1  |   Order by index

Feb 23, 2002, 3:12am

Sometimes it's just easier to explain things with pictures so
I put this message into HTML form as well:

http://memeticdrift.net/jitterbug/rwxsphere/

Its been a while since I have built models, and I have
just recently noticed several differences between 3.2 and
the older browsers, particularly when it comes to the sphere
primitive. I created RWX model shown below to illustrate
the problems I'm having. The model contains 4 spheres one
on top of the other, each successive sphere has a higher
level of detail from the one below.

For the RWX code monkeys out there here is the code:

modelbegin
clumpbegin
Color .50 .50 .50
Surface 0.2 0.75 0.2
sphere 0.04 1
translate 0 .1 0
sphere 0.04 2
translate 0 .1 0
sphere 0.04 3
translate 0 .1 0
sphere 0.04 4
clumpend
modelend

This is what it looks like in RWModeler and how i feel it _should_
look like:

http://memeticdrift.net/jitterbug/rwxsphere/Image2.jpg

This next image shows what it looks like when i look at it using
the AW 3.2 browser using direct 3D. It also looks about the same
as this using the software renderer.

Here are problems I see with this image:

1. The shading is very flat.
2. The spheres are made using a latitude longitude rather
than a rounded octahedron system.
3. At the lowest level of detail the sphere degenerates
into a flat diamond.

http://memeticdrift.net/jitterbug/rwxsphere/Image1.jpg

How it shows up using OpenGL. Notice the strange shading? I'm
not sure what has gone wrong here but in addition to the above
problems, looks like there are some very screwed up normals on
the vertices of the spheres. (I'm using a diamond viper 550
video card if its video card issue.)

http://memeticdrift.net/jitterbug/rwxsphere/Image4.jpg

Are these problems known bugs, and if so is there a work around
for them other than not using the sphere primitive at all?

-Jitterbug.

Feb 23, 2002, 3:24am

Yeah, they used a new sphere type in 3.2. Try saving it from inside the
modelere then try. It should look better then it does now.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2002, 3:26am

*gasp* my cover's blown

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2002, 4:41am

[View Quote] Actually what I want to do is create the rwx file from my own
program[1] and I'm just trying to figgure out what would be the
cleanest way to write out the export file in light of the
changes introduced in the 3.2 browser.

Have a look at this picture to see an example of what im trying
to export to RWX:
http://memeticdrift.net/jitterbug/temp/bands.jpg

What I have been doing up to now is use the sphere primitive in
a prototype and translate it into the correct possitions for
the joints as shown with blue spheres in the screen shot. This
was why the primitive was very convenient. I do someting similar
for the rods only i both translate and rotate them into place.

I guess I could create the sphere out of triangles as rwModler
does. It would just be more work on my part and would result in
slightly bigger rwx files.

Yes, I could call the switch of sphere types as a 3.2 quirk
and the result of a design choice however the openGL one looks
realy broken. (ie: a bug) I think a programmer at AW should
have peek at it.

I'm still not sure what's up with the lighting between the
old and new versions. Something has changed as there doesn't
seem to be any hilights in AW anymore. I can't get the
shinny plastic look I had before.

--Jitterbug

--
[1] called SpringDance and its free
http://shapeofspace.org/springdance/

Feb 23, 2002, 4:45am

> Actually what I want to do is create the rwx file from my own
> program[1] and I'm just trying to figgure out what would be the
> cleanest way to write out the export file in light of the
> changes introduced in the 3.2 browser.
>
> Have a look at this picture to see an example of what im trying
> to export to RWX:
> http://memeticdrift.net/jitterbug/temp/bands.jpg
>
> What I have been doing up to now is use the sphere primitive in
> a prototype and translate it into the correct possitions for
> the joints as shown with blue spheres in the screen shot. This
> was why the primitive was very convenient. I do someting similar
> for the rods only i both translate and rotate them into place.

Wow you lost me on this part :).

> I guess I could create the sphere out of triangles as rwModler
> does. It would just be more work on my part and would result in
> slightly bigger rwx files.
>
> Yes, I could call the switch of sphere types as a 3.2 quirk
> and the result of a design choice however the openGL one looks
> realy broken. (ie: a bug) I think a programmer at AW should
> have peek at it.

Hmm.. I don't think they really care about it right now.. this might be
fixed in 3.3?

> I'm still not sure what's up with the lighting between the
> old and new versions. Something has changed as there doesn't
> seem to be any hilights in AW anymore. I can't get the
> shinny plastic look I had before.

Only one of the lighting modes works now :\. That may be your problem..
using one of the older light settings.

-Silenced

Feb 23, 2002, 2:34pm

[View Quote] If you create 1 sphere in something like modeler, then you can use it
numerous times.
at the end of your file add this
ProtoBegin Sphere
your sphere
ProtoEnd
then you can put it into your model with "ProtoInstance Sphere", then use
your transform and rotate it into position. Yes the files will be slightly
bigger, but its better than having 5 of them

>
> Yes, I could call the switch of sphere types as a 3.2 quirk
> and the result of a design choice however the openGL one looks
> realy broken. (ie: a bug) I think a programmer at AW should
> have peek at it.

Roland(roland at activeworlds.com) is the lead programmer for AW, send him an
email with whats going on and he might take a look at it, that is if it
isn't already fixed in 3.3

>
> I'm still not sure what's up with the lighting between the
> old and new versions. Something has changed as there doesn't
> seem to be any hilights in AW anymore. I can't get the
> shinny plastic look I had before.

In the 2.x browser lighting had 3 parts to it, Ambient, Diffuse and
Specular, Ambient being how bright the model is by default, Diffuse being
how much a light will affect it, and Specular being how (for lack of a
better word) smoothly the light shines on it. (ie. shiny plastic as opposed
to fabric)

>
> --Jitterbug
>
> --
> [1] called SpringDance and its free
> http://shapeofspace.org/springdance/

Feb 23, 2002, 7:12pm

[View Quote] >
> In the 2.x browser lighting had 3 parts to it, Ambient, Diffuse and
> Specular, Ambient being how bright the model is by default, Diffuse being
> how much a light will affect it, and Specular being how (for lack of a
> better word) smoothly the light shines on it. (ie. shiny plastic as opposed
> to fabric)
>

Just to finnish (no pun intended) the thought, I think you are saying
that the 3.x browsers only support ambient and diffuse finnish settings.
The specular (shinny hilight) setting knob is not actually connected to
anything in the 3.2 browser.

I found this in the help pages. http://www.activeworlds.com/help/rwx_specular.html
I know, I know. I should read the fine manual!

Thanks for your help.

Feb 23, 2002, 11:25pm

correct, Modeler is showing the specular you have set of .2

any object you make you should change the specular to zero to more
accurately reflect what you would see when displayed in the AW Browser.

surface a b c where a=ambient b=diffuse and c=specular.

In your example I would tend to something like "surface .5 .6 0" to get a
nice effect.

Note that both modeler and AW interpret shortcut commands into the model
before it is rendered using renderware. These shortcuts include all
primitives as well as protoinstanting. Thus the interpretation is the
result of the interpreter rather than the renderware.

As already suggested, the best way around the problem is to save the script
in Modeler, and then clean it to reduce the file size. I've not checked if
the latest beta has been released, but if it has the latest version does do
a big clean-up to reduce the end result file size.

Regards, Justin

[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index