![]() ![]() that is on the identical computer with identical hardware from the last time I ran it. Heck, just from December of 2019 to July of 2021 (the two times I ran the Banana test on my computer) performance went up by 26%. Third, not only is processing power increasing still at a fairly large rate, but the Dev's have actually managed to reduce the impact of the physics engine SUBSTANCIALLY. So more than likely your computer will handle 2 or 3 less cars than your actual processor has threads. This isn't necessarily 1:1 as most times the OS has to take up at least 1 thread along with the rest of the game engine/UI has to take up another, then probably Steam or other background programs taking up a third. On the plus side, as long as your computer has the power to run 1 vehicle on 1 thread, then it has the power to pretty much run as many vehicles as your computer has free threads. this leads to a lot of waisted cycles, and thus why vehicles are run on their own thread. This type of mathematics doesn't work well when it comes to parallel computing as each core just sits waiting for the answer from another core. This is because due to the way that the math is done, all the mathematics of a particular vehicle rely on the answer to the math that came one step before. Second, vehicles don't require their own core, but do require their own thread. Then their is the fun of making the two play nicely with each other with totally different collision systems. Now, onto why something like this hasn't been done.įirstly, some are suggesting using a rigid body system, and while that has potential to work, essentially you just end up having the Dev team program another physics engine into beam as beam just isn't meant to run with a ridged body physics system. first, let me start off with this is not a bad idea, as of course everyone wants to be able to run more cars for traffic. ![]() I think this would be a reasonable approach to have BeamNG with denser traffic and still good performance.Ĭlick to expand.Ok. And to avoid the situation where the simplified model wouldn't be programmed to deal with damage, just have the AI turn off after a crash, just like in real life a driver would usually stay put after a crash. They can keep their j-beams so crashes with them are realistic, but the driving itself should use a much more simplified model. Traffic just needs to move believably and countless other games have done that. We don't need traffic AI to run through the same complex physics model as the normal vehicle. So why not create a simplified driving model just for traffic AI? It wouldn't apply to chase or fleeing AI, just traffic AI. My understanding is that with the current vehicle physics that's not possible, given the complexity of all the vehicle components & their forces interacting with each other which requires a CPU core to run a single vehicle. I think all of us could agree more traffic vehicles would be nice. I found a thread from years ago about this, but of course this forum won't let you bump it, and I'd like to start a new discussion on this. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |