616 replies to this topic

[Drybonz]

Possible bug : Under key/Dof settings, if I check or uncheck an option they don't seem to stick. Please verify that it is not only me.

 

I noticed that in the beta if I add an image (I was adding an .hdr for an environment) when I would check under the list of available options for the environment, the file I just added was not there.  I had to re-open the image manager and "OK" out of it again for the file to show.  I was able to reproduce this a couple of times by adding other files.

[toxie]

 

I know. That's why i never cared that much about adding it so far. The mileage varies heavily with these two schemes.

Some like SMAA more though as it does not blur some things that much as FXAA.

 

Toxie, would a multi-sampling AA option, as opposed to the post-processing types, offer a better quality option?

 

 

It could, yes, but again not (easily) possible with the current VP architecture, as we have that separation into static and dynamic geometry.

Would it be possible to add support for 2 sided materials?  I'm trying to make low poly fur for white water big foot which typically is done by layering planes with hair texture maps with transparency which I can't really do without making every plane a solid which will increase face count 4x.  The problem is when the head rotates we will see the back side of some of the planes and it makes it look like a hole through any part of the mesh that it over laps.

 

2 sided material support allows for a texture map to render on the inside or back side of flat (not solid) geometry.

 

could be done, but would then most likely be implemented by rendering twice anyway (front and back separated). or you just want to have the same material on both sides?

[fuzzel]

 

 

I mentioned it in a post a couple days ago on a table thread, but it should be possible for VP to be able to handle the XY rotation better.  I build tables in portrait mode, and someone with a landscape cab should just be able to change the XY rotation and everything should fit correctly.  Basically decouple the table XY from the monitor XY.  Of course if you have a different proportion monitor you would need to adjust, but then you would need to adjust pretty much anything that comes out, but most I believe use 16:9 at least on cabs.

 

 

@toxie @fuzzel  thoughts?  does that make sense, I can clarify if needed.

 

Yes and no. The camera calculation is a tricky one because by just changing the XY rotation you won't get a good fullscreen view and vice versa. I tried a lot of ways to simplify the camera handling back in the 10.0 alpha/beta phase days. The way we have it at the moment is the most flexible but complicated one. So can it be done better/easier? Yes, but you would loose the possibility to scale/zoom a table in FS view.

[fuzzel]

 

Possible bug : Under key/Dof settings, if I check or uncheck an option they don't seem to stick. Please verify that it is not only me.

 

I noticed that in the beta if I add an image (I was adding an .hdr for an environment) when I would check under the list of available options for the environment, the file I just added was not there.  I had to re-open the image manager and "OK" out of it again for the file to show.  I was able to reproduce this a couple of times by adding other files.

 

Ah good catch...The internal structures are only updated when you press the OK button but because the image manager isn't modal anymore you could let the manager dialog open and you won't see the images you've loaded before. I'll try to update the structures when after loading/deleting images

[shadowshd]

Great news Fuzzel and Toxie

++

[dark]

@Toxie: Yes same material+texture rendered on both sides.

Edited by dark, 05 April 2017 - 12:20 PM.

[fuzzel]

@Toxie: Yes same material+texture rendered on both sides.

Oh well then...that is a problem in the current version of the engine. As Toxie said we had to render everthing twice and probably with a small offset so the polygons don't interfere each other. The only thing that is possible is to disable the backface culling if a primitive is transparent. We could reuse the draw texture inside check box for that. I don't think that anyone uses the old build-in primitive in VPX anymore and I would remove them if nobody complaines about it.

[bent98]

To modernize AA in VP you need to change the architecture to handle static and dynamic geometry separately. It sounds like a fair bit of work to do that, Is this something that's planned for VP 10x or will it be deferred to VP 11.x?

[fuzzel]

rev3014 is up:

 

- image and matertial manager dialog is resizeable
- show camera position in camera/light mode
- add simple kicker hole mesh
 

To modernize AA in VP you need to change the architecture to handle static and dynamic geometry separately. It sounds like a fair bit of work to do that, Is this something that's planned for VP 10x or will it be deferred to VP 11.x?

You're right that is a fair bit of work to do...so it won't come in 10.x for compatibility reasons.

[kiwi]

If we could have other control parameters for moving the primitives, such as the speed of the movement, the movement from one point to another, acceleration and deceleration,
same thing for the rotation, speed, rotation from A to B degrees.
Something like that already exists for the gates.

[nFozzy]

We could reuse the draw texture inside check box for that. I don't think that anyone uses the old build-in primitive in VPX anymore and I would remove them if nobody complaines about it.

