http://rigsofrods.blogspot.com/

You get to the download by clicking "repository" then choose Official under 
Categories.  There are versions for Linux and Windows.

Basically you get to drive about big trucks and other large vehicles over 
various terrain.  There's also boats and planes to use.

What's cool about it that makes it worth mentioning?  Well, the main part is 
that all the vehicles are modelled as non-rigid bodies, which means things 
bend, deform and break realistically.  This is especially important for 
large vehicles which are not actually that stiff IRL.

Also, you get things like cranes and pick-up trucks that you have complete 
control over.  You can pick stuff up with the cranes, toe things, load 
containers and other vehicles onto semi-trucks, etc.

It's made by a guy by himself, so don't expect the interface to be amazing, 
but once you remember the basic controls it's great fun.  If he tidied it up 
a bit and added some missions to it then I could see it doing really well.

Anyway, the physics are cool so try it!  There are some YouTube videos 
around too, although the ones I saw didn't particularly show off many of the 
features.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> http://rigsofrods.blogspot.com/
> 
> You get to the download by clicking "repository" then choose Official 
> under Categories.  There are versions for Linux and Windows.
> 
> Basically you get to drive about big trucks and other large vehicles 
> over various terrain.  There's also boats and planes to use.
> 

cool

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote

> http://rigsofrods.blogspot.com/

> It's made by a guy by himself, so don't expect the interface to be
amazing,
> but once you remember the basic controls it's great fun.  If he tidied it
up
> a bit and added some missions to it then I could see it doing really well.

Interesting. However, the mesh quality is atrocious. I don't understand why
developers bother with things like particle systems, shadows or reflections
when the extremely low poly-count will more than negate all such attempts at
"realism".

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote
> 
>> http://rigsofrods.blogspot.com/
> 
>> It's made by a guy by himself, so don't expect the interface to be
> amazing,
>> but once you remember the basic controls it's great fun.  If he tidied it
> up
>> a bit and added some missions to it then I could see it doing really well.
> 
> Interesting. However, the mesh quality is atrocious. I don't understand why
> developers bother with things like particle systems, shadows or reflections
> when the extremely low poly-count will more than negate all such attempts at
> "realism".
> 
> 


I think you missed the point of rigsofrods.

It's realism isn't in a photo realistic graphical display.


Let us take the game of pong as an example.

One version has fancy paddles that are customizable with your own 
graphic and logos.  They can morph and change into 3 different shapes 
and are even *shiny*.  The ball is round and loses energy on each 
bounce.  The background has funky colors or pictures that are really cool.

The other version is much simpler.  You can choose the solid color of 
you paddle from 1 of 16 colors.  The background is solid in color and 
you can't change it.  But you can design your own paddle shape - almost 
anything you want.  You can also change the shape of the ball - make it 
a square - or even a barbel.  The 'ball' interaction with walls and the 
paddles are now dictated by genuine physics.

The difference is:
The first game focus was on eye candy (something good in its own right)
The second game focus was on physical interaction.


It's your choice as to which game you play.
Just because you choose one does not make the other worthless.



Tom

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Austin" <taustin> wrote in message news:4718b274$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote

> >> http://rigsofrods.blogspot.com/

> >> It's made by a guy by himself, so don't expect the interface to be
> > amazing,
> >> but once you remember the basic controls it's great fun.  If he tidied
it
> > up
> >> a bit and added some missions to it then I could see it doing really
well.

> > Interesting. However, the mesh quality is atrocious. I don't understand
why
> > developers bother with things like particle systems, shadows or
reflections
> > when the extremely low poly-count will more than negate all such
attempts at
> > "realism".

> I think you missed the point of rigsofrods.

Not at all. I'm not pitting mesh quality against physics engine. Physics
engine is interesting.

> It's realism isn't in a photo realistic graphical display.

