Just wondering why

[Chic Aeon]

So I found a work around that doesn't add any (well .1) LI to the mix but I would still like to know if there is a way to do this CORRECTLY and have it work :D

Here is the Blender photo of my interior wall.

 

Tried several ways to upload including a physics model (so didn't work) LOL. 

When using HIGH physics on the uploader all appears lovely until I analyze and then the back wall (largest one) loses the physics entirely. The other four walls act as you would expect them to, "solid" and I can walk inside easily. Only that back wall is "phantom". I fixed it easily by inserting a mesh window pane inside the wall. The LI didn't increase at all (well very minimally) so I am OK with that, but wondering if there was a way to do it more correctly.

 

Thinking now that the problematic wall has only ONE face where the others have two or more and that could be the issue?

Also just in case anyone has noted this. Legacy prims (cubes) are turning phantom for apparently no reason over on ADITI, so be prepared. Difficult to "walk your build" when you keep falling though *wink*.

Ah the challenges.

 

[Frawmusl]

You said you uploaded a physics model, What was wrong with it that you chose not to use it? Usually I don't hit analyze when uploading, I just select highest and calculate cost. The analyze button seems to break more than it helps

Edit: What are you trying to work around?

[Chic Aeon]

The physics model I made didn't "fit" the shape at all. I used five flattened cubes to go along the walls, not touching. Which is pretty much what I normally do. The cubes ([physics dae) extened WAY out beyond the ends of the build for some reason.

I always use solid and analyze and then change to prim. That is what the gurus on the board have said to do and until now that has worked perfectly . Didn't try NOT analyzing as I thought that was an integral step. Might try that tomorrow. Late for me now.

 

 

[Frawmusl]

Interesting, Well try it and let me know I would love to see the error your getting where it extends way beyond the walls +See the picture of it in the file maybe I can advise, Its so hard to explain mesh in text though
Have a goodnight! Look forward to hearing more~

[Drongle McMahon]

First, can you confirm that both the visual mesh and the physics mesh you had problems with are each (supposed to be) just one Blender object? Assuming that ...

The physics shape being bigger than the visual mesh would be very unexpected. Is the bounding box you see when you edit the mesh and check "Stretch" also bigger? If it is, it suggests that you may have accidentally included some extra geometry in the visible mesh. The physics would then get stretched to include that. What do you see in the uploader preview after you press "Analyze"? Does the physics shape there match the visible mesh? Also, what do you see when you look at the physics shape with Develop->Render Metadata->Physics shapes?

If you want to try a triangle-based physics shape (that's what you get if specify a mesh but don't use "Analyze"), you should use a mesh avoiding without the narrow rectangles that are edges of walls and windows, as far as possible without changing the bounding box (if you use one plane per wall, you will need the end edges only. If you use your physics mesh, just delete the narrow edges first. Don't use a mesh with the windows. This is because the narrow triangles increase the  burden on the physics engine and the physics weight.

Some of the cases of unexpected phantom prims have been reported to happen when a mesh is rezzed on top

[Chic Aeon]

Happily (from my point of view) I checked all that - YEAH!  Learning something.

See bold for last update.

Yes, both mesh and physics mesh dae are both just ONE mesh object. Both count a .5 for the server when tested and the physics dae had "no mesh data to join".

Putting aside my home made physic shape which I am thinking may have a problem as that one problematic wall doesn't have three dimensions for its matching "cube" to stretch across -- meaning that adding a third (unneeded) dimension may solve that problem ----- HERE is what happens if I simply use the highest (or middle I think too) physics in the uploader.

It looks perfectly covered with all edges nicely wrapped  until I hit the analyze button. Then the side walls (four of them) all get wrapped and the long flat wall shows no physics at all. That is what it looks like in the render metadata too, four walls (two on each side) with physics and nothing in the center panel.

I just went back over and tried the new model that actually HAS a 3D back wall now and it all worked fine. When I woke up this morning I was pretty sure that was it. Happy that it was. Will try my former non-working physics dae next but I am guessing that it will work now -- that it couldn't find a 3D section to attach to in the middle and so rearranged the physics cubes and that's what had it moving out into the ethers. If it doesn't work -- I'll write again!   . So the uploader physics choices were ALSO confused it seems as now it works perfectly although the LI is too high.

Sometimes it is simple and tiredness gets in the way.

 

 

AH yes, I had mesh rezzed on top of my turning phantom prims. Hopefully that doesn't translate into Agni

 

Thanks!!!

[Chic Aeon]

OK. Here's my update as it might help someone along the way.

The issue with my physics dae (here is a screenshot) was apparently the location, rotation or scale thing . I aligned origin to geometry and applied location, rotation and scale (all in the OBJECT mode and from the OBJECT menu there) and it works perfectly now. LI at 1 rather than 6. [While I did get a perfect one uploaded with physics changed to prim at 1 LI, later uploads with two materials AND even the very same file with very same phyics dae ended up at 4. I tried several times to get that 1LI back. Only in my inventory on ADITI so that won't be of help.  A bonus from the uploader I guess. ] BEFORE I made those changes, I had the same "not fitting" issue as before even with the added geometry on the back wall.

Thanks all.

 

 

[Frawmusl]

I understand that cubes are the lowest impact on the havoc engine, but does the fact you have multiple cubes as the physics still make it lower than connecting all of those together so you don't have those holes in your physics? So cubes are cubes even if combined with other cubes, To havoc that is?

[Drongle McMahon]

Frawmusl, If you use the "Analyze" button with this shape, it should give the same result whether you have five separate boxes, as here, or one with the corners in it. That's because it has to be split into five pieces for each to be a convex hull. So it should be exactly the same weight. However, it is generally easier to control what the uploader does by giving it the right hulls to start with.

In principle, as long as these boxes are not tapered - all right angles, they could be treated as primitives by the Havok engine. It does that when you use linked boxes, and they only weight 0.1 each. However, at least for now, the uploader and server are not programmed to recognise primitives in uploaded physics meshes. So it actually makes no difference whether the boxes have angled corners or not. As long as they have flat sides (all four vertices coplanar) and there are eight vertices, all boxes will cost 0.36 each.

[Frawmusl]

Oh awesome, Thats been picking my brain for awhile Thanks for explaining that to me.