In the development version, shadows are now highly detailed because of a shadow map system. It would be a waste of my time to develop a new subobject shadow system for the current public version. In the meantime I suggest that LOD2 should have enough geometry representing the subobjects, as part of the main object. This way it can function as a reasonable LOD at distance and cast a better shadow.


By the way, this suggestion and the previous one about virtual mirrors have absolutely nothing to do with the modeller. Could everyone please try to use an appropriate thread?

From the first post:

This thread is for suggestions regarding the LFS object modeller only. That is, the editor you see if you click "Modeller" or you press E or "edit model" when you are in the vehicle editor. The modeller is about points, triangles, mappings and the tools you use to create, manipulate and texture the object.

Please DO NOT post suggestions for the VEHICLE EDITOR, or the mods system in general, in this thread.
If you have suggestions for the vehicle editor, please post them in Vehicle Editor Suggestions

There is also another thread for the mods system, such as how it appears in game and on the website.
If you have suggestions for the mods system OUTSIDE editors, please post them in Mods System Suggestions

didnt read everything back so it may already have been suggested and i missed it

polygon selection by angle threshold would help assigning those smoothing groups, wich is a painfull and long process when importing models built on other 3d modelers.

something like this :
click one poly, set angle threshold, click some "select by angle" button, and editor would select all adjacent polys with a normal angle difference below the threshold.

ex : if threshold is set to zero, all adjacent polys on the same plan (a flat surface) are selected.

Threshold should have at least one digit precision ex: 15.7

If you use latest LFSE, you can select all tris and make it one group, then select pretty easy others with Ctrl + Left mouse click and drag over the tris. It's not hard at all.

@ivo_drifta i dont understand the point of ur comment,
even if it has been improved with the click + drag, it still remains a uselessly painfull and time consuming process.

@turbofan I can share with you other trick I've learned in LFSE.
I see you have complex model, so you can try to select the tris and the part (for example bumper) l.r.swap Ctrl+Shift+Left click on mouse. Then with Shift+Right click and drag you can deselect unwanted and set the group. Plus Ctrl + Left mouse click and drag over the tris I think you will make it. You can try to use levels, and if you have mappings to select piece of the part. It will be easier for you to select the groups without selecting something else.
Remember that good things take time (Sometimes the greatest artists spends years to finish their work)

Quote from turbofan :

polygon selection by angle threshold would help assigning those smoothing groups, wich is a painfull and long process when importing models built on other 3d modelers.

If you import the model that was triangulated on export then LFSE will assign smoothing groups properly for it. LFS doesn't understand models made with quads or if model is set to flat shading. If the model was built properly in blender or in any other 3D software there should be no issues.

Blender has "Shade Auto Smooth" when you right click on model and then select the angle of threshold. Or set big angle like 180 and mark sharp edges manually.

lol ? did i ask for a 3d modelling course ? I hate unsollicited teachers.

how is it u feel obliged to explain me those useless "tricks", and assume I am working in blender with quads ? huh ???

I cant preserve groups when importing an obj that has been built and saved with them.

Poly selection by angle threshold is available for years on some 3d modelers, it is simple usefull and saves time, much more than those complicated "tricks".

To me, this suggestion thread is about making the lfse tool more efficient, so i'll never understand reactionnary (opposed to change) comments like those that want to explain you the tricks to circumvent the inefficiency of that tool. Just plain non sense.

Quote from turbofan :

I cant preserve groups when importing an obj that has been built and saved with them.

And yet i can so where is the issue? Maybe you missed some "trick" that Scawen himself said in one of the video tutorials and i'm just trying to help you. Really no need for that attitude.

LFS should be able to do a good job of assigning groups when loading a obj. I know because I wrote a big function to do it!

It depends on the vertices not being fused. From a quick glance in the code I can't get my head round it entirely, but is it that normals have to be exported? So that the vertices in the different smoothing groups refer to different normals?

LFS doesn't use smoothing groups as defined in the obj specification, so there is no point saving them in the obj.

I think it should be possible to do the export in such a way that LFS gets all the smoothing groups right.

This is not to say that turbofan's suggested function couldn't be useful, but hopefully is not necessary in this case if the export is done in the right way that LFS can work out the groups automatically. Certainly it should work fine for Blender exports, but if it's not possible in exports from other software I'd like to know about it.

