Soft body emulator?

[Lizzard]

I say emulator instead of simulator because I've tested this out pretty thoroughly before this game came to steam. It emulates (imitates) a soft body engine, but in reality it isn't. You hit a wall at one speed, then change the angle and you can see the same damage being done with each hit. You tap a wall and a bumper gets ripped off, hit it harder and a bumber still gets ripped off.

Not saying it isn't fun to destroy cars, but this game doesn't deserve the praise people are giving it as a "soft body" engine. BeamNG, on the other hand, has shown us what a soft body engine is capable of. If you want to see what happens when 2 cars get into a head-on collision at 50 mph, go try out BeamNG. If you want some mindless arcade fun, then NCG is a decent game at least... but don't confuse the two.

[Majatek]

It's a different implementation of softbody physics (and thus technically is, by definition, softbody physics), but if you want to truly nitpick then BeamNG isn't true "softbody" like, for example, Nvidia's PhysX soft body dynamics.

The point is they all use different ways of computing procedurally deformable objects. "Softbody physics" is a broad term that applies to varying degrees of softbody implementations - yes, even "hard body" physics. If it deforms dynamically (with no premade “damage states” ala Halo's Warthog), then it's softbody physics.

Each type of physics implementations have their own positives and negatives. While yes, BeamNG's is superior for accuracy (as it simulates more pointmasses), it isn't optimised for having 23 simultaneous deformable vehicles in an interactive and destructible environment, and that Wreckfest's focus isn't so much on the accuracy but the visceral fun in what could be called a “simcade” experience.

I'm saying this not because I'm a fanboy of Wreckfest, but because I studied game design and I don't like seeing terminology being used incorrectly.