6 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Damage for example is calculated long before the "hit" is checked

And how to be with point damage? Even 5-7 years old games calculating not armore penetrtion only, but also primary and secondary fragmentation and shockwave that affects tank's crew and  modules.

15 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

And how to be with point damage? Even 5-7 years old games calculating not armore penetrtion only, but also primary and secondary fragmentation and shockwave that affects tank's crew and  modules.

Yes but it is all faked. First a 3D model with armour is a shell, it has no thickness.

So each object is given some kind of "thickness" property; it isn't physics just a data checkup. For example if the projectile hits cover a X amount of velocity is subtracted instantly; based on it's "Pierce" data type.

Shockwaves is just a sphere and some simple wave formulas to emulate bounce. You would stall a PC to calculate all the bounces a showcwave does. It is as complex as real lights. Yea, lights are also fake.

Everything is just a class running simple math to emulate complex systems. There is no "inside" of a 3D model. Even games games like Sniper Elite uses simple maths and then just gives a visual representation of that.

World of tanks even gives there formulas: http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Battle_Mechanics Think about it, how could "stats" be added from player levels if it was physics.

It's not physics or even science. It's just basic math emulation.

38 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Yes but it is all faked. First a 3D model with armour is a shell, it has no thickness.

It horror story from middle of 90x.

38 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Shockwaves is just a sphere and some simple wave formulas to emulate bounce. You would stall a PC to calculate all the bounces a showcwave does. It is as complex as real lights. Yea, lights are also fake.

It no need to recalculate all bounces. Really it require to recalculate only flow of shockwawe tru the opened manholes etc.

38 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

World of tanks

World of tanks is arcade game. It formula not depends even from shell speed. I talking about realistic games. For example warthunder. It have no hitpoints at all. It have only 3 ways to destroy enemy - affect all crew members, affect ammos, or affect engine or fuel tanks by way that burn a tank. So armor penetration and terminal ballistic inside tank involved to gameplay on 100% 

38 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

It's not physics or even science. It's just basic math emulation.

Really? And from here comes coefficients etc? It just precalculated tables. but it not mean "not a phisic".

38 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Everything is just a class running simple math to emulate complex systems

Of cource. For example fragmentation stream  can be emulated by cone with distribution, that depends from kynetic energy that shell keept after penetrating. Also secondary fragmentation can be modelled by same cone but with ditribution that depends from cynetick energy that shell spend where penetrating armor. All of this is not so expensive math that enought stall his servers.

1 hour ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Games rarely use physics as part of calculations, it's too unpredictable and can lead to a very unbalanced game.

For example World of Worships. Its shell trajectory calculations involves dependendse from air pressure and viscosity that changes according to height.  This dependense has been bring in to have a realistic trajectory angles at target. It has give ability to calculate armore penetraion close to reality. So in chain, allow to eliminate dependence from ship type from wich shell has ben fired. It has make ability to easely balance game adjusting shells independently from ship.

Than close simulation to real phisic than it more stable, predicable and ajustable.

4 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

This dependense has been bring in to have a realistic trajectory angles at target. It has give ability to calculate armore penetraion close to reality.

Yes, but again it isn't realistic physics. First, World of Worships uses ray tracing, to emulate projectile ballistics. 

For example a ray is traced to target to see what angle the projectile hits the target at, then using dot product on the tangent to see at what angle it hits. Each ship class has armour properties for each part and each shell has piercing properties. There scatter depends on a multi dice roll, that was refined to emulate real splatter charts.

Air pressure would be some kind of defined data property, probably a depth map, or volumes assigned be level designers. cross product line intersection is good for faking viscosity, along with a depth map.

After all this math is calculated:

The projectile particle is fired, following the trajectory of the ray, to show the player what had happened under hood. When the projectile hits, physics engine is used for the first time, but here it is used only to emulate sparks, smoke and water splashes for particles; none of these affect the gameplay.

Of course ray tracing is physics, however the Hull, Air pressure, viscosity, mass, velocity, ricochet and all other data types would be predefined; unrealistic values fine tuned to give a convincing and intertaining emulation.

A good example is how slow there projectiles are, real world projectiles are almost instant to the human eye, but theres is just stylish feedback for the system underneath.

