Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

APEX Demolition for buildings and concrete
Closed, ResolvedPublic


APEX Demolition is a part of PhysiX, watch video and imagine in ArmA.

It´s would be better than predefine animation for destruction.


Legacy ID
Have Not Tried
Game Physics
Additional Information

Event Timeline

plutoto74 edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
plutoto74 set Category to Game Physics.
plutoto74 set Reproducibility to Have Not Tried.
plutoto74 set Severity to None.
plutoto74 set Resolution to Duplicate.
plutoto74 set Legacy ID to 2459189370.May 7 2016, 3:08 PM
Fisgas added a subscriber: Fisgas.May 7 2016, 3:08 PM

The buildings in ArmA really could do with this implementation, however i think it might be too late in development to put this into the game. Upvoted anyway.

bez added a comment.Jun 29 2013, 3:51 PM

It's alwyas nice to see demos like that.
but look around you, there are no AI and the map is totaly empty.
there is only one building in the middle and a simple skybox.
Now compare that to ArmA...

Don't be fooled,
even BF3 uses predefined animations to thier building destruction.

I agree the animation could use ALLOT of work, but using Physix
for all the buildings in ArmA is just asking too much.

I will upvote "improve building destruction animation"
but sorry not this, downvoting.

APEX is an easier way to improve destruction. It´s tool to help devs in this way, after same problems; differents configs and settings in menu.

Should turn ON or OFF.

bez added a comment.Jun 29 2013, 4:02 PM

They can use APEX to make the animation and then bake it to the game.
but not using it real time in the game.

Look at the demo you posted it has ONE building, thats all.
ArmA have cities upon cities full with buildings,
AI, multiplayr code, vehicles volumetric clouds, etc etc.
what you are asking is just not valid for real time.

Also ArmA Phsyx sucks, don't think it will look like your demo
even if they would use it.

Anyway like I said I agree that the animations should improve dramaticly
if they use APEX or not to do it, it's up to them.

But using real time in the game is too much.

There's games using it, and in real time.

bez added a comment.Jun 29 2013, 4:09 PM

I am sure there are.
But do these games have 270 square kilometrs maps
with hounreds of building, houndreds of AI all iniside a multiplyer map?
do their ghame engines are 12 yeras old with patch upon a patch?
do their Physx are as "good" as Arma's Physx?

I find it hard to believe.

Could add GPU acceleration, though AMD would get left out.

bez added a comment.Jun 29 2013, 4:23 PM

I don't think even GPU acceleration would be enough
for the map sizes of arma to have all buildings using real time Physx demolition.

Don't get me wrong there is nothing I would want more
and I would love to be proven wrong (maybe GPU acceleration can work I don't know)
but lets be realistic, it's not your typical corridor shooter with a small map.

They could use it to bake the animation, it would look so much better
and can be done with out any significant performance lost in my opinion.

wUFr added a subscriber: wUFr.May 7 2016, 3:08 PM
wUFr added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 1:20 AM

Apex is nice, but ULTRA power-fps hungry (remember Mafia 2 ?). So voted down :(

The probleme with Arma that's not all the CPU and GPU capabilities are used, as it was mention.

Sorry for those who paid for an AMD GPU because NVidia bought PhysX, it´s why I choose my new config with an NVidia GPU. It´s writen at the beginning of Arma : NVidia. The only cards with Ageia technologie inside. Maybe sell your AMD cards, to have the full potential of Arma's PhysX.

Sure that Arma got big map, but since directX 10 or 11 ( don't remember ) not all triangles are calculated, only those you can see, that's a big improvement. AI be more a prob with CPU, and I heard that there's a problem for synchronisation of AI and graphics in real time ; there's a sort of bottleneck.

So if all the potential of our computer arrives to the max, then yes, I've been according to you...

wUFr added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 12:36 PM

for your info, they are using CPU version of PhysX

BIS did test this technology for ArmA 2 and it worked pretty well but there was problem with the MP so they scrapped it.

bez added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 12:55 PM

Using this for real time is just not feasible for a game like ArmA.
The better solution is to use Physx to bake the animation.

They can make 4 animations, each for each side of the building
depending where it was hit from and then bake the animation.
It would still look cool, better than what we have now for sure
and very much possible, I think everybody will be happy.

