StoneDwarf Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Hello everyone,I'm a Maya user and running against some issues whenever I apply multiple materials to one single mesh, plus a custom physics shape.In-world, the “calculate Weights & Fee” button grays out the moment I select my custom physics shape.I want to use multiple materials to utilize the maximum amount of texture resolution, and splitting everything in separate meshes, each with one material, is not an option.Any advice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alisha Matova Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 This isn't the answer you're after, as I'm not a maya user. But to keep things moving, I would upload the physics shape seperately and link it to your visual geometry. Setting it to physics shape 'prim' and the visual stuff to 'none'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I'd strongly advice against that, you do need to make sure, unlike before, that all materials and their IDs are assigned to the physics shape as if it was just another LoD model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneDwarf Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 I am not sure if that would work. Physics shape tend to stretch with the model it is attached to it seems. What I could do is uploading the very same mesh with just one material applied to it, plus the physics shape, then make it transparant in-world. That should work. However ... if I would do that I basically end up with the double amount of prims. Do correct me if I missunderstood you. And thanks for the tip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneDwarf Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 Could you explain that? I don't know what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 If you have two materials in your model, they will both have an ID, you shouldn't worry about those probably, just try this first: Assign both materials you assigned to your model to the physics aswell. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneDwarf Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 That did the job. Thanks! However, because I had to apply 2 materials to my physics mesh, I was 'forced' to create some extra geometry on the psychics mesh, thus a higher PE. For example, assuming I use the max amount of materials, I need to make sure I can apply all those 8 materials to my physics mesh, which means I must have (at least) 8 triangles on which I can apply the materials. This kinda sucks when making stuff where the physics shape can be as low as possible to keep things low prim. On larger builds however, where you end up with plenty of faces for the materials, it shouldn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Yes and the dumb thing is it's not needed for the system to work. The early mesh viewers would let you upload with just a single material from the model assigned to the physics. I think LL had a good reason to do it, but the triangle count for the physics goes up yes. Whether that affects LI in a lot of cases..I don't think it will, but at 3 verts per material I can imagine it will in some cases..like yours . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drongle McMahon Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 What viewers are you two using? The physics mesh materials bug was fixed ages ago. I just rechecked in the latest beta and release and they are still ok - no physics mesh material requirements. Unfortunately we still have the regression that came with the fix that means you need all high LOD materials in the low LOD visual meshes, when it's supposed to be ok to use a subset. That does up the triangle minimum for lowest LOD to the number of high LOD materials. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alisha Matova Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 There is nothing wrong with linkIng a simpler physics mesh to a complicated visual mesh. It's no different than linking a prim to a mesh. And a good physics shape will be a fraction of a LI anyway and not add to the overall LI. The only 'loss' would be the object now acting as a linkset and not being able to scale on one axis. I'm with Drongle, what viewer are you on? As I can upload Blender created multi material meshes with no material physics shapes on latest beta too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Drongle McMahon wrote: The physics mesh materials bug was fixed ages ago. I'm on the very latest one that installed automatically, somewhere in februari. I guess I didn't bother to look at the release notes..thanks for pointing that out. EDIT... I just reread your post and see you are on a beta viewer. That's beta, I like to use the official releases. So does the latest official release include this new/old feature? I think I'm not as "fast" as you are if you say "ages ago" btw:)...that is unless the latest 2 official releases don't need the materials anylonger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Alisha Matova wrote: There is nothing wrong with linkIng a simpler physics mesh to a complicated visual mesh. It's no different than linking a prim to a mesh. And a good physics shape will be a fraction of a LI anyway and not add to the overall LI. The only 'loss' would be the object now acting as a linkset and not being able to scale on one axis. I'd like to call that a pretty big loss to begin with. What you call "a good physics shape" might be a very simple one for the objects you make, what about full buildings for example? What about very small or simple objects, where the server weight determines the