EDIT: I thought there was something in the LFS manual about it but I can't see it in a quick search. Anyway here's a few tips for Blender. https://youtu.be/Rf6HK_niFjo?t=66

There is a section about this in LFS Manual (Loading a model into LFS Editor):

Quote :

Transform:
- Y forward / Z up (so the model is oriented correctly in LFS)

Geometry:
- Write normals (so LFS can work out smoothing groups)
- Triangulate faces (as LFS geometry is based on triangles)

@drifteris
but i didnt ask for help, this is a suggestion thread.
I could have phrased it better however yes.

@scawen
I agree it would be nicer if the obj import could work out the smoothing groups right.
I made some test export with blender and lightwave modeler, and it seems they output 2 slightly different obj files for the same object

here is a link to a blender obj export
https://pastebin.com/pXtzJDXH

and the same object by lightwave obj export
https://pastebin.com/CFAJCtiH

the blender one will import smoothing groups correctly in lfse, the lighwave output wont.

edit: the lightwave obj output will load correctly in blender

edit2:
as lighwave obj loads into blender I tried export that lw obj from blender to lfseditor and gee ! groups are preserved !
That is a very simple way to get what I want, so my suggestion isnt so meaningfull now, no need waste time on it : )

There is one thing that bothers me for a long time. If you are making a mod->object, you would want to test it somehow, but testing is possible only in single-player.

Since I like infrastructure and I try to make a bit bigger objects, it's impossible to test them on a racing track with Ai. It will be easier to test them on the new track's wide, long grid or autocross, but unfortunately, we can't spawn AI(bots) on them.

Just gonna note that, if you try spawning an Ai with an mod->object, we get this error: AI currently require a vehicle with a drive system : MOD-NAME.

My suggestion is for a new option "Add static Ai" so we can spawn bots with our unmovable test objects and actually test them, before moving on to publishing the mod->objects.

That would be nice.

Best regards.

Bigger objects (houses, bridges, etc.) or larger rims (like 35 inches) fall under the map at some locations. Since they don't fall at some spots, but fall on other stops, my guess is that there is something missing on some spots of the tracks. Can this be referred to and fixed before the new track versions are released?

Here is a Westhill example, which I posted earlier this year:

To make it easy for me to test and reproduce, could you post a /cp and attach an example veh so I can test it?

By CP I mean, go in free view mode and type /cp - the camera position will be copied to the clipboard.

By an example veh, I just mean the simplest of vehicles that I can use to see it fall through the ground.

Thanks.

Quote from Scawen :

To make it easy for me to test and reproduce, could you post a /cp and attach an example veh so I can test it?

By CP I mean, go in free view mode and type /cp - the camera position will be copied to the clipboard.

By an example veh, I just mean the simplest of vehicles that I can use to see it fall through the ground.

Thanks.

Track: Westhill
Mod: Vehicle Transporter (DBBAD8) (for obvious reasons it's a private mod, but you have access to it from day 1)

Spot 1 - /cp -18231038 -20070364 1523133 -8250 2260 0.0 67.0


Spot 2 - /cp -10088361 18154694 436866 -17766 1726 0.0 67.0 (behind pit garage 3)


Half a year ago, I did a few tests with an object (ID -> C079D9), which falls behind the pits of this track. Back then I noticed that length was the issue for objects. Rought examples: If the object is 2 meters - it is fine, if the object is 5 meters - falls under the track at some specific spots.

I give you full permission to edit the access usernames of these two mods if someone else needs to test them as well.

By the way. The previous screenshot with green/red rectangles (before you replied) is from approximately from this view: /cp -18633338 -18921932 2421507 -1975 7308 0.0 67.0

I wouldn't bother you if these bigger-size mods fall down everywhere, but this is not the case and they fall down only in a few spots.

I could also do the object length test for falling objects behind Westhill's pits and give you more specific feedback on that as well. Of course, if you are interested in that.

I just successfully made the test with an object mod. I found a specific spot behind Westhill pits at which bigger objects fall, but vehicles do not fall. I can give you 2 exported objects(.7z files) and a .lyt layout with a specific spawn point to reproduce this falling issue. Can I send the files here -> https://www.lfs.net/mailus ?

I've done a test and made a change.

The long vehicle falls through because it is long and there are too many objects in the vicinity. It's not because the wheels are big. The objects in vicinity are calculated by an inefficient method that is better in the development version of LFS.

In your version, it runs out of slots for physical objects. I've increased the maximum from 64 to 80 and the long vehicle can now drive in that place you described.

