I finally figure out the environment collision in Roaming Ralph (Yay!). But now I have (what should have been a simpler problem). I have a large DEM file I pulled from USGS; as such I don’t want to enlarge it to correspond with Ralph’s size. So I shrunk ralph. The problem is I can’t center the camera on him when he’s this small. It appears that I have no problem getting him in the horizontal but no the vertical. I need to lower the camera but it won’t go below a certain threshold (Ralph’s start point I believe). This means I can’t see Ralph until he is running away. I want the image to appear the same it did in the example (camera right behind him and Ralph taking up a large field of view). Or maybe I’m wrong about expanding the dimensions of the scene taking up too much hardware?
You’re just changing the scale on the models? Scaling a model has no (direct) effect on hardware demands. To suppose that it does is kind of like supposing that increasing the font size makes a document take up more space on your disk.
well don’t I feel foolish for assuming performing a function on 300 faces would effect its processing
Sorry, I didn’t mean to make you feel foolish. I’m still not entirely sure what you’re asking, though.
Scaling a model isn’t a per-face operation. It costs the same (which is to say, not much) whether the model has 10 faces or 10,000,000.
In general, the things you pay for in 3-D rendering are:
(1) There is a (small) cost per each different node (or, more precisely, Geom–but let’s stick with “node” for simplicity).
(2) There is a further (small) cost for each unique state. This includes transforms, such as scales. However, any transform costs the same as any other transform.
(3) There is a cost if you exceed the number of vertices per node that your graphics card can easily process. Few scenes reach this cost with modern graphics cards.
(4) There is a cost if you exceed the number of pixels per frame that you graphics card can easily draw. This is also unlikely, unless you are making heavy use of advanced shader techniques (which can increase the cost per pixel).
Usually, the biggest cost is (1), because you need to maintain different nodes within the scene in order to maintain an interesting, dynamic universe. You could make it render faster by making it all one node, but then everything would be frozen together, immobile.
Scaling a node doesn’t introduce much performance cost, other than the side-effects that you get from making more or less of the node visible onscreen at once (and thus indirectly increasing or decreasing the number of visible nodes).
Not sure if you have solved it yet…
Anyway, you have scaled the ralph model, but have you done the following?
1 - lowered the floater, that follows a little over ralph?
2 - lowered the minimum height of the camera from the ground it is colliding on?
And if you have already solved the problem I’d still love to know what the problem was and what the solution was just incase I or anyone else bumps into the same problem