terrain import/export - issues

[IvyTechEngineer]

4 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

Before you go forward I suggest just TRYING (not uploading just looking at ) the download and physics (assuming you want to be able to bump into your mountain) in the Linden uploader.  You can easily tell if your model will have too much land impact for what you want. Make sure you have the correct SIZE designated when you test the numbers.

 

Opensim isn't going to help you much with the land impact cost as the numbers are VERY different from Second Life ones -- and the physics is different also in many cases.    OS is fine for testing textures.   You can of course (maybe) use the Aditi beta grid if it is indeed open again for "new folks" (not sure where the line is drawn there and if you are new and haven't used it before  ).

 

 

What would be an acceptable Land Impact value for a model like this one. I was thinking about building the physics model in SL and saving it as a dae file the editing it in Blender. I am trying to get Opensim set up now on the school computers.

[Chic Aeon]

Well "acceptable" depends on the person as there are some super weighty items out there. What I really meant was testing and then looking at the number.  So if it was over a hundred that would definitely not be good "for me".  Honestly any land form over 50 at the 64 meter limit would definitely be a no-no for me.  

 

I recently made a spectacular looking roof, but because the uploader doesn't like small pieces on large objects it was going to upload in the hundreds.  It would WORK in Opensim and I may make it into a cupola and upload there  some day but it is obviously NOT suited ro the SL grid :D.    

 

 

 

 

[ChinRey]

16 hours ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

What would be an acceptable Land Impact value for a model like this one.

If you mean the one in your latest picture, my guesstimate would be 10. But it's hard to tell when the picture is taken in object mode so we can't see the actual polys.

Compare it to Chic's terrain that Aquila posted a picture of. It's 20 LI which I'd say is exactly what it should be for her similar but more detailed terrain.

16 hours ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

I was thinking about building the physics model in SL and saving it as a dae file the editing it in Blender.

Don't do that. If you need a separate physics model, there is something wrong. For large terrain meshes you should nearly always use the same model all the way, for all LOD level and for physics. There are some rare occasions where you have to simplify a little bit.

  

21 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

Opensim isn't going to help you much with the land impact cost as the numbers are VERY different from Second Life ones -- and the physics is different also in many cases.

In this particular case physics is pretty much the same for OS and SL. The land impact is very different though. On opensim model like this will show up with a very high land impact in the edit window but it's actually only 1. Opensim still uses the old prim count system even for meshes so one mesh is one LI regardless of how big or complex it is. However, with the ubODE physics engine, the server sends incorrect LI data to the viewer so it shows up there with false data. I discussed it with Ubit a while ago but he insisted it was a feature, not a bug, so he had no intention of changing it.

[IvyTechEngineer]

2 hours ago, ChinRey said:

If you mean the one in your latest picture, my guesstimate would be 10. But it's hard to tell when the picture is taken in object mode so we can't see the actual polys.

Compare it to Chic's terrain that Aquila posted a picture of. It's 20 LI which I'd say is exactly what it should be for her similar but more detailed terrain.

Don't do that. If you need a separate physics model, there is something wrong. For large terrain meshes you should nearly always use the same model all the way, for all LOD level and for physics. There are some rare occasions where you have to simplify a little bit.

  

In this particular case physics is pretty much the same for OS and SL. The land impact is very different though. On opensim model like this will show up with a very high land impact in the edit window but it's actually only 1. Opensim still uses the old prim count system even for meshes so one mesh is one LI regardless of how big or complex it is. However, with the ubODE physics engine, the server sends incorrect LI data to the viewer so it shows up there with false data. I discussed it with Ubit a while ago but he insisted it was a feature, not a bug, so he had no intention of changing it. The size of the model is 4.584 x 5.016 x 4.5 and I assume I could scale it in-world. 

This is what I would have now if I used the medium LOD as the physics model and does not include a texture. Also, I may still want to tweak the model to improve the match to the terrain file in the Z direction since some of the objects don't sit flush on the surface of the model. 

[IvyTechEngineer]

The other model that is dimensionally correct is 56.8 x 63.9 x 26.251 and I have not done any mesh reduction using decimation so the land impact is 127.351 and I used the lowest LOD as the physics. It still needs to be textured ...

[IvyTechEngineer]

OBTW, there is an obvious Z dimension error in the first model that needs to be corrected ...