About the bridge, it still does fall through the ground at that point behind the WE pits. There are simply too many objects nearby. It's because the assumptions that the physics system is based on do not apply to such large moving objects.

At this point, I think it's best to leave it at that. Longer vehicles are less likely to fall through the ground now because of the increase from 64 to 80. I don't want to increase the limit much as there might be consequences I don't want to deal with.

---

About your other suggestion, it has been on a list for a long time to allow AI to "drive" objects (i.e. sit there not doing anything). I enabled that yesterday. But so far they aren't allowed in to configurations without a path (same as other AI). But that restriction makes no sense for objects as they can't follow a path anyway. I'm thinking that the solution should be that AI, driving any mod, should be allowed in configs without a path (but simply sit there not doing anything as they have no idea where to drive).

This would allow people to test custom layouts more easily, for example start grids could be tested properly by AI drivers, even if they don't drive anywhere. I'm not seeing any issues with this, as long as LFS will somehow tell the user that the AI can't drive a car on that track.

I'll have a go today to see if I can allow AI on all configurations. It's not high priority but would be useful if I can do it easily. I hope it doesn't lead to any further complications I haven't thought of.

Quote from Scawen :

I've done a test and made a change.

Before all, thank you for taking your time. I appreciate it.

Quote from Scawen :

At this point, I think it's best to leave it at that. Longer vehicles are less likely to fall through the ground now because of the increase from 64 to 80. I don't want to increase the limit much as there might be consequences I don't want to deal with.

That's fantastic, I would love to test the longer vehicles on the next patch release. No worries about the bridge, since I'm used to it falling and it's enough for me to know the reason why it falls.

Quote from Scawen :

I'll have a go today to see if I can allow AI on all configurations. It's not high priority but would be useful if I can do it easily. I hope it doesn't lead to any further complications I haven't thought of.

I'm glad that you agree, that it would be useful in some cases, and you'll try it. At this point, I'm publishing objects and testing them in a safe environment in multiplayer with other players who agree to be my test subjects. It's a bit unpleasant, but that's all we got for now. Hopefully static Ai's would be a thing in the near future.

I am subscribed to the thread and I would love to help, if I could in some way, even with tests on new beta releases. Once again, thank you for taking your precious time, I really appreciate it.

I worked on the thing to allow AI to be added and to enter the game even in the cases they are invalid in some way.

1) bike (cannot yet be driven)
2) object (cannot be driven)
3) no path (no way to drive)

It's near complete, I don't see any major issues.

By the way, is there a reason on your long vehicle, you use "brake" objects for the mudguards, instead of selecting "mudguard" object type? Mudguards move like brakes but don't disappear. Brake objects are assumed to be inside the wheel so LFS often decides not to draw them.

I might also add the new 'inside wheel' lighting to brake objects so that would be another reason to definitely not call anything a brake if it is outside the wheel.

Quote from Scawen :

I worked on the thing to allow AI to be added and to enter the game even in the cases they are invalid in some way. It's near complete, I don't see any major issues.

Nice, I will be quietly waiting for that update. This would be useful for mod reviewers as well.

EDIT: BTW. This will make it possible for hosts to add mod objects to their servers by spawning AI's with the objects. There is so much future in this improvement, I'm really happy that we will see it in the near future.

Quote from Scawen :

By the way, is there a reason on your long vehicle, you use "brake" objects for the mudguards, instead of selecting "mudguard" object type?

To be honest, I can't remember why I used brake objects because I was gone for half a year and I simply forgot. But I'll change the object type to mudguards, and I'll tell you if it fails somehow. Thanks for noticing that.

The AI driving objects (do nothing) and bikes (slowly) is now available in D37.
https://www.lfs.net/forum/thread/102117

Quote from Flame CZE :

Here are a few examples of what's possible now but doesn't make sense to be tied to headlights:

I have one radical idea too ;p



But editor don't allow to use less that 1 degree angle so it's kinda hard to make AirRide animation look good.

Quote from versiu :

But editor don't allow to use less that 1 degree angle so it's kinda hard to make AirRide animation look good.

What do you mean about the 1 degree limit? The resolution for the rotating amount is 0.25 degrees. Check the tooltip when you hover over the adjuster. Of course type in is available too. Or is there a limit I don't know about?

Quote from Scawen :

The resolution for the rotating amount is 0.25 degrees.

Ahhh... It wasn't working because I need to use 0.25, 0.5, 0.75. I was trying something like 0.2, 0.3.