of your argument, but for the one point highlighted above: damage modelling, IMO is VERY critical, because it happens so frequently (to me, anyway <G>). Every race driver certainly knows that even MINOR toe-in damage or even a simple tiny piece of paper over the grill, can certainly ruin your day. I've watched races where the 2nd place car had to pit to take a paper cup off the grill! I've also seen people lose a race because a relatively minor mishap early in the race made them slower and slower as time went on. I truly believe damage modelling should be HIGHLY developed. More so than clouds (except for their temperature changing capabilities) or crowds or even sounds! Don Hancock "Gunner" ICQ 24045680

Quoted text (17 lines)

>Michael E. Carver mcarver, described by the Rev Spooner as a shining wit, >said: >>% The one thing that bugs me about GPL, is the total lack of realism >>% when it comes to the damage model... >><snip> >>I would assume that you are not driving in Pro Damage... >Assumptions are dangerous things <g> Except for online races, I always >drive with "realistic" damage and whilst GPL can give some nice >intermediate damage effects (bent suspension, damaged tyre, etc) I do >generally agree with Jon that the damage is toned down from what it should >be. Personally I wouldn't describe it as a "total lack of realism" but it's >pretty much arbitrary whether some quite substantial impacts actually cause >damage or not.

"Total lack" was too harsh, Mike & Richard. My point wasn't to say GPL is any less, just that I feel that Papy are proceeding greatly with the car physics, but are leaving the damage trailing behind <end pun> To summarise my post, I *hope* that Papy can improve it, and that given what they have, they could have made the "Realistic" mode of damage, as "realistic" as the car physics are. This would make the realistic mode a very elite afair, and IMO give total satisfaction if completing a race in it. I expect I could string together a lot of laps at many of the tracks with no sign of a spin, so the fact a tyre will be ripped off after a small brush with a barrier, is only at the back of my mind. This only goes for about 4 tracks, and not Kylami for sure! As Richard points out.. ;) It's more than a good point..... Yet all the same, if we could have a realitic damage mode, just with the current values lowered a bit, I would prolly wreck more Lotus's in training and have to escape to get a new car, that I would be a lot more conservative. Thanks! -:http://www.simproject.com/ccg/

Quoted text (14 lines)

>>The one thing that bugs me about GPL, is the total lack of realism >>when it comes to the damage model... >>Does anyone agree here? GPL's physics engine is awesome, every aspect >>is modelled, tiny bit too much brake, the wheel locks, but only if XYZ >>conditions are also true. >Given unlimited processor power and unlimited development time I would >like to see realistic damage. Two things however ; >1) Coding such a thing will detract from development time (not a big >issue), but also from processor time (this is a big issue). I think we >will see realistic damage, but GPL was just a first step along the >road within the limits of what time and power allow. Where this will >go in future will be incredible.

I agree totally. It just hit my after a few laps last night how superb the car felt, and then suddenly I was hitting some barriers (of only a few microns width), and the car was none the worse. That is true, but I am sure even GPL's damage model should have been upped so that it was just as it should be, "realistic" You really would have to have immense skill. If Papy want to make the most realistic simulator ever, then surely a realistic damage level that literally means a brush can end your day than so be it... In Icr2, practically any tap of an AI gave you front wing damage, which kills handling on ovals.. Heck, I wouldn't use that mode for racing in GPL (of any distance), I wouldn't expect anyone to race online with that mode. But at least it would be there so you could go out for a "spin", with what seemed like a true sense of what happens when things just go a *tiny* bit wrong, and a lot wrong. Realistic currently doesn't do that for me... Yes, I again fully agree that GPL is justified. I just think it is an area that is glossed over and thought I may see what people think by this thread.. I would be very pleased to see a much more radical damage model for N3, I guess it would be called something like "dynamic impact reaction" (forgive me for not being that techincally minded) whereas the body shell could recieve damage of nearly every percievable type based on the contact with other cars or the scenery. I shall state again that this is more a dream and I am aware of the reasons why this is not possible. As you say, the aim is to simulate driving, and this should always be the main objective. I just feel that when placed in the most realistic driving simulator to date, the car feels great, but the rest of the calculations in the environment could have been increased to provide that feel of danger, in the relevant modes. It feels "dumbed down" (?) to me, which is precisly what they haven't done for the car physics. This could be corrected IMO without needing a new damage calculator... Thanks, -:http://www.simproject.com/ccg/

