ProjectX on 5/3/2005 at 19:51
I got a chandelier from the actor browser (default properties, only lightcolor changed) and I've added it to my room, however whenever I start the level or simulate physics for that object it falls through the air. It's inserted into a mesh so It shouldn't do that, no matter how far up I push it.
Below is a screen of the setup (highlighted mesh is top of chanelier)
(
http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs18&d=05096&f=chandelier.JPG) Teh Image
I've tried all different heights (and rebuilding) but nothing's working.
Weasel on 5/3/2005 at 20:43
If anything, the ceiling mesh will actually push the chandelier out because of the physics. If your chandelier never needs to move for any reason, you can simply replace it with a static mesh and a separate light object. Or, a slightly easier but less efficient method would be to turn off all movement for the chandelier by adding the property Actor>bNotMoveablePhysics and setting it to True.
If you want the chandelier to be able to swing but not move otherwise, I think you need to use a Rigid Attachment. I haven't done that yet, so I don't know how it works.
Mandrake on 5/3/2005 at 21:27
Quote Posted by Weasel
If anything, the ceiling mesh will actually push the chandelier out because of the physics. If your chandelier never needs to move for any reason, you can simply replace it with a static mesh and a separate light object. Or, a slightly easier but less efficient method would be to turn off all movement for the chandelier by adding the property Actor>bNotMoveablePhysics and setting it to True.
If you want the chandelier to be able to swing but not move otherwise, I think you need to use a Rigid Attachment. I haven't done that yet, so I don't know how it works.
I havn't tried it yet either but a rigid attachment is most likely how to do it. Why not look in the original maps and see how it was done ?
Weasel on 5/3/2005 at 21:32
Quote Posted by Mandrake
I havn't tried it yet either but a rigid attachment is most likely how to do it. Why not look in the original maps and see how it was done ?
Like I said, rigid attachment is the way to do it if you want the chandelier to be able to swing. If you don't care, for example if the chandelier is high enough that nothing is ever likely to make it move, then turning off movement entirely is probably slightly more resource-friendly (slightly less memory used when playing the map, if nothing else), and making the chandelier a static mesh even more.
Mandrake on 5/3/2005 at 21:50
Quote Posted by Weasel
Like I said, rigid attachment is the way to do it if you want the chandelier to be able to swing. If you don't care, for example if the chandelier is high enough that nothing is ever likely to make it move, then turning off movement entirely is probably slightly more resource-friendly (slightly less memory used when playing the map, if nothing else), and making the chandelier a static mesh even more.
I'd rather it was able to swing even in a remote location. One thing that totally kills game immersion for me is when you get to a place that you're "not supposed to" in a game, and find that things dont work as expected or at all.
For example the numerous places in the City in TDS where you can climb up with gloves and see "out" of the world into the blue void, or get strange clipping issues, simply because the designer thought "they'll never look up here, we wont bother to do this bit properly".
Another example is objects that are sometimes pickable and pushable as physics objects, and yet other similar objects can't be pushed or picked up.
Doom3 had this problem too - it had dynamic lighting and decent physics for objects, but so rarely did you come across an object that you COULD pick up or move, they might as well have not bothered. At least TDS had a decent percentage of objects that could be interacted with. (But it could have been a lot better)
This is where Halflife 2 really shines - EVERYTHING with few exceptions can be interacted with as a physics object, making the illusion of being in a virtual world that much stronger. (Although the way object picking up and moving is handled is a wee bit hokey I admit)
It's possible that making every object not nailed down a physics object in TDS will simply reduce the performance unacceptably, but my initial testing suggests that making objects physics objects doesn't have that much impact, certainly nowhere near the same scale as lighting sources, and using "StartActive False" means the physics for an object only need to be simulated after they're touched by something, which would help a lot too unless Garrett went around touching every single object in the game.
I hope that FM makers will include a bit more interactivity in the game than the original missions did, and also that they will design with "places you shouldnt be able to get to" in mind. (Eg if its possible to get on a roof somewhere, the view from there should work)
OrbWeaver on 5/3/2005 at 21:59
Quote Posted by Mandrake
I hope that FM makers will include a bit more interactivity in the game than the original missions did, and also that they will design with "places you shouldnt be able to get to" in mind. (Eg if its possible to get on a roof somewhere, the view from there should work)
Why would designers waste time building areas in their level they are not expecting you to ever see?
Places you "shouldn't be able to get to" are
bugs, not features.
Weasel on 5/3/2005 at 22:20
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Why would designers waste time building areas in their level they are not expecting you to ever see?
Places you "shouldn't be able to get to" are
bugs, not features.
What I meant is a room with a relatively high ceiling with flat walls, no rafters, no high furniture, etc. Where the only way to make the chandelier move is by shooting an arrow at it (and for the sake of argument, there are no water arrows in this mission). Generally speaking, because of gravity, a ceiling is a place that the player can see but not get to. If there's any reasonable way for the player to get near the ceiling, then I'm all for making the chandelier interactive.
Just remember: when we want to really tax the game engine to the max and make levels as big and complictated as we can, we'll have to make compromises like this somewhere.
Quote Posted by Mandrake
For example the numerous places in the City in TDS where you can climb up with gloves and see "out" of the world into the blue void, or get strange clipping issues, simply because the designer thought "they'll never look up here, we wont bother to do this bit properly".
A situation like that is not what I'm endorsing at all. I was dumbfounded by those places in TDS. How could they put climbing gloves in the game and not expect every single player to climb to every single one of those places? Heck, I think the game had 10 times as many places you
weren't expected to climb to but could as places that you
were expected to climb to and that were useful.
Mandrake on 5/3/2005 at 22:22
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Why would designers waste time building areas in their level they are not expecting you to ever see?
Places you "shouldn't be able to get to" are
bugs, not features.
Err, you're not a long time Thief player are you :tsktsk:
The first two games are replete with "places you're not supposed to go but can get to if you're smart". Thats part of the charm of the game...TDS was sorely lacking in such places, partly due to level design, and partly due to lack of rope arrows.
ProjectX on 5/3/2005 at 22:22
fixed it, I adjusted the PointAttachment Point Settings between 15 and -15 instead of 30 and -30
OrbWeaver on 5/3/2005 at 22:33
Quote Posted by Mandrake
The first two games are replete with "places you're not supposed to go but can get to if you're smart". Thats part of the charm of the game...
That does not mean that the presence of such areas was intentional.
Quote Posted by Weasel
I was dumbfounded by those places in TDS. How could they put climbing gloves in the game and not expect every single player to climb to every single one of those places? Heck, I think the game had 10 times as many places you weren't expected to climb to but could as places that you were expected to climb to and that were useful.
The climbing gloves were a late addition to the game, after the designers failed to implement rope arrows. It is likely that much of the level design had been completed before the existence of climbing gloves became an issue.