[ChinRey]

2 hours ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

This is what I would have now...

Ok, the first one is a good example to illustrate basic simplification techniques. The second one is even better of course but I can't really go through all of those vertices and mark the potentially superfluous ones. You have to do that yourself.

I've marked some of the vertices in red. Do you need those?

 

I can't answer that question for you,, you have to decide. You want to keep some of them but ceretainly not all and there are probably several vertices I've overlooked and not visible on this picture you could loose too.

Also, those two holes I've marked with green arrows, do they have any function? There's quite a few tris and vertices to save if you close them.

And does the bottom edge of the mesh have to be so complicated?

Another unrelated issue btw, since we have this picture:

Look at the edge I've marked with a green arrow here:

This is very poor triangulation and is likely to cause serious problem both with UV mapping and physics. What you want there is this:

Except with straight line edges of course - I was drawing them freehand with a mouse.

I hope you get the idea:

• Hunt and kill all vertices that don't actually alter the look of the mesh and also those that only causes insignificant changes to the shape.
• Avoid long and narrow triangles if at all possible. They will distort the texture mapping and the physics engine hates them.

 

2 hours ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

This is what I would have now if I used the medium LOD as the physics model and does not include a texture.

I have to repeat myself here: Do not make LOD models for a mesh as big as 64x64 m. There is nothing whatsoever to gain from it, it's just a waste of time. Use the main model for everything.

Yes, use it for physics too. When properly simplified even the more complex shape in your last post will only give a trivial physics weight, probably less than 1, certainly less than 5.

Edited March 24, 2022 by ChinRey

[IvyTechEngineer]

17 hours ago, ChinRey said:

Ok, the first one is a good example to illustrate basic simplification techniques. The second one is even better of course but I can't really go through all of those vertices and mark the potentially superfluous ones. You have to do that yourself.

I've marked some of the vertices in red. Do you need those?

 

I can't answer that question for you,, you have to decide. You want to keep some of them but ceretainly not all and there are probably several vertices I've overlooked and not visible on this picture you could loose too.

Also, those two holes I've marked with green arrows, do they have any function? There's quite a few tris and vertices to save if you close them.

And does the bottom edge of the mesh have to be so complicated?

Another unrelated issue btw, since we have this picture:

Look at the edge I've marked with a green arrow here:

This is very poor triangulation and is likely to cause serious problem both with UV mapping and physics. What you want there is this:

Except with straight line edges of course - I was drawing them freehand with a mouse.

I hope you get the idea:

• Hunt and kill all vertices that don't actually alter the look of the mesh and also those that only causes insignificant changes to the shape.
• Avoid long and narrow triangles if at all possible. They will distort the texture mapping and the physics engine hates them.

 

I have to repeat myself here: Do not make LOD models for a mesh as big as 64x64 m. There is nothing whatsoever to gain from it, it's just a waste of time. Use the main model for everything.

Yes, use it for physics too. When properly simplified even the more complex shape in your last post will only give a trivial physics weight, probably less than 1, certainly less than 5.

Some of the geometry was created as I drew it in Blender, I had attempted to clean things up. The ridge lines were added so that I could pull the elevation up along the ridge. I will work on cleaning up the model and thanks for your feedback. Blender sometime adds unwanted geometry ...

[ChinRey]

1 hour ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

Blender sometime adds unwanted geometry ...

If you think Blender is bad there, try SketchUp.

But yes, it does. This is why it's important to remember that it's edit mode, not object mode, that is the main work mode for game and 3D world assets. (This is true for Maya and other 3D editors too btw.)

From Blender 2.8 it is also vitally important to enable the vertice/face/triangle count display so you can keep track all the time. In earlier versions of Blender this data was always on display and I have no idea why they changed it. I suppose it just shows that the Blender developers couldn't care less about the needs of game/vw developers.

[arton Rotaru]

20 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

I suppose it just shows that the Blender developers couldn't care less about the needs of game/vw developers.

Nah, they just try to bring the UI closer to the UI of the industry standard apps. Looking at those Blender screenshots, it kinda looks  like a hybrid of Max and Maya. In those, by default, you will have to turn on the stats display manually as well.