landimpact? You can end up with a landimpact twice as big as with an integrated physics model because of the extra server load, which is ofcourse a disadvantage by itself.. What about linksets with multiple mesh objects? When you want to edit those and need to unlink the set, you'll end up with a heap of misery, half of the unlinked objects will be invisible physics models you will need to relink to their visible counterpart. Or if you want to unlink one piece, you could have a very hard time unlinking the two pieces you need. A very small disadvantage.... upload costs will be higher. For merchant this shouldn't be an issue, sell one and you covered the extra costs, but lots of people just play around with their money tree or dancing jobs lindens. I really see a lot of downsides, some pretty serious, what are the benefits? I can think of one possible advantage. That is when one physics model covers a number of visible models. I can't predict how this will affect the landimpact or physics load under various circumstances, but I have a feeling this could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneDwarf Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Thanks! I will check it out. I have Firestorm installed, not sure which version. Usually I download a version of SL until it wont start up anymore and it forces me to download a new update in order to log in. ^^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alisha Matova Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Ok. Well the first benifit would have been him ignoring some old firestorm bug. My suggestion to ignore the issue and keep being productive by removing his blocker was valid. I do agree with a couple of your disadvantages. A merchant can't really sell something with a linked physics shape. It be too confusing. And the scale axis stuff. But the others I don't really understand. A small object,unless really interactively complex, should just have a simple cube physic shape anyway. Try linking a small mesh to a prim cube. Set the mesh to 'none' and the prim to 'prim'. It's the same LI. (not that uploading with a cube physics shape is hard). The linkset mesh got me thinking! Do you mean you upload multiple mesh linkset with a unique physics shape? One that cover the whole linkset? That's an interesting idea! I assume though, that you mean linked meshes each with its own physics shape. Id actually suggest that one big,and simple, physics shape linked to the whole linkset would be way better that 50 seperate ones. I agree though, a multi mesh multi physics shape link object would be nitemare silly. Let's say I build a large stage out of mesh planks inworld(something that is already happening with all the new mesh builder kits). I could leave each plank set to 'convex hull', or I could link the whole stage to a single prim that approximates the shape. Set planks to 'none' leaving the prim set to 'prim'. Walking on One prim is much better than walking across 50. Sure I could build whole thing in blender and upload with same simple physics shape. That would be more efficient. But it's not the only option, sometimes isn't possible(somethings just need to be built in place), and you can't make changes on the fly inworld for the customer. Linking physics bits in is limited. But has its place. And is especially useful when optimizing the physics for a whole build or an entire sim. There are a couple other advantages I don't think I can mention yet. When they open up about how pathfinding objects navigate, I'll chime in again. But, objects physics shape flexibility inworld is going to be important, in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Your suggestion to overcome the issue was valid yes, it would have solved the issue. It is not a very "clean" way of building though as I explained. Ok, let me explain the small item issue then, it's potentially a huge issue:) Any small object, even a single triangle, has a landimpact of 0.5 due to the server weight. If you make a mesh with let's say 10 seperate planks (to use your example), that is already bad news. the landimpact will at best be 10 x 0.5 = 5. If you had linked the planks before uploading, making it a single set of 10 planks, chances are the landimpact is 1 (ofcourse this depends on a good number of things). Imagine each plank has its own physics prim on top of that, the minimum landimpact of those 20 items combined would be no less than 20 x 0.5 = 10, where I'm pretty sure the 10 planks with a physical shape would still be just 1 at any usable size. On top of this you have the potential issue of even double that LI if you want to add a script. server weight will be 1.0 for even the smallest of objects. 20 prims for 10 planks is in no way justifyable I think. Yes I ment one physical shape that covers the physics for several objects. This means you can keep the physical load down and break up your visible build into pieces if you want a lower LI. A win-win situation I would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alisha Matova Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 The plank stage example was to point out how using one prim for physics would be more efficient(Physically) than leaving all the mesh planks set to 'prim' or 'convex hull'. Of course uploading the whole thing as one mesh would be lower LI. =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yes ofcourse, that's what I proposed in the first place... but you said you didn't understand what I said about the small prims, and I used the planks as an example to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alisha