Blender to SL Scale/ Blender LoD view distance

[Syle Devin]

Aha, thanks for those details in distances. That is just what I needed to make sure I can properly have different views rendered.

One thing though, does draw distance affect the physics model shape?

Also I did think of having the high lod for the object be 32 sides but I changed it to 16 since I didn't see to much difference. Could just be me but does having a cirlce at 32 instead of 16 make enough of a difference in looks vs weight?

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

I really appreciate all the math and testing you did on the distances, it's useful for a lot of people,  it's especially important when you are aiming at a certain number for landimpact. It's however not something I ever use because that's not how I approach my work. I go by looks. If the looks of a certain model for a certain LoD please me, that's what I was after. If I can get the (almost) exact looks with less geometry, I did a bad job. It does take some instinct and experience, something that can't be taught unfortunately. It can certainly be trained, just build a lot:)

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

---

Syle Devin wrote:

One thing though, does draw distance affect the physics model shape?

---

No, the physics load is server side, where the collisions are calculated. Your personal drawing distance does not affect it in any way.

---

Also I did think of having the high lod for the object be 32 sides but I changed it to 16 since I didn't see to much difference. Could just be me but does having a cirlce at 32 instead of 16 make enough of a difference in looks vs weight?

---

That's a call that only you can make. How important are smooth edges to you? As you said yourself, the difference is barely noticable. 32 is a lot at the scale you are building. I think 16 is pretty good for the highest LoD. When you are building huge things with huge radii (what a word:)) it might be neccecary to add geometry.

 

 

[Drongle McMahon]

"One thing though, does draw distance affect the physics model shape?"

Not sure how it could do that. The physics shape just determines how the object collides with physical objects and avatars. It doesn't change with distance. It can usually be very simple, the minimum needed for the desired behaviour. Curved surfaces are expensive in the physics shapes and should be avoided where possible.

"...does having a cirlce at 32 instead of 16 make enough of a difference in looks vs weight?"

As always, it depends. The surfaces themselves will look fine with smooth shading with 16 segments (or even less). It's the edges where you see the unsmoothness. So it depends on where you are going to see it from, and how close. It's especially noticeable if your curved surface intersects a flat plane, as the base of your build seems to. It looks to me as if you will be seeing the edges of your curved bits quite close up.

It's also quite subjective. I generally reckon the minimum for a reasonable edge is 24 segments. Others may like more or less. It's easier to do the LOD reductions with 32. The extra triangles/verts at the high LOD are relatively cheap, as long as the lowest relevant LOD (low in this case) is well optimised. The answer is to experiment, as you have done.

[Justyn Blackburn]

If it's no problem then why aren't you doing it? It is solving something and the lower LODs are suppose to be lower than the high LOD, that's why they're called lower. There's a reason every game uses LOD and it's not because the developers like wasting time making multiple models of everything.

 

Im not doing it im testing best resolution.