If the ticket would edit the suggestion to something like that,
I will upvote, but not real time demolition, just no.

Also FYI, even BF3 demolition is baked animation,
and it still looks good.

I agree with bez, it would look much more naturally then and be less resource-eating.

You would say LESS more naturally after resource-eating it's another prob.

bez added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 1:21 PM

@plutoto74 "You would say LESS more naturally after resource-eating it's another prob"
Sorry, but What? can you explain what you said just now, I don't get it, sorry :)

Imagine a house with a predefine animation, a tank is hitting it at the right side and the house be destroyed at the left one. So yes I pretend that it's less more natural.

bez added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 1:39 PM

Of course it's less natural than real time physx
but it's MILES better than what you have now.
And face it, real time is too demanding.

Also look at the quality of ArmA real time Physx,
it's pretty much crap if you ask me, collision issues etc.
Why do you think this would be any better?

And, FYI all these Physx destructions are very arcade like
they are not realistic at all, they are cool for gameplay, sure,
but not realistic.

The advantage of baked animation is, they can tweak it as much as needed
to make it look realistic enough, even if you hit a few meters to the side
of the initial impact animation.

Also, like I said, does BF3 destruction look so bad?
IMO it's pretty good, and news flash, it's predefined animation!

you didn't read what I said,
It's easy to make an animation for each side of the building.

APEX could start only when a building is damaged, so it's not heavy to resources unless the building is destroyed, and if you cannot see the building your PC doesn't calculate APEX effect.

Vote up.

bez added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 2:14 PM

OK, let's say for argument sake it's possible and I am wrong.
I still hope they won't do it, because let's face it, ArmA Physx integration sucks big time,

Look at the most simple of collisions, a car and a create for example,
it has clipping issues, unrealistic values, jumping around, or not moving at all
looks nothing like physics if you get what I mean.

Now take that and multiply it 100 folds to a collapsing building.
How do you think it would look? not like what you want it to look I am pretty sure.

So I still think Baked animation is a good solution,
and done smartly it can look great!

@plutoto74 if you would take time to read all post above mine maybe you could find out @bez meant to add few animation destructions for every side of the building. Wouldn't that look more natural than what is now?

Generating them through APEX seems a great and time-saving idea too.

Ok, I'm open to discuss. But don't say that's impossible. Maybe PhysX is not correct as it is now in game, but it's better that what we have seen before in the serie, just drive a car! As you said there's problems of values which is really important in real physic.

Now maybe there's questions about resources than APEX need to do a great job, but as we can see now the game turn without all CPU and GPU max power, so maybe it's a solution!

I hope than devs just try with NVidia to develop that, to know if it's possible or not and what config do we need.

You got my upvote plutoto we need better destruction and if one of us makes it to the devs we have succeded for a bit.

Well this could work and also not.. Since ai is really stupid i gues the map would be destroyed whitin 15 min on the other hand that adds realism but also dificult for the defs. How are we gona render this whitout your cpu and or gpu blowing. enc enc. In A2 CO the ace defs already implemented some type of destruction with BF3 animations but it was sketchy Fun but sketchy.

I definitely agree that the animation for building destruction could use some work, just simply like Blastcore FX's for ARMA 2 where chunks of building fly out but they are not physical they are just large particle effects.

bez added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 4:45 PM

indeed impressive, but like I said

  1. ArmA Physx integration is not as nearly as good as this.
  2. This demo have no AI.
  3. The map is smaller than the airport in Stratis.
  4. There are no other players (meaning not multiplayer with 60 players)
  5. There are no vehicles.
  6. There is no vegetation and terrain.
  7. It's only the facade that get's blown up, at the end the building stays up.
  8. And IMO, the demolition is not very realistic (impressive yes), but it feels very arcade like.

Don't get me wrong, it's impressive, but no one up until now
showed something like that in a real game environment, let alone a game like ArmA.

wUFr added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 4:53 PM

Vid demonstration with 1 building, now lets say we have big island in arma with thousands of objects


  1. ultra fps hungry - again, think about calling air strike or artilery inside village when hall of buildings will be destroyed - or you have NASA computer ?
  1. multiplayer sync of all these destroyed parts - just imposible

and for your info BF3 model of destrucition is pretty simple, becouse 1 building is like 8 pieces of walls (for example) and every wall can be destroyed, so that why it looks nice. But i dont think even this is possible in A3 becouse again of that large open world, BF3 is just small.. playground.

