Scaling of Structures and Geometry issues
Started by Bofur, Jul 30 2012 02:12 PM
scling buildings bfme2
8 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:12 PM
Is there a way to prevent the geometry issues produced from scaling objects in worldbuilder?
As when you scale, say, a wall, units can walk and shoot through it.
I'm not after the usual "use impassability and put normal scale objects inside the scaled one" answer.
I'm sure that there was another way used in the making of NJM's Minas Tirith map.
Anway, any ideas?
As when you scale, say, a wall, units can walk and shoot through it.
I'm not after the usual "use impassability and put normal scale objects inside the scaled one" answer.
I'm sure that there was another way used in the making of NJM's Minas Tirith map.
Anway, any ideas?
#2
Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:55 PM
Other than the two options you pointed out, no, i don't think so. Not using Worldbuilder at least.
It might be possible with a map.ini to scale an objects geometry to match an object, but you'd have to ask someone who knows more on coding than me. I know it's possible to 'displace' an objects geometry (essentially 'removing' it), so it's not a stretch to think that you could scale it instead. Although, it would also mean that all copies of that unit would be affected. I.e. if you also had a regular sized wall/building/rock/whatever, it would have geometry too large for it's scale.
Alternatively, if it's for a mod and you have a decent modeller, you could remodel the object and code it in as a separate object with the proper geometry. A neater solution, but whether the map justifies all that work is something again.
Have you tried asking NJM? Or someone else from the SEE team perhaps?
It might be possible with a map.ini to scale an objects geometry to match an object, but you'd have to ask someone who knows more on coding than me. I know it's possible to 'displace' an objects geometry (essentially 'removing' it), so it's not a stretch to think that you could scale it instead. Although, it would also mean that all copies of that unit would be affected. I.e. if you also had a regular sized wall/building/rock/whatever, it would have geometry too large for it's scale.
Alternatively, if it's for a mod and you have a decent modeller, you could remodel the object and code it in as a separate object with the proper geometry. A neater solution, but whether the map justifies all that work is something again.
Have you tried asking NJM? Or someone else from the SEE team perhaps?
#4
Posted 30 July 2012 - 04:55 PM
You need to resize the actual geometry in the object file, not the object scale. Generally it's located at the bottom of an object entry.
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.
#6
Posted 30 July 2012 - 05:13 PM
Something like that yes, but there may be some slight rounding errors so to say, since the objects might be a bit bigger than simply twice the amount in the geometry. But yes that is the idea.
Ridder Geel
#7
Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:06 PM
If it's something you want to reuse over multiple maps, you may want to consider creating a ChildObject of the original in the main mod's file(s).
"Everyone's a hero when there's nowhere left to run."
- Auxiliary Skarn, 2333rd Cohort
#9
Posted 30 July 2012 - 08:35 PM
Also consider that if there is an Offset parameter for each element you'll have to change that too.
Imagine if your building was made of 3 smaller buildings, and each one had a box for geometry. If you just increased the size of each box, you wouldn't get a correct result - the boxes would be bigger, but as the whole building is bigger, each box would also have to be moved.
Imagine if your building was made of 3 smaller buildings, and each one had a box for geometry. If you just increased the size of each box, you wouldn't get a correct result - the boxes would be bigger, but as the whole building is bigger, each box would also have to be moved.
I really don't do requests and my Arnor Soldier is not fit for BFME. Don't ask me for either.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users