[ChinRey]

2 hours ago, arton Rotaru said:

Nah, they just try to bring the UI closer to the UI of the industry standard apps. Looking at those Blender screenshots, it kinda looks  like a hybrid of Max and Maya. In those, by default, you will have to turn on the stats display manually as well.

I didn't know that but it illustrates one problem everybody who make game/vw mesh have to struggle with: there is no software intended for the purpose. We are just a very small niché of the 3D modelling industry as a whole of course and we have to make do with programs that are really intended forsignificantly different tasks.

[IvyTechEngineer]

Hello,

I would like to add textures to my mountain and I found this video

It doesn't seem to work on the mountain but it works fine on a plane. Not sure this is what I want but can I use this technique to add texture to the mountain?

Thanks

[Quarrel Kukulcan]

1 hour ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

It doesn't seem to work on the mountain but it works fine on a plane. Not sure this is what I want but can I use this technique to add texture to the mountain?

For the first issue, if it works on a plane but not a mountain, something is wrong with your mountain. After all, a plane is just a mountain with fewer polys. You might have forgotten to UV map it, or you have unapplied scaling, or the wrong side is out (a.k.a. flipped normals).

SL doesn't support displacement maps, though it does support normal maps, which give the appearance of bumps and valleys on a surface without deforming or adding complexity to the mesh. If you have a displacement map or bump map, you can convert it into a normal map with a tool like GIMP or a website like NormalMap-Online. (You'll need to experiment with the mapping height/scale so the details aren't too weak or overblown, and for SL you'll need to tweak settings so the result looks like it's lit with green light from the top of the screen and red from the right.) If you already have a normal map, just use that (correcting the red or green channel first if you need to) and ignore any bump/displacement maps in your texture bundle.

Edited April 5, 2022 by Quarrel Kukulcan

[IvyTechEngineer]

Thanks Quarrel, I figured out that I needed to do the UV unwrap. The mesh model that was made using L3DT from the terrain.raw file looks good but I need to simplify the mesh. I have been trying to experiment with with whether to decimate before or after adding the texture. The PBR approach was just something I was trying. Not really happy with the suggested textures from Poly Haven. I may just ignore the displacement maps at this time and go for something simpler. Have you done much with terrain files and Blender. There looks like some really cool stuff that has come out with using Google Earth, GIS data etc ..

[Quarrel Kukulcan]

2 hours ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

Have you done much with terrain files and Blender.

Nope.

Also, it occurs to me that if you're talking about landscape-size features meant to be walked over, a normal map will only be able to add a rough appearance to the ground (and at a poor resolution). You can't implement large-scale terrain features that way.

[IvyTechEngineer]

On 3/16/2022 at 10:22 AM, Aquila Kytori said:

Noo no........

The reason I triangulated my island before explaining about using the Knife tool to create ridges and slopes was to closer match your model in your screenshot.

If you check again my original post you will see how the island was mostly quads. Tris used to reduce geometry when filling in  or to control some of the ridges :

Always try to create your models using quads. Triangles in the mesh break edge flow and can cause shading problems.

This 64m island terrain mesh is a special case.  Because it is so large, as Rey mentioned above, every triangle counts. There is no opportunity to control the LI cost by messing about with the lower Lod models. Zeroing them out to minimum or using the High LoD model in all the lower LoD slots will have the same effect, none. Here we don't have to worry about edge flow just vertex and tri count.

A typical model for SL would look more like the little tugboat in the image below. All quads during construction except some triangles used in filling in circles to produce disk shapes.

The tris you see in the hull and cabin walls were introduced only at the very end of modelling and are a result of a little bit of optimization.

So much easier to work with quads. Every time you extrude an edge(s) it creates a quad(s). Working or editing a typical model that has been triangulated or is mostly tris will drive you crazy.

 

Yes texturing will be the elephant in the room !

 

I remembered a thread from 2017 when Chic was making some large terrain meshes :

 

 

 

Perhaps @Chic Aeon can give some tips on how she went about UV unwrapping and texturing the models ?

I am curious about the texture. How could I make a mesh model look better? OBTW, this is the decimated island and drawn island

              Decimate   Drawn in
             Planar=0.5   Blender    
Vertices =     882           515
Edges =       2555           984
Faces =       1675           449
Triangles =  1759           934

Still need to work on the physics models...

