View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000984 | FSSCP | graphics | public | 2006-07-12 01:21 | 2006-07-12 21:26 |
| Reporter | Backslash | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
| Status | closed | Resolution | open | ||
| Summary | 0000984: Asteroids are not drawn | ||||
| Description | Whoa. Asteroids no longer show up at all. This started happening after the reorganized texture mapping changes. But the weird thing is, not only do they not draw, they don't always collide either. (I can see the collision brackets, and then they go right through my ship.) Shots and small ships go right through, but the asteroids do explode against the big ship they were aiming at. | ||||
| Additional Information | I've tried RC5 and have been keeping up with the latest CVS. I tried troubleshooting myself but this stuff is way over my head. Ask if you need to know something, but I'm guessing it's not just me with the problem. Just thought I'd make sure it was known. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
If the textures don't show then they won't have proper collision detection. But, they work fine for me so it shouldn't be a code error (I doubt it anyway). Are you sure it's not just some issue with your data, something wrong the asteroid textures that makes them not load? |
|
|
Whoops. Just because I test it on multiple friends' computers, doesn't mean it's not an issue with our data. *blush* My fault. Hah, I should know better than this. Turns out one guy happened to compress the TGAs of our project to DXT1c the day before those mapping changes showed up on CVS, and the asteroid fields I happened to test use ASTEROD2 and ASTEROD5, which are both non-power-of-2... you can guess what happened. Silly me, blame it on the code I don't understand :-P Heh, I didn't know the collision detection was connected to texture rendering, but it makes sense now that I think about it. so, let me know for future reference, should a situation like this be 'closed' or 'resolved'? Or heck, it's not even a bug, so I could delete it... Edit: While I'm at it -- is there any downside to 'padding' the bottom/right of such a texture to bring it to a power of 2 size? (I don't know anything about UV mapping but I'm hoping it will ignore this new data...) edited on: 07-12-06 02:17 |
|
|
I thought that may be what happened. When I forced compressed DDS to be power-of-2 (it can cause crashes for may people otherwise) several people had the exact same problem that you did. Something like this should just be closed, since it's not actually a bug. And for texture maps, resize them, don't pad them, to make them power-of-2. UV mapping takes into account the whole image for the coords, so if you pad it then you will see the padding when it's drawn. If you resize it then the UV mapping doesn't care since the coords will still match up in the end. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006-07-12 01:21 | Backslash | New Issue | |
| 2006-07-12 03:17 | taylor | Note Added: 0006146 | |
| 2006-07-12 06:04 | Backslash | Note Added: 0006147 | |
| 2006-07-12 06:17 | Backslash | Note Edited: 0006147 | |
| 2006-07-12 13:18 | taylor | Note Added: 0006148 | |
| 2006-07-12 21:26 | Backslash | Status | new => closed |