Heh. :) I do have this tendancy to lose control and find a nice hard object to combine with every now and then. I guess your view is the view that many have, and I generally agree. I mustn't foget, we have the best simulator to date, yet improvments will happen in every Papy release, I just feel that this is important, and may be overlooked by many... Thanks, -:http://www.simproject.com/ccg/

>Also, if I get moderate damage to a tyre or suspension, often the first you >know about it is when you get to the next corner. It would be nice to >include a visual representation of the damage, as per ICR2. (I'm talking >about the sort of damage that doesn't throw the steering completely out of >whack here!). That would be nice, although often in real life the first indication of damage is when you get to the next corner and one side doesn't brake or a wheel locks - that's when you next stress your car. I think GPL could do with a few more aural or visual clues as to when something has gone wrong or is about to go wrong, but generally it's pretty good. I actually quite like the "not knowing" exactly what is wrong and having to very carefully feel out what the car is no longer capable of without unexpectedly throwing it off the road. Then you need to work out the fastest way around the track with a compromised car - it's a nice challenge. Cheers! John

That isn't an argument for making it more realistic though, since damaging the car isn't the target of the sim. If I blow my engine every other lap that doesn't mean the sim should more accurately model the way I do it, in fact it means I should try and stop doing it. In GPL I guess it would be pretty difficult to get minor toe-in damage at the speeds people generally go off the road. From what I see of online races the typical accident is a triple lutz end over end barrel roll with a mid air pike, and no matter how you dice it that is race over in any formula. In defence of GPL's current damage model I should say that I had an online race last night at Zandvoort, chasing Matt Rowe for first place. Into Panorama I realised I was going in too hot, and _just_ failed to keep the car on the road. I gently bumped the fence, kept the car straight and rolled back onto the road without losing too much. After that the car was a pig, locking up the loaded LF very easily and picking up wheelspin out of every corner, so I had to feel my way back around the track and find out what I could and couldn't do. In that case the damage seemed to work pretty well. It is something that would be nice to do better, and I think it's something we will see in future products - it's just not the number one priority to do "properly" as Mike pointed out. Cheers! John

I agree that the damage model leaves something to be desired, although in balance it is not that bad. There are two correlated problems that I believe to be much worse, however: 1: the AI cars do not seem subject to the same damage model as we are 2: minor mechanical and damage problems were fixed in the pits in those days, but we can't do that. Racing for 7/8ths of a full length race and then being "eliminated" because of a minor incident than could be fixed in a short pit stop is unacceptable to me. I don't care about pit stall or crew graphics, but if I have the ability to limp or drive back to my stall, I want to suffer a time penalty (even a canned one) and then proceed in the race if the problem is determined to be repairable. For me, this is by far the number 1 problem with GPL. Marc.

Quoted text (52 lines)

>Hi All, >The one thing that bugs me about GPL, is the total lack of realism >when it comes to the damage model... >What I mean is, nothing else is canned, but the damage, since day one >of sims I guess, has been. In GPL I expect, with realistic damage, to >be able to bend the suspension up, if I were to hit the wall at 45degs >at 20mph. These care weren't that strong were they?? >Here we are with the pinnacle of computer racing sims. and the damage >modelling seems as advanced as ICR1. Was it Coulthard at Adelaide who >crashed a Williams in the pit entry? Do this in GPL with realistic >damage and you may not even get a flat, heck people cheat at the >Lesmos at 180Mph. >Does anyone agree here? GPL's physics engine is awesome, every aspect >is modelled, tiny bit too much brake, the wheel locks, but only if XYZ >conditions are also true. I am no expert on this, but from all I have >read it is VERY realistic. However, when the car comes into contact >with anything, it's back to some very simple maths equations, and only >3 or 4 canned "types". >To me, and this is where I'll state me opinion, this does matter... >Maybe it doesn't for many, but I would like to know. I get the idea >having no visual clue that you have a flat is a pain, but I see it >more deeply as: why can't we knock the toe in, squash the front tyres >in toward the car body, like ICR2, but with greater calculation of how >far/bad that suspension gets crushed in. Have the wheel go all >wibbly-wobbly, then maybe drop off at a certain time later. >I appreciate with body damage, that in GPL it's hard to model crumple >zones. These things were pretty solid wern't they? I don't know really >so I won't go on, but this is very important I feel for N3. >Clips with the wall in N2 can have really dodgy impact sounds but F9 >reveals nothing is damaged. A slightly lesser impact and you may be >surprised to hear the spotter start "looks like..." In N3, with NROS >and general online racing, I think it's really going to be necessary >for N3 to show us a damage model that allows as much simulation as the >car itself. Every little scrape will need to have an impact on the >body of a stocker, and this should play as much a part of a car's >speed in a race, as the calculations with the tyres and the road.. >Thanks for listening, >Jon.Guest >-:http://www.simproject.com/ccg/

