Advanced DX11 and PHYSX features

[Dunk]

Hello there once again, after a long hiatus I have decided to return and ask a simple question. Whether to receive insight from the general community or have questions answered from the DEVs themselves.

Even if not utilised will the more advanced DX11 features and Hardware accelerated PHYSX still be implemented into the engine for modders to use? The reason I felt (and I honestly hope I am not going against the rules here) this needed a unique thread is that I am inquiring as to features that have all but been confirmed to not be featured in the game itself. This ranges from DX11 features such as tessellation and multi-dimensional tessellation and PHYSX features such as hardware accelerated hard/soft body and fluid dynamics. While DX11 and PHYSX are confirmed part of the game engine, from what I understand these things are for a personal lack of better words, modular. Specific features of these individual middlewares can be implemented into the game engine whilst leaving others out.

So in conclusion I am more than well aware that DX11 and PHYSX are in the game but what I do not know is whether features that have been all but confirmed to not be in the game itself will still be in the engine for others to tinker with(multi-dimensional tessellation for damage models, hardware acceleration) . Lastly how do you personally think the inclusion of such things in the engine itself to be utilised by the modding community will affect the overall experience and evolution of mods and development?

Thank you for your time.

[frostwyrm333]

Fluid dynamics, I have seen this before . Things you mention are performance hungry and gameplay useless. Modding capabilities are still largely unknown. They mentioned tessellation before, at best it will only make the terrain a bit more diverse (as a noise applied to grid)

[DMarkwick]

I'm looking forward to seeing how modders can tinker with any configged PhysX properties - and I'm thinking mostly about ragdoll settings here, although vehicle settings would benefit also - but I doubt the implementation would go much further than that. Even so, it's a huge leap forward. I guess the major limiting factor would be how MP-friendly each feature is.

[Iroquois Pliskin]

I'm looking forward to seeing how modders can tinker with any configged PhysX properties

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GAabVQ_XkJ4#t=2m28s especially.

[SGTIce]

Atleast it would look funnier when you Yell Geronimo.

[noone1]

Tessellated units, vehicles, terrain and water would be cool but I have heard tessellation kills performance.

[Max Power]

Tessellation would be largely not applicable in ArmA 3, I would think. Maybe for main characters or something. They do have a lot of detail on their maps but nothing that really seems to cry out for tessellation. We'll see I suppose. Tessellation on vehicles would be a waste of time IMO.

[Liquidpinky]

Tessellation would be largely not applicable in ArmA 3, I would think. Maybe for main characters or something. They do have a lot of detail on their maps but nothing that really seems to cry out for tessellation. We'll see I suppose. Tessellation on vehicles would be a waste of time IMO.

Always worth it for those wheels, nothing worse than watching hexagonal wheels go round.

[Iroquois Pliskin]

Always worth it for those wheels, nothing worse than watching hexagonal wheels go round.

Depending on the difference in performance, it could be used for terrain somewhere down the line.

[NouberNou]

Tessellation would be largely not applicable in ArmA 3, I would think. Maybe for main characters or something. They do have a lot of detail on their maps but nothing that really seems to cry out for tessellation. We'll see I suppose. Tessellation on vehicles would be a waste of time IMO.

Terrain tessellation would be very nice. The static LODs are just not cutting it anymore (re Outerra where the more terrain you see the higher FPS you get)