Community Question: Should Racing Simulators Prioritise Soft-body Physics?

Cover Image.jpg
BeamNG's class-leading damage model
Soft-body physics has always been a hot topic in the sim racing world, but which simulators could pull it off? What titles would it ruin?

Soft-body physics, or dynamics in the wider reaches of the technology, is a field of simulation that focuses on visually realistic physical simulations of the motion and properties of deformable objects or better known as 'Soft Bodies'.

The most common use of soft body physics within racing simulators is the damage model. Titles such as BeamNG.drive and its predecessor, Rigs of Rods, both show just how detailed and difficult the technology is to master. BeamNG has been in continual development since its release in 2013.

Pothole Damage.jpg

BeamNG's Soft-body damage model.

BeamNG is the obvious choice for a simulator in which soft-body physics works wonders. Without it, the project would have very little to write home about. But what current sim racing titles and projects would positively benefit from adding in a complex damage model that models both the visual and physical implications of damage realistically?

Could iRacing adopt soft-body physics?​

The sim with the best damage model is often considered to be iRacing, however, their damage model is still far from the level of BeamNG. The iRacing damage model is imposing until you start reaching the deeper levels of detail.

There are not too many chassis dents, just bodywork and mechanical damage that you can feel through your wheel - plus a myriad of parts flying off the cars, as well as wheels being visibly crooked or only hanging on by a tether if they take a solid hit. That being said, the iRacing damage model is certainly a class leader in the world of pure racing simulators currently.

iRacing's new catalogue-wide damage model as of June 2024

So would iRacing benefit from a BeamNG style of soft body physics? We do not think so. The newer damage model suits the simulator perfectly well. Despite lacking detail in some of the more intricate levels of damage detail, iRacing does a fantastic job of simulating what a racing crash looks like - something BeamNG often exaggerates and consequently falls down on.

Why Rally Is The Perfect Candidate​

If you have ever played the iconic rally title Richard Burns Rally, you will know jut how punishing a damage model for this discipline can be. However, modern iterations of rally titles have toned it down a bit when it comes to a comprehensive damage model.

Both DIRT Rally 1 and 2 had a satisfactory damage model with impactful mechanical damage and failures, however, some of the crashes that would have ended your rally at best simply require you to reverse and continue with a slight crack in the windscreen and a missing front bumper.

1.jpg

Porsche 911, Dirt Rally 2.0. Image: Codemasters

EA Sports WRC
has this same problem. In small and medium-speed accidents, you are punished to a fairly high standard. If you clatter a wall, you will mostly likely damage your bodywork and maybe your suspension. However, a high-speed multi-rollover accident will more than likely not damage your car all that much, and certainly will not cost you a lot of time - even with hardcore damage enabled.

So is the world of rally crying out for soft-body physics? Let's take a short look into BeamNG'drive' s rally world to see if it could work.

BeamNG Rally 1.0​

BeamNG Rally has been created and published by Track Broseff on the BeamNG repository, and this mod breathes fresh new life into the title with custom rally stages on dirt and tarmac based on the real-world American Rally Association ruleset.

Rally Notes 1.jpg

BeamNG's rally pace notes

Over 88 miles/141 kilometres of rally stages are available, and all stages can also be run in reverse within the time trial menus. The maps range from Utah to Jungle Rock Island and everything in between. The real draw to this specific rally mod, however, is the inclusion of pace notes. A revolutionary addition that has put BeamNG on the map for rally fans.

Combine these essential rally additions with BeamNG's soft-body physics and you have a rally game that is as punishing and brutal as it can get in sim racing. Overall, it works brilliantly. The pace notes are mostly accurate with a few further additions that you will not see in any other games apart from Richard Burns Rally.

Should 'Realistic' Damage be the aim?​

But how about circuit racing? Often when the subject of damage models in sim racing is brought up, you will hear the take that the most realistic is the best. This is not always the case. Again, let's look at BeamNG. Your PC's required processing power to simulate your car is immense. Imagine trying to do that for twenty-plus cars simultaneously while also producing the driving physics and running an online server.

