JackStone

Yes, that's exactly what I was doing wrong, I figured that out after far too long! Thanks!

Hi, I have downloaded and compiled this repo, and it's all working, except for one minor issue. I can build the repo, and run it in dx9 and dx 11 with no issues (except for some minor problem with controlling the camera). However, when I add the openVR include files, I can build the engine, but running it gives me an "Unable to load game library" (mygame.dll") error. This only happens when I include the openVR code. I've tried regenerating the project with dx11 included (and extended move) multiple times, multiple clean builds, etc. I'm running windows 10 with up to date drivers, etc. Anyone have any ideas? Thanks!

Ahh, ok... So, OpenVR works with the Rift CV1? I thought it was a separate product entirely, no?

The dx11 oculus version seems to give me the same issues as the current version of the engine. It seems to be aimed at the 0.8 SDK, and uses "ovrHMD" which is no longer in the SDK. I'm still searching for an updated example using the recent SDK.

Thank you for those replies! I had seen the oculus rift setup and demo links before, but I didn't realise that the dx11 openvr project had an "Oculus" Option, I'm currently downloading that. Would it be possible to simply copy the Oculus specific information from that branch into my current engine version, or would it be easier to transfer my projects to the dx11_oculus version?

JeffR, Thank you so much for that post! That really clears up a lot of the gaps in my knowledge. So, morph targets are essentially obsolete, would that be correct? It seems Unreal uses them a lot for it's character generator resources. By "not requiring any special pipeline handling", I assume you mean that the bones solution would be largely engine independent, would that be correct? I think I get the general concept now, I could do some experimenting with it. Do you know how multiple clothing, and armour types, etc, work then? If I scale up the arms, does the armour that I have attached to the arms scale up with them? Mixamo fuse seems to use multiple meshes, I can see in the editor window a distinct mesh for the lower body, upper body, etc. I'm not sure if it uses bones or morph targets. Thanks again!

Hello, I will (finally) be receiving my Oculus Rift CV1 on Tuesday, hopefully, so I have started integrating the latest Oculus SDK to T3D 3.8. It seems the current information is out of date. I am getting a lot of errors relating to functions and variables being changed or depreciated. Is there an up to date reference anywhere? I can't seem to find much information on integrating the Oculus SDK with engines other than Unreal or Unity. Is there anyone that knows how to port from, I believe, the 0.5 SDK which, T3D uses, to the newest version?

Yes, I did a little digging, and it seems that you're right. I think this support was even depreciated a number of years ago. So, is that how morph target animation works then, in a character generator? You use a shader to alter the positions of the model? That's very clever, shaders are incredibly powerful. I'm not an artist, so I doubt I would understand this well enough to implement it, but would it be possible to create a system that does this? T3D has shaders, is it entirely shader based?

As it turns out, T3D has morph target animation support, is this correct? My knowledge of animation is poor, but could this feature be used with Torque to produce a character creator similiar to fuse?

Yes, I know about Makehuman, but it's not integrated, that's the thing. I think Unreal engine has some resources like this, which are made using morph targets?

Hello, I have recently discovered Mixamo Fuse, and it's powerful character generation abilities. What I would really love though is to incorporate a program like this into a computer games engine. Does anyone know of any library out there that could be used like this? I have created a simple character creator before, but it is a long and involved process. Having access to a software library would be a huge advantage, a developer would only need to create the individual art assets (clothing, etc) and the software would allow the user to combine them with the base mesh and customise them. Is such a thing possible?

I have made significant progress with this, I have the chunked level of detail and the quad tree system finally done. The only issues now are the fact that the collision doesn't seem to be working properly (The collision mesh that I am generating doesn't seem to be updating correcting every tick) and I have no idea where to start implementing texturing. I will post and update in the next day or so with some more progress.

Spherical Terrain would work exactly the same as regulare terrain with regards to collision and object placement, and terrain deformation too. Adding skyboxes and oceans would be different though, since the terrain would be spherical, so a flat ocean plane or sky box wouldn't work.

Yeah, I've been posting regular updates on my blog, I *think* I am making some decent progress! Although, I have said that many times before! Is this the type of thing that would be useful as a T3D feature? Or is it too niche? Spherical Terrain, I suppose, isn't something that most people would really need...

I just wanted to chime in here. I am very interested in VR development, and even thought I don't own and Oculus Dev Kits, I have a preorder for the CV1 (Hopefully shipping soon). Once it arrives, I would like to volunteer to help get the latest Oculus SDK and CV1 supported in T3D.

Yes, I came across something like this a little while ago, it's amazing how easy it is when you know what you're doing! I think I am finally getting there with this though, I am just about to implement a midpoint displacement algorithm, hopefully that will go well.

That's a great idea actually,it's much simpler than what I was trying to do! I was trying to rewrite the isoverlapping() function from mBox.h into script, and it didn't seem to be working. Container radius search is a much better idea, thanks!

