[Starman01]

Originally posted by Starman01
I have made some more experiments here. I have a destroyer model
with some holes in the bridge, so that the windows are more realistic.
This has always bad shades, but now I made the brigde faceted, while
the rest is autofaceted. I think that is quite good.



But since I did that, I have a really scary problem. I have not figured
out yet, which is the cause how PCS calculate the object mass after
conversion. The model has les mass than the old one (but I edited it
to be equal, but it didn't solve the following problem).

Now the warp-animation is ten times bigger than it should be, looks
really stupid, and I have really no idea why this happens. Only thing
that was changed is the texture on the bridge-structure !

Any insights for this one ?

Hey Guys,

i still have that problem with the wrong size of the warp-animation.
The model-size hasn't changed, I made only some texture-corrections.
Now the model has enourmos mass in Modelview, and ingame it
displays a warp-ani which is 10 times to big. Can anyone pls tell
what the cause of this is, or some explanation how the size of the
warp-ani is calculated ?

Thanks.

[Bobboau]

it uses the ships radius, so long ships are going to have a bigger than expected radius

[Starman01]

Darn, then it is certainly just another TrueSpace-Miscalculation.
Man, I hate this program.

[StratComm]

You might look for an untextured polygon or even a floating vertex somewhere WAY outside the model.  I'm not sure how to go about that in Truespace, but that's ultimately the cause of the problem.  You also may want to check that nothing (turrets included) have their coordinate centers WAY outside of the model.

Oh, I know: create a box just big enough to encompass the hull (plus about 1% on each side) and use a boolean intersection with the model.  It's risky as Truespace can be a real pain when it comes to Booleans, but it's probably the quickest fix if the booleans don't screw up the hull geometry.