Matova Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Ah! Ok gotcha! To be honest I don't pay much attention to LI costs. For me it's all about being a fast and efficient worker bee. Far too much work and too little time. So anything that gets in my way, im forced to workaround to meet deadlines. I get what you mean about small meshies, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 If you don't watch out you'll have no issues meeting the deadline, you'll run out of prims pretty quickly:) Seriously..I understand in a lot of circumstances it's not possible to get the absolute maximum out of a certain build, but I am sure it will only help if you know what the implications of certain methods are. LI is very important I'd say, it's not the difference between a landimpact of 40 or 80 for one building, it's the difference between one building or two....or some furniture..or maybe better performance due to a lower load.. In certain cases there are plenty of prims available..even then I'd say go for extra detail rather than shortcuts. Then again I don't work with deadines.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alisha Matova Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Lol, I fully understand LI/PE as I watched it evolve in the Beta. Don't worry about me running out of prims. The stage is still a good example. It's exactly how people will be building inworld with mesh builder kit. In its case, the planks physics shape should be turned off, set to 'none' and One prim should be placed over the whole stage.. There is no reason to walk across every plank(or for pathfinding critters to have to think about 50 planks when One prim will work...50 times better. The same works for a multi mesh house, windows, trim etc. can be 'none', walls and floor can be 'convex' or 'prim'. And with incoming Parhfinding it's going to be very important to both have simple physics shapes AND be able to adjust them inworld. Like I said before, when they nail down all the vocabulary and tools I'll start talking more about optimizing whole sim physics for Pathfinding. I think I can say that locking your physics shape to your build will limit things, or at the very least force you to add pathifinding prims in top of it. Flexibility inworld is going to be the key to awesomely pathfindable sims and builds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Your entire post seems to based on the (I bet incorrect) fact most builds are made out of builder kits. Even if you include the physics shape into your build, you can always deactivate it by either setting the physics to none or by setting the object to phantom. Did you overlook the heap of disadvantages of not using a built in physics shape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alisha Matova Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Physics shape none and phantom are Not the same thing at all. Phantom still sends collisions back to the sim. Volume detect. None is completely invisible to Havok. Anyways you're completely missing my point. Have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drongle McMahon Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I am confused. Surely the point is that no mesh can be uploiaded without a physics shape. If you don't specify one explicitly, you get the default whole-mesh convex hull (and cannot select physics shape type Prim). You can still set the physics shape type to Noine whether you have specified a physics shape or not. Therefore you lose nothing by providing the physics shape, while you gain the ability to use it if you want to. For a plank, the default convex hull is a probably the perfect shape anyway, unless it's curved. If it is curved, then the plank without the non-default physics shape is less generally useful than the one with it. If you don't need it, you can turn it off by setting Convex hull (same cas default shape) or None, depending on your use of it with or without linked prims for collisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alisha Matova Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Sorry Drongle, I don't mean to confuse. I'm stuck not being able to talk about new features until LL finalizes them. I can say that flexibility of physics stuff inworld is going to be important. It will help define where pathfinding critters can and can't go. So in the case of a building with one big physics shape, it will either be go or no go. Unless you add physics parts ontop of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Alisha Matova wrote: Physics shape none and phantom are Not the same thing at all. Phantom still sends collisions back to the sim. Volume detect. None is completely invisible to Havok. Volume detect is a prim property just as phantom is to my best knowledge. You can toggle it. Even if it's better not to use phantom, which I can imagine with the collision you described (didn't know this), that doesn't change anything I said. There are tons of good reasons to include a physics shape and you can always turn it off in the edit menu, well as long as it's linked anyway. I'm curious btw about the collision on a phantom object. When phantom, a collision event in a script doesn't do anything. That pathfinding stuff is neat by the looks of it, but I don't see why you have to be so vague or mysterious about it. Anyway, even with that set of functions around, I am convinced there will be cases where physics included is better and cases where it's not. The vast majority will be better when it's included anyway, just like it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
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