What happened to Physics Engine???

as you may notice the all might engine has gone from the sc2 engine , and in ra3 too..

now there is a tip that someone put a patent over an physics in RTS, i have no idea about that, and i am really disapointed!!!!!

AOE3 has physics engine, why Blizzard will drop physics? what is going on?

p.s smell nvidia+ageia physics+physics drivers in G80-G92 GPUS! damn

 

Didnt they already mention physics engine in Protoss demo?

 

Noticed from where? Show us your source. This sounds awful and ridiculous.

 

source???look ALL the latest gameplay Videos everywhere on the web, the building explosions are Not physics!!!!

Yes they announced it in Prott demo, but since then, nothing new........no physics explosions in units or buildings!!!!

 

That's eye candy. It's only logical that they won't create all the exploding animations for placeholder units. Even if some things are (kind of) guaranteed to stay (queen, barracks, etc.), they might be redesigned countless times, and so the death animations would have to be as well. Blizzard keeps the visuals to a bare minimum to avoid unnecessary work. When everything is final, they will create all these details.

ps I meant the source for the 'patent on physics in RTS games' part

 

I hope so
big explosions and funny deaths are something I've come to expect from BLIZZARD.
like zerglings, who knew such a little guy can create so much blood.

 

yeh the unit now just go poof.

i want the physics back, specially for big units like thor, bc, colossus, etc.

 

oh god I just remembered this one time i got besieged by like 100 zerglings and i had 12 reavers in place, all waiting, with some zealots to provide a meat shield....SO MUCH BLOOD

oh yeah and I don't really care about a physics engine, as long as the game looks relatively good and works well

 

Nothing?

 

http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml

Search for physics.

 

@johnnyxp64
physics schmisix..

can you imagine your base suddenly got nuked by a single missile and then still see the place intact?? they didnt totally declared that they are going to implement physics in every matter.. they just said that they are going to add a physics engine to make it more realistic...

1st of all not everything in SC can be explained by our modern physics so it maybe irrelevant after all to tackle defying the laws of physics in a sci-fi game like SC... though you have a point there of asking where is the engine.. i wouldnt totally agree on believing that physics engine is cut off coz its still just a trial version they are showing in korea and some other videos.. maybe we could just wait for more Q&A batch for that..

 

speaking of which, i wonder if they will consider how the nuke will destroy the buildings, like if it lands in the middle of the buildings, the scraps would fly in away from the nuclear explosion.

 

Can anyone link a video where there isn't a physics engine? All the ones I've seen so far have been just like the original Protoss gamplay video, except for placeholder animations, like that of the Hydralisk.

 

well the best is the latest Zerg gameplay, notice that siege tanks, batte crusers and buildings explode, not having dibrees, or visit sc2pod.com and check the multiplayer matches cerefully, all stuff die without any physics.

i just hope its out for the momment and for tweaking issues and would be great if someone could asked it for the next Q&A Batch 40.

imagin a siege tank torn apart piece by piece from zerglings!
or even better aircrafts destroys there pices will fail and damage the under units!!!
now there is a bunch of tactics to use

 

The plus side of having a very basic physics engine (All i've heard is debris slides down ramps?) is that it won't require as much computer power! They can't make it too artsy with great explosions or all the Hardcore players would complain it distracts them and blocks too much of the screen. Everything has to be clean and decisive in SC and physics takes that away to some extent. I'm not saying have no physics but just because its a new game doesn't mean they have to cram every last peice of technology into it like other developers do.

@Johnnyxp64 Aircraft falling on to units under them doesn't really match what SC2 is trying to achieve. Blizzard makes games which are simple but they work really well. This feature adds a whole new level to how things could be implemented which isn't a good thing since balancing it in its current state seems to be giving them headaches anyway >>. Maybe you could have seige tanks get pulled apart by zerglings but we havn't seen any sign of this being implemented and we all know blizzard loves to show things off or at least hint at them and we've heard nothing of anything like this.

Physics will just be another thing to boost the eye candy, it won't be incredible and something groundbreaking it'll just be something which is there to make unit deaths look a bit nicer and battles more realistic. Just like every other rts

 

There's still minor debris in the death animation, they're the piece that fly outwards in a trail of smoke. Anyway, as kuvasz said, it's probably just because none of the models are final. Keep in mind that the original Protoss gameplay video, which announced and showed us the physics engine, was a demonstration. They had all that debris it to demonstrate the capabilities of their new physics engine. Since they've already shown us that, it's not necessary for them to program or apply or whatever that to every single unit, especially for videos that they don't intend to be publicised, because the chances are great that most units will be altered, cut or replaced. As another example, in one of the Terran gamplay videos, it showed the immobilised Thor that was in the game at one stage, but there was no animation to lead to its immobilised state. It was just perfectly normal, then instantly crippled. The same goes for several voices and death animations. In a lot of other videos we've seen, units either still use their original StarCraft1 voice, or have a crummy death animation. The reason for this is because it's not a demonstration, it's just a viewing of some of the most recent tests and games.

 

deep in my heart i belive in this one too, and Blizzard will find a way to balance things up.
and makes perfect sence...so far...


marinefreak@ i agree in most of your points with you too, but we must look into the future sometime, not having the DOS compatibility for ever like /microsoft did. usefull indeed But lucks in performance,

the same goes with physics, visual appearence Does Matter a lot in our days.


p.s out of topic but when are we gona get rid from 32bit too????

 

The mosty important is really not the eye-candy, but that the gameplay is good and that explosion etc. dont make it impossible to control ones units. So I think its therefore Blizzard is using it times on gameplay + smaller explosions.

 

It's not needed, but it adds a nice depth to the game that is great to watch and interact with.

 

Hello,

He is referring to a thread in the EA Red Alert 3 messageboards. Apparently someone in the thread said that blizzard removed the physics engine from Starcraft 2 in order to decrease system requirements. The thread itself was started by jx64. It was speculating the possibility that a physics engine might be absent in the upcoming Red alert 3.

I browse the EA RA3 messageboards daily so I knew immediately what he was talking about.

The link to that thread is here: http://forums.ea.com/mboards/thread.jspa?threadID=370247&tstart=0

I hope its OK by the moderators to post this link. If not then remove plz.