Interiors vs Shapes for dynamic map elements
by Heinrich Venter · in General Discussion · 12/10/2009 (10:02 am) · 0 replies
So as far as I understand, the point of an Interior is that it is completely static (no animations) and in a BSP format. A Shape on the other hand can have funky animations specified but is less efficient rendering wise.
If I wanted a map element that can be adjusted at run time, but not necessarily animated an Interior would not work, since I would have to recalculate the BSP (bad idea). For instance lets say a tunnel segment with a variable roof height that the player can crawl through.
Am I correct in saying that I would need to do this with Shapes?
Assuming this is the case I can see two ways to do this, one is to have several blended animations in the Shape and assign those through script at run time. Alternatively poke around the source code to create a new Shape type that allows transforming of parts of the model through script. The former being easier than the latter of course.
Since I am very inexperienced, are there any gotchas that I have missed that would sink my boat?
Thanks
-]-[
If I wanted a map element that can be adjusted at run time, but not necessarily animated an Interior would not work, since I would have to recalculate the BSP (bad idea). For instance lets say a tunnel segment with a variable roof height that the player can crawl through.
Am I correct in saying that I would need to do this with Shapes?
Assuming this is the case I can see two ways to do this, one is to have several blended animations in the Shape and assign those through script at run time. Alternatively poke around the source code to create a new Shape type that allows transforming of parts of the model through script. The former being easier than the latter of course.
Since I am very inexperienced, are there any gotchas that I have missed that would sink my boat?
Thanks
-]-[
