|
I would like to make a plugin to make the whole sceme scriptable...
Something like...
Use parts to sculpt...
CFrame = CFrame.new(2,0,0)
Part = Instance.new("Part")
Part.CFrame = CFrame.new(1,0,0)
Part:Union() |
|
|
No, no. That wouldn't do. I thought this over, and the only way to union things via scripting would be to put new methods into all members of the BasePart abstract class named Union and Negate. Then put new method into the UnionOperation named Separate.
People definitely want this feature added so they can get famous for making the "first ever script to model parts together using solid modelling". To explain a simpler way of adding this feature in incase ROBLOX client developers of this project haven't already...
For an example of union;
u=Instance.new("UnionOperation",Workspace)
p=Instance.new("Part",Workspace)
p:Union(u)
would make the part be a part of the UnionOperation.
For an example of negate;
u=Instance.new("UnionOperation",Workspace)
p=Instance.new("Part",Workspace)
p:Negate()
cutInto=Instance.new("Part",Workspace)
p.CFrame=cutInto.CFrame+Vector3.new(0,1,0)
p:Union(u)
cutInto:Union(u)
would cut into the part defined as cutInto using p as the negated part.
For an example of separate;
u=Instance.new("UnionOperation",Workspace)
p=Instance.new("Part",Workspace)
p:Union(u)
b=Instance.new("Part",Worskpace)
b.CFrame=p.CFrame+Vector3.new(0,0.5,1)
b:Union(u)
--Wow, I don't like how this looks..
wait(3)
u:Separate()
would separate the union comprised of "p" and "b".
would put two parts into one union, |
|
|
it would seem even better is a single part was separatable instead of the complete thing, also giving some use for actual scripts. although in the scene of Solid modelling, that would mean the part would need to be defined BEFORE the Union, as we have no way to look into the union later on.
like this:
u=Instance.new("UnionOperation",Workspace)
p=Instance.new("Part",Workspace)
p:Union(u)
b=Instance.new("Part",Worskpace)
b.CFrame=p.CFrame+Vector3.new(0,0.5,1)
b:Union(u)
--Wow, I don't like how this looks..
wait(3)
u:Separate(b)
would separate the part"b". from the union, still leaving "p" inside the union.
or perhaps an extra enum, wich defines wheter the part should be removed from union or not, wich defaults to true, so that
u:Separate(b,true) will actually remove "b" from the union, while
u:Separate(b,false) Would extract "b", but still keep a copy in the union(or the other way around, having the extracted part being a copy) with such an enum, it would be very effective to make storages of different parts. after some testing it even seems you can Union multiple Unions, so you could store complete models in a single part, effectively lowering rendering costs and allowing to copy out of it to create terrain when needed.
|
|
XenonLiJoin Date: 2009-08-19
Post Count: 5013 |
instead of unioning multiple unions to save rendering costs,
which requires you render a brand new object, pretty laggy,
why not just store it in
http://wiki.roblox.com/index.php?title=API:Class/ServerStorage
? |
|
|
I'm only suggesting things to actually make a script api for it useful.
and, you could union a complete in-game terrain, not just for storage means, but also to just greatly save rendering costs when players play your content, or having
free build games with perhaps alot of preset models to build with. |
|
|
Yeah, dynamic geometry would be awesome. However, I don't think it should be made like this. We know Roblox has the capability to create any shape now, so why not allow scripts to specify individual vertices and connect them into triangles, which connect to make objects. This would get rid of the overhead associated with union-ing two parts together and allow developers to create any shape they want. |
|
DataStoreJoin Date: 2012-02-07
Post Count: 8540 |
This is already being worked on. However, any methods that they add will only be useable from plugins. |
|
|
speaking if this, it is also true that Roblox is actually able to upload 3d models created with 3d modeling software such as Inventor and just use a triangulation algorithm, like you said, to create the model and then union it to be one part.
Though it's possible, it hasn't been implemented yet (of course). This would be incredibly useful, as I'm currently making things that are made up of about 3000 parts each (via scripting) and it's not nearly as accurate as I've made it in that 3d modeling software I mentioned earlier.
As for scripting, I'd say it would be a good idea to make the UnionOperation object a parent oriented system like Model is, so that adding a Part object to UnionOperation would result in it being added to the union. the only thing would be it would be laggy to redefine the properties of the part while it is in the unionoperation, so we would have to add them after adjusting size, material, etc.
Alternatively they could just add a new method titled Update to recalculate the union rather than automatically updating every time you add a part, so that you could build something in a UnionOperation and when everything was set and done, call u:update()
local u = Instance.new("UnionOperation",workspace)
local p = Instance.new("Part",u)
p.Size = Vector3.new(5,6,7)
p.CFrame = CFrame.new(1,2,3)
... to end of script
u:update() |
|
|
This never worked for me. |
|
|
|