Damage model

Unless you intend to do something like the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aayJjOTCjsY#t=32

I doubt this question really matters too much given that AC is intended as a clean, competitive Racing Sim. However, - do all cars have the engine in the front of the vehicle for the purposes of damage location calculation?

When a vehicle sustains a very energetic, critical collision with another object or vehicle on a track to its front section does the front of the model always contain the engine when determining damage within the car?

 

Damage is very week in AC, hope it gets way more hardcoer in the future, like in iRacing

 

The damage model type like in rf2 would do fine. Since there are falling and breakable pieces, like wheels, suspensions, wings, bumpers, and I think damage for internal components as well. Is not beamng, but is useful for motorsports racing, since beamng bends metal like plasticine, in real life the race cars have different types of material, so you see chunks of bodywork falling off.

 

I think (i am just guessing) they are defining some contact points, and link 3d objects to them! when there is a contact with some point ,depending on its violence, there is either only numerical damage (not visible) or the object separates from the body!

 

If someone really really likes a realistic damage model I would suggest to buy a 100-400 €/$ Car and have fun on non public roads

The damage model in AC is not the best ever seen, thats known. I guess they concentrate their power to other things atm and probably it will not change in the near future.

 

No answer to OP yet, I would like to know as well.

 

from what i can tell the icon will always show the engine in the front but hits to the rear and sides will knock the engine out regardless of the placement, i think there isnt really a placement for the engine regarding damage location, i think once a damage threshold has been met from any location the engine will die.

 

All right if it helps to answer this and we can sleep better today...

Here's a (nearly accurate) guess:
I would say the engine will always take damage from front collisions no mater if the engine of the car/model is mounted on front or rear.

Why?
1. There is no parameter or value in the data/*.ini files where you can define the position.
2. Well, beside the engine.ini where is nothing regarding the pos. of eng. there is the drivetrain section, but there you only can tell AC if this car is AWD,FWD, RWD. This will also not help.
3. The same for the damage parameters. Theres no value to set such for engines.
4. Tested it ingame and "yap" theres only engine damage when hitting the collison box frontal.
You could test and give the answer to your own.... -.-

 

In the last stream didn't Stefano mention toe and camber changes caused by collisions?

 

Nope, only toe at the moment. (1.2.5)
You know, this wired effect on the steering wheel when you have damaged your suspension and forces your car to go in another direction, but not the one you want

He thought (accepted) in the stream that adding camber deformation too, would be not a problem... if he'll not forget to add it. If camber deformation will be added to 1.3 is therefore open. We'll see.

 

I think that the engine icon is just to show you that you took a hit with such a mechanical damage that your car can't race anymore and not meaning the engine itself.

 

Wouldn't a damage model like the RFactor 2 one result in a significant performance hit when there are multiple pileups (particularly at the start)? Or can this kind of thing be easily handled by modern PCs?

 

rF1 already had falling parts and it's 10+ years old game.

 

BeamNG soft body damage.

 

The problem with softbody is, that it is very physics/CPU intensive.
Either we have very good driving physics or good softbody damage. Both would work for a single or few cars at once, but for a grid with 10 cars plus with in MP or even AI (also CPU)?
Nah don't think so. the physics Hz must be reduced to such a low lvl that the driving would not make fun.

 

I know, that is why I used the three smilies.


But still, it is something I'd love to see in race sims. One can dream huh.


OP's youtube solution:

BeamNG or the next car game.

 

Doesn't matter how old or new a game is. Is either you do or don't do it. Devs from rf1 could have also said we won't do it back then, and your theory now would have gone down the pipe.
I don't care if a game did it before and AC isn't doing it now; I only provided some examples in case they want to go forward with it.

 

Of course, a sim with nearly accurate physics and softbody deformation with effects on aero and driving physics would be a dream.
Well, sometime in future it will happen (when the common power of consumer PCs allows it)

ok, lets go back to present:
Personally I think the physical damage model could be more granulated into more zones and parts.
If they would have an visual expression is secondary for me, would be nice, but could live without it.

What should I do with visual good lookin damage when it has no physical effect?

 

When I was little and I got a new matchbox car or another modelled car I somethimes started to smash them and put some of these cars between a vise, to simulate accidents. I'm probably one of the exeptions that really enjoy graphical and visual car damage. I really do!

I'm always disappointed when a race sim doesn't have real time, realistic visual damage (such as BeamNG's soft body damage). Not that it is a deciding factor to get a game or not but is still is very important to me.

 

I remember when I was maybe 7 years old and was home alone. I came up with a brilliant idea - simulate a latter part of a serious crash, when the car is set on fire. The car model was made out of metal, but interior was plastic, it was a pickup version of Merc G class. I don't really remember how I set it on fire, I guess it was matches. I placed Merc on the windowsill and watched it burning. I must have done a great job on this "simulation" because when my mom came in and she saw what is going on (you wouldn't believe how big the fire can be from such a small toy ) she acted like there is some serious accident happening. Thankfully curtain was short enough to not take a part in this action.
Fun times of being a brainless kid, lesson not learned as I've always liked to play with fire when I was older (but not at home anymore, for some reason).

I wish I could say that talking about destroying toys is somehow linked to the thread topic, but it would be too much.
Sorry for OT.