I have game logic that does the same thing as slow parent but is more predictable, however it's like 6 logic bricks.
I can provide an example, it's called Mr.pew pew On Jul 19, 2014 3:53 AM, "brita" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I have just uploaded a blend (with 2.71) to pasteall ( > > http://www.pasteall.org/blend/30499) showing the slow parenting in > action > > in the bge. > > Press P and use the left/right/up/down arrows. > > > > thanks, it is definitely not completely broken :) > The difference for my is the relax constraint, you used 80, I used 10. With > 10 it is noticeable on the viewport when I drag the parent, but not on the > game engine, thus appearing that is is not working. > > @Joshua thanks for the careful reply! > > > 3) types of parenting: > > - normal, vertex, slow and bone are implemented in the GE. I see that > > there are more options in the interface. Is there any that looks > important > > to support? > > I also don't know what is this one (in the conversion): > > > > https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/B/browse/soc-2014-bge/source/gameengine/Converter/BL_BlenderDataConversion.cpp$2256 > > > No. Those are the *only* ones that should exist now (* see Q4). > > Specifically, for normal Blender, there should really only be: > 1) Normal (i.e. standard object parenting - Ctrl-P stuff) > a. With offset/inverse *- should be supported* > b. Without offset/inverse *- should be supported* > 2) Vertex Parenting > a. Single Vertex *- should be supported* > b. 3 Vertices (gives rotation + scale info too) *- at the moment this > is doing exactly the same as a normal parent relation* > (c. 4 Vertices/Parent to Quad - Isn't in Blender yet, but I have a > hackish patch for this which partially works) > *When I parent to a vertex, does it mean I am only parenting to the > position? As a user I am not choosing the specific vertex..* > *Shouldn't vertex (and triangle) have the relative/offset/inverse option > too?* > 3) Bone Parenting *- should be supported* > All the other options you see in the UI are just convenience options which > do Normal Parent + some additional setup stuff (like adding Modifiers + > VGroups) > > > 4) Slow parents are specific to the GE? > >... > > They seem to be quite buggy or at least not doing what > > I would expect. What I am doing is 1) parent one object to another 2) go > to > > the child's object properties panel > Relations Extras > and check slow > > parent, add some time offset. > > If I now do some experiments directly in the viewport.. drag/rotate the > > parent, it seems to be working. There are problems: if I cancel the move, > > the child does not cancel. If I parent more objects to the parent, the > > child jumps.. Where do I need to look at to fix this? (The GE is not > > running yet) > > > These are entirely expected, and exactly the reason why they are not > supported for standard Blender. (It's also why I have rejected patches for > "spring constraints" and similar physics-based things which assume that > time must be monotonically increasing in fixed size increments). > So it just stays like this? Maybe the child shouldn't move at all in the > viewport..? > Spring based constraints etc.. sound as useful as the slow parent. Maybe > the way this should be done is as a kind of physics/logic setup, and not > directly in the scene graph.. So the position would be calculated in the > logic step, and not in the scene graph that has no time information :P > It is currently just slerping the thing everytime the update is run, which > can be several times per frame because of dependencies. > > > > 5) @lukas what are those 'depsgraph hacks' checkboxes at object > properties > > panel > Relations Extras ? > > > Ton added these as a way of telling to depsgraph to tag objects or their > object-data block to get calculated one more time. It's a quick hack aimed > at providing an optional way to fix a very limited number of pseudo-cyclic > scenarios. Does it work? Only in a very limited number of cases, but > hopefully enough to tide us over until the real problem gets solved... > Can you give me a concrete example? should I check if the GE scenegraph is > also respecting this checkboxes or it doesn't apply? > > > > 6) Still waiting for an answer, I will meanwhile check better how it is > being used at the moment. The usage is also not very consistent.. > > > 7) The SG_ParentRelation interface has an isVertexRelation() and a > > isSlowRelation() . This doesn't feel like a good design, because the > > interface shouldn't know about concrete implementations. > > > > Indeed. It sounds a bit suspicious. If going for a full-blown OO > approach, > you'd have to wonder whether there is actually some kind of handling which > should be delegated off to avoid the need for clients needing such tests. > However, in practical terms, if these are only used in one or two places, > it may be ok for the time being... > Leaving it be :) > > thanks! > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
