AxisAlignment xyz (Wishlist)

AxisAlignment xyz // Wishlist

1  |  

talisan

May 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. "

orb

May 7, 2006, 3:25pm
WOAH !

talisan

May 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 rapier

May 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 comit

May 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]

talisan

May 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]

andras

May 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 comit

May 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 rapier

May 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..."

talisan

May 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 :)

orb

May 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.

talisan

May 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 comit

May 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]

talisan

May 12, 2006, 7:46pm
Hmm, I'll go take a look at that right now :P
[View Quote]

1  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn