[Flipside]

Yes, they would, sorry, it's a hot day here, my brain is malfuntioning a bit It also means that being close to capital ships will often involve (more than normal) staring at a large low polygon area with a few pixels to share amongst it for textures. I might be able to increase the polyres and texture sizes for all the ships in FS2, I have the neccesary stuff (though converting the files back to POF's could be a real pain) though it will not be 100% perfect with the texture enhancements, it might well provide an improvement on what is available now

Flipside

[Sandwich]

Back on-topic... is anyone going to give us an option to mess around with? I'd be very appreciative...

[diamondgeezer]

It's true about the fighters - they look like toys you could pcik up in one hand. But something else has occured to me. If I collide with a turret such as the one in the pictures above, it barely stretches outside the top and bottom of my screen. The impression one gets is that it cannot be hyge since here I am crashing in to it when it's not more than double the size of my fighter. Presumably, the collision detection is kicking in when I'm several tens of meters away from the colidee - that piccy earlier looks to have been taken not far at all from a collision with the Colossus' turret.

I realsie that what I'm asking here to have the bounding boxes and collision detection redrawn skin-tight to ships' hulls, and that'd be a bastard to code. But maybe this is where part of the scale problem lies?

[Bobboau]

cheack mos test this thread, the exe has debug code to alow you to play with the fov

[Vilkacis]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Presumably, the collision detection is kicking in when I'm several tens of meters away from the colidee - that piccy earlier looks to have been taken not far at all from a collision with the Colossus' turret.

No, the collision detection works properly you'll run into the turret at point blank, by that time your whole screen is filled by the turret but it still appears not as big as it really is.

[Nico]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
It's true about the fighters - they look like toys you could pcik up in one hand. But something else has occured to me. If I collide with a turret such as the one in the pictures above, it barely stretches outside the top and bottom of my screen. The impression one gets is that it cannot be hyge since here I am crashing in to it when it's not more than double the size of my fighter. Presumably, the collision detection is kicking in when I'm several tens of meters away from the colidee - that piccy earlier looks to have been taken not far at all from a collision with the Colossus' turret.

I realsie that what I'm asking here to have the bounding boxes and collision detection redrawn skin-tight to ships' hulls, and that'd be a bastard to code. But maybe this is where part of the scale problem lies?

nah, collisions are fine. go in external view and go against your turret, you'll see your ship bounce directly on it ( plus who never saw his wingmen doing that? ).
and, as far as I know, there's no collision box ( did anybody ever did one for one of his modded ships? nope ), the ship mesh itself is used for that ( unlike, say, Iwar2 ). I wonder if the camera isn't put right behind our ship, in fact, even in cockpit view...

[KARMA]

the collision points are more often inside the mesh rather than outside (expecially if you have spikes, wings, barrels etc and if you go extremely slow or just rotate staying still). I don't know if fs2 decide when you collide using directly the mesh (althought I've noticed sometimes collision differnces between same models but different convertors), but I don't think it has something to do with FOV.
The only things I can think of, that could be connected with FOV, are how much you see and, maybe, the resolution. For example in xwa iirc if you change resolution the FOV change.

[Nico]

Originally posted by KARMA
the collision points are more often inside the mesh rather than outside (expecially if you have spikes, wings, barrels etc and if you go extremely slow or just rotate staying still).

That's just calculation inacurracy, I suppose. would take to much resources to deal with 100% perfect collision. while it might be needed to have that in, say,  a FPS, you don't need perfect collision control in a space shooter. FS2 collision is already good enough ( it's mod friendly, don't have to create collision box and all )

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Venom
and, as far as I know, there's no collision box ( did anybody ever did one for one of his modded ships? nope ), the ship mesh itself is used for that ( unlike, say, Iwar2 ).

Actually, AFAIK the collision boxes are calculated automatically by PCS.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Actually, AFAIK the collision boxes are calculated automatically by PCS.

well, then they use the exact geometry of the ship, so it's the same.

[KARMA]

well it depend by how much accurate the boxes are .
if it is the bounding box thing, that you can see in the new pcs, I remember models converted with cob2fs2 or older versions of pcs as little inaccurate.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Venom


nah, collisions are fine. go in external view and go against your turret, you'll see your ship bounce directly on it ( plus who never saw his wingmen doing that? ).
and, as far as I know, there's no collision box ( did anybody ever did one for one of his modded ships? nope ), the ship mesh itself is used for that ( unlike, say, Iwar2 ). I wonder if the camera isn't put right behind our ship, in fact, even in cockpit view...

Hey, I like the Iwar2 collision hull set up. It requires an extra step for the mod maker, but you get a more accurate collision model and it's relatively fast.

[Nico]

can't be more accurate than the hull mesh itself, honestly.

[StratComm]

I think the bounding boxes in PCS have to do with something else, because even the old inacurate ones still produced impacts only against the ships hull.  It may be that the game only applies the collision detection when two objects occupy the same area (as defined by the bounding boxes) so that it is not always checking for impacts between distant objects.  I in no way know this to be true, but I have seen several incedents that could be caused by this setup, and it would explain some of the weird things that ships using the old bounding boxes have done.

[Sandwich]

M'kay, I have no idea how we got on to bounding boxes, but if someone would start a new topic on the subject, I'll gladly move all the relevant posts into there. *hint hint*

So Bobboau, what did you mean when you said "cheack mos test this thread, the exe has debug code to alow you to play with the fov" ?

[Solatar]

Probably means this:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,16586.0.html

[KARMA]

we were talking about another thing since there already is another thread about fov and clipping.
if it will end to a successful result, as it seems, it will probably be the major advancement to fs2 from the scp;7

[Bobboau]

I posted that at like 4:30 am, so I may have been slightly slured.

in the topic I made about testing 'this' I have a zip wich contains two exes that have a diferent dx init code designed to give it a better z buffer, and I included debug code that would alow you to change the fov on the fly, most people like the setting about .25 to .55, I supose setting this as a comand line would not be much more dificult

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Bobboau
I posted that at like 4:30 am, so I may have been slightly slured.

in the topic I made about testing 'this' I have a zip wich contains two exes that have a diferent dx init code designed to give it a better z buffer, and I included debug code that would alow you to change the fov on the fly, most people like the setting about .25 to .55, I supose setting this as a comand line would not be much more dificult

Awesome - downloading now. What is each EXE for?

[Bobboau]

one is a debug build