No, that's why dust, reflections, shadows... etc are a waste of frames and
effort. Making the meshing more realistic (IRL, roads are not made up of 20m
flat sections) would tax and show the physics better (for any engine, GIGO).
And even for visual realism, it would do more than the former. Today's
hardware is powerful enough to deal with finer geometric detail, but
developers still rely on old texture and post-processing tricks.

> Let us take the game of pong as an example.
>
> One version has fancy paddles that are customizable with your own
> graphic and logos.  They can morph and change into 3 different shapes
> and are even *shiny*.  The ball is round and loses energy on each
> bounce.  The background has funky colors or pictures that are really cool.
>
> The other version is much simpler.  You can choose the solid color of
> you paddle from 1 of 16 colors.  The background is solid in color and
> you can't change it.  But you can design your own paddle shape - almost
> anything you want.  You can also change the shape of the ball - make it
> a square - or even a barbel.  The 'ball' interaction with walls and the
> paddles are now dictated by genuine physics.
>
> The difference is:
> The first game focus was on eye candy (something good in its own right)
> The second game focus was on physical interaction.

RoR would be closer to the first game. I'd rather have the "paddles" have
realistic geometry (smooth terrain, realistic, unboxy, vehicles) than have
bloom effect and whatnot.

Post a reply to this message

> No, that's why dust, reflections, shadows... etc are a waste of frames and
> effort.

Not really, the game is CPU limited, if you have a modern GPU card then it 
will be sat there almost idle during this game.  Effects like reflections, 
shadows, dust etc add virtually zero load to the CPU.  In fact, the fan even 
turns off after a few minutes on my GPU when I play this game, that's 
unheard of in any other 3D game I have.

> Making the meshing more realistic (IRL, roads are not made up of 20m
> flat sections) would tax and show the physics better (for any engine, 
> GIGO).

Yes, but the game is CPU limited, so any further taxation on the physics 
engine (which is run on the CPU) will slow down the frame-rate.  I suspect 
he wanted to allow this game to be played by the widest possible audience. 
Even on a dual-core 2.4 GHz machine it goes jerky (<20fps I assume) when 3 
objects are interacting.  I imagine he wanted single vehicles or at least 2 
vehicles interacting to be playable on "average" machines.

Of course an option for "road detail level" would be perfect - but I guess 
we just have to wait and see, it's only one guy developing it don't forget.

> And even for visual realism, it would do more than the former. Today's
> hardware is powerful enough to deal with finer geometric detail, but
> developers still rely on old texture and post-processing tricks.

I guess he didn't care so much about the visual mesh quality, and just used 
the physics mesh as a basis for drawing triangles.

>> The difference is:
>> The first game focus was on eye candy (something good in its own right)
>> The second game focus was on physical interaction.
>
> RoR would be closer to the first game.

You must be joking, right?  Which other games do you know feature a 
non-rigid-body model of vehicles and run in real time?  In which other games 
can you see the physically correct bending of a crane truss when you are 
lifting something?  In which other driving game can you wobble your car by 
steering when it's on its side?  Which other flight sim has a non-rigid wing 
and fuselage model?

The physics of this game are causing a stir in the community, I really hope 
that some of the big game developers are taking note and will use models 
like this in future games soon.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message
news:471c4e21$1@news.povray.org...

> Yes, but the game is CPU limited, so any further taxation on the physics
> engine (which is run on the CPU) will slow down the frame-rate.

Then, at this point in time, the physics engine used is not commercially
feasible. Conversely, any physical model will work in an environment that's
simplified enough.

[...]

> The physics of this game are causing a stir in the community, I really
hope
> that some of the big game developers are taking note and will use models
> like this in future games soon.

It's the natural evolution of gaming, all sorts of physics models will be
implemented as they become feasible, you can be sure. Ragdoll physics,
spring models, even cloth and liquid simulation... etc have been and are
being tried, but like you said, extensive use of physically plausible models
are too taxing on the CPU. That's why I'd like to see how this one would
fare in a more realistic environment than a simplified one.

Post a reply to this message