This technologi just cant be used in that big giant world as arma have ;) - Maybe on some extra objects created for some mission, but not all buildings.

EDIT: I think moderator can close this thread, becouse we all know, its not just possible in Arma 3. But you can try post this on call of duty forums :DD

Well you guys do not understand it now do you. We want this not in the same scale but similar to this. maybey defiding the houses in stratis in 10 pieces lower piece count in renderdistance. Enable on off feature in menu.

bez added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 5:12 PM

Raul we do understand,
but what you guys don't understand is that even if it is possible (and I stress IF)
it's not gonna happen, the game is too further in development to make
such a drastic change to maps the size of Altis.

Even so, I highly doubt this is possible with the ArmA engine anyway.

Even baked animations would be expensive to compute
why do you think the building just falls to the ground
you see some dust and then a destroyed model is just there?

Because it's too damn expensive to compute.

You think I don't want it to look better than it is now?
but let's be realistic here and try to think about solutions
the DEVS can actually work with and not just I WANT PHYSX I WANT I WANT...

XD same here.

Ok so to overperform, did BI use all cores of CPU, hyperthreadind, memory and the same for GPU? It's not to say that's APEX is possible, but are you sure is not?

Apex is possible but you need hyper treading and multycore rendering witch bis engine does not have.

bez added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 7:23 PM


Well, Let's say I am sure it's not possible as much as you are sure it is ;)

This is why we cant have nice things.. Because you people dont have faith in it.

bez added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 8:06 PM

At least we can all agree
that the building demolition should improve (one way or the other)
and that we all care about the game and want it to be in it's best,
otherwise we wouldn't discuss it here.

I really think that all is needed is better animations.
I really do believe it can look very good if done properly (for sure better than what we have now)
Again, look at BF3, it's all predefined animations and it does not look weird in any way.

Defenetly agreeing on that. I hope devs are reading this :P. Annyway lets not use crappy FB2 destruction in BF3 all we have seen is facades getting blown out no building collapsed.... I want somthing like FB1 in BC1 and BC2 where the houses collapse. Its not really that Extreemly awssome but itts deffenetly somthing to look at.

Yep, even BF3 predefined animations would be huge step forward for ArmA 3. It should looks more naturally, while APEX is sometimes generating weird effects. With animations that can be polished, easier and less resource eating task to do.

ArmA 3 devs - hope you have this on the list of things TODO

bez added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 8:19 PM

Sure I want building to collapse as well.
Even in BFBC2 it's all canned animations.
no real time physics there either.

OK, to understand, I prefer an answer from devs to know, they are at better place.

I don't know why it's always the war when it's talking about ideas.

I wish the best for everybody, and the same in the community, PEACE.

Ok this is possible. I jsut did the math for the pieces in arma stratis would have rufly 100K+ RGB's about 1000 Per building (dont forget fences lampost enc also need to be split) 1000 per building means 1000 individual random parts that a building can be devided to. SO destroying it compleetly would leave you with 1000 parts. Now thats allot but compared to games like PLanet side this is nothing since in one view that game has over 100K particles and 150K+ RBS flying around doing all different stuff. So techicaly its possible to do this but since i just downloaded and installed the software everything has to be redone. Things such as walls pillars enc and allot of texture mapping and configging comes looking at it so i have to say this is a no go. Unless devs ask from help for people that want this. I'd love to help and i think more people would want to aswell so this is possible but they need more hands for this. and idk if the engine can take it witch is somthing i should have mention first before this wall of bad grammar and spelling.

You guys do realize that Apex isnt ment to be about destroying buildings to the very bare bone... Its about adding new realistc features you can simply get a wal split it in half lenght wize and the outer wall you can split into say 4 more pieces. When a tank shoots thoese massife chucks either dissapear in a dust cloud with Physx particles or the fall to the ground and after a sec they become static with the ground.

bez added a comment.Jul 5 2013, 11:41 AM

Well because I enjoy doing these stuff and I learn it also
I did what you can call "proof of concept" for predefined destruction animation
Just hover your mouse around and click.

You know just for fun...