% In GPL I guess it would be pretty difficult to get minor toe-in damage % at the speeds people generally go off the road. From what I see of % online races the typical accident is a triple lutz end over end barrel % roll with a mid air pike, and no matter how you dice it that is race % over in any formula. In defence of GPL's current damage model I should % say that I had an online race last night at Zandvoort, chasing Matt % Rowe for first place. Into Panorama I realised I was going in too hot, % and _just_ failed to keep the car on the road. I gently bumped the % fence, kept the car straight and rolled back onto the road without % losing too much. After that the car was a pig, locking up the loaded % LF very easily and picking up wheelspin out of every corner, so I had % to feel my way back around the track and find out what I could and % couldn't do. In that case the damage seemed to work pretty well. Speaking of Zandy, I don't recall if it was with Pro or Advanced damage, but during an on-line race, I slid off course while attempting to allow a faster car by and rolled backwards up one of the numerous hills. I didn't hit anything, but let me tell you, it bent my rear suspension and the car was then a beast to drive while I slowly and carefully finished my 2 laps to the finish. Damage is there and maybe it's just too subtle for some user's taste. I've suffered a flat tire from just brushing the rear of another car at the start of a race. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 19:48:49 GMT, "Michael E. Carver" >my 2 laps to the finish. Damage is there and maybe it's just too subtle >for some user's taste. I've suffered a flat tire from just brushing the >rear of another car at the start of a race. Online is a whole new ball game. Thanks to warping it's difficult for the sim to know how fast you were really going when contact was made. For that reason a 10mph tap can be transformed into a 10,000mph disaster if a little warp pops it's head round the door. Cheers! John

The visual side of damage can be done - look at Viper Racing, TOCA and CMR, which have crumpled bodies, shattered windscreens, bits lost, misaligned wheels etc. I'm not that bothered except for being able to see broken suspension and blown tyres. Paul

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >Also, if I get moderate damage to a tyre or suspension, often the first you > >know about it is when you get to the next corner. It would be nice to > >include a visual representation of the damage, as per ICR2. (I'm talking > >about the sort of damage that doesn't throw the steering completely out of > >whack here!). > That would be nice, although often in real life the first indication > of damage is when you get to the next corner and one side doesn't > brake or a wheel locks - that's when you next stress your car. I think > GPL could do with a few more aural or visual clues as to when > something has gone wrong or is about to go wrong, but generally it's > pretty good. I actually quite like the "not knowing" exactly what is > wrong and having to very carefully feel out what the car is no longer > capable of without unexpectedly throwing it off the road. Then you > need to work out the fastest way around the track with a compromised > car - it's a nice challenge. > Cheers! > John

> Online is a whole new ball game. Thanks to warping it's difficult for > the sim to know how fast you were really going when contact was made. > For that reason a 10mph tap can be transformed into a 10,000mph > disaster if a little warp pops it's head round the door. Absolutely! Online is the #1 priority for development. I suspect that much of this development will need to be focused around the infrastructure (cables, modems etc) but I think there is still room for programmatic work in this area. Overtaking online in GPL is only possible if you're much faster than your opponent. You can't sit in his/her slipstream and then dive out because he/she always jitters about so much that you'll probably get hit. It seems the only strategy is to sit just off someone's tail and pressurise them into making a mistake. Paul

% Could someone tell me how to find out what damage the car has taken.I blow % my motor and I know it because the dam thing explodes but in one of the Papy % Cup races,Doug Arnao dnf due to a blown camshaft.How do they know this?? Dan If you press ESCape during a race and retire, the "results" page should indicate why you needed to "retire". Sometimes if the damage was caused to the engine or suspension during an accident, "accident" will be listed. However, if you abused the engine or bent the suspension or flattened a tire, these things will be listed. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=