Jump to content

Can I transform mesh body size or shape by scripting?


UeharaMizuki
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2621 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

I want to know about this, but i cannot find knowledge about it.

 

I'm short of english, so i couldn't find it well...

 

the thing what i want to do is

 

- change size of of body with aging

- eating so many, be fat

 

it can be calculated and adjusted to mesh body.

how can i do? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Short of RLV, a script can't do anything relevant with the system body, that's for sure. But RLV isn't absolutely necessary to affect mesh body parts, which could be hidden or shown (and even re-scaled, except fitted mesh), or have alternate material layers hidden or shown, but of course they need to have mod perm.

All major mesh body manufacturers, however, are sleazy superstitious wankers, so they're forcing you to go into direct competition with them. (Ah, but will you, too, be so sleazy as to release yet another no-mod mesh body?)

[EDIT: That's the rhetorical "you", of course, nothing intended toward ChinRey to whom the message replies.]

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Qie Niangao wrote:

(Ah, but will you, too, be so sleazy as to release yet another no-mod mesh body?)

[EDIT: That's the rhetorical "you", of course, nothing intended toward ChinRey to whom the message replies.]

I take it personal anyway. :P

Since you asked, I've been tempted. There certainly are many ways to make fitted mesh bodies that are just as good looking as the current ones but more flexible and less laggy. But I haven't got any experience modelling human shapes or working with fitted mesh so it won't happen.

As you said, fitted mesh can't be made modifiable, or at least there is no way to make it possible to change size or shape so that's out of question.

As for adding lots of extra polys to switch different parts on and off, the one word answer is:

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

....

....

....

....g!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: rendering lag. Are we sure? It's a consideration with the approach of layering multiple material faces on the very same mesh model (but see below). With the approach of multiple linked meshes where only one component at a time has scene-worthy scale... how does LoD work in those cases? Specifically while attached, if that makes a difference. Can't all but one linked mesh be rendered at the lowest LoD? (Maybe not; I genuinely don't know.)

(About the alternate material layers thing: back when I was actually paying attention to this stuff, the plan was that fully transparent geometry, though downloaded, would not be rendered at all. I'm guessing that didn't get implemented, but if it had, it would have made the multiple-material-layer approach almost as practical. They kinda promised us this in as a workaround for nerfing the mesh abstraction to make it impossible to swap models on the same object instance. Wouldn't be too surprising if they took with one hand and never got 'round to giving back with the other.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting a bit off topic for the scripter forum, maybe it should be moved to the mesh forum instead? But that's up to the moderators to decide.


Qie Niangao wrote:

Can't all but one linked mesh be rendered at the lowest LoD?

That's a very interesting idea for regular mesh and well worth keeping in mind. But the only way to achieve it would be to scale down the invisible objects and in this case we would have to use non-scaleable fitted mesh.


Qie Niangao wrote:

(About the alternate material layers thing: back when I was actually paying attention to this stuff, the plan was that fully transparent geometry, though downloaded, would not be rendered at all. I'm guessing that didn't get implemented, but if it had, it would have made the multiple-material-layer approach almost as practical. They kinda promised us this in as a workaround for nerfing the mesh abstraction to make it impossible to swap models on the same object instance. Wouldn't be too surprising if they took with one hand and never got 'round to giving back with the other.)

Judging by the calculated render weights, invisible faces and objects are still loading the render engine:

  • Prim with default plywood texture (512x512 px), RW: 404
  • With default plywood texture and 100% transaprency: 464
  • With default transparency texture (32x32 px): 344
  • Default transparency and alpha masking: 284
  • Custom 4x4 px blank texture: 277
  • Custom blank texture and 100% transparency: 337
  • Custom 4x4 transparent texture: 337
  • Custom 4x4 transparent with alpha masking: 277

Not that I trust the render weight formula in any way but it's all we have and besides, I'm sure they would have included that factor in it.

Of course, invisible objects still have server and download weight too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2621 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...