190E Merc Damage.jpg

Medium-speed wall impact damage in Automobilista 2

Most simulators skip a high-detail damage model in favour of a more immersive and detailed driving experience. This is not uncommon and is a tried and true method of creating an accurate racing simulation - it is the core of the experience, after all. Racing titles, especially pure simulators, should not entirely sacrifice their damage model; there is no question about it.

With that being said, accurately realistic damage should not be a priority for a lot of simulators. The relatively forgiving damage model of RaceRoom, for instance, could be considered a part of why the title can be run by lower-end PCs as well as forgiving small mistakes online, a key addition for teaching new players what is good and what is not without ending their race.

Which simulators do you think should include soft-body physics? Should it be kept to titles similar to BeamNG? Let us know in the comments below!
About author
Connor Minniss
Website Content Editor & Motorsport Photographer aiming to bring you the best of the best within the world of sim racing.

Comments

I think it’s a split between what you SEE and the physics of the car with damage. I would love for a damaged car to look more realistic, in the sense that you can tell the car has damage by missing body parts or crumpled metal, wobbling wheels etc, but (for me) the physics don’t need to change that much from what we have now. I’ve driven a badly damaged GT3 around Nords, taking 11-12 minutes and being unable to drive over 60km/h and bumping into every barrier…it’s really not fun -so what we have today is enough for me… on the visual side though, I would like to see lots more, so is a split (again, for me)
 
Premium
IMO its not a question if it should be part of a simulation, but it is a question, if it should be part nowdays in a game. All sims that are out there are games with their own eco system. And if you provide such softbody physics, you have a whole new level of debugging work and error management. Plus you "waste" much energy to have a feature that can be possibly the cause for user frustration and users leaving the product, if its not in a good balance.

Its always the question what are the biggest challenge points in a game. If it would be the wrecking of cars, than yes, such physic is needed. But if it would be skilled driving and perfectly using the race line it would not be that physic. You could simulate mechanical errors much more efficient.

If the avarage of PCs is powerful enough to calcualte all this, it will still be the question, if a development team like to deal with the support work of this feature. You need to limit your possible errors and the support if you want to have a stable product...
 
Last edited:
Premium
It seems to me that it should be the next (if not well overdue) evolution for simulation platforms.

I'd be happy with an approximation of the real world behaviour and impacts in keeping with the current technological and development capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Most don't even get the tyre and surface physics right, why run ahead to something less crucial for driving experience? Technical damage - yes, make the car drive worse if it bends the suspension or breaks aero. But visually it's far from being a priority in every driving sim. One BeamNG in existence is enough.
 
I think damage is always going to be a secondary priority in sims because it is a secondary part of racing cars that drivers try to avoid.Titles like BeamNG and Wreckfest are all about the damage but if you are racing online in Iracing you are inside the car,so can only see damage in the replay when it has all gone wrong which is the opposite of what you are trying to do which is win the race.
 
Premium
I’d just like some visual damage modelling that gives a fairly decent representation of any impacts on the car. It doesn’t have to be super detailed, but better than just a canned effect for each body panel, enough to give a bit more immersion when accidents happen
 
It's no coincidence that the two main "sims" that go all out on damage, Wreckfest and BeamNG, don't have any licensed cars. Car manufacturers don't want to see their cars absolutely wrecked in a game, and therefore it ends up being a restriction in the licensing terms.

While this is the case there is no reason for any sim developer that intends to use real world cars to devote resources developing a full soft body damage model. In fact even if the licensing terms allowed for damage a full soft body model would probably be overkill for the majority of sims as a pre-scripted damage model would easily suffice given the type of racing involved.

From my point of view I'd rather see barriers - Tepco, metal and tyrewalls actually have deformations rather than them being the absolutely solid lumps of Neutronium that they are at the moment.

Anyway, regardless of damage being visually shown or not, what gets me is that in a few sims that you can drive into a wall at 150mph, bounce off it back onto the track, get T-Boned by another car doing 150, smacked into the opposite barrier, then still be able to drive back to the pits with a slightly wonky steering, and then the damage gets repaired in 30 seconds - this is not believable in any way or form.

Or take for example sliding into the kitty litter and coming to stop, where suddenly your low slung GT or Formula car becomes a 4x4 tractor that can haul itself out with ease, where in reality the chances are that the car would totally beached.