Thanks

[IvyTechEngineer]

Anyone use the Solidify modifier in Blender. I was thinking that maybe I could add a cave to the mountain. The Solidify seems good but it does the entire mesh vs a face. Also, I am not sure the dae file would include the wall thickness (I don't thing Blender or SL really use solid models). I have also been experimenting with bisect and dividing the top and bottom parts of the model into two parts to make the cave creation easier. The top and bottom mesh models could be edited separately and then join together using Append and control J. Still trying to add textures to make it look more realistic. 

I was also thinking that the texture I was using was too complex (got it from polyhaven.com). Since I have two distinct textures maybe I can combine in Photoshop or even the Paint two textures and scale the uv map sections into regions of the 2K texture? 

OBTW, I was able to setup OpenSim to play with terrains but still do not have it setup on the school computers. Also, need to add some more shape to the inside of the cave maybe some stalactite and a stalagmite. Not sure what the best way it would be to draw inside the mountain. The other model based on the terrain file with the cave looks even better but I am having some problems with getting the uv uwrap viewport to show up in uv editing mode ...

[IvyTechEngineer]

On 3/24/2022 at 7:52 PM, ChinRey said:

Ok, the first one is a good example to illustrate basic simplification techniques. The second one is even better of course but I can't really go through all of those vertices and mark the potentially superfluous ones. You have to do that yourself.

I've marked some of the vertices in red. Do you need those?

 

I can't answer that question for you,, you have to decide. You want to keep some of them but ceretainly not all and there are probably several vertices I've overlooked and not visible on this picture you could loose too.

Also, those two holes I've marked with green arrows, do they have any function? There's quite a few tris and vertices to save if you close them.

And does the bottom edge of the mesh have to be so complicated?

Another unrelated issue btw, since we have this picture:

Look at the edge I've marked with a green arrow here:

This is very poor triangulation and is likely to cause serious problem both with UV mapping and physics. What you want there is this:

Except with straight line edges of course - I was drawing them freehand with a mouse.

I hope you get the idea:

• Hunt and kill all vertices that don't actually alter the look of the mesh and also those that only causes insignificant changes to the shape.
• Avoid long and narrow triangles if at all possible. They will distort the texture mapping and the physics engine hates them.

 

I have to repeat myself here: Do not make LOD models for a mesh as big as 64x64 m. There is nothing whatsoever to gain from it, it's just a waste of time. Use the main model for everything.

Yes, use it for physics too. When properly simplified even the more complex shape in your last post will only give a trivial physics weight, probably less than 1, certainly less than 5.

Hello, thank you for your comments and I just had a follow on question for you. The process should be to:

• Hunt and kill all vertices that don't actually alter the look of the mesh and also those that only causes insignificant changes to the shape.
• Avoid long and narrow triangles if at all possible. They will distort the texture mapping and the physics engine hates them.

I get that but in terms of workflow and making decisions on what to keep and what to get rid or or change in Blender experience is needed or some sort of "good enough" test. One test is the number of triangles and another is the LI. Is there any modifier or utility that I can use to eliminate geometry that would drive the LI up?

[ChinRey]

23 hours ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

Is there any modifier or utility that I can use to eliminate geometry that would drive the LI up?

The limited dissolve function is quqite useful here since you can configure it to eliminate vertices by angle.

But the most important tools are your eyes. Select the obviously superfluos vertices (Cmd-select for multiple ones) and then use the dissolve vertices function to delete them.

[IvyTechEngineer]

On 3/9/2022 at 3:34 PM, Aquila Kytori said:

The reason for the parsing error is because the X Y and Z scale of the object is  -1 instead of 1 (plus the X Y and Z rotations should all be at  0° before exporting).

In Object mode select model and open the Apply menu with Ctrl A and choose the All Transforms option.

After Apply scale and rotation you will need to Flip the face normals. In Edit mode and all of model selected Alt + N > Flip.

Was was documenting the process used to build the mesh model from the terrain.raw file and was reviewing this post on parsing errors. I had also wanted to see that all the faces were properly I found this YouTube video with more info ...

 

[IvyTechEngineer]

I have been trying to reduce the mesh for my mountain model and I think I am almost there. I used the high LOD for my physics model and now I get a MAV_FOUND_DEGENERATE_TRIANGLES error and it says see the SecondLife.log for details. 

Question 1 - where is this log file?

