[Water]

Thanks for all the effort Water (screens etc.) - I have to say this forum community is one of the most supportive out there...

You're welcome.

I thought the engine only used LOD0 for collision detection, so it doesn't make sense to have a collision model for LOD1 or beyond. But I could be wrong on that.

You are right. Re edited the post to remove any references to detail1.

Kudos to Sushi and whoever else played a part in implementing those collision flags.

Agreed 

[Nuke]

pretty clever. now tweak all the mod tools to do this automatically

still waiting on some scientifically generated performance data

[Thaeris]

Use <ctime> ?

 

[chief1983]

Best results would probably come from a very complicated ship using a very simple collision mesh, if you really want to get an idea of the results.

[Sushi]

I know DaBrain did some tests with an asteroid model that showed a pretty dramatic improvement.

[Mahak]

Even just the difference when saving out the .pof from pcs2 can be drastic - it obviously doesn't have to generate the collision detection data from the high detail model in lod0 if you use the $nocollide_this_only flag...  Nice.

Still waiting for a working collada version of PCS2 - I have a build that works, for some reason the latest stable release has something wrong with it, doesn't recognise multiple materials on an object (the previous, unstable release works - just crashes after saving out a .pof - I'm not complaining though, it's still better than using truespace!!!)

[Scooby_Doo]

When you say "closed mesh" does the entire thing have to be one closed piece or can there be multiple closed pieces overlapping?

[Water]

When you say "closed mesh" does the entire thing have to be one closed piece or can there be multiple closed pieces overlapping?

The only rule that matters - does it have any collision detection problems? You know the sort of stuff FS can handle, just use that to create a simpler version.

[Scooby_Doo]

When you say "closed mesh" does the entire thing have to be one closed piece or can there be multiple closed pieces overlapping?

The only rule that matters - does it have any collision detection problems? You know the sort of stuff FS can handle, just use that to create a simpler version.

LOL I dunno... that was why I was asking you 

[Nuke]

also someone sticky this, i dont want to see it fall into the void of forgotten posts.

[starwolf1991]

Could using a collision mesh cause problems with shields in-game?

The TCF Durandal that FSF and I both created recently has a shield that FS2 completely ignores despite proper coding, pof data and mission options. FSF created a Collision Mesh as part of the model and he was wondering if that could be the problem.

[Droid803]

Well, try a version without the collision mesh.

[starwolf1991]

You won't believe it, but.........

 

The collision mesh was the problem. It was somehow interfering with the shield mesh.

[Sushi]

You won't believe it, but.........

 

The collision mesh was the problem. It was somehow interfering with the shield mesh.

Interesting. That's something we'll want to look into. Is it possible to have a shield mesh AND a collision mesh, or does the current "collision mesh" technique totally screw that up?

[FreeSpaceFreak]

Download Durandal with collision mesh here. Contains: model, map, table, mission.

FS (3.6.12 RC2) does seem to play the "bzzz" for a shield impact, but apart from that, the shield seems to be fully ignored.

[Rodo]

Just out of curiosity, is the collition mesh smaller than the shield one?... I mean: the collition mesh is beneath the shield one?

[Water]

Try an 80 face shield rather than 320 to see if it makes any difference.

[FreeSpaceFreak]

Nope, doesn't seem to make any difference. http://www.mediafire.com/?ux3zminzwlj