PDA

View Full Version : Low poly and LOD



martinvk
June 1st, 2015, 10:40 PM
Should the some of the issue threads be pulled in here to find a solution? example two related threads about low poly and LOD size limits:
http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?119664-T-ANE-Low-poly-mesh-totals-more-than-500&p=1403901#post1403901
http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?119919-LOD-mesh-sizes&p=1403786#post1403786
To recap, I split a single mesh library into smaller units since the total of all of the low LOD meshes seems to count towards the total limit. In the second example, even when the total appears well below the 500 poly limit, the error is still triggered.

The splitting is probably inefficient as far as resources is concerned but I don't see another way around the problem at this time.
No clue how to deal with the phantom polys except by demoting the build back to 3.7, it keeps the error from triggering but makes it out of synch with the rest of the procedural track kuids in the set that are at 3.9.

pcas1986
June 1st, 2015, 11:58 PM
There is merit in bringing those threads and the other 500 poly thread in here.

Did you see my solution in this post (http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?119664-T-ANE-Low-poly-mesh-totals-more-than-500&p=1404018#post1404018)? There a question of whether it was a "proper" way of doing it but, from my perspective, it is a solution that meets the validation criteria.

martinvk
June 2nd, 2015, 06:23 AM
Will have to give that a try. Strange, I would thought the LOD-Level was explicit in the tag naming convention i.e. track-lod0 is lod-level 0, track-lod1 is lod-level 1, etc. seems rather redundant.
The question now is, is this a run-around the validation process that might cause other issues down the track or a legitimate solution?

pcas1986
June 2nd, 2015, 07:59 AM
Will have to give that a try. Strange, I would thought the LOD-Level was explicit in the tag naming convention i.e. track-lod0 is lod-level 0, track-lod1 is lod-level 1, etc. seems rather redundant.


I asked that question of Chris but Trainz doesn't parse the mesh name for information.



The question now is, is this a run-around the validation process that might cause other issues down the track or a legitimate solution?

I don't know and Andi06 seems to think it might be bypassing the issue. But I believe it follows the mesh table LOD method and therefore is syntactically correct. When N3V fix the known LOD problem in the next(?) patch then perhaps we will know.

WindWalkr
June 2nd, 2015, 08:18 AM
Yes, it's a runaround. Do what you have to for now, and I'll go into this further one we have a proper fix ready to test.

chris

martinvk
June 2nd, 2015, 07:36 PM
OK, I applied the LOD-level to the meshes that were recalcitrant and now they are all at build 3.9 without errors. Only one was still giving me a hard time so I added some extra polys to LOD0 which stopped the complaints about how there was not enough of a reduction from LOD0 to LOD1. Seems to penalize those that are able to make economical LOD0 objects that don't need much of a reduction in the first place.

WindWalkr
June 2nd, 2015, 07:52 PM
Only one was still giving me a hard time so I added some extra polys to LOD0 which stopped the complaints about how there was not enough of a reduction from LOD0 to LOD1. Seems to penalize those that are able to make economical LOD0 objects that don't need much of a reduction in the first place.

If you want to discuss this one, please open up a separate thread and show some screenshots of the various LODs. Probably worth looking at the surveyor performance HUD while placing the object to determine vertex, index, and buffer counts for your object (ie. check the change when placing your object, and when your object changes LODs as you move the camera.) The best way to test this is on a blank baseboard. If your object detail is high enough that stitching is not viable, it won't show in these stats, but I'm assuming that's not the case here.

chris

martinvk
June 2nd, 2015, 09:34 PM
see http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?120060-70337-70059-track&p=1405449#post1405449