Interesting discovery about PWK's

[Legacy_Lord Sullivan]

               @FunkySwerve

WTF are you mumbling about Dude?

First this discussion is about PWK's <<-- (Placeables Walkmesh)

You post about a Tileset bridge, show us a screenshot of it and a screenshot with a load of invisible
placeables that all contain a PWK since you mentioned that they are placed there for path blocking AND

then go on about Bioware's style beter then the REAL style??

Yo Dude, the F are you talking about.

[EDIT]: Btw, I still get a good laugh at people with PW's that say we are Hak free... only NWN vanilla + CEP... lol
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lord Sullivan, 23 novembre 2011 - 07:31 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               For Project Q v1.5 I made some fence placeables (based off _Six's) that follow the angle of the hill lines in the TNO tileset. This meant that the PWK had to be sloped in order to provide blocking along its length.

I'm always amazed at what little quirks the engine can handle. IMO we don't give the engine enough credit...
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Pstemarie, 23 novembre 2011 - 07:39 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

Lord Sullivan wrote...

@FunkySwerve

WTF are you mumbling about Dude?

Is the vulgarity really necessary? I won't report you, but I'm fairly sure it's against the code of conduct.

First this discussion is about PWK's <<-- (Placeables Walkmesh)

How astute of you. I guess that means you read at least the first post. '>

You post about a Tileset bridge, show us a screenshot of it and a screenshot with a load of invisible
placeables that all contain a PWK since you mentioned that they are placed there for path blocking AND

That's not a tileset bridge, but thanks for the compliment. '> Those are all places, made by acaos and myself, placed on invisible tiles (actually mostly right below them, but not entirely, if you read the thread). It pays to read the thread.

Heck, I'll even show you it sans places, lest ye be skeptical:

then go on about Bioware's style beter then the REAL style??

Actually, six called it the REAL style. I scarequoted it to show my skepticism about the label, which you obviously share. Again, pays to read the thread.

Yo Dude, the F are you talking about. {smilie}

The thread. Which you would know, if you had read it. Pays to read the thread.

[EDIT]: Btw, I still get a good laugh at people with PW's that say we are Hak free... only NWN vanilla + CEP... lol

Why? Enough of the community has it that it's not a serious barrier to entry, unlike ever other hak out there. That's why HG opted to use it originally back in 2004, before I even got on board - to draw more players. That's also why it's the only hak I would ever contribute to - there's substantial value in a single community hak. Rocket science, it is not.

EDIT: Since I'm mucking through photobucket again, I might as well post another example of what that non-'genuinely useful' 'exploit' can be useful for. I give you the Elemental Plane of Air, using the City Exterior tileset:


Funky
               
               

               

                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 23 novembre 2011 - 09:32 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Lord Sullivan]

               @FunkySwerve

There's no vulgarity in my post. If you like to beleive that WTF as oppose to what the hell is vulgar... well
suit yourself.

See, the reason I ask "what are you talking about" is indeed because I read the thread until your post that
was not coherent with the rest of the thread... well to me at least.

Now that I've read your post about 5 times over I think I'm begining to decipher it. '>
But I must admit that I have yet to see the point you're trying to make.

So either I have trouble understanding you or you have trouble expressing yourself.

As for that last bit about CEP... it's a hak regardless. Its size of a hak doesn't matter nor does the
quantity of people that might like it nor does the amount of use...a hakpack is still a hakpack. If it walks like a duck,
smells like duck and sounds like duck... well it's a freaking duck.

The ease of entry is nothing but an assuption. I had downloaded version 1.53 in the past, but the bloated
last version since v2.x... no thanks. Way to much resources that I find useless or don't like in there not to
mention things that should not have been part of it. So I haven't bothered with that hakpack(s) since and don't
intend to at anytime in the future. Anyway, this is not a CEP debate thread so I will stop right here on the subject.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Lord Sullivan]

               So to sum things up for people to be clear on PWKs.

A PWK is needed only when the type of placeable you create logicaly needs one.
In such a case you can choose to make one according to what type of placeable
it is, so either "Flat" or "Geometric".

examples:

Flat
------

Chairs, Tables, desks, basicaly anything that is lower that the maximum height of Characters/NPCs.
Execption - Special Use Placeables like in Funky's example with the giant bones (I guess).

Geometric
---------------

Walls, Columns, Trees, Armoire, etc... Basicaly anything that is tall enough, large enough to
cover/hide characters/NPCs.
Execption - Special use Placeables that normaly a "Flat" PWK would suffice but created with geometric
PWKs that are well crafted so the placeable can be "Z" ajusted to be properly placed on non-even grounds
while not covering characters/npcs entirely.

My personal view on the matter is that... if I were to download a pack from the vault and there are
placeables that should have geometric PWKs as characters should be covered/protected when hiding
behind said placeables and hostiles manage to fire range amo OR fire spells at characters, well
those placeables are useless to me and the pack will quickly hit the recycle bin.

Creating a clone of the object to make it its PWK is a bad idea as you can always create simpler shaped
PWKs for a model. (i.e. a placeable with a few different ground rocks of different sizes can use a few straight
cylinders around the size of each rock)

Some placeables obviously do not require PWKs as Bannor previously mentioned. (i.e. a "Candle")
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Lord Sullivan, 23 novembre 2011 - 01:57 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <stirring the pot...>

I've learned an incredible amount from all of you. Wrestling with that Altar was... enlightening (still hate the nasty thang :-P ).

One of the things I learned that is only tangentially applicable to the OP (the use of non-planar pwks) is the use of simplified, non-rendering objects for shadows.  Have any of you combined these two techniques - A non-planar (to carefully avoid the terrible "3D" word ;-) PWK that casts shadows? I.e. Is the geometry ignored if it's named PWK for shadow purposes or can you safely combine the two functions, thereby removing one more element from the object?

<...cuz he's a bit crazy>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy__six]

               

FunkySwerve wrote...

then go on about Bioware's style beter then the REAL style??

Actually, six called it the REAL style. I scarequoted it to show my skepticism about the label, which you obviously share. Again, pays to read the thread.

I guess the fact I've done work in other engines that actually have 3 dimensional movement collision plenty before somewhat skews my view towards 'practise'. I tend to apply rules that make the most sense from a realistic physical perspective rather than what happens to be convenient. I'll happily give you a list of things I've done that I think are wrong in that sense - I'm not saying it's universally bad to do such things. Just unrealistic and liable to cause people who don't have a thorough understanding of how your models work to run into issues.

From the perspective of someone making custom content, I'd rather my models worked as they would appear to from first glance. See pstemarie's post for a perfect example of where that's completely necessary as opposed to an alternative.

As an aside, please don't invent things that I've said and then accuse others of not reading the thread properly. My post is clearly visible above if you'd like to double check it. It's understandable to confuse my use of 'realistic' with 'real' inferring proper, but my post didn't even use that word.

Rolo Kipp wrote...

Have any of you combined these two techniques - A non-planar (to carefully avoid the terrible "3D" word ;-) PWK that casts shadows? I.e. Is the geometry ignored if it's named PWK for shadow purposes or can you safely combine the two functions, thereby removing one more element from the object?

Actually the pwk object isn't stored in the model file proper, and I'm relatively sure you can't render anything from a .pwk file. Certainly pwk and wok objects don't allow for the same parameters as trimesh.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par _six, 23 novembre 2011 - 05:25 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Rolo Kipp]

               <chewing on a thought...>

OldTimeRadio wrote...
BTW, when that cone is sunk into the ground the same number of faces are still in play when something tries to path around it- so it's just as wasteful nomatter how much of it is sticking up throgh the ground.  I'm sure at some point this ceases to be as much of a problem as it sounds, though.

Do you know if the vertical sectioning of an object affects the pathfinding?
Specifically, if you had that 5 sided cone with 3 segments of decreasing radius toward the top, would the pathfinding be identical if the cone is set at 0-z and a copy is set 3meters -z (i.e. if there is a smaller section at 0-z)?

Or, another way of saying it, if the cone has a radius of 5m at the base, another ring of vertexes at 2.5m high that has a radius of 2.5m and tops out at 5m tall, what would the pathfinding be if the cone was sunk 2.5m in the ground (so the ground-level radius was 2.5m?

Or the inverse, you have a great stone mushroom next to the sunken ruins of a great stone mushroom (cap is 4m up). With the raised mushroom, could you walk under the overhang (assumes a pwk of a disc on top of a column)?

And if I pulled the lever that dropped it down, would it prevent walking to seal that shaft all the Big Uglies are about to pour out of? ;-)

<...like a cow its cud>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

Lord Sullivan wrote...

@FunkySwerve

There's no vulgarity in my post. If you like to beleive that WTF as oppose to what the hell is vulgar... well
suit yourself.

Seriously? I think you might want to google that acronym. Here's wikipedia's entry, which makes the vulgarity pretty apparent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTF

See, the reason I ask "what are you talking about" is indeed because I read the thread until your post that
was not coherent with the rest of the thread... well to me at least.

Now that I've read your post about 5 times over I think I'm begining to decipher it. '>
But I must admit that I have yet to see the point you're trying to make.

So either I have trouble understanding you or you have trouble expressing yourself.

It's the former. How you could've read my post and thought that was a tileset bridge is beyond me. Anyway, my point was simple enough. Full pwks on those places would make it impossible to use for that purpose.

As for that last bit about CEP... it's a hak regardless. Its size of a hak doesn't matter nor does the
quantity of people that might like it nor does the amount of use...a hakpack is still a hakpack. If it walks like a duck,
smells like duck and sounds like duck... well it's a freaking duck.

Of course it's a hak. I just lacks the major downside of all other haks, which is why people tend to talk about it differently.

The ease of entry is nothing but an assuption.

No, it isn't. It's basic fact. Only a certain percentage of players, when faced with an additional download requirement, will go to the extra effort. Unless that percentage is 100% - and there is clear evidence it is not - heck, some people even refuse the extra effort of CEP - then the adding time and effort cost the player is a very real fact, as are the consequences.

Funky
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_NWN_baba yaga]

               i dont get the point the discussion is heading to. For me there is just one thing possible with a pwk and that is blocking a creature. Sorry if im mistaken but ok whatever;)

p.s. this is not against the op in no way, i just dont get it... help me obi wan
               
               

               

                     Modifié par NWN_baba yaga, 23 novembre 2011 - 07:13 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               What they are trying to say is that if a placeable has a pwk that is 3-dimensional you can drop the placeable below z 0 in the toolset and still have it block.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_NWN_baba yaga]

               that is new and cool to know, thanks:)
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

_six wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

then go on about Bioware's style beter then the REAL style??

Actually, six called it the REAL style. I scarequoted it to show my skepticism about the label, which you obviously share. Again, pays to read the thread.

I guess the fact I've done work in other engines that actually have 3 dimensional movement collision plenty before somewhat skews my view towards 'practise'. I tend to apply rules that make the most sense from a realistic physical perspective rather than what happens to be convenient. I'll happily give you a list of things I've done that I
think are wrong in that sense - I'm not saying it's universally bad to do such things. Just unrealistic and liable to cause people who don't have a thorough understanding of how your models work to run into
issues.

I guess it does. Building for other engines is not a particularly good idea in my book. If this were a FPS, where objects needed to have three dimensional substance to block bullets, I could understand it.

From the perspective of someone making custom content, I'd rather my models worked as they would appear to from first glance. See pstemarie's post for a perfect example of where that's completely necessary as
opposed to an alternative.

That's an interesting point. Of course, since the community norm (according to Bannor, though I agree) is flat pwks, I think how most people expect models to work is NOT how you are describing. I expect any place I use to be walkable when I sink or raise it past the margin of error (is it 0.1? I forget). In fact, I rely on it, and anything different would be somewhat of a nuisance, for the reasons I've already illustrated with the bridge. Except, of course, when large objects require filler places, which simple three dimensionality can avoid, and which is the nuisance on the other end of the spectrum.

As an aside, please don't invent things that I've said and then accuse others of not reading the thread properly. My post is clearly visible above if you'd like to double check it. It's understandable to confuse my use of 'realistic' with 'real' inferring proper, but my post didn't even use that word.

Actually, I didn't invent anything - I just accidentally misattributed Bannor's label to you - apologies, it was late when I posted. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. Actually, the original use has been repeated in quotes in this thread, to describe a position similar to yours. Your position seems  less extreme than his, calling for a compromise, but still three-dimensionality. For my part, I tend to agree with that, with the caveat that 3d pwks should only be on objects that need them for normal use - ie, walls you could otherwise walk through sections of. Things that are relatively contained, and therefore likely to be within the margin of error  of the tileset section they're sitting on, just don't need them, and shouldn't have them (that is, they should have 2d ones instead). That category encompasses the vast majority of the places I lifted from bioware tiles. Even on the larger stuff I ripped, I I generally just went with flat ones, adding more than two dimensions in only a half dozen cases or so. In practice, I haven't run into much trouble using them that way - just one large boulder thus far which didn't block as it should (though that was admittedly quite a nuisance).

Funky
               
               

               

                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 23 novembre 2011 - 07:37 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist]

               The question was whether or not a fully shaped pwk (matching object shape) was worth the effort.

Some folks think that a flat pwk is all that is needed... and that does work for blocking MOVEMENT of the pc/npc, but has issues on uneven terrain and does not block arrows or spells from overflying the "blocking" pwk.  

The issue is whether or not a fully realized pwk is needed, useful, or even practical.

The answer is:  Depends on the type/usage of the placeable.  Some, like walls, should have at least a simple raised pwk that does block ammo, where an object designed to be placed on top of a table, or in an otherwise non-accessible area does NOT need a raised pwk, since the engine won't allow you to get to it anyway.

So, it boils down to the intended use of the individual placeable.

I think I have covered pretty much any type of object you might require in a game, those that are not used/modified/moved by a player, and those that should interfere with the players movement and those that should block incoming/outgoing spells or ammo.

Each placeable has a specific purpose.  Blanketly creating a flat pwk is a waste of time if you have to go back and add an additional HIDDEN placeable to block something when all that was really required was for the original object to have a properly created pwk in the first place.

The engine does NOT flatten pwks as has been mentioned in this thread.  The creator of the object had to do that.  Creating a pwk that perfectly matches a complicated object is also a huge waste of resources/processing power, but something that comes close to the overall shape of the object really provides the best of both worlds.  It allows you to block movement and ammunition, while not overloading the engine if the pwk is created with simple shapes.

Having to go back and create a 2nd hidden placeable to block something that should have been blocked in the first place doesn't make sense either as it increases item counts and processing time.

Moveable objects also affect things, and definitely prove that the "baked down into the wok" idea is flat out wrong.  If you can block access through a doorway with a box or nailed up board whatever, and can destroy that object to then be able to get through the door, then the "baked" bit is flat proven wrong.  I know this can be done as we did it in WyvernCrown.  The stones blocking the hidden walkway get destroyed and the placeable walkway moves up into place where the real walkable surface already existed.  The area is not reloaded, it is just animation and destruction of objects.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               3-D pwks are a natural evolution resulting from the way tileset construction has evolved over the years. When NWN first came out all the tilesets were flat, therefore a 2-D pwk for placables was enough. However, with the addition of grades (e.g. sloping hills) into the geometry of tilesets, the flat pwk no longer was enough.

I would say I have to disagree with Funky about expecting a placeable to become nonwalkable if I drop its Z-axis below the tile plane. No matter how far below the tile plane I drop a placeable, I'd expect something like a wall to still serve as a blocker. If I wanted something walkable, I'd just copy the mdl, kill the pwk, and add it in a hak.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Pstemarie, 23 novembre 2011 - 07:49 .