Ha thats pretty funny. But yes you see it is more realistic and fun to watch. they could implement this exactly whit the same amount of large chunks of building just add lots of dust and Physx particles and no one will notice it are such massife chunks.

bez added a comment.Jul 5 2013, 12:00 PM

Yeah it has no dust and particles at all,
which will hide most of the clipping issues and so on.

Also, since this is rendered to a 2D video, it's much harder to make,
if it was real 3D, it would have been much much easier to make more modular.

Here is something with some dust:

Again I did it just for fun, and this is very basic,
but I think it illustrate that even if a tank hit
a little bit to the side, it can still look nice.

Hey keep doing this. Im actually like these mini games :P How did you make em annyway? What engine did you used?

Even do the things you just showed me are just for fun. They already are better then what shitty A2 and A3 destruction has. These things trust me in arma are not hard to render and how high is the change you a re blowing up entire city's. THe only time you would have isues if you are dropping nukes whil'st in the air. On the ground all that needs to be rendered is what you see. So this needs to be implemented. AHHHH imagine the awsomeness.

bez added a comment.Jul 5 2013, 12:09 PM

3DS MAX with rayfire tool, it uses Physx.

God D*MM** i dont have 3ds max... bummer.

bez added a comment.Jul 5 2013, 12:12 PM

Well I don't have it also, it's at an office I work at sometimes.

wUFr added a comment.Jul 5 2013, 12:13 PM

"trust me in arma are not hard to render" ..and now someone is game developer in bohemia interactive :D

"change you a re blowing up entire city's" - Airstrike, artilery ?

..And what you think, game release is here in some months, so THEY GET TOTALY CRAZY AND COMPLETELY REBUILD WHOLE GAME ? :DDDD

-> Go on forums and start topic Arma 4 ideas / wishes :D

bez added a comment.Jul 5 2013, 12:14 PM

But you can use blender BTW to these kind of things
and blender also have very good fluid dynamics for smoke and so on
which max can only do with external plugins

And Blender is FREE!

I have blender <:D
Also wUFr I waited 6 god dam years for ArmA 3 and they want to do new things? Well start by actually tweaking IMPORTANT STUFF and not things that are prioratized LOW AS HELL. today's GPU's are powerfull enough to handle these things and still BIS hasn't figured out how to optimize this. They're new engine is as outdated as the old one only new features is the use of>>>>> PHYSX<<<< and some fancy new shaders. The engine still uses to less of the GPU and CPU and preforms bad. No realistic dammage same sketchy animations enc enc. Im sick and tired of Bis prioratizing useless things like SWIMING ANIMALS BECAUSE ITS IMPORTANT over somthing LIKE APEX destruction enc enc enc.

wUFr added a comment.Jul 5 2013, 12:40 PM

talking to the wall... totaly.

But have nice dreams about that, becouse apex buildings will not happen ;) part of physX =/= 1 "click" for developers, its completely rebuild of engine, multiplayer part and AI at first place.

"GPU and CPU and preforms bad" - Thats what they are working on right now for your info.

Actually you are on your own on this one. Has the same idea's as me. They had 6 years to do somthing new but they didn't. As for apex you dont need a new engine for it you only need to change the current coding to allow apex since Physx is a Nvidia engine on its own. And what do you know. Al you know is because you read posts and get your knowledge from them. I actually use physx engine,Blender engine, UDK engine, Unity engine, Flash and Java(who knows why). People always think its dificult but its not really you just need to know how. And also BIS wants to change they're engine thats why they started with Alpha release so people could bring in idea's. What im seeing now nothing is being changed to the engine only the things its supporting. They want idea's for better an better engine? they can have them. and yes i know they are working on CPU and GPU thingy but it was already news during alpha release and 6months have past now nothing has changed.

I'd suggest you leave this tread because you are not being usefull at all.

bez added a comment.Jul 5 2013, 1:13 PM

To be honest, I don't think using APEX is possible atm also.
But like I said, improving the destruction animation would be nice.
If they use something like Physx or not to do it, I don't really care.

But using APEX for real time destruction, it's not gonna happen.
That's what I think.

Well why not? I mean i dont mind people saying that but give a reason. SO far the only reason i can think of is TIME or the willingness of Bis themself since they have to do allot.

bez added a comment.Jul 5 2013, 1:35 PM

Well, as much as I'd wish BI would have make a completely new engine for ArmA 3,
(when they announced Physx, I thought they did) after playing the Alpha it
was clear to me it's the same engine with some patches on top of it.

