chucksteel Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 NO! don't do that ether, if you want something gone set it to "Initially Disabled" and move it below ground. deleted ref's can cause major issues and mod incompatibility.
Ethreon Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 The FX for meshes can only be determined via collision material, not the texture material. And I tend to avoid it as much as possible, even if it's more work and makes the collision match exactly.
Impytus Posted October 27, 2016 Author Posted October 27, 2016 On 10/27/2016 at 5:12 PM, chucksteel said: NO! don't do that ether, if you want something gone set it to "Initially Disabled" and move it below ground. deleted ref's can cause major issues and mod incompatibility. ok so never delete an object in a cell. got it. thanks On 10/27/2016 at 5:52 PM, Ethreon said: The FX for meshes can only be determined via collision material, not the texture material. And I tend to avoid it as much as possible, even if it's more work and makes the collision match exactly. Sorry still struggling to follow. I thought we were talking about the material in the collisiongroup utility (in max). Is that not the thing we are talking about here? what exactly is it you avoid as much as possible? using mesh collision or using several mixed primitive collisions?furthermore can you give a few examples of where you would use a mesh collision over a primitive collision and vice versa?
Ethreon Posted October 27, 2016 Posted October 27, 2016 Avoid using mesh collision. You use it if the shape is too complex and takes too long to build it with primitive shapes.And yes, the collisions in the CollisionGroup are what gives the FX.
Impytus Posted October 28, 2016 Author Posted October 28, 2016 On 10/27/2016 at 6:18 PM, Ethreon said: Avoid using mesh collision. You use it if the shape is too complex and takes too long to build it with primitive shapes.And yes, the collisions in the CollisionGroup are what gives the FX. so with this redrocket thing im doing, would you recommend mesh collision? Do you know if there is a way i can find out what the vanilla collisiongroups are? I'm looking for an easier way to copy the ones from the vanilla model.
Ethreon Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 Vanilla game uses whatever you can find in max. You decide what collision material type to use based on what the texture is, which for RR is concrete and metal anyway. And while RR is large, I recommend using base shapes, mostly rectangular ones. Use vertex snap to align properly and you're good to go.
Impytus Posted October 29, 2016 Author Posted October 29, 2016 On 10/28/2016 at 2:41 AM, Ethreon said: And while RR is large, I recommend using base shapes, mostly rectangular ones. Use vertex snap to align properly and you're good to go. I wasnt honestly expecting that. RR has a lot of small details on it. strip light fittings, electric boxes, pipes and other small details.. what you are talking about is goign to be a great many box collisions.
Ethreon Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 Well, you're not in a hurry, are you? And nobody says you have to make it 100% exact replica. The engine enlarges the collisions anyway, for whatever reason.
Impytus Posted October 29, 2016 Author Posted October 29, 2016 (edited) so is there no point in which having so many box collisions outweighs the performance and practicality of a mesh collision? The way I look at it is its probably going to be close to having a box colllison per double set of polys (square), to account for all the detail. Seems like a lot. Edited October 29, 2016 by Impytus
Impytus Posted October 29, 2016 Author Posted October 29, 2016 On 10/29/2016 at 1:32 AM, Ethreon said: The engine enlarges the collisions anyway, for whatever reason. As an after thought. that doesnt make a lot of sense. how would the bullet holes and other fx work if it wasnt exactly perfect to the original mesh?
Recommended Posts