An actual damage model
- Thread starter Matt Y
- Start date
Sadly, this seems to be the main issue. Provocative idea: what if Kunos content was just non-licensed fake cars that suspiciously resemble real cars (and community can put real skins on them) that can be cronched? And Kunos allows mods and spends most of of time on the underlying game engine for AC2 including damage model? Like the original rFactor, basically. I personally wouldn't be 100% against this.
I would love not just a damage model but also stuff like chassis flex and a better tire model as well
That is a topic for another thread, though!
i'm always bit torn , I thought the damange that was in AC was good enough, maybe if some of the pieces could fly away, but yeah, not really full on destruction,
things like broken wheels though would be cool
iRacing does have amazing damange, although I only saw it in videos
things like broken wheels though would be cool
iRacing does have amazing damange, although I only saw it in videos
I see this being repeated over and over but to me it does not make any sense whatsoever. I would like to see some sources. I mean I don't doubt it, it sounds just like something out-of-touch marketing people come up with. But have brand representatives really said this or is this just something game developers say to avoid spending money on proper damage model?
How does a wrecked racecar damage brand image? Real damaged race cars are being seen all the time, and I don't see how that damages the brands. It's just something that happens. A car does not usually look pristine after a 200kmh collision with a cement wall. So what?
Judging by how much people apparently want to see wrecked cars (based on popularity of beamNG and real race car crash videos) a realistic damage model could actually bring positive brand visibility.
I also think that realistic crash and damage modeling would be very nice as it would add to the immersion of the game. Generally things that behave in a non realistic way in a simulator bother me a bit.
Last edited:
The problem is not the manufacturers that don't want damage, that's mainly a Gran Turismo philosophy (which to me makes no sense, as they could simply add an option and who likes the cars to be indestructible disables damage). The main problem is the amount of calculations required to make a good damage model. You don't want to simulate sponges like in BeamNg, which reminds me a lot of Algodoo or Phun, similar programs to play with physics. You need to take in account the resistance of the materials, the defibration of the chassis and the deformation during the impact. All of this can require a lot of CPU power. Also from the point of view of the graphic engine you'd probably need to implement bones for your car meshes to let them interact with physics. This may actually be possible to some extent. However a complete damage model includes energy absorbing zones made by the manufacturers with crash test results, so patented data, authorizations and so on are required. If back in the day Kunos added in AC an average damage model, not very realistic, people would've complained, so devs kept it as it was in the first place, basically textures. Maybe some day Ilja will add in AC some detachable meshes for cars and particles, so at least you will see some "shattering shards" on the track, that will be the compromise.
Its worse than that, its a fan assumption its not based in reality. Nils talked about it on one of his streams, the brands do not have issues with damage at all, its just time consuming for the developers and they choose not to do it. Its not nor has it ever been a requirement by the car manufacturers.
I think that more important than damage modeling would be proper crash physics. So when cars crash into each other, with walls etc. they would bounce in a realistic way. Currently they behave like a bit like balloons a lot of the time. In real life, when a car crashes into a barrier, it does not just bounce back like a billiards ball but the car and the barrier deform and absorb the impact and it looks quite a bit different. I think the energy absorption is missing.
