View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0003230 | Spring engine | General | public | 2012-07-31 17:29 | 2012-12-16 23:04 |
| Reporter | gajop | Assigned To | jK | ||
| Priority | low | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Product Version | 89.0 | ||||
| Summary | 0003230: Features aren't always rendered when visible | ||||
| Description | Features aren't always rendered when they should be. They aren't rendered if they are only partially visible (probably their base isn't visible). The same applies to features' shadows. Detailed report is here: http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=28492. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Checked infolog.txt for Errors | |||||
|
|
sounds like incorrectly set radii values on the modeller's part |
|
|
I'm not sure where those values are set, since it doesn't seem to be in the .lua part. I'm using "Spring Features", and some models are indeed properly rendered, f.e: http://code.google.com/p/spring-features/source/browse/trunk/spring-features.sdd/features/beherith/btreechi_1.lua This feature is getting clamped too soon though: http://code.google.com/p/spring-features/source/browse/trunk/spring-features.sdd/features/artturi/artoakoldlo.lua However it seems that all of them have shadows cut when not in view (which is not the case of units), is this related to: https://github.com/spring/spring/blob/develop/rts/Rendering/FeatureDrawer.cpp#L438 ? |
|
|
radius (and model height, dunno if that matters too) is set with the upspring programm in the .s3o file. (maybe there is a lua tag now, too. but not in "spring features") the "spring features" features are not all perfect/working. |
|
|
I noticed this as well, in the altair crossing v2, so I compensated by making large radiuses for the trees. But this interacted badly with aiming, even if I had small collision volumes set for the features. Thus in altair crossing v3 the tree's radius is greatly reduced. It would be nice if the features in view had a little relaxation built in - as most of the time mappers dont want features to interfere with aiming too much, but the visual 'pop-in' of trees and their shadows is also not too pretty. Could we please have an additional grace distance of approx 64 elmos when calculating visibility? Thank you! |
|
|
I think it is related to the quad field. Spring renders certain quads depending on where the cam is aimed and this algorithm is a bit flawed and does not take the size of models into account. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-07-31 17:29 | gajop | New Issue | |
| 2012-07-31 18:33 | Kloot | Note Added: 0009095 | |
| 2012-08-01 15:42 | gajop | Note Added: 0009101 | |
| 2012-08-01 22:31 |
|
Note Added: 0009102 | |
| 2012-08-30 15:48 | Beherith | Note Added: 0009147 | |
| 2012-08-30 19:21 | zerver | Note Added: 0009148 | |
| 2012-12-16 23:04 | jK | Changeset attached | => spring develop e7f9c7c7 |
| 2012-12-16 23:04 | jK | Assigned To | => jK |
| 2012-12-16 23:04 | jK | Status | new => resolved |
| 2012-12-16 23:04 | jK | Resolution | open => fixed |
