View Single Post
  #10  
Old 12-01-2017, 11:03 PM
tridge tridge is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Sebens View Post
You'd like to be able to create a vehicle without having any visual art to start with. Instead of starting from an FBX, you want to make a physics model in the editor as the starting point (wings, fuselages, engines, etc.). That physics model would then be used to create a (very simple) visual model.
yes, that's right. If the code required it then you could start with a cube, or single wing for graphics model (I can imagine the code may get upset if there was no graphics model at all), but it would be ignored in the generation of the FBX.

Quote:
In essence, rather than letting the art drive the physics, you'd like to be able to have the physics drive procedural art. Is this correct?
yes
Quote:
We've considered this in the past, and I like the idea! You're right that it would be a lot of work.
yes, I thought it might be.
I think it would be possible to do this separate from KnifeEdge though - the rfvehicle file looks like it has the required information.
Quote:
There are some real issues that would need solving, particularly around fuselages, which currently rely on art for their geometry.
yes, though I think just treating the fuselage as a box would work to start with.
The idea isn't to get it perfect - it would just give a starting point. The user could then refine the shape in 3ds max or blender, and then use the very cool "fit to visual" in RealFlight to then map that to the physics model.
Outside of the engineering use case that I'm interested in I would have thought this would make
model creation easier for everyone. Being able to start with a FBX that has the right airfoils, pivots, angles and sizes would probably make creating models a lot easier. My primary motivation is the engineering use case however.
Cheers, Tridge
Reply With Quote