Looking for people to create collision hulls for assets


#1

Hi,

We are looking for a few people to work on creating collision hulls for 100+ objects. We will run the job through worklist and we are ready to start immediately.

Let me know if you have some availability AND know how to create the collision hulls and I will share the models with you.

Ideally we have 2-3 people working on them.

Chris


#2

is available. . . . .


#3

I am available to assist on the task.


#4

Linux or OS X this should be easy mode - compile vhacd and run a shell script to parse a directory of FBX assets producing OBJ physics shells - I’ve been doing that since last Spring (whenever vhacd and physics came into Interface).


#5

Kinda depends on the objects, if its 100 cubes its easy if its 100 um struggles to think of whats a tricky shape ok lets say watch parts then not so much…

What objects?


#6

vhacd provided unsatisfactory results when introduced by @chris you’ll notice when he attempts to get onto the railroad tracks he cannot do so even after jumping.

They are asking for artisans, not robots.


#7

If you know how to wield vhacd it does no such thing, but I can agree that it requires using vhacd then manually verifying/tweaking its output. I prefer to think it requires working smarter not harder. Most “artisans” would agree with that.


#8

Thinks i want to see @AlphaVersionD and @OmegaHeron fight to the death over this. Otherwise might be nice to compare and contrast the actual difference between the 2 methods.

I will use what can be shown to work best.Tho generally I find nothing I do makes much difference to the sim performance


#9

This one doesn’t fight. I know what I’ve done for pushing a year, what works and doesn’t. My backwards point was a bit of why is this an issue when there’s a tool chain that’s part of HF’s code base (its own vhacd-util) that can do a lot of this?

My workflow is - run vhacd-util on an FBX then if it doesn’t seem correct in interface - review its output .OBJ file in blender. For less complex objects this usually produces a physics mesh that’s fine. For more complex meshes it pays to split the FBX into parts so vhacd doesn’t try to melt, for instance, railroad tracks with land with railroad ties with gravel with etc.


#10

im still using this method, https://alphas.highfidelity.io/t/blender-colission-volumes-top-secret-shhhh/6963
but this is pretty
http://mysterydate.github.io/superFormulaGenerator/


#11

I understand you are looking for a fix-it-now solution, which requires people to do the physics shape setting.

But I agree with @OmegaHeron. By now this should be a no-brainer. VHACD is working quite well in the InWorldz grid. It took a lot of work to get it working well enough that people could upload models and have it generate decent physics shapes. Go hire them to fix your VHACD implementation. Or go hire an alpha who understands how to make it work (and not at $5/hour :wink:)


#12

Strange VHACD have never worked good for me in high fidelity. it’s a complete fail with buildings. you cannot get inside if you use VHACD. Unless that is fixt now. It’s also much harder to use then build the collision shape yourself in blender.

Oh grin, you talk about inworldz. not inworld :open_mouth:


#13

I’ve had a building with 2 floors, stairs and doorway that has worked with physics since the first time I ran vhacd on its FBX mesh around 9+ months ago. As does its land mass - a sky island. It’s a mystery to me why this is so damn hard. I tried on several occasions to explain how it worked but finally threw my hands up and moved on. Until HF places some devel power into making it auto-magic it will fall into 3 camps - those who can’t make it work no matter what they do, those who can make it work by drawing hand crafted physics shells and those who get how vhac works and are able to work around its limitations such that it does all the hard work. But - to generate busy work for some artisans to make a little pocket change - it’s great.


#14

thanks for the speedy replies. I will send a message to the first few with the content so you can check it out.


#15

I would have liked to try it too but I didn’t see this til hours after it was posted. I could use a goal here. Maybe next time.


#16


#17

@chris I’m in but I find VHACD is not the best solution for creating collision hulls…


#18

Looking into it. Have pooper scooper at the ready :slight_smile: