EntityRadius Problems? We've had them before...
Blitz3D Forums/Blitz3D Beginners Area/EntityRadius Problems? We've had them before...
| ||
| I had this really weird thing happen. I think it might be problems with "EntityRadius," but I can't tell for sure. Anyway, here's a pic:  |
| ||
| Can't see you picture? |
| ||
 uppercase file extension. |
| ||
| Decrease your near camera range. That'll help :o) |
| ||
| OK. |
| ||
| Thanks - it's fixed. I did CameraRange camera, .1, 1000 |
| ||
| ..but dont forget that as you reduce the near distance you may also have to reduce the far distance or you can get z order sorting problems I believe. Your current settings look fine (I think?). Hehe, I'm no expert myself. There were some good posts on this, explaining the whole z order sorting thing and camera ranges - maybe do a search. |
| ||
| I'll change the far distance when the time comes, right now it doesn't matter. |
| ||
| I think it was said that a ratio of 1:10000 was ok to use :) |
| ||
| ok |
| ||
| So, .1 to 1000 would be exactly the same... |
| ||
| exactly I've fixed everything - this problem is done. |
| ||
| "I think it was said that a ratio of 1:10000 was ok to use" That's probably okay for 32 bit, but on 16 bit things will get pretty ugly. I stay under 1:1000, and usually try for even smaller. Polygons outside that are a waste to render anyway. EDIT: 'pretty ugly,' I just noticed that's an oxymoron. |
| ||
| The near camera range apparently has far more affect on z-buffering usage than the far camera range. As I understand it, the z-buffer works logarythmically, with the detail density increasing dramatically the nearer the polygons are to the camera. Here's a link which explains it better. http://www.sjbaker.org/steve/omniv/love_your_z_buffer.html |
| ||
| I can't load that page, which I'm curious to read because my understanding of the z-buffer is that the ratio of near to far is the important thing (thus both ranges are important.) That the z-buffer works logarythmically is irrelevant, because the greater density nearer the camera is still being spread out when the ratio is higher. That is, the z-buffer is finer near the camera than far no matter what the ratio is, but the z-buffer near the camera is more fine when the ratio is lower. |
| ||
| I believe you are correct jhocking, at least that is my understanding after doing some reading up on this a few months ago. So, if you have a setting which is at the 'maximum', if you then reduce your near range by a factor of ten, you must also reduce your far range by a factor of ten i.e. 1 : 1000 goes to 0.1 : 100 The actual 'maximum' also depends on the size of your entities. Smaller entitities are more prone to z order probelms than larger entities. Hmmm, or was it the size of your polgons that mattered? No, I think it was entity size because an entity itself is always drawn correctly (unless you disable z order sorting by setting entityorder), its just that entities themselves may be rendered in the wrong z position. So, basicaly (sorry for waffling), large entities will tend to have greater 'overlap' so are less likely to have their 'centres' in the same z space so are less prone to sorting issues. Hmmm, don't think thats very clear is it? Maybe read that link above!!!! |
| ||
| Yes, all read that link posted by Axeman. It makes very interesting - and enlightening - reading. :) |
| ||
| i.e. 1 : 1000 goes to 0.1 : 100 Which is what I stated 5 posts ago... |
| ||
| No, you said .1:1000, ten times what we're saying. |
| ||
| ...That's because Ross said: I think it was said that a ratio of 1:10000 was ok to use :) My response was scaled 10x smaller but would have the same RATIO. |
| ||
| Riiight, the same ratio as what he said, not what we just said. We referred to a ratio of 1:1000, you referred to 1:10000, a ratio ten times as large. Do you have to be that prick who needs to take credit by reminding people he said it first? |
| ||
| If that's what you think. I was trying to help by telling Fortress that he could have the same ratio of detail even with his inner limit set to .1 instead of 1. I wasn't arguing that it was a better ratio. Whatever, I guess i should have explained myself better... |
   |