Doesn't support ubyte4n vertex data how to#

New(SceneProxy->VertexBufferComplex.Vertices) FDynamicMeshVertex(Position + TwoY)

New(SceneProxy->VertexBufferComplex.Vertices) FDynamicMeshVertex(Position) That being done now, what is going to be the way to use that support? Hardcoding? You bet that is going to be the option of choice at the beggining, but after a while it has to be made in a correct object-oriented way just so obfuscation is avoided. Problem is, that's just supporting the complex blocks. It would indeed be a heavier structure, but its the only way to go. If not used the usual cubes are rendered, but if used then vertices are created on them. Yeah I dont think PolyVox has a place inside of BrickGame then, as one of the main features of BrickGame as a Render Plugin is to create the meshes.ДЄbout the specifics, the only solution I find is to add empty places on the current data structure, ready to be filled. Or not, because on that implementation PolyVox sends the Mesh ready to be rendered, while on BrickGame thats part of the job of RenderComponent. That way you get the best of both worlds. Again, besides that we should just do it and then try to fix it.ДЄnother cool idea if we manage to change BrickGame support of complex voxel shapes, would be to make a branch of BrickGame that uses PolyVox, just like the tutorial link. That is why I had interest on the implementation of Minecraft, because its written in a really object-oriented way.

Doesn't support ubyte4n vertex data how to#

But that will be solved really fast once the objective is achieved and a pull request is made, because Scheidecker would probably know how to make it look presentable. The best example of that are the guys that made a port of Cubiquity to UE4, (which is in Github by the way, supported until 4.8 I believe).ДЄbout modifying BrickGame, main problem I find is not the difficulty, but what the correct object-oriented implementation of it. Besides it really functions as a gateaway to a lot of tools, because coders that use PolyVox also use other tools and so you end up joining that group. It supports Marching Cubes meshes right off, and is really great abstracting the voxel problem away.

And learn about low level vertex manipulation in the process!ДЄnything that includes using PolyVox is great. So, yes, we will have to copy the already existing solutions out there. Now: This is not the present, where visibility of far away blocks and refreshing of their states is still not a trivial problem. That is what I mean when I say that at some point in the future more resolution will be available and then this talk of low level vertex tweaking will be out of the window, because you will be happy with the amount of vertices given by the standard blocks. That way a stair, like the ones in minecraft, is not a special kind of voxel, but an object made up by a combination of them. A middle point that will come at some point in the future is where you still have big cubes, but actually they are made up of a grid of smaller cubes, and that is what allows for detail on complex shapes. Because, sure, you can change vertex info, but remember the normals? Those are cooked so that the face number 6 of the brick, the one that should be facing up and you are forcing it to an angle, point up and reflects, well, what an horizontal surface would! Basically you cannot have it both ways, either you have cooked normal angles or you have dynamic voxel angles.ДЄbout the voxel resolution I mean that minecraft proposed to use a different kind of voxel type for certain complex shapes, and the opposite would be the way laser scan represent complex shapes, by using a million of voxels. This can be used for less blocky mountains or for water surfaces, for when you simulate water with the bricks.Д®DIT: Forgot to mention, it was not all roses, I recall having trouble with the normals.

But the result is really satisfying because of Scheidecker use of World Texture Coordinates: They, (the textures) do not stretch, but texture information is procedurally created for them. You are not deleting vertices, just pulling them together. Now its own vertex, and the one of the neighbor, have the same index, and so the GPU will render them as the same. If the brick is 100 far from the floor next to it, then no modifications would be done.Д«ut if it has a neighbor down below, then it will copy the vertex index that it wants, and paste it onto his own. For performance purposes, lets say you stop counting at 100. Is correct, I managed to modify vertex data like this:Д«y copying the data from a vertex to the one of the vertex below it.Д«asically you take a brick index, right? Well, then you start counting down from its sides, until you hit bottom.