Author Topic: Buildables and players colission models  (Read 5895 times)

Redman

  • Posts: 103
  • Turrets: +6/-6
Buildables and players colission models
« on: February 17, 2008, 12:05:27 am »
Hello. In Tremulous players and buildables have box collision model (bbox). All "trem-modders" are making Tremulous more hard (tjw...) or more easy (TremX). But why? Isn't that better to make Tremulous more realistic? I think trem devs can make more detail collision models for players and buildables and which rotates with player. That will be more funny if dretch can go under tyrant, not tyrant stand on him.

Rocinante

  • Posts: 642
  • Turrets: +252/-668
    • My Homepage
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2008, 12:09:25 am »
This feels more 'feedback'ish to me, so I moved it.

As for your question, when's the last time you saw a soldier carrying a Lucifer Cannon, or a marauder slashing and flying through the air?  Realism leaves a lot to be desired :>
}MG{Mercenaries Guild
"On my ship, the Rocinante, wheeling through the galaxies, headed for the heart of Cygnus, headlong into mystery." -- Rush, "Cygnus X-1"

Lakitu7

  • Tremulous Developers
  • *
  • Posts: 1002
  • Turrets: +120/-73
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2008, 12:19:47 am »
Non-rectangular bounding boxes are much much much more expensive to compute collisions for. Someone more knowledgable of the engine will be able to say more, but I believe I've been told that it's beyond the Q3 engine as a whole.

Atom Eve

  • Posts: 240
  • Turrets: +141/-139
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2008, 12:27:23 am »
I believe I've been told that it's beyond the Q3 engine as a whole.

That's what I've heard.
}MG{Mercenaries Guild
Quote
<Atom_Eve> Haha. From the FAQ on the forums:
<Atom_Eve> "While Tremulous releases can take months to prepare, TJW can update his mod as soon as new changes are ready."
* Atom_Eve giggles relentlessly at "months".

techhead

  • Posts: 1496
  • Turrets: +77/-73
    • My (Virtually) Infinite Source of Knowledge (and Trivia)
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2008, 12:51:35 am »
Don't pick a Quake engine if you want rigid body physics. Even Quake 4 had bounding boxes to conserver CPU power, although they are no longer cubes like Q1-3
I'm playing Tremulous on a Mac!
MGDev fan-club member
Techhead||TH
/"/""\"\
\"\""/"/
\\:.V.://
Copy and paste Granger into your signature!

kevlarman

  • Posts: 2737
  • Turrets: +291/-295
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2008, 01:03:13 am »
Don't pick a Quake engine if you want rigid body physics. Even Quake 4 had bounding boxes to conserver CPU power, although they are no longer cubes like Q1-3
q1-q3 are not cubes, any axis aligned rectangular prism is a valid bounding box, and i think even halflife 2 uses AABB's for collision detection.
Quote from: Asvarox link=topic=8622.msg169333#msg169333
Ok let's plan it out. Asva, you are nub, go sit on rets, I will build, you two go feed like hell, you go pwn their asses, and everyone else camp in the hallway, roger?
the dretch bites.
-----
|..d| #
|.@.-##
-----

techhead

  • Posts: 1496
  • Turrets: +77/-73
    • My (Virtually) Infinite Source of Knowledge (and Trivia)
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2008, 01:14:39 am »
I meant cubes as a general term for rectangular prisms, sorry.
I'm playing Tremulous on a Mac!
MGDev fan-club member
Techhead||TH
/"/""\"\
\"\""/"/
\\:.V.://
Copy and paste Granger into your signature!

Lava Croft

  • Guest
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2008, 05:18:35 am »
Don't pick a Quake engine if you want rigid body physics. Even Quake 4 had bounding boxes to conserver CPU power, although they are no longer cubes like Q1-3
If want to see what happens if you don't do bboxes, but some crazy per nano-pixel hit-detection, look at DOOM3.

Redman

  • Posts: 103
  • Turrets: +6/-6
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2008, 08:18:50 pm »
I don't think about 99999999999-faces collision models (picture: http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7412/57577549mg2.jpg). I just think about some more details, like that: http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/8930/24177984cw2.jpg

doomagent13

  • Posts: 506
  • Turrets: +18/-18
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #9 on: February 21, 2008, 08:31:00 pm »
If you were to do a model-based collision detection, you would likely want a low detail model.  By low detail, I mean monochrome and 100-400, maybe 1000 at the most, vertices.

jr2

  • Posts: 277
  • Turrets: +13/-74
    • Barely started
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2008, 08:02:44 am »
What would monochrome have to do with it?
Signature can be found here at Hard Light Productions

Amanieu

  • Posts: 647
  • Turrets: +135/-83
    • Amanieu
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2008, 08:30:19 am »
Actually a very low definition model that is only used for collision detection on the server side (also client side for prediction) would be enough. You aren't rendering it, just using it internally.
Quote
< kevlarman> zakk is getting his patches from shady frenchmen on irc
< kevlarman> this can't be a good sign :P

==Troy==

  • Posts: 440
  • Turrets: +65/-67
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2008, 09:03:40 am »
even with current amount of 1 hitbox (a VERY low definition model huh?) servers are pushed to the maximum (64 slots, 999 bp etc.) with anything consisting of more than 6 faces to check the CPU load will go up a lot.


On the other hand, a WolfET mod : jaymod, has introduced an oriented hitboxes, and also had about 10 of them per player, moreover, they have moved, following the player animation, such as walking. But even that did increase the load a lot.

blood2.0

  • Guest
Re: Buildables and players colission models
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2008, 06:29:16 am »
there is a reason that the quake 3 is free