Apologies for the slightly cryptic subject. I am relatively familiar with the intricacies of T3D's collision system, but, unless I am missing something, I can't seem to find an easy way to solve my problem. I am placing objects (Tsstatics and items) in a procedurally generated level. I would like to check to make sure that two objects don't collide with each other, ie, that one objects bounds doesn't intersect anothers. I cannot find a way to do this. I am looking for something like "if %obj.intersects(%obj2)". This doesn't seem to be available. Conventional collision works fine, ie, my player cant walk through walls, etc, but when I am placing the object with settransform() I need to know if they intersect with an already placed object. Could something like this be easily added? Thanks!

Thanks a lot for that explanation, your project is very interesting!

Hi all, I was going to make my own topic for this, but since this post is so recent, I will add my question to this post, hopefully it will get seen. I am also having issues with this resource. I have the code compiling with no difficulties, and I have created the example door provided with the resource in my level. With the door closed, I cannot pass through it, which is expected. I can then call %obj.opendoor(), which plays the open animation, provided the player isn't blocking the door, this is expected. However, even with the door open, I still can't pass through, it seems there is an issue with the collision. This is the same issue I had with doors, which is why I downloaded this pack. I also cannot play the closedoor() animation at all, it returns 0, even when the player is not blocking the door. I tried this with and without the code changes given in this thread. I think we really need a good door resource working and included in the engine, it is a standard feature with any game project. If I can't get the working, I will have to resort to my usual method of creating doors, which is to create a door object with no collision, then create another invisible object with collision, and move the invisible object as the door opens using .settransform(). This works, but it's not ideal, I'm sure we can do better!

Oh, sorry, I thought it was yours! But yeah, it's a huge project. I think I'll get there eventually though!

I have noticed a fairly major oversight with this in that I didn't add any container class to expose the results of the mySQL queries to script. What would be the best way of doing this? I need to convert the sql statement containing, potentially, many rows from the database into a data structure that I can access and parse quickly from script. I am guessing a custom class using a vector would be the correct approach here, but how do I expose that vector to script, so that I can do something like: for(%i=0;%i %row = resultset.getrow(%i) Any ideas?

Oh, that's fantastic, thank you! I had a look through your project, it looks great! You obviously spent a massive amount of time on this! I hope that I will be able to find some information in there about how to correct the issues I have been having with spherical terrain, thanks again! I think I underestimated the sheer amount of time it takes to get anywhere with virtual worlds, even with my best estimates!

Thank you for these replies, I had never heard of the maxinstancingverts variable, I will definitely play around with that. So far, increasing it doesn't seem to do anything, I will probably have to dig a bit deeper to figure out exactly what it's doing. JeffR's reply is exactly what I was looking for, this is a great insight into exactly what the engine is doing when drawing large numbers of objects. At the moment, I would be happy to limit the system to static shapes, but I would like to have some vehicle or moving machinery, etc, support eventually. This means that using groups of objects folding into a static buffer would likely be the best option. I don't need to model each object individually, such as in an explosion in KSP. If there are any pieces that fall off or detach from the main object, I could just draw those individually, this would be rare enough that it wouldn't affect performance. The problem now is "folding each group of objects into the static buffer". This is more low-level rendering type stuff, which I don't have a lot of experience with. Is this extremely complex, in general?

I am not sure if this is the right forum for this, but I am working on a project which will, eventually, allow users to create complex objects such as buildings, vehicles, or machinery, from many smaller objects. I am hesitant to compare my work to other projects for fear of making it look like I am making a knock-off, but if you imagine "Kerbal Space Program", then that is the general type of concept that I am going for. However, I just conducted some test in T3D regarding this, and, as I suspected, there is a problem. As I discussed on my blog, I noticed that even with a similar polycount, the FPS is vastly reduced as object count increases. For my tests, I did this: I created some spheres in a modelling tool, with a known number of polys. One high res sphere, with 10082 polys, one medium resolution at 1058, and one low res at 105. I then wrote three drawing functions, which I executed separately: Test 1: Draw 512 of the high res spheres (512*10082 = 5,161,984 polys), Test 2: Draw 4,913 of the medium res spheres (4913*1058 = 5,197,954) Test 3: Draw 46,656 of the low res spheres (46.656 * 105 = 4,898,880) Since the polycount is quite similar in all cases, the FPS should be similar too, but it isnt. With nothing at all rendering, the polycount is about 200, after Test 1 (512 polys) the FPS is about 50, with all polys in view. However, Test 2, in the same conditions, produces a poly count of 9.3, and Test 3 wasnt really conclusive due to issues drawing all of those objects, but it was giving me about 5-9 fps, depending on the angle I looked at the objects at. To go from 50 FPS down to 9.3 with a similiar polycount indicates a serious problem with my concept. Can anyone shed any light on how I would conceptually solve this? I am not planning to work on it in any major way at the moment, but I will need to in the future. I am just creating TSStatic's in script at the moment, is there a way to combine the distinct object meshes into one logical object? So, I might have 10 meshes drawing, but they would be logically grouped into one object? I think I got some advice before on this, and I was told to look into the vehicle code (since it allows mounting of objects into a single, driveable, object). Can anyone see any major problems, or solutions, to connecting many objects together like this? Something tells me this is going to be very hard to do, performance wise. Thanks for any advice!