Making what you are asking for might require a brand new engine,
or a complete rewrite of the engine from the ground up.
No one says it's not possible, but yes, it would take time.

Unfortunately, business have time schedules to stand by, they probably
made promises to steam, and probably many other companies and they have
to deliver the game by a said time frame, they can not do whatever they feel like,
face it that is how businesses works.
If they would do what ever they feel like, no other company would want to work with them.

It's not that they can just say now, "well lets do everything from scratch"
time and money is a good reason to state why it's not gonna happen now.

To say I am not disappointed it's not a brand new engine? of course I am,
but what can we do about it now? not much.

Let's hope ArmA 4 would be all that we hoped for!

Agreed but still lets forget about the Apex thingy and put it aside for A4 and try to get them to notice there are ways to get b etter destruction enc enc enc.

bez added a comment.Jul 5 2013, 1:46 PM

Well all that is really needed to make it better
is some debris flying around and more particles.

and when the building itself collapse,
to make a better animation than what is have now,

Even the example I did is too much time and effort.

it can all be particle effects,
even the big chunks of debris can be particles, which will disappear over time.

Thats should be possible to do very quickly.
will try do to some example when I have the time.

Thats good. Simple implossion with lots of dust an particles. Like in PS2 particles caused from large explossions bounch of vehicles enc these particles could be made in such way they kill people or atleast hurts them. Ahh we are getting somewhere.

I'm ok if you say that's difficult to do. Now why BI will work for us if everybody say "not possible", "they don't have time", "a lot of work", "it's business".

Feedback Tracker is also to give ideas for ARMA 3 and not only for a future ( if it's happen ) ARMA 4. But if everybody say things like that, they don't have to do it. Who know really what is or not possible. Nothing is impossible in life! If you say it will be for a future ARMA 4, remember that they can work after the reliese to make progress ARMA 3...

It's not only for APEX but in all the Feedback Tracker it's like that...

I know people are just to stupid to see its possible not maybey not atm. Most of them dont even know half of the more advanced systems they think they do but they dont.

Could a Moderator Child my post to this ? 0011163

tyl3r99 added a subscriber: tyl3r99.May 7 2016, 3:08 PM --- whoever downvoted......... doesnt like effects clearly..

People downvoted this post and mine because they think Nvidia features are Nvidia only (How are you playing A3 with Physx then..) AS for Apex its merly an addon(apex destruction) Other Apex features like turbulence are to be concidert 'standalone' since they are not amd supported. The rest is.

wUFr added a comment.Jul 12 2013, 12:00 AM

"People downvoted this post and mine because they think Nvidia features are Nvidia only"

  • LOL i down voted this, becouse its ... other reason (dont want to talk about that again and again and again...)

So you're stupid...

Well why? If you have issues with this post tell me or pluto. We might explain it better to you maybey change your mind. Just downvoting for areason you dont want to explain and explain again ? witch you havent btw. Note i do know your Note why you down voted but clearly you jsut dont understand it. Also i want to know your specs so i can maybey tell you what to do to emprove preformance.

(I just gave the demo to a friend who runs AMD and he had no issue's with the APEX demolition. Also look up the game HAWKEN.

I doubt that this will be ever in ArmA 3. Devs are busy with much more important stuff.

Important to your eyes, it's better to have the game later maybe, to finish lot of things wanted. Here some people are thinking just for their own. Arma is different than others games for th freedom, BUT it's the same for 3D engine, it's working the same, in different way but the same. Game is not finish there's lot of things to do, and there's not just that is important for some people but the whole community. We wait for many years since last Arma 2, BIS give us the opportunity to push the game forward, it's not just to say it's too late. BIS take time to do the best. The engine need a big work to improve performance and there's a lot of lack features...

Important stuff? No they aint so far fix log has only showed us things that could be fixed in pre release. The engine is after 5 months still shit.

z-boson added a subscriber: z-boson.May 7 2016, 3:08 PM

@plutoto74 @Raoul1234

agree with you too.

on topic: upvoted. need this!

MadDogX added a subscriber: MadDogX.May 7 2016, 3:08 PM

Closing in favor of #11163. (Higher vote count.)