Outerra forum
Anteworld - Outerra Game => Modding: Importer, Tools & Utilities => Topic started by: M7 on September 04, 2014, 09:43:19 pm
-
How do we set LOD? I tried with this model to create a 3 levels LOD. The color church is LOD0, the red box is LOD1 and the light gray low poly church is LOD2 but they all show at once at all distance. I used the FBX importer and i didn't edit anything in it. I tried to change the lod_curve and lod_curve1 in the objdef but it doesn't seem to do anything.
(http://i.imgur.com/fRuQipU.jpg)
-
I searched the outerra site and i could not find any explanatory thread on the subject other than what is on the wiki. I thought i did everything right in reference to the wiki. I'm sure it's something super simple ....
-
For FBX importer all you need is properly named objects, like 'house_LOD0', 'house_LOD1', 'house_LOD2' etc. and importer automatically make them LODs objects. You don't have to use groups.
-
Was torn between putting this idea in 3 different places, but thought here's as good as any.
Can LOD be based not only on distance, but also on closing speed... I suggest this as a flight simmer that thinks that as I whiz past a building at low alt I don't need it to be the best detail, I'm going going to see it for a fraction of a second.
-
Keep in mind the low and slow flyers though, and even the Gliders!! ;D
And Outerra is not really just a flight sim, and I hope it never limits itself to just that.
-
Thanks Denn for the response. Now in sketchup, i dont seems to be able to name individual mesh , i can only give a name to a groug or to a component(instance) , so i have to use group i guess. Can LOD naming work with group?
(http://i.imgur.com/36n1CJr.jpg)
-
It was suppose to work for groups initially as far as I know, but after introducing FBX importer LODs work for mesh names only. I'm surprised you can't rename objects in sketchup though, that is basic functionality for any 3d editing software .
P.s. It seems possible http://developer.reallusion.com/whitepaper/sketchup_group_component/index.asp (http://developer.reallusion.com/whitepaper/sketchup_group_component/index.asp) Component renaming should be enough.
-
Yeah you can name components which is like a clone mesh, but all cloned mesh will share the same name.
So still tried to turn groups into individual component and named them with LOD1 LOD2 but the importer still doesnt get it.
Now i guess the only option is to export to blender or max , edit the LOD mesh name, then import into outerra.
-
You can also rename meshes in OT importer, if you change node name Mesh1 to Mesh1_LOD1 it will become LOD1, so no additional software is required
-
YES!!!! that did the trick! I'm so glad that i dont have to go through another program. Thanks a lot Denn for taking the time.
-
Its still kinda strange, that SketchUp cant just name a mesh ...
-
Keep in mind the low and slow flyers though, and even the Gliders!! ;D
And Outerra is not really just a flight sim, and I hope it never limits itself to just that.
I agree 100% its why I make the suggestion.. Tank battles within urban areas are also of interest to me. With the profusion of static models we could end up with a situation where they don't quite meet any genres requirements, falling between two stones. LOD gives the opportunity to meet everyones needs, but simply using distance from an object might not be progressive enough for what's needed..
Anyway it's just an idea.
-
Can LOD be based not only on distance, but also on closing speed... I suggest this as a flight simmer that thinks that as I whiz past a building at low alt I don't need it to be the best detail, I'm going going to see it for a fraction of a second.
I think it's an excellent idea. It would affect only fast moving object. It would make no difference for ground vehicle or slow flying object. It's the kind of idea that can make flight sim more compatible with ground type of simulation i would say.
-
It's the kind of idea that can make flight sim more compatible with ground type of simulation i would say.
Exactly where I'm coming from, so instead of the possibility of two or more separate development 'teams' with their ideas of what best suits their own individual requirements and bugger anyone else. We start at this very early stage to understand the requirements of each others genre and what we can DO to help each other by not making it difficult for them.
I've seen this far too often where people that want a functionality are more interested in getting their results and care nowt for the effects it has on others coming along later.
Looking at buildings we can start to develop a package of builds using models and textures that represent how we wish to use that building in the future, from walking into it, driving past it, driving through it, flying over it.... a new building, tired building, derelict building, destroyed building.. I'd suggest that once we've understood the format, textures needed it'll start to become for the artists involved as easy as shelling peas.
Simon
-
... from walking into it, driving past it, driving through it, flying over it....
... just like the four LODs .... yes, some all fitting "standard" would be great.
-
... from walking into it, driving past it, driving through it, flying over it....
... just like the four LODs .... yes, some all fitting "standard" would be great.
I think you've miss-understood the 4 levels of Details a flight sim needs are graduated very differently from what a First Person game would use.
Does that mean we have,
First Person - 4 LOD's
In ground Vehicle - 4 LOD's
In airborne Vehicle - 4 LOD's
In Space Vehicle - 4 LOD's
I don't see 4 levels of detail across the board based on distance only code, meeting everyones needs...
I don't see there being 16 but neither do I see only 4.
-
I know OT can support 14 levels.. Does that help the situation?
-
nobody likes a smart alec..... ;)
-
First Person - 4 LOD's
In ground Vehicle - 4 LOD's
In airborne Vehicle - 4 LOD's
In Space Vehicle - 4 LOD's
... rather not. When you take a DCS like model as the 4-th, a slightly better (in texture resolution and a few more verts), but boxy model as the 3-rd (for close fly-by in airplanes), a nicely detailed outer model as the second and the same, whyte interiors as the first. ... that also probably needs a collision mesh for them all, made in a fitting way and 2-4 stage damage models in all the LODs. (thats for military vehicle purposes) It might end up well, when all kinds of vehicles will have set a different pop-up distance (maybe even a variable - not bad if ya flying in a Heli at very low speeds in urban areas to get the second LOD for the closest few buildings, yet at higher speeds, using just 3-rd and 4-th as you would not see anything more detailed.)
But its true, just a simplified way this is. Also, making a "BF" like damage model of all building in wast spaces, like OT, might be a real problem. If that would be needed, i would prefer to find a way of procedurally generated "hole and piece maker". Something, like a 3D software Cell Fracture Tool ... it could doe use a set of some pre-made animated (or physics dependent) pieces, witch it would use everywhere, but slap the correct texture over (but you might see the bad idea of it when it comes to collision mesh or rendering the actual hole in the wall -- and probably saves of those conditions).
On the other side, an special way of handling models could be interesting and more "agile". Lets say, if ya have a different module system (like Air, ground, naval ... in combination). The models could have a set of up to 14 LODs, (maybe stored them all even somewhere on the cloud) where each would be a separate model file of the same model directory. Then if ya use just one, or two sets of the systems modules (like aircraft and ground vehicle) - those module specific LODs would be downloaded/packed in the Mod/module, while others, whyte a different set, would have other sets from those 14 LODs of the model.
If it were broadened by a few stage damage models for all of those modules and well done blending between them for each set. Then it would be something great. Doe, each model, if done this way would be probably a 100+ Mb thing for all trying to use all modules (and not talking about hours behind 3DMax/Blender). But it would be able to import just some of the LODs - making it possible to import specific models just for some modules (but then it could not be used in servers/game modes of combined deployment).
... just a thought doe. But it would be interesting to find a fitting "standard" for OTs Air and on foot scale capabilities.