3D Collission Mesh?

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 29 Dec 2005, 06:17

Must give unit models proper 3D collision meshes! And while you're at it, features, so we can have bridges that units can walk over!

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 29 Dec 2005, 12:45

This has been discussed before.

I believe the issue with 3D collision detection is the massive calculation required, given the scale of TA.

I suggestion was raised whereby a cylinder could be used instead of a sphere, which would be less resource-heavy than a polygonal collision detection, but would still be able to approximate oblong objects far better.

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 29 Dec 2005, 12:56

I say use collision meshes for weapon and unit collisions. The spheres can still be used for path finding

AF · Post by AF » 29 Dec 2005, 13:04

I thought zaphod was already planning to use a basic collision mesh for weapon hits.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 29 Dec 2005, 13:08

http://taspring.clan-sy.com/wiki/Monthly_Topic_Rotation

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » 29 Dec 2005, 13:58

You just added that in then.
I would deduct a point from you, but I forgot the password to log into cpanel for the new host the site is now on.
-0 to SwiftSpear

Zenka · Post by **Zenka** » 29 Dec 2005, 17:14

Talking about bridges is a returning topic. (for a long long time).

It's Necicary that coalission is as efficiant as possible. Or suffer a CPU overload.
Bridges would be nice though.

Masse · Post by **Masse** » 29 Dec 2005, 17:55

how abaut modeller giving hes model some "boxes" that are used for collission ? i dont know can that be made or anything

the lines there are the "box" and if there could be added more boxes that would give more "detail" DAMN I SUCK AT WORDS *cry's inside*

AF · Post by AF » 29 Dec 2005, 18:20

We could at least move towards generating boxes rather than spheres untill e get a better representation.

A method a friend fo mien told em to apss on was defining smaller spheres, say a kbot would have 8 small spheres around each major body part etc ratehr than a large one encompassing the whole.

For features I suggest making them non-blocking then placing smaller invisible features inside them as a quickfix or usign aGorms trick fo filling them with terrain.

The sphere thgin si similair to what amsse is trying to say onyl using boxes. Which si really a simplified version of the mesh collision zaphod is gonna use for weapons exept it's simpler and uses a few boxes rather than a mesh.

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 29 Dec 2005, 18:51

Warlord Zsinj wrote:I suggestion was raised whereby a cylinder could be used instead of a sphere, which would be less resource-heavy than a polygonal collision detection, but would still be able to approximate oblong objects far better.

During the change between 61b2 and 62b1, the sphere collision was replaced by a footprint based collision.

SPRING DOES NOT USE SPHERE BASED COLLISION ANYMORE!
(save for flying units)

SPRING USES THE FOOTPRINTS DEFINED IN THE FBI OR TDF!

Masse · Post by **Masse** » 29 Dec 2005, 19:26

IT DOES !?!... i havent read the CVS for awhile now

gotta start reading again

AF · Post by AF » 29 Dec 2005, 19:51

If onyl that where the case for selecting objects with the mouse and weapons fire showing up. You still get explosions appearing in the wrong place, just look at flash emg fire against a HLT or radar tower.

SwiftSpear · Post by **SwiftSpear** » 30 Dec 2005, 01:26

Maelstrom wrote:You just added that in then.
I would deduct a point from you, but I forgot the password to log into cpanel for the new host the site is now on.
-0 to SwiftSpear

I'm allowed to add it, it's one of the topics that comes up every month. How do you think all those topics got added in the first place? Half of them I either added or edited.

[edit] MTR nazis who don't even know the rules in the first place should not run competitions.

Gnomre · Post by **Gnomre** » 31 Dec 2005, 03:10

Well, I agree, I don't think you should get points for this one after just adding it... that makes the scoring system too open for abuse. Now, the next time this topic comes around it would count, but you can't just go add something and then call it, that's like playing chess and then changing the movement rules for the enemy's queen in the middle of the game without warning

(in other words, how could anyone else call it if it didn't exist before you put it there specifically for this topic? It's unfair in every definition of the word)

Post by **jcnossen** » 31 Dec 2005, 03:50

IMO, the mtr wiki is sortof a feature request list, that stops people from asking the same stuff over and over again. I don't mind that you people make a competition out of it, but it shouldn't stop others from updating it with new requests.
SwiftSpear also didn't actually request any point.

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » 31 Dec 2005, 05:58

I know they need to be added. Im not against that at all. But, what SwiftSpear did, was edit the wiki, adding the new topic in, then making a post that looked as if he was trying to score points from it. Which is against the rules as defined on the MTR scoring page thing. However, it no appears if Swift was just posting that link to show the fact that it HAD been added to the wiki entry, and as you said was not after points. Not that it would matter, as I STILL cant log in...

Warlord Zsinj · Post by **Warlord Zsinj** » 01 Jan 2006, 05:45

zwzsg, the reference was to air units, because SpikedHelmet was referring too his Star Wars in Space mod, which is largely aircraft based.

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 01 Jan 2006, 12:04

SpikedHelmet wrote:[...] so we can have bridges that units can walk over!

Sorry, that made me think he was talking about ground based units.

I suppose Spring isn't the right engine for space RTS with large variation in unit size.

Caydr · Post by **Caydr** » 01 Jan 2006, 21:15

Once we've got proper weapon impact detection, via box or whatever weapon collision model, there's only one or two things preventing an accurate depiction of space-like combat, and I know for a fact they're being worked on.

Maelstrom · Post by **Maelstrom** » 02 Jan 2006, 02:32

Box hit detection wont fix things always shooting at the center of units. Unless this is one of the things that are being worked on.

Spring RTS Engine

3D Collission Mesh?

3D Collission Mesh?

Re: 3D Collission Mesh?