8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 06:00 AM |
There really isn't a good place to put this. Many of you understand the ROBLOX engine, much better than I do.
I am assuming that this is a simple answer. Which is more efficient to use, 10,000 meshes, or 10,000 bricks?
I discovered a way to use meshes to replace bricks where bricks are not needed, to ensure the same quality, except perhaps improve efficiency. If you're building amazing terrain that nobody will be able to traverse, then why not use meshes instead?
If I asked if one brick vs one mesh, what is the difference, it would be small I am sure. But if I ask a large number, I am sure there is a difference. (Also, meshes allow you to make a moving object out of 5 to 20 bricks that looks like it has 2,000 bricks). It will be difficult to manually edit all of the offsets and sizes of meshes, so I might look into making tools to work with them. (Unless there are tools already).
Discuss.
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 06:03 AM |
I might need a mesh dragger, but that will be difficult... (Seems difficult).
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 06:08 AM |
So I found one that lets you edit the size of a mesh, now I just need to add editing the offset, and perhaps allowing me to select which mesh of an object I want to edit.
Although, this doesn't seem to be much easier than studio. (I'd rather use a CFrame Resize sort of tool on a mesh). Hmm...
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
zars15
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 9999 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 06:22 AM |
| Making plugin laik dat shouldn't be to hard. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 06:27 AM |
I don't like vectors though, lol.
Still getting used to them, :/
It probably isn't really complex, but it doesn't simplify anything. I can just keep using the explorer to edit the properties, and do it just as quickly. (Although, dragging would be easier, I don't know if it is possible). I click where I see a mesh, and it'd need to find the mesh that covers that area that I clicked depending on the angle of my camera... Since the mesh object doesn't have a position.
If I have 2,000 meshes in one brick, how in the world am I going to specify which one I want to click. Mesh building is going to be a lot slower, but it's worth it if I can use 5 bricks to make moving objects. ;)
When is ROBLOX supposed to improve the efficiency of unanchored parts? 100 moving parts and my laptop slows down. It's a noticeable frame rate drop. I am already looking into methods of making destructible environments, without Terrain, and without latency. But there will always be problems until we are allowed a couple thousand moving parts without issues. Then I could, perhaps, scale my tanks down to 60 bricks, and the place would work with 20 of them moving around at the same time.
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 06:30 AM |
Some methods I have thought of for more efficient vehicle handling:
Well, for the givers, I will probably clone a model, and then remove the original model.
For all objects meant to be destroyed, including vehicles, I will first un-anchor them if they are anchored, such as a building, blow it up, and then anchor it when the parts fall to the ground.
When a vehicle is not moving, then it will be anchored, until it needs to move. When a vehicle is destroyed, it will anchor after settling, and form new terrain for up to 15 minutes, before being removed. (Or perhaps slowly parts of it are removed over time).
Anyway, these methods will keep moving parts down to a minimum.
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Garnished
|
  |
| Joined: 09 Apr 2012 |
| Total Posts: 12695 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 09:35 AM |
Mesh = epic things and swords. Brick = CFraming and stupid swords.
Discuss'd. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 10:04 AM |
I suppose this would largely depend on the number of polygons the meshes are made up of vs amount of bricks required to give a similar effect, but I'd say meshes would be better in this case.
Decals are another good way to save on the brick count, you just have to use them the right way so it doesn't look too cheap. An example with decal trees that use 3 bricks i think came out pretty well when blended with fog: http://www.roblox.com/Winter-place?id=12195651 I think the decals work fairly well in this one too: http://www.roblox.com/Town-WIP-place?id=11676059 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
zars15
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 9999 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 10:08 AM |
| Wait, but don't you need to have bricks for meshes? Or how you can have mesh only? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Garnished
|
  |
| Joined: 09 Apr 2012 |
| Total Posts: 12695 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 10:09 AM |
^ I don't think it's possible. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
zars15
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 9999 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 10:23 AM |
| Yeah, thought same. But what did sun talk about then? Like bricks with meshes are less laggy? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 10:34 AM |
I'm pretty sure the engine would then have to consider the bricks having a mesh and then consider what type of mesh to render and would not be considered a 'sleeping part' in ROBLOX's next update (if it hasn't happened yet?) which was to optimize the game via 'sleeping parts'(?) and that st00f.
☜▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬☞ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 11:14 AM |
| Roblox's featherweight rendering is not bug-free at all, especially when using HopperBins. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Garnished
|
  |
| Joined: 09 Apr 2012 |
| Total Posts: 12695 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 11:15 AM |
@Zars I think it might be possible with a script that removes the brick but not the mesh...... Test it maybe? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
HotThoth
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 24 Aug 2010 |
| Total Posts: 1176 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 01:11 PM |
This question does not make sense to me. In order to use a mesh in our current engine, you must have a part. So using 10,000 meshes means using 10,000 parts, but you can use 10,000 parts by themselves. It is more efficient to use 10,000 parts by themselves, of course. This is especially true now that anchored parts without meshes can become featherweight parts. However, if you had a way to use a mesh without a part, then please share it with me, and my answer may change :P.
- HotThoth
~ I Thoth so ~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 03:12 PM |
I can put 10,000 meshes into 1 part. Then edit their offsets and sizes separately. I did this in studio, and I got two meshes out of one part. If it is a part that will not collide with anything, then why not use a mesh to replace it?
I don't know if this works well online, so I'll test it. But, it seems as if I can use two meshes in one part, which means I should be able to use 10,000.
