ThreadBoard ArchivesSite FeaturesActiveworlds SupportHistoric Archives |
AxisAlignment xyz (Wishlist)
AxisAlignment xyz // WishlisttalisanMay 7, 2006, 3:19pm
I would really like it if AxisAlignment xyz were implemented on a per clump
basis. Currently the browser only supports AxisAlignment "zorientx" and "zorienty" which do the same thing. Create a facer, however you can fly over a facer and it will dissapear until you are facing it again. Also, AxisAlignment only works on the whole object, not on a clump level. Why? You have only to buy a copy of Oblivion from bethsoft.com($60 granted no cheap) to find out how the benefits of such a command would have on the grass, plant and tree models people could make. On the small chance it already was working this way, I tried modeling a tree and only applying AxisAlignment to one clump of leaves... and it didn't have my desired effect, the whole tree became a facer. lol, like it was a treant following my every move and waiting to pounce on me. Could be useful for a horror or holloween world. Look at this picture: http://www.darkestdestiny.com/obliv01B.jpg With the exception of the tree trunks, rocks and terrain, that whole picture, every leaf and blade of grass is just a flat facer object. You can see the patterns if you look closely. AW could potentially do this if one of the programmers felt worthy of the challenge. The only thing in that scene that aw could not do would be the shadows and bump maps, and I can live with that, at least until 2015. ;) Quot: "Description This command sets the axis alignment for the current object. It can be one of "none", "zorientx", "zorienty", and "xyz". Beginning with version 3.0, Active Worlds now only distinguishes between axis alignment or no axis alignment. Thus, "zorientx" and "zorienty" are considered equivalent (i.e. axis alignment is on), and "xyz" is not supported. The effect of turning on axis alignment anywhere in the object is that the entire object is always rotated to face the viewer; it becomes what is sometimes called a "facer". The trees and plants in AlphaWorld are examples of facers. " talisanMay 7, 2006, 4:25pm
Isn't that cool? And I think I can identify 3 different tree trunks in that
picture, they are just rotated and angled differently and at different heights and I think all three use the same leaf pattern. I can see one bush pattern and a few different grass patterns. So, the picture uses maybe less than 20 models and results are awesom. Two years ago this technology existed. Probably longer. According to AW's documentation, pre3.0 may have supported something similar? Who knows. :) From experiencing the game, the facers all face your center viewpoint. So facers above you are facing down on you, facers to the right of you are facing to your side, etc. AW's facers, no matter where they are in your viewport always face straight in your direction, but not towards your viewpoint. I'm sure there is a better way of explaining it. ___ aw's are like ^ _ and oblivions are like / ^ \ Where ^ is your viewpoint. [View Quote] strike rapierMay 7, 2006, 8:46pm
SWEET
<CENSORED> JESUS O_O -- - Mark Randall http://www.temporal-solutions.co.uk "We're Systems and Networks..." "It's our job to know..." sw comitMay 8, 2006, 1:58am
Being an Elder Scrolls fan I must inform you that the trees don't use
traditional "models". They're all dynamically generated, and no 2 players see the same version. All plants are generated per-copy using very well done code. Instead of spending all their time making a million tree models they just created a generator instead ;D Back on topic, yea, facers could use a good bit of attention. They're an effective way of adding lots of visuals at very little cost to the art department. [View Quote] talisanMay 8, 2006, 4:14am
Hey, I'm glad they can find shortcuts :) I wish I had a tree planting tool
for my world to short cut it as well. But, the whole idea of facers, I've been playing with it... and getting both shoddy and good results depending. zorientx is fine for some things, as long as no one flies around or goes under trees and looks straight up or straight down... but what I really need to xyz.... and I'm wondering why its part of renderware, but not part of AW! I mean, if it were part of AW when renderware was adopted, I can guarentee that AW would be a heck of a lot different today. :) Why are these folks limiting their tech and not extending it?? How old is renderware anyway? About 10 years now right? Maybe older? If the tech was there then... was it just a matter of cpu and gpu power? If so, its come into power now... so why not implement it? :)))) [View Quote] andrasMay 8, 2006, 4:34am
[View Quote]
> Hey, I'm glad they can find shortcuts :) I wish I had a tree planting tool
> for my world to short cut it as well. But, the whole idea of facers, I've > been playing with it... and getting both shoddy and good results depending. > zorientx is fine for some things, as long as no one flies around or goes > under trees and looks straight up or straight down... but what I really need > to xyz.... and I'm wondering why its part of renderware, but not part of AW! > I mean, if it were part of AW when renderware was adopted, I can guarentee > that AW would be a heck of a lot different today. :) Why are these folks > limiting their tech and not extending it?? How old is renderware anyway? > About 10 years now right? Maybe older? If the tech was there then... was it > just a matter of cpu and gpu power? If so, its come into power now... so why > not implement it? :)))) > > You are probably not aware that Criterion dropped the RWX format when moved to version 3. Roland had to implement the whole format to translate it to the new RenderWare interface. I did not dug deep enough into the new API but as far as I remember, the Axisalignment was totally dropped from it, so we are lucky we at least have one version interpreted :) -- Andras "It's MY computer" (tm Steve Gibson) sw comitMay 8, 2006, 5:40am
Is the only reason for hanging onto the engine just for the sake of the
objects? It doesn't seem too far fetched to just program a converter and just run the OP through a batch. > You are probably not aware that Criterion dropped the RWX format when > moved to version 3. > Roland had to implement the whole format to translate it to the new > RenderWare interface. > I did not dug deep enough into the new API but as far as I remember, the > Axisalignment was totally dropped from it, so we are lucky we at least > have one version interpreted :) > > -- > Andras > "It's MY computer" (tm Steve Gibson) strike rapierMay 8, 2006, 11:53am
[View Quote]
Im not all that aware of the RW API, however, if it is a custom format would
it not be easier to simply add the feature to the format? Even if its not native I imagine that you would only have to calculate the 3D rotation matrix once (if done against a plain) and then just repeatedly adding? -- - Mark Randall http://www.temporal-solutions.co.uk "We're Systems and Networks..." "It's our job to know..." talisanMay 9, 2006, 3:00am
Well, to my point of view, it would seem like the code is already there, but
it limited to a X dimension... would seem to me if they removed that limtation that a Y, Z or XYZ ability could be achieved... but at the time the limitation was added it seemed like the "correct" move... possibly to prevent encrouchment which was a priority at the the "given" time? I'm just guessing. Seems to me that xorientz is the same as xyz... just not limiting it to one plane. Seems like it would be harder to limit it to one plane actually. But I'm no programmer :) ...as I like to say... so who knows :) orbMay 12, 2006, 4:45pm
It's my opinion that AWI didn't go with xyz becausae of the amount of
processing it takes. If you have an assorment of facers rotating in all directions at the same time it's too much of a load.. compare it to too many lights in one area. talisanMay 12, 2006, 7:07pm
I'm no programmer, so I really have no idea from a technical standpoint of
how much work the cpu or gpu would have to do in order for this to work. I always assumed that a facer style tree was oodles faster than a 3d tree with a lot of polys. It would be neat to take a 400 poly 3d tree and a 400 poly facer tree and test each one for lag. However, I think the 400 poly facer tree could be done with far less than 100 facers... so that would be fun to compare as well. Too bad we have no way to find out with the current technology. :) [View Quote] sw comitMay 12, 2006, 7:30pm
I find facers to be a touch ugly personally. I like multi-paned sprite
objects, such as tbtree010 in alphaworld. For example, take that and put 'create texture birch2 mask=birch2m' on it and sink it down a bit. Not toooo bad IMO ;D - Com [View Quote] |