Car Physics in R.C. Pro Am (1 and 2)
Author
I''m just wondering if anyone here has played and remembers the car physics from R.C. Pro Am 1 and 2 for NES. I used to love that game and have considered writing a game with similar style physics, but I''m not sure how they might have done them. I would use 360 degree movement, and the only method I can think of is to have acceleration for every angle, and if you''re pressing accelerate, add to your current angle. Every frame subtract a little from every angle. Would this method work if I figured out the correct ammounts to add and subtract? Or is there a better way? Thanks.
~WarDekar
I''ve never played R.C. Pro Am, but I doubt that what you''re suggesting is how they did it. I don''t know how much you know about physics, but using a simple model with vectors, acceleration and friction is probably much easier than the approach that you are suggesting.
Cédric
Cédric
Author
I don''t know much about physics, but I know a lot about vector math. Basically my model uses vectors to a degree, I''ve used something similar for space movement before and it worked quite well, but in that case I only decreased the acceleration of angles if you were accelerating at another angle. This method would decrease every frame whether you were accelerating or not.
~WarDekar
~WarDekar
wardekar,
Did you ever play Acclaim''s Re-Volt game, which is also an R/C car racing game? I played that one, and it is quite a lot of fun. Fairly realistic too, as far as I can tell (e.g., I don''t race R/C cars, but I have played with them in the past).
I wonder how the physics of Re-Volt compare to R.C. Pro Am? Re-Volt had a lot of little details. For example: the radio whip antenna would vibrate realistically based on motion; the water would ripple when the car drives through a shallow pool; and bits of gravel would be kicked around in some places (at the bottom of the shallow pool of water). The car physics seemed realistic, but not necessarily the best.
Graham Rhodes
Senior Scientist
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
Did you ever play Acclaim''s Re-Volt game, which is also an R/C car racing game? I played that one, and it is quite a lot of fun. Fairly realistic too, as far as I can tell (e.g., I don''t race R/C cars, but I have played with them in the past).
I wonder how the physics of Re-Volt compare to R.C. Pro Am? Re-Volt had a lot of little details. For example: the radio whip antenna would vibrate realistically based on motion; the water would ripple when the car drives through a shallow pool; and bits of gravel would be kicked around in some places (at the bottom of the shallow pool of water). The car physics seemed realistic, but not necessarily the best.
Graham Rhodes
Senior Scientist
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
Why not just store a velocity vector, and add a vector that corresponds to the car's orientation to it when you accelerate? For friction, try doing two things: first, subtract a small vector corresponding to the car's orientation each frame from the car's velocity vector, to simulate rolling friction. Second, deal with sliding friction. For this, try scaling the velocity each frame by the reciprocal of Velocity * Orientation , or do something similar. Be warned that I made this last part up off the top of my head. It seems to make some measure of sense, though. Basically, what you want is a representation using vectors in component form rather than in polar form.
As long as you don't need a truly physically accurate simulation, I would just fool around until you get something that feels right. After all, that's what the formulae physicists have now are - simple approximations that attempt to describe the large-scale effects of a variety of diverse and not-too-well-understood microscopic factors.
If anyone has a more widely accepted solution, thought, by all means try it.
Good luck with your racing game.
EDIT: I found a URL which may help you: http://home.planet.nl/~monstrous/tutcar.html
[edited by - TerranFury on May 22, 2002 6:17:33 PM]
As long as you don't need a truly physically accurate simulation, I would just fool around until you get something that feels right. After all, that's what the formulae physicists have now are - simple approximations that attempt to describe the large-scale effects of a variety of diverse and not-too-well-understood microscopic factors.
If anyone has a more widely accepted solution, thought, by all means try it.
Good luck with your racing game.
EDIT: I found a URL which may help you: http://home.planet.nl/~monstrous/tutcar.html
[edited by - TerranFury on May 22, 2002 6:17:33 PM]
Author
GRhodes: I''ve played Re-Volt, nice game, but RC Pro AM had really arcady physics, nothing remotely realistic, but it was fun.
Terran: Yeah right now I have a velocity vector, and I just shrink it down every frame, it works for just normal feeling movement but not for RC Pro Am style, in order to do that I need to take into account if you''re turning. Thanks for the link, I''ll check it out.
~WarDekar
Terran: Yeah right now I have a velocity vector, and I just shrink it down every frame, it works for just normal feeling movement but not for RC Pro Am style, in order to do that I need to take into account if you''re turning. Thanks for the link, I''ll check it out.
~WarDekar
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