Although, it was early in the morning when I did this, so perhaps my eyes deceived me.
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 03:21 PM |
Poof, my dreams are crushed.
It looked like I could have several meshes appear from one brick. (That's a feature that ROBLOX should work on). :p
Anyway, I guess I still need to wait for ROBLOX to optimize moving parts. It's pretty bad when you experience latency from 100 moving parts. What's the sense of having vehicles if it inhibits the entertainment value, and what's the sense of having a physics engine that can't handle physics? It's a huge limiting factor. I thought I could build a 137 part tank out of 10 bricks for a while there, and that made me happy, and gave me many options to fully optimize any place.
But I don't have that options, and I don't have many other options, besides perhaps making my bricks smaller to conserve memory and replace the area they were going to cover via meshes. That will optimize a few things, make my places run more smoothly, but it's not going to make much of a difference for moving parts.
However, if I use meshes effectively, it seems like I could possibly reduce the amount of bricks in my tank base from about 30 to 10, and the volume of the bricks, which affects the memory used, will decrease dramatically. (Along with the weight, making the vehicle run more smoothly).
Still, I might be able to accomplish space craft made of 5 or so bricks in the future. (Btw, I don't CFrame for vehicles).
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 03:25 PM |
My point, I wish ROBLOX could at least handle 2,000 moving parts without issues. Perhaps, latency would occur at around 2,500 for most people. But 2,000 would be safe for all but the most ancient of computers.
That would give us leeway. I am glad we have featherweight parts, so now my capital space ships might end up looking better, given more parts, but it doesn't solve the issue of having 20+ vehicles flying around and shooting each other yet.
I believe I read something that would make physics enabled parts run better, but I feel like it is going to take a long time before it's no longer a limiting factor.
I have thought of ways to make destructible buildings, terrain, and more dynamic terrain, while ensuring efficiency. (If I am going to anchor my tanks while they are not in use, it seems similar to what many of ROBLOX's optimizations have done).
One aspect of the level I am creating is that a team can store tanks and such in a double level garage, using an elevator, for future use. (Using 5 tanks at once instead of 1). Tanks are built at a factory and cost resources.
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
NVI
|
  |
| Joined: 11 Jan 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4744 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 03:57 PM |
> It's pretty bad when you experience latency from 100 moving parts.
Stop right there.
Compare this to Unity.
Can YOU manage to replicate 100 moving parts with no latency?
Just because they're simple boxes doesn't mean they're simpler to replicate. Roblox is doing a WONDERFUL job. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 03:57 PM |
Could someone please fix the special mesh offset?
XD
How long is that going to go unfixed... :/ That's two important uses I have found for it now...
I need to make it looks like my tanks have some sort of tread. Cannot collide bricks fail for those. So I used a meshed brick for the bulk of it, and now I need wedges on both sides to make it look more natural and such. (Wedge meshes are special meshes).
A good mesh would be a trapezoidal prism.
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 04:03 PM |
I read somewhere that ROBLOX's goal is to have 1,000,000 physics enabled parts.
At this rate, that will be possible when hardware is 10,000x better.
A server of 100 ROBLOXians has 500 moving parts from just the characters, if you use about 5 brick battle tools, and an average of 2 hats per person, then that's about 1,200 moving parts. Besides all of the other issues of putting 100 people into a server, there are going to be 1,200 parts moving around.
*sigh* Perhaps ROBLOX was created before its time. It might take a couple decades to provide support for some of these things without serious shortcuts...
Maybe it's hard to get 100 blocks with physics enabled, etc... I understand, but that seems to be all that we get. (When the characters and their tools take up more than that, having vehicles just seems impossible without detracting from the rest of the game play).
I built a naval ship once, it had around 300 parts. On an empty base place the place ran very slowly. In a place with 2,000 parts, in offline mode, my laptop, which is arguably less powerful than my desktop, but with a higher windows experience index, will run slowly, and I notice a drop in my frame rate as I move around the terrain. This is a place with 2,000 anchored parts and about 200 physics enabled parts that were stationary. (Once I am finished with the place, stationary vehicles will be anchored, but I can't anchor moving vehicles). Okay, maybe that's possible, but it would take a lot of math to use pseudo physics tuned for every vehicle I make,
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 04:04 PM |
Perhaps they are doing a great job, but it's nowhere near that goal.
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 04:36 PM |
Your 10,000 meshes in a brick methood is flawed, if you insert one mesh into a part and another, the second mesh is being shown.
~ Moo logic = logical logic ~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
8SunTzu8
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Sep 2011 |
| Total Posts: 8199 |
|
|
| 08 Jan 2013 04:45 PM |
I noticed that.
Like I said, I was tired, so I saw it differently. :/
Dreams = Crushed
To give you an idea what special mesh offset can do for me.
I can reduce a 1000 part vehicle to a 218 part vehicle. Or if I had about 80 bricks, I could reduce it to around 20. :/
That would solve a lot of issues. (Multiple meshes in one brick however, would allow us to create phantasmagorical places without lag).
"If you want to become a Developer or Innovator for CSA, contact me." |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
zars15
|
  |
| Joined: 10 Nov 2008 |
| Total Posts: 9999 |
|
|
| 09 Jan 2013 12:27 AM |
| @sun. Aren't character physics calculated by client? That exploit prooved that you can pretty much ignore gtavity and collision, by disabling one address. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|