Question 2 - So SL said "The physics mesh too dense remove the small thin triangles (see preview)" but when I look in the region highlighted in Blender I see no small thin triangles in Blender?

https://pasteall.org/blend/971dbb99795d465c88a53b9711e5f09a

[Aquila Kytori]

1 hour ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

Question 2 - So SL said "The physics mesh too dense remove the small thin triangles (see preview)" but when I look in the region highlighted in Blender I see no small thin triangles in Blender?

There is a duplicated vertex hidden under one of the other vertices and it is part of an edge. When exporting the mesh is triangulated and this will result in a degenerate triangle.

The "hidden" vertex is here :

 

Select this hidden vertex and then X to open Delete menu and choose the Dissolve Vertices option then the Physics will upload without errors.

 

1 hour ago, IvyTechEngineer said:

Question 1 - where is this log file?

Edited April 25, 2022 by Aquila Kytori

[ChinRey]

35 minutes ago, Aquila Kytori said:

Select this hidden vertex and then X to open Delete menu and choose the Dissolve Vertices option then the Physics will upload without errors.

An alternative method is to select everything and use the Merge vertices by distance function (Or "Remove doubles" if you use Blender 2.79 or earlier - same function, only different name). This saves you from hunting down the rogue vertices.

This kind of very close vertices issue is usually caused by Knife tool accidents. If you use the knife tool, always make sure the cut ends exactly at the vertices it's supposed to end at.

Icidnetally, the Merge by distance/Remove doubles tool is also very useful for cleaning up and simplifying a mesh. But remeber to use it before you UV map the mesh.

[IvyTechEngineer]

6 hours ago, ChinRey said:

An alternative method is to select everything and use the Merge vertices by distance function (Or "Remove doubles" if you use Blender 2.79 or earlier - same function, only different name). This saves you from hunting down the rogue vertices.

This kind of very close vertices issue is usually caused by Knife tool accidents. If you use the knife tool, always make sure the cut ends exactly at the vertices it's supposed to end at.

Icidnetally, the Merge by distance/Remove doubles tool is also very useful for cleaning up and simplifying a mesh. But remeber to use it before you UV map the mesh.

7 hours ago, Aquila Kytori said:

There is a duplicated vertex hidden under one of the other vertices and it is part of an edge. When exporting the mesh is triangulated and this will result in a degenerate triangle.

The "hidden" vertex is here :

 

Select this hidden vertex and then X to open Delete menu and choose the Dissolve Vertices option then the Physics will upload without errors.

 

Thank you Chin and Aquila,

I appreciate your help. I thought I had used the resolved this issued with some Mesh clean-up but I missed this one.

 

 

 

On 3/10/2022 at 6:45 PM, Aquila Kytori said:

Using the Knife tool in Blender to add geometry for new ridges and slopes.

Example:

 

 

 

 

 

Tweak vertices as needed.

 

On 3/23/2022 at 8:45 PM, arton Rotaru said:

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+4 (also accessible via Advanced > Rendering Types from the top menu bar.)

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/All_keyboard_shortcut_keys

 

On 3/23/2022 at 6:05 PM, Chic Aeon said:

Before you go forward I suggest just TRYING (not uploading just looking at ) the download and physics (assuming you want to be able to bump into your mountain) in the Linden uploader.  You can easily tell if your model will have too much land impact for what you want. Make sure you have the correct SIZE designated when you test the numbers.

 

Opensim isn't going to help you much with the land impact cost as the numbers are VERY different from Second Life ones -- and the physics is different also in many cases.    OS is fine for testing textures.   You can of course (maybe) use the Aditi beta grid if it is indeed open again for "new folks" (not sure where the line is drawn there and if you are new and haven't used it before  ).

 

 

 

On 3/24/2022 at 7:52 PM, ChinRey said:

Ok, the first one is a good example to illustrate basic simplification techniques. The second one is even better of course but I can't really go through all of those vertices and mark the potentially superfluous ones. You have to do that yourself.

I've marked some of the vertices in red. Do you need those?

 

I can't answer that question for you,, you have to decide. You want to keep some of them but ceretainly not all and there are probably several vertices I've overlooked and not visible on this picture you could loose too.

Also, those two holes I've marked with green arrows, do they have any function? There's quite a few tris and vertices to save if you close them.

And does the bottom edge of the mesh have to be so complicated?

