Gustavo Alberto Navarro Bilbao kirjoitti:
Yes, I know that solution: to create a big and invisible meshe over the other ones, but, in my opinion that is the kind of provisional solution than in spanish we call "una chapuza", sorry but I don't know the english definition.
No not as a separate object, but one(s) that you define as the *collision mesh* of the visual object. In the rex props tab, IIRC next to the where you assign the visual mesh, you can define that collision mesh used too.
It is not a hack or some sort of cheap solution, it is how realtime content with collisions has usually been authored.
That solution is good for visual aspects and no complex meshes, but if you really would like to create and "inmersive" world and not only a "virtual walktrought" one, that can't be the final solution, specially if we are thinking about scripts to test wheels, engines and other perfomances in simulations.
Err, there is no limit for the complexity or anything set by this route of having the collision object definition separate. Quite the opposite, it allows for more complexity, 'cause the visual mesh can be made for best visuality and the collision mesh for best collision features.
Having the fallback where the visual geom is used also for collisions, when a separate collision mesh is not provided, is useful for quick/simple things but exactly more complexity is where you may need this feature that it is possible to use a separate one too.
Alberto
~Toni
2010/5/31 Toni Alatalo <ant...@kyperjokki.fi <mailto:ant...@kyperjokki.fi>>Gustavo Alberto Navarro Bilbao kirjoitti: I think that it would be very important to fix the issue of physics in the meshes, when they have more materials, to be cease to be "phantoms", I suppose you know the current solution, from the earlier talks? Use a collision mesh without several materials, for the visual objects that have many materials. That's the reason why it has been implemented like it is: collision meshes are often authored separately, and as they are invisible anyway, there is no reason for them to have materials, so the physics mesh creator didn't need to support that. If you don't care / need to make a different geom for the collisions (often many visual details are irrelevant or even harmful for proper collisions), you can just make a copy of the mesh where remove the mats in your modelling app. But I agree that for the fallback of using the visual mesh for collisions too when a separate collision mesh is not provided it would be a good idea for it to handle all the submeshes (material indexes become submeshes in ogre). Probably quite simple to add in rexode where the geom for ode is created. ~Toni-- http://groups.google.com/group/realxtendhttp://www.realxtend.org <http://www.realxtend.org/> -- http://groups.google.com/group/realxtendhttp://www.realxtend.org
-- http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend http://www.realxtend.org
