I have been working on a small prototype for a project of mine. The goal is to have a procedural wall made of cube that when someone subscribe from twitch the according cube light's up to make his name appear. I decided to use instancedStaticMesh because of the sheer amount of cube I need (im using a 100x100 grid for the moment) so that the cube can form letters. I was able to make the cube change and make names appear with still good performances. The problem I am running into is that I would like the cubes on the wall to dynamically lerp a bit constantly to help make the wall more dynamic and not feel static. This is where the problem appear, it just doesn't seem possible to do this type of thing with an instancedStaticMesh at this scale and was wondering if anyone knew of a way to do it without utterly destroying performances.
Related
I am currently working on a 3d game in Unity, and I am working on the level design using ProBuilder. I basically created a huge cube which I "flipped normal", and a second one way smaller
which, as the other one, I flipped normal, but as soon as I crossed it while turning backward I could weirdly see through the small cube, which makes it feel unfinished. How could I fix this issue?
Normally in 3d games triangles can only be seen from one side. Usually this is not a problem because walls have some thickness. Since you clearly have paper thin walls made of only one layer of triangles this is exactly the result you should expect.
In short add the other side to your walls. The simples way is to duplicate the existing triangles and flipping them. Walls will still be paper thin of course. Later you should probably make them thicker.
so I've been trying to see if I can make use of Wheel Colliders for the past several months now. As much as I've managed to figure out more and more things about how to set them up properly, there's some things I've been noticing that seem impossible to avoid:
Even if your friction sideways stiffness is lower, there's a chance that your car will continue to "spin" or "rotate" in the direction you were steering if you JUST hold down your input long enough to get the car beyond just rotating. I've noticed this will happen, whether for example the "SteerHelper" or "TractionControl" functions are doing their work or not. This will put a dent in ensuring smooth turn movement. Now, I don't know if maybe this is just due to realistic car physics (I mean, I can picture the car skidding in scenarios where they lost grip of the road for sure), but it just feels kinda glitchy. Sometimes, even when I'm not turning, the car will start to turn a little to the left or right and then gradually seem to "lean" that way in terms of applied torque to the rigidbody. I've seen many suggestions for trying to stop the rigidbody from doing this. Here is one way I'm trying to work against this:
rb.AddTorque(-rb.angularVelocity * 2);
However, it seems that the car will still "spin" more than intended. What would be ideal is to be able to MAYBE allow the car to turn a little extra after the left or right steer buttons were released (maybe more or less depending on the vehicle), and no more than that to ensure there is maximum control to give the engaged and maybe arcadey game play I've been going for for a long while.
It's been difficult to adapt an ideal friction curve value that would give the most ideal feel of a drift turn, especially a more arcadey one. I'm not trying to go for wide turns that slow you down, I'm trying to go for tight (yet controllable) turns that allow you to preserve most of your speed. I find that especially at higher values of stiffness, as I know many people have observed in other posts, that again, the car will turn back an extremely high amount sometimes (you drift left enough, a force is turning your vehicle way to the right). It's sad, because I've wanted to be able to say I've "mastered this beast" and used it for my purposes, but I don't know if that's really a good practical expectation for anyone. I even worked my own alternate friction curve values that would be used in the controller:
But I guess as some people say, you can't polish something that's broken? Moving to the third point...
I've read so many posts that show how to adjust a vehicle's center of mass, or to add more colliders in different spots to correct it, using scripting to add an offset to the center of mass, etc. So many tips that say, "lower the center of mass, you'll find it" and I give that a try. When the center of mass is too low, my car can get pretty shaky on the terrain (not that it hasn't in the past, but it's often been things I could correct, like the weird initialization of the attachedRigidBody of the wheel colliders themselves in the beginning, etc). High enough, and of course, (even when it's lower sometimes???) the car will just start spinning in the air on either multiple axes or specifically the forward z, when you drive off a ledge or bump into something with a high enough speed. It just seems inevitable.
I've been trying to give my benefits of a doubt. I like to think there's a correct way to use this thing, and that I'm just not familiar enough with Unity3D physics concepts. However, it just seems more and more that I'm investing too much time in a broken component - or, maybe I just never got the best grip of physics.
I was about ready to try just convex mesh colliders around my tires, and just abandon the idea of gripping physics altogether, but I'd love to hear suggestions to either address anything I've mentioned above, or just a more ideal package to move onto. I've glanced at packages like Vehicle Physics Pro, but I do want to be sure I'm getting something that makes sense.
Full disclosure: I'm in the middle of trying to make a game that feels incredibly similar to F-Zero, but with wheels.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts or suggestions you can provide.
(Maybe not an answer per se, but hopefully helpful.)
Note Unity also suggests to possibly give the car a constant downward force via script. It might be telling that such workarounds are officially given, one would think proper physics would, well, properly work without them.
There's some assets you might want to give a try generally:
One is the Unity Asset Store asset called Arcade Car Physics, and it's free. I've tried it and it works (but not sure if it works for your needs). It's using Unity's native Wheel Collider plus extra scripts.
