Jump to content

model in 3.10 not correct but 3.9 O.K.


Recommended Posts

You probably downloaded the .DAE file, but you should download the blender file instead, I did and it comes in different formats, for blender game engine, for cycles render, for animation and with baked animations.

I would chose the one with baked animations and try exporting it until it works, or you can use the one for animations and create animations yourself, or just use it for testing, if it exports and imports fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry , Jason , its been a little while since I started messing with that file and I had only used it in ver 3.9 until this .I believe Duion is correct , I use blender and exported the DAE using the baked animations file . So this is from todays further look into it . As Jason suggested I checked the nodes in the shape editor .


I have a current source code so i looked and fount this


line 62.

U32 TSShape::smMaxSkinBones = 70 ;

Some numbers from the dragon model ;

number of bones in Rig = 137

number of bones in feet = 66

70 'ish

so I deleted the 66 foot bones plus a few head bones and relaced the feet bones with

just 4 bones . this picture shows the result . just a little messed up though .


So , I guess its the bone limit then ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, this may be just redundant but heres a comparison of 3.9 (Left)and .310 (Right) . These are using the 137 bone original version of the armature , with a cam and eye added


These are using the exact same folders for all of the art which are placed in each executables folder . besides the issue with the dragons rendering I am a little curious as to why the same color settings are so different in appearance . I only really noticed after i ran the sectors package in the 3.9 folder .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask @JeffR or someone who knows the code better, but from what I know is, that the rendering is changing over time, I'm too lazy to look back and see what change was introduced in what version, but there were a lot of changes and maybe your bone issue was introduced somewhere down the line, so you could help debugging it, write an issue report and/or even fix the issue and make a pull request, things like that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be sure, but in your last update with the side by side in the sector demo, you said that both are using the 137 bone rig. DId you up the bone count limit?

If not, go ahead and just bump that guy up to like, 140 or whatnot and see what it does.

I've been using 100 in my personal test builds, so it's not like 70 is a "go past this and she 'asplodes" limit or anything, more just for efficiency/compactness as a default setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, no problems. Let us know if bumping that limit worked. If so, then another approach if you want to keep the bone limit low would just be to split the mesh up into a few submeshes. the bone limit number is bones per-submesh, so if upping the limit works, then either of those approaches would work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...