Another unrelated issue btw, since we have this picture:

Look at the edge I've marked with a green arrow here:

This is very poor triangulation and is likely to cause serious problem both with UV mapping and physics. What you want there is this:

Except with straight line edges of course - I was drawing them freehand with a mouse.

I hope you get the idea:

• Hunt and kill all vertices that don't actually alter the look of the mesh and also those that only causes insignificant changes to the shape.
• Avoid long and narrow triangles if at all possible. They will distort the texture mapping and the physics engine hates them.

 

I have to repeat myself here: Do not make LOD models for a mesh as big as 64x64 m. There is nothing whatsoever to gain from it, it's just a waste of time. Use the main model for everything.

Yes, use it for physics too. When properly simplified even the more complex shape in your last post will only give a trivial physics weight, probably less than 1, certainly less than 5.

 

On 3/16/2022 at 10:22 AM, Aquila Kytori said:

Noo no........

The reason I triangulated my island before explaining about using the Knife tool to create ridges and slopes was to closer match your model in your screenshot.

If you check again my original post you will see how the island was mostly quads. Tris used to reduce geometry when filling in  or to control some of the ridges :

Always try to create your models using quads. Triangles in the mesh break edge flow and can cause shading problems.

This 64m island terrain mesh is a special case.  Because it is so large, as Rey mentioned above, every triangle counts. There is no opportunity to control the LI cost by messing about with the lower Lod models. Zeroing them out to minimum or using the High LoD model in all the lower LoD slots will have the same effect, none. Here we don't have to worry about edge flow just vertex and tri count.

A typical model for SL would look more like the little tugboat in the image below. All quads during construction except some triangles used in filling in circles to produce disk shapes.

The tris you see in the hull and cabin walls were introduced only at the very end of modelling and are a result of a little bit of optimization.

So much easier to work with quads. Every time you extrude an edge(s) it creates a quad(s). Working or editing a typical model that has been triangulated or is mostly tris will drive you crazy.

 

Yes texturing will be the elephant in the room !

 

I remembered a thread from 2017 when Chic was making some large terrain meshes :

 

 

 

Perhaps @Chic Aeon can give some tips on how she went about UV unwrapping and texturing the models ?

 

On 4/19/2022 at 3:54 PM, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

For larger models you're probably better off using seamless tiling textures in SL if you want them to have any reasonable sort of definition.  Assigning multiple materials to the model to create faces on the mesh in SL then applying seamless textures to each face is fairly simple, and if you want to try something a little more advanced you can add additional polygons to cover the larger "seams" between the different faces and use a separate texture to blend between them.

As for resources for textures, I recently found this site which seems pretty useful Free PBR Materials

 

On 4/21/2022 at 12:53 PM, arton Rotaru said:

No matter what tutorial you are going to use, the problem will still be the same. Low resolution in SL because we have a 1024x1024 texture size limit. So it's either, live with the low res look (can look actually OK on landscapes) or, create a seamless tiling texture (good resolution but repetitive and usally boring looking) or, split it into multiple materials and try to hide the material seams as good as possible. Unfortunately there is no good method in SL to texture landscapes nice and easy.

As Aquila put it a few weeks ago, the texturing will be the Elephant in the room.

 

10 hours ago, Aquila Kytori said:

Clean up in 4 steps:

1:   Edit mode, Vertex select mode, select All and  Mesh > Clean Up > Merge by distance:

 

2: Clean Up > Degenerate Dissolve :

 

3:  Clean Up > Limited dissolve :

 

4: any remaining unwanted vertices select and Dissolve Vertices :

 

And as Frionil mentioned you will have to manually correct the zero thickness at the inner corners :

 

.blend of cleaned up ramp :  https://pasteall.org/blend/18d97a2bd9a04b9c9388040e1d28b0f5

Sometimes it just makes more sense to create from scratch in Blender !

 

 

[IvyTechEngineer]

Hello again

I wanted to revisit my efforts to make a mesh model from part of the terrain file. I thought I would try to upload the last model I worked on. I could create a simple physics model but wanted to explore the Physics tab when uploading a model a little bit more. A physics model can be created from a LOD for a model. However, there appears to be other options or steps like Convert to hulls (surface, solid or wrap)? Also, what does Step 3, Simplify do?

Thanks