Various Dwemer Fixes #95
There are no files selected for viewing
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. The roof looks good. Maybe reduce the texture scale a bit? Somehow, I missed that this model also has a garbage shape: 
Its collision shape isn't split ideally: 
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. I did this as well. I had to re-wrap half the mesh for it though
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Nice, we are going somewhere. Now, this may come from my striving to reduce the draw call count aggressively. The leftover shape using this texture is so small that it might be imperceptible if it were changed to use a different texture, so it could be merged into another, larger shape, eliminating a draw call. I'd even argue that it would be better to follow the consistency with the rest of the model, where all the places where damage occurred use 
Regarding collision shapes, ideally, the collision shapes would be split to have smaller collision radii. That speeds up collision detection for the physics engine. OpenMW's Bullet3 and many other physics engines have a broad phase and narrow phase collision detection. During the broad phase, the checks are made only using fast tests against bounding spheres to see if there is a possibility of 2 objects colliding. Only then, during the narrow phase, are much more expensive triangle intersection tests performed. The vanilla engine's collision detection might be a bit more rudimentary here. So, with this in mind, the part that I circled in the first picture of my previous comment would be better if merged into the shape in the second picture. That wouldn't increase the bounding radius a lot. The way it's split now means there are 2 shapes with quite large collision radii. As I don't have much experience with Blender myself, I can't give much more pointers, but you may search some discussions in the #mop channel on the topic. I've seen there was also a way to make Blender draw these bounding radii. 
As depicted, the collision radius is quite large for the shape in the first picture, and much smaller in the second picture (unfortunately, I don't have the same angle and zoom on these two images). We may conclude that the "ideal" collision shape would gravitate towards a cube.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Okay so basically your saying you want the opposite of what i did. and basically split the coffin looking object in half vertically?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Okay I implemented these changes as well as fixed a wall uv that i didn't see originally.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. I did try the wall thing but it made it look like a replacer imo
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Somehow, the collision is really messed up in the latest version: 
And there are holes in the visual shape: 
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Okay, I've finally found the problematic hole Remiros wrote about. It's in the capital of the 2 pillars: 
But only 2 of the 4 pillars have it. |
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. You wrongly exported a wall piece here. |
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. You removed the collision shape here. Please don't remove it; it's beneficial to have a simplified collision shape. The UV work here is a great improvement! |
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. You've eliminated the seams for good, but the texture flow isn't vertical as in the vanilla version. Also, yours seems to have some unevenness: 
Again, don't remove the collision mesh. It isn't simplified as in the previous example, but still, split collision shapes lead to better performance. |
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Same thing about collision. It could be split a bit better than it is currently, but that's another thing. Also, looks like you now squeezed the 
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. You've removed the seam, but introduced stretching: 
Unfortunately, this is full of seams: 
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. You've dealt with the ugly triangle very good. But UV on the trim has floated a bit. This PR: 
Vanilla: 
Also, can you revert your changes on the other side of the trim? The texture didn't reach full height due to a damaged section of the wall, while you squeezed the whole width of the texture there, where it really shouldn't be that way. This PR: 
Vanilla: 
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Unfortunately, there are more on the end shapes: 
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. You zoomed in on the wall texture here. This PR: 
Vanilla: 
|
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.