I think BSP will merge polygons if it can, so just splitting up faces won't do anything. You'd have to nudge some points in or out a little bit.
I see what you were trying to do, but the texture doesn't map right onto that surface. But what I see with both yours and my own new object is that the entire cube face is still either lit or unlit, regardless of the number of polys. I took my cube, which was 12 polys (2 triangles per face) and subdivided each face several times until I had 384 polys (64 per face), and still the entire face is either lit or unlit.
Am I missing a setting either when converting to bin or in Dromed on the object to make this work? (I used Phong Gouraud but I doubt shading would have an impact on this issue.)
I think BSP will merge polygons if it can, so just splitting up faces won't do anything. You'd have to nudge some points in or out a little bit.
Looks like I'm wrong again then
I could have sworn it lit objects properly but having just spent half an hour fiddling with bsp trying to work out what's wrong it can only be that thief is stupid.
Ahhh.... so when 3ds2bin reported 384 polys that was before merging? Anyway... the lighting didn't behave as I was hoping even with zombeh's model, which definitely does not have a flat surface, so I'm just going to go with terrain textures.
Second frieze texture:
That may be it, unless I can find a good third texture somewhere.
I was already psychologically committed to making a new torch model when NV provided the information which -- had I had it earlier -- would have obviated the need for the new model. But since I was already there mentally, I decided to go ahead. Here is my New(er) Torch side by side with the EP torch.
![]()
OOO shiny! I like it!
A few more.
![]()
Nice Larry and R_T!
Rubberman complained about this face not being aligned, so I had to fix it...
I ended up making four more reliefs (more appropriate than the term "frieze", surprised Digi didn't nag me about that), but one doesn't look right at 8x8 so I may work it in at 16x16 elsewhere. I like these two:
Not a relief, really simply a wall drawing.
Perhaps a bit too classical Greek, but it's nice and dramatic. Depicts someone dying, so it fits right into the crypt.
Those looks good, Russ. The latter fits with the rest more, IMHO, but I do like the emotion portrayed in the former. A mother begging for the life of her child fits pretty well in a crypt.
Thanks to problems with installing the standard lockbox onto a custom jail cell door, a hint from Shadowspawn about how locks work, and some help from Qolelis getting the disconnected bolt hardware to hilight when the door is the focus, I now have a working deadbolt-locking jail cell door! (It may not be much compared to solving world hunger, but it makes me a little bit happy.)
![]()
Very cool!
Your getting my vote for rookie of the year.![]()
It's great to see it in action, looks good.
R_T: Interesting scenery!
Larry and Yandros: very nice stuff as always![]()
I'm currently stuck staring at the inside of one of the buildings - I vaguely know what I want it to be (local utility station), but somehow the space inside isn't cooperating...
I suspect it actually wants to be something different![]()
This one works much better than all the others![]()
After almost a year hiatus, I am working again on the the second part of my "Lord of the Thieves" campaign. At the moment, I am building an orc encampment.
Yesterday I added a few terrain details underground. Before I went to bed I ran complete processing on everything and all was fine. The thought never even occurred to me that this could cause trouble. Today when I ran around as I usually do to check things out, my old friend "Scene complexity too high" was back in two spots above ground. I went back to an old save from before I added the underground terrain details and yup, no scene complexity there.
I admit that I haven't exactly been saving polys when building this thing, but I didn't think details in one area could affect the polycount in another area like this.
Oh well, I have, as I see it, three options:
1) Delete the details. They made the cave system look much better, so I prefer not to.
2) Make sure that the player cannot reach the complex spots. I have never been a big fan of artificial boundaries, but I may have to add them.
3) I have these two areas that are kind of overlooking each other and I could isolate each area and then put up a simplified copy of the other. The player teleports between them, so I could get away with it.
Option 1 solves the immediate problem, but I will probably not be able to add even the smallest details after this. The same goes for option 2, but with the advantage that I can keep the newly added details and with some luck I could even make the artifical boundaries astupid excuse"fun part of the story".
Option 3 would reduce the polycount enough for even more details... maybe... It all depends on how detailed I will have to make the copy without it most blatantly looking like a copy. Option 3 would mean a lot of work without any guarantees that it would solve the problem.
What? You all want me to go for option 2? Okay!Seriously, though, comments are welcome!
Last edited by qolelis; 23rd Jul 2009 at 11:40. Reason: Solving ambiguity!
Try typing render_backward in the console as well. Complexity errors in other parts of the map may be due to the complex stuff rendering when it's not visible. You may be able to block off certain spots with more terrain to prevent this.