 

I like using them for collision

[fuzzel]

If we could have other control parameters for moving the primitives, such as the speed of the movement, the movement from one point to another, acceleration and deceleration,
same thing for the rotation, speed, rotation from A to B degrees.
Something like that already exists for the gates.

well moving primitives is a special case and can be scripted. I know that this can become complicated but there is no generic way to add that to a generic primitive. A gate has only one purpose so that isn't a problem.

 

We could reuse the draw texture inside check box for that. I don't think that anyone uses the old build-in primitive in VPX anymore and I would remove them if nobody complaines about it.

 

I like using them for collision

 

And why do you use primitives and not a simple wall? just curious...

[BorgDog]

One reason I've used primitives and not walls is the ability to easily make multi-sided objects, like round.  Could that be added to wall objects?  would it also be possible to add elasticity falloff to more objects besides rubbers, like walls?  

[dark]

 

@Toxie: Yes same material+texture rendered on both sides.

Oh well then...that is a problem in the current version of the engine. As Toxie said we had to render everthing twice and probably with a small offset so the polygons don't interfere each other. The only thing that is possible is to disable the backface culling if a primitive is transparent. We could reuse the draw texture inside check box for that. I don't think that anyone uses the old build-in primitive in VPX anymore and I would remove them if nobody complaines about it.

 

 

I was going to suggest to perhaps make it a 'check box' enabled option in the event that it could cause backwards compatibility issues or unnecessary performance issues on objects that don't need it.

[nFozzy]

I like to split off the corners of rubber bands to give them different physics values, which rubber objects can't do, and walls don't have elasticity falloff.

 

Mostly I just like the convenience of having very precise cylinders that I can tweak by x/y position and diameter in-editor

[Wolverine]

First thx for the famous work!

 

How does ist come, that i can't use some keys (i.e. DEL) or shortcuts (i.e. CTRL+V) in the Table-Info window? In the Editor-Window they work.

[kiwi]

 

If we could have other control parameters for moving the primitives, such as the speed of the movement, the movement from one point to another, acceleration and deceleration,
same thing for the rotation, speed, rotation from A to B degrees.
Something like that already exists for the gates.

well moving primitives is a special case and can be scripted. I know that this can become complicated but there is no generic way to add that to a generic primitive. A gate has only one purpose so that isn't a problem.

 

We could reuse the draw texture inside check box for that. I don't think that anyone uses the old build-in primitive in VPX anymore and I would remove them if nobody complaines about it.

 

I like using them for collision

 

And why do you use primitives and not a simple wall? just curious...

 

And a kind of new object dedicated only for the movement, a new object which exploits only the gate handling code, to control the primitive rotation?
I sometimes I used the gate to lift and lower to mobile ramps.
And if you could convert the rotation in movement, from one point to another, loop, number of loops.

[fuzzel]

Sorry I won't add this. Such special objects make the hole application only more complicated. If you need such behavior then you have to code it yourself in the script. Everything to do that is available.

[toxie]

To modernize AA in VP you need to change the architecture to handle static and dynamic geometry separately. It sounds like a fair bit of work to do that, Is this something that's planned for VP 10x or will it be deferred to VP 11.x?

 

I second Fuzzel here. But we're not that far off actually, as you can see when you're using the camera mode to adjust things dynamically. A lot works as expected already, but is of course not that fast and not that feature complete as the "normal" rendering mode.

But then again "modern" AA is all about temporal AA anyway, or even SSAA (or even just postprocessed AA if one is displaying in 4K), and not so much MSAA anymore, so i don't know if we must bother about this complicated mess anyway nowadays.

 

 

@Toxie: Yes same material+texture rendered on both sides.

Oh well then...that is a problem in the current version of the engine. As Toxie said we had to render everthing twice and probably with a small offset so the polygons don't interfere each other. The only thing that is possible is to disable the backface culling if a primitive is transparent. We could reuse the draw texture inside check box for that. I don't think that anyone uses the old build-in primitive in VPX anymore and I would remove them if nobody complaines about it.

 

 

I was going to suggest to perhaps make it a 'check box' enabled option in the event that it could cause backwards compatibility issues or unnecessary performance issues on objects that don't need it.

 

 

Sounds feasible. I'll look into it.

[jpsalas]

I just tried rev1034 and I found what it seems to me as 2 small bugs:

 

- You cannot rename a material

- The Select Element (Shift Ctrl E) does not select any objects anymore, it simply quits when pressing the Select button.

 

JP