Think about it, if you wanted to emulate realistic piercing of a projectile hitting a piece of wood, how would you do it?

1 hour ago, Scouting Ninja said:

It's not physics or even science. It's just basic math emulation.

Computer is universal digit-mall.  Computer is able to mall-digits only. Illusion that computer able to do somesing else, appear only by malling digits closer to this "something else" that difference can be found.

For example my diploma project theme was a "Numerical simulation of  thermal and mass exchange into liquid metall under natural convection conditions". It was a 2D finite difference schemel of 2nd precission level, and it has been built on Navier-Stokes and thermal conduction equations . I has report results on university science conference , also some results calculated by this model has ben included to publications and doctorature dissertation of my scientific director, that researches way to reduce convection into ingot. Is it not physic or is not science?

Ok. Now let see to wide known 2D fire modeling technicue called hotspot-bloor-shift. Really it utilizes same finite difference shceme, but  with lowest possible digit precission and constanted flow function. So where difference is? 

It just same model with different optimizations - first by precission, second by speed. So why first is science and phisic and second is not science and phisic?

Also all modern 3D particle technicues, that simulate fire and smoke,  utilize this model too, but integrates it using Lagrage concept, instead of Euler concept used in 2D model.

10 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

First, World of Worships uses ray tracing, to emulate projectile ballistics. 

Any shells using ray casting. Other thing how and when it used. Armory penetration directly depends from speed and angle of incidence. So phisicaly realistic calculation of trajectory directlly affect gameplay.

18 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

Of course ray tracing is physics,

ray tracing not a phisic. It is analitical geometry.

23 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

A good example is how slow there projectiles are

thay have normal for long range artillery speed. Ajust projectile speed with viewing distance and flight time.  15 seconds for 15km range. Its overage speed around 1km/sec so correlated with real data.

35 minutes ago, Scouting Ninja said:

unrealistic values fine tuned to give a convincing and intertaining emulation.

Realistic to real phisic simulation just excludes unrealistic values at all. Also it immunize balance system from combinatory exploion of dependences. Of cource some constants a precalcalculated for each type of ammщ, like it is in real world.

For example:

M16. 5.56x45 NATO, Makes tiny entry and exit holes and force-meat betwin them. Complitely сorresponds to Geneva Convention.

AKM 7,62x39. Makes tiny entry whole and huge exit tunnel. Violates Geneva Convention.

Mosin's rifle. 7.62x54R. The reason for the Creation of Geneva Convention   

41 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

It just same model with different optimizations - first by precission, second by speed. So why first is science and phisic and second is not science and phisic?

It is and that was why I said there raytracing is physics. Because all the calculations they use are at least based on physics theory.

However the stats they are using is not. That is the part I am saying is not accurate physics. In the wiki the developers have confirmed that they cheat values especially bounces etc. There own words was that it is a arcade like simulation of warfare.

In game design two wrongs is often used to fake a right. That is the part that isn't physics, the data types and values. In WOWS the stats are faked to produce consistent gameplay, where in real life battles have too much inconsistency. It's a game, it has to be fair.

21 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

15 seconds for 15km range. Its overage speed around 1km/sec so correlated with real data.

Nope, again the developers have confirmed that there emulation is supposed to be 1/3 of the speed. However there is a delay before it starts, probably the math part, and the speed inconsistency can be as large as 1/5-1/6 when viewing from outside.

You can even see the delay in the gameplay videos, every time a play fires there is a short pause.

45 minutes ago, Fulcrum.013 said:

Also all modern 3D particle technicues, that simulate fire and smoke,  utilize this model too, but integrates it using Lagrage concept, instead of Euler concept used in 2D model.

Yes, that is again what I am saying. Modern particles use physics to simulate the particles, but the particles isn't used to calculate the damage or effect the damage in anyway.

You don't burn in a game because you touch the fire particles, you burn because you hit the damage volume around the particles. The burn is often just some thing like: If (collision.hit = "Player") {Player.Health -= 1); Not physics at all.

That is what I am saying about physics in games. When it comes to gameplay physics is rarely used for the gameplay; it's used to accurately simulate how smoke and fire moves; a visual element.