Another is the Arcade Car Physics github project. It has nice plane stabilization and more, and works well. It's not using the native Wheel Collider.
Then there's this asset called Vehicle Physics. Instead of native Wheel Colliders, they've create a fully custom wheel system so that it would be more physically workable. The asset is not free, but they offer a free demo executable where you can drive around different vehicles, and that works quite well. (I haven't yet bought this asset myself.) As a downside, some reviews mention there's some complexity in setting this up (and I suppose future support for this custom Wheel Collider hinges on the company continuing to exist).
Good luck!
I plan to take some 3D scans of real people's heads and need to put these new heads onto existing generic avatar bodies (happy to buy these if necessary) for use in some basic VR settings (for research purposes) and would like some advice as to possible (time efficient ways) to do this.
The first part, scanning, cleaning and optimizing the head scans will (I hope) be relatively straightforward but I'm unsure about how I can easily replace the avatar head.
I'm less bothered about perfection of the join (though I don't want it to look like frankenstien's monster) but more on saving time (as I'll need to do this with a lot of scans). In particular what to do about the neck and blending in the join.
I don't need facial expressions (though longer term they might be nice) though I will want to be able to rotate the neck set direction of gaze.
Ideally i'd like to replace the head in code at runtime in Unity rather than hand editing the models but I suspect this might not be possible.
If the process could ultimately be partially automated by scripting that would be even better.
Many thanks,
When you have a rigged character in Unity, you can see the bones in the hierachy. You can put anything on any bone - for example your head on the neck bone. Just make it a child.
This will move and rotate with the bone - for example in animations or motion-capture (VR).
So I am pretty sure what you want to achieve is as simple as adding the Mesh as a child to the bone.
Feel free to close this question if it is deemed too subjective. I realize that it might very well be, as it may focus heavily on best practices, which, if not an industry standard, may be subjective.
The Problem & Idea:
I'm using the tilemap system in unity (2D), and its been working great, but I have a few concerns regarding my particular usage. What I'd like to have is multiple "battle maps" that will get instantiated when the battle scene is switched to. My current idea is to just make each type of battle map a prefab (prefab on the grid, since the tilemaps are just layers), and then instantiate the grid when the scene loads in.
Is this best practice or is there any better way? Does having 10 maps vs 200 maps make a difference?
Other Things I've Considered:
Would it be a better idea to make one huge tilemap with all of the battle maps drawn a distance away from each other and just restrict the camera to moving only within the "current" battle map? The absolute max size I could see a map being is, let's say 30x20 tops, probably closer to half that though.
An earlier idea was to use small pixel map images to render the maps in. This was before I found out about Unity's tilemap system, which, admittedly, I'd rather use because it is so much simpler to visualize, and less work to develop.
The Scenario:
For simplicity's sake, let us assume the game has 2 scenes, the main menu, and a battle scene. Basically, the idea is to enter the battle scene and have a random battle map to be spawned out of what's available. The character(s) get placed, and any additionals also get placed, say, items, or what have you.
Is what I proposed above best practice? And should I consider any other other two systems I've also described? Or is there something I'm not thinking of that would be even better?
I don't believe that any of the above ways wouldn't work, I'm just curious if any of them is the best way to go about doing this.
Your consideration to have all of your battle maps drawn on a single tilemap and restricting the camera to only the region of the current map is an instant red-flag.
In my experience with unity, if I want to have a large level drawn on a grid I will have to break it up into chunks (each chunk is a separate tilemap) for performance reasons in the editor and in the game, so I would not recommend doing that.
If your goal is fast load times, then instancing a prefab as you suggested is not a terrible idea as long as the respective tilemap is fairly small (less than 10000 tiles), otherwise you would almost difinitely notice the map getting loaded in. If you are trying to load large tilemaps seemlessly, it may help to load the tilemap asynchronously before the actual switch occurs.
I would keep only the current map and next map loaded in the scene to ensure a seamless transition and optimal resource usage. Unity's tilemaps are not light.
I'm looking to create some procedurally-generated planets in unity. I'm not looking to make huge, realistic planets, but very small, walkable ones (like Super Mario Galaxy).
I've run into a problem though - Terrain objects cannot be rotated, so I can't really make a sphere out of 6 separate squares.
I've tried importing a hi-res icosphere with limited success. It's difficult to make look good (even with a high number of faces) when up close. There's also limited support on terrain-like features on non-terrain objects - like how to blend textures, add grass, or place objects on the surface.
I have seen a few unity store assets that do exactly what I'm requesting, so I know something like this is possible. I just can't figure out where to start. I've searched for nearly anything related to the topic and found nothing.
Thank you!
You can write a shader that will curve your flat surface, like this:
https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/26165
and here is base code:
https://alastaira.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/animal-crossing-curved-world-shader/
I have used it while ago and with upgrades it works well.