EntityRadius Problems? We've had them before...

I had this really weird thing happen. I think it might be problems with "EntityRadius," but I can't tell for sure.

Anyway, here's a pic:

Can't see you picture?

uppercase file extension.

Decrease your near camera range. That'll help :o)

OK.

Thanks - it's fixed.

I did

CameraRange camera, .1, 1000

..but dont forget that as you reduce the near distance you may also have to reduce the far distance or you can get z order sorting problems I believe. Your current settings look fine (I think?). Hehe, I'm no expert myself. There were some good posts on this, explaining the whole z order sorting thing and camera ranges - maybe do a search.

I'll change the far distance when the time comes, right now it doesn't matter.

I think it was said that a ratio of 1:10000 was ok to use :)

ok

So, .1 to 1000 would be exactly the same...

exactly

I've fixed everything - this problem is done.

"I think it was said that a ratio of 1:10000 was ok to use"

That's probably okay for 32 bit, but on 16 bit things will get pretty ugly. I stay under 1:1000, and usually try for even smaller. Polygons outside that are a waste to render anyway.

EDIT: 'pretty ugly,' I just noticed that's an oxymoron.

The near camera range apparently has far more affect on z-buffering usage than the far camera range. As I understand it, the z-buffer works logarythmically, with the detail density increasing dramatically the nearer the polygons are to the camera.

Here's a link which explains it better.

http://www.sjbaker.org/steve/omniv/love_your_z_buffer.html

I can't load that page, which I'm curious to read because my understanding of the z-buffer is that the ratio of near to far is the important thing (thus both ranges are important.) That the z-buffer works logarythmically is irrelevant, because the greater density nearer the camera is still being spread out when the ratio is higher. That is, the z-buffer is finer near the camera than far no matter what the ratio is, but the z-buffer near the camera is more fine when the ratio is lower.

I believe you are correct jhocking, at least that is my understanding after doing some reading up on this a few months ago.

So, if you have a setting which is at the 'maximum', if you then reduce your near range by a factor of ten, you must also reduce your far range by a factor of ten

i.e. 1 : 1000 goes to 0.1 : 100

The actual 'maximum' also depends on the size of your entities. Smaller entitities are more prone to z order probelms than larger entities. Hmmm, or was it the size of your polgons that mattered? No, I think it was entity size because an entity itself is always drawn correctly (unless you disable z order sorting by setting entityorder), its just that entities themselves may be rendered in the wrong z position. So, basicaly (sorry for waffling), large entities will tend to have greater 'overlap' so are less likely to have their 'centres' in the same z space so are less prone to sorting issues.

Hmmm, don't think thats very clear is it? Maybe read that link above!!!!

Yes, all read that link posted by Axeman. It makes very interesting - and enlightening - reading. :)

Which is what I stated 5 posts ago...

No, you said .1:1000, ten times what we're saying.

...That's because Ross said:My response was scaled 10x smaller but would have the same RATIO.

Riiight, the same ratio as what he said, not what we just said. We referred to a ratio of 1:1000, you referred to 1:10000, a ratio ten times as large. Do you have to be that prick who needs to take credit by reminding people he said it first?

If that's what you think.
I was trying to help by telling Fortress that he could have the same ratio of detail even with his inner limit set to .1 instead of 1. I wasn't arguing that it was a better ratio.
Whatever, I guess i should have explained myself better...