Both of these incidents are race ending, and I do believe that options should exist for race ending damage and race ending beaching, and I would prioritise that over and above soft body damage modelling.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Soft body physics is what made BeamNG a fantastic rally game. The fact that you can actually SENSE from an impact if your suspension or alignment is messed is impressive. I understand not going for it and a well made hard body physics, but there's no "check" to see if your suspension will get damaged from a hard landing, it gets damaged the same, just a little bit, every time.

Makes trying to hold the car in one piece a much more important task.
 
Premium
I don't think soft body is necessarily the solution that's needed. However I would love to see a title take damage more seriously, like iRacing has. It has always frustrated me that you can collide with a wall at 100mph and still drive round with only minor steering issues.
 
The old iRacing damage model is terrible - you can slightly hit the wall and it will be impossible to drive further, the new one is better.

Raceroom is not bad, but the damage is too low even at “real” level. On the screenshot was probably a blow into the wall at high speed.
 
They should prioritize good AI ! What is the point of having laser scanned tracks that have the exact bush in the real place, or realistic tire model that simulates the touch of a cobble stone at turn 15, when i cannot even have an actually GOOD race experience with AI in any current simulator ? AC, ACC, iRacing, AMS2, rF2, RaceRoom ... ALL of them have something about their AI that is either limited or downright terrible.
20240810230253_1.jpg


Only game where i am consistently able to have amazing AI races from the games i play still are F1 22 and World of Outlaws, nothing else comes even remotely close. I do not care about hotlapping, never do long practice sessions with more than just a few laps, qualifying i prefer a one or two lap shootout, and the race is my priority every time.

Until racing simulators stop neglecting the importance of a quality offline experience then this genre will never get bigger if the only stable online experience is iRacing and there does not exist a good offline experience for people that just want a career mode or at least a season mode.
 
Last edited:
I would love to have better soft body physics in racing games. I probably spent as much time in the 90's racing as I did going the wrong way, destroying my opponents.

That being said, It strikes me as a problem that hasn't been addressed because of resource allocation. It's 2024, and we're still debating the realistic behavior of a single component, tires, which is fundamental to the sim racing experience. If this problem hasn't been solved despite its higher salience and lesser complexity, I don't believe we'll see soft body physics addressed until there's a paradigm shift in game development. Even then, I think mechanical damage will be addressed in depth before physical damage.

Furthermore, if anything, in instances where games are licensed by manufacturers, there is probably a disincentive for damage to be realistically rendered.

In short, the return on investment is probably not worth it for game developers, much to my chagrin. The task is too big, and the reward is too small.
Tires are the most complicated component on the car, and by far the most complicated thing to simulate, by orders of magnitude beyond things like damage modeling. You can get a damage model almost entirely correct just with FEA, but you won't get anything resembling a tire just with simulations.
 
People oftentimes compare and confuse 'simulation with 'replication'.
A simulator is a tool to allow training of various scenarios.
It is not used to one-to-one replicate every single aspect.
There is a difference.
 
Premium
For me, I would rather have the consequences of a crash or bump into a wall be more realistic, than seeing the actual damage. This would go for mechanical and soft-body damage. But I feel this is much like rain. Most don't want it and would turn it off. Like Stereo said a lot of people want the story. I like the idea of my actions writing the story. It rained and I crashed or I miscalculated and crashed out.
 
For me, I would rather have the consequences of a crash or bump into a wall be more realistic, than seeing the actual damage. This would go for mechanical and soft-body damage. But I feel this is much like rain. Most don't want it and would turn it off. Like Stereo said a lot of people want the story. I like the idea of my actions writing the story. It rained and I crashed or I miscalculated and crashed out.
I agree. Back in 2018 I was playing a lot of the F1 of that year, doing full races. I was on the third from last lap at Brazil and managed to bin it into a wall. Race over, no rewind. While I was not happy, the experience of racing in with that ever present danger was more exciting, immersive, and tense than if I had just turned off the damage.
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Connor Minniss
Article read time
4 min read
Views
3,962
Comments
73
Last update
Back
Top