Collision Shape (When creating custom collisions)

[JuJooGuppy]

So, I was succesfully able to create a very simple box collision, that appears to have worked fine (didnt fully test it as i was in a hurry, but everything semed to work fine, without errors etc.). But I have a question about creating a collision mesh.

If I make, say, a building, and I want the collision to basically be identical to the mesh itself, I would assume I could simply duplicate the mesh, and use the duplicate as the collision mesh. But then my question is, if I use a more complex shape for a collision mesh, what "Shape" do I set it to after creating the rigid body? Do you use "Mesh" in that case? Or is that all wrong?

So glad to be able to start to make my own collisions regardless, lol.

[Ethreon]

Mesh is too resource intensive. While beth used it themselves, I dont believe doing what they do to be correct, since even they say it's a no-no. Using simple shapes to cover all holes and linking them back to the actual mesh will probably be better.

[JuJooGuppy]

So, I would then be exporting a mesh that actually had a few different collision objects to cover the mesh as I need, and simply setting them to whatever shape they are? Kinda sucks, since as you said, Bethesda themselves used more exact collision then that, its fairly apparent when you copy in collisions from other meshes.. I assume "Mesh" shape is the correct route to make a collision from a non-standard mesh though at least? I wasn't off base there?

Wouldn't their collision be causing issues if its too resource intense, though?


I mean, in the end, I am still happy to be able to make custom collision at all, as it can be a huge help. Just trying to understand everything I can about it.

[Ethreon]

You can make mesh, it's just gonna be taxing on computers when placing/playing. So far I just used shapes (mostly square) to cover up as much as possible, then linked them all to one object and used rest of my tools to finish the job. Can't say the workflow is amazing, but better than nothing.

[JuJooGuppy]

Oh I understood that I CAN go that route, just curious for more about the WHY I shouldnt (I understand its taxing, just curious on more detail :P)

 

Why is it that Bethesda's "mesh" collision's are not overly taxing compared to what we would make? More optimized tools..? Or are they as equally taxing and they could've made the game run better by avoiding such collision?

Purely curiosity, I agree fully with your last statement, I am more than happy to deal with boxes.. although, it does suck having to have multiple collision objects in single nifs.


Is the mesh method's resource taxation more dependant on the complexity of the mesh itself, at least? So say I made an extremely low poly / tri / vert version of my objects mesh and used that as the collision via mesh, would that be less of an issue at that point?

[Ethreon]

Oh I understood that I CAN go that route, just curious for more about the WHY I shouldnt (I understand its taxing, just curious on more detail :tongue:)

 

Why is it that Bethesda's "mesh" collision's are not overly taxing compared to what we would make? More optimized tools..? Or are they as equally taxing and they could've made the game run better by avoiding such collision?

 

Purely curiosity, I agree fully with your last statement, I am more than happy to deal with boxes.. although, it does suck having to have multiple collision objects in single nifs.

 

 

Is the mesh method's resource taxation more dependant on the complexity of the mesh itself, at least? So say I made an extremely low poly / tri / vert version of my objects mesh and used that as the collision via mesh, would that be less of an issue at that point?

Leaving aside the fact that "this is the tools we used" is a blatant lie, who said their collisions aren't taxing? They sure are too. Probably the resource demand is not amazingly large, but still. As for that, what you described is the LOD. Doing the same for collision is gonna be a lot of work on your side :)

[JuJooGuppy]

Eh, creating a simplistic layout of sorts of a my mesh for collision isn't all too time consuming, not really that much more than just creating boxes (Just gives slightly more control / tightness of the collision). I appreciate the replies, gives me a better idea of what we are working with. Much fun to be had... lol.

 

[Ethreon]

Eh, creating a simplistic layout of sorts of a my mesh for collision isn't all too time consuming, not really that much more than just creating boxes (Just gives slightly more control / tightness of the collision). I appreciate the replies, gives me a better idea of what we are working with. Much fun to be had... lol.

 

On top of that I was unable to get a mesh collision, but maybe had wrong settings. Meh.. for a wall, a box is way easier ;)

[JuJooGuppy]

Well, since we are talking collision here. Do you happen to know how to achieve a collision that blocks you but projectiles go through? Is that controlled by the material type under Collision Group? As far as I know the material is supposed to control thinks like sounds, but I am not sure how to achieve that type of collision. I know it exist because the chainlink fence uses that style of collision (I have bummed it for my barbwire fence / other stuff).

If you don't know, no worries. Bit off the topic of the original discussion but oh well.

[Ethreon]

Well, since we are talking collision here. Do you happen to know how to achieve a collision that blocks you but projectiles go through? Is that controlled by the material type under Collision Group? As far as I know the material is supposed to control thinks like sounds, but I am not sure how to achieve that type of collision. I know it exist because the chainlink fence uses that style of collision (I have bummed it for my barbwire fence / other stuff).

 

If you don't know, no worries. Bit off the topic of the original discussion but oh well.

Look in the object type. One of them might be it.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Ethreon