Jump to content

mdgunn

Members
  • Posts

    633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mdgunn

  1. I'm away for at least a week (or 2) so unable to personally confirm it is OK on my AMD machines at the moment.
  2. Will it be possible to export brushes/prefabs/maps from the editor to OBJ or something else like Leadwerks did? As far as I could see it is not possible currently. I know there has been a lot of brush changes recently so it makes some sense that it comes at the end probably. But is it part of the plan? I think it would certainly be a thing for 3D World Studio 6 if I'm following that right, but is it a closer feature for Ultraengine that might be more in a near future timescale (end 2024/early-mid 2025)? Everything in the image below is a brush. I create a simple CSG item (e.g. cylinder), make prefab and add a few more basic shapes and would like to export from prefab the brushes as 3D model, then detail in blender then bring UV'd model back into prefab so brush based prefab objects get replaced with final meshes. Maybe there is just a better way to do things but it lets me keep map editing while I want to map edit and do object detailing when I want to do that. Reimported objects will be the correct size from initial starting box to final detailed UV'd mesh.
  3. Great news. I suppose we wait till the fix is released before closing this off. Thanks.
  4. Can confirm 24.7.1 OK with with latest beta 0.98c. Thanks.
  5. In brief: If I am on Ultra Engine 0.98 and Radeon driver 24.8.1 then things are OK but moving either forwards (either to hot beta branch) or later Radeon (24.9 or 24.10.1) drivers leads to instant crash trying to do anything which would cause the viewport (or viewers) to render in 3D. In a bit more detail: This is probably something in my setup but I have it on 2 different machines. Both machines are AMD based GPU + CPU + Windows 11. One is Ryzen 3600X with Radeon 6600 other is Ryzen 5800X3D with Radeon 6800 XT. When on latest Radeon drivers the edtor will crash with no particular error at the point where I add something that must be rendered on the screen. By this I mean I can add icon types things such as cameras, lights, probes etc to either perspective or 2d viewport with no problem. I can also add brushes to 2D viewports but if I switch to 4 viewports then the editor crashes and I suspect it is because it has to render the brush in 3D not 2D. It is not limited to brushes though, I think adding terrain will do it and clicking on a model file in the asset browser to make it render a 3D version in the viewer will make it crash. Josh has already said he can run a Radeon 6600 (same as one of my cards) on latest hot branch of Ultra Engine and Radeon 24.10.1 so there is something about both of my machines that is causing the issue but I do not know how to gather more information on what the cause would be. Can anyone help? For example is there a crash log somewhere or are there any suggestions to turn anything off to rule things out and narrow down the cause?
  6. Not a huge issue but I did waste a few hours with what seems to be a bit of a messy situation with information around colliders so I wanted to point this out while I have this information to hand rather than forget to raise it at a more appropriate phase of development, In Discord I eventually found this message which I take to be still correct now and presumably into the future. ----- Josh — 22/07/2024 16:47 Colliders will only get saved in our MDL format. glTF does not support them ----- The messiness around this is as follows (I was on 0.98 - I cant load the hottest beta currently): 1) The UI allows you to change collider settings on gltf files but the changes will not be saved so should not allow you to start changing them. 2) There is some fairly prominent information on main blog (https://www.ultraengine.com/community/blogs/entry/2820-colliders-in-ultra-engine/) that DID seem to indicate colliders would save with gltf so its unfortunate that this info is more prominent than the information I eventually found in Discord. The main article should probably be corrected with a note rather hope users find something in comments of hidden in discord. 3) The UI does not notify the user that MDL should be used or suggest a conversion at any time. 4) The FPS template provides objects in gltf format along with .collider files making it seem like it is the correct way to do things. Objects are not in MDL format. 5) The docs suggest you use glTF but do not cover colliders yet and does not suggest or even mention MDL format (https://www.ultraengine.com/learn/modeling). I am sure this will all be fixed later but there are a few loose ends out there so I just wanted to point this out a bit in case only 1 or 2 of these avenues were appreciated as being a possible area of confusion for future users. If I have misunderstood the situation with colliders I apologise and please point me to the correct information.
  7. mdgunn

    Environment Test

    Early environment test for possible future game.
  8. mdgunn

    Cogs!

    Testing out some cogs and sparks....looks better moving.
  9. mdgunn

    Walled Garden 1

    Brush contruction test. Everything except the tree is a brush. Bushes are multiple spheres with Workshop ground plant textures. New sky box seems to be giving less blown out appearance with default settings of post effects.
  10. mdgunn

    Invade

  11. mdgunn

    Grimlight

  12. Not sure if you're saying it now was working so not a problem, but if it's still a problem I would suggest grabbing the string you use in the c++ version just before you USE it and just check it over visually for oddities like spaces etc. and stick it back a browser and make sure it's what you thought it was and works. Basically it sounds like it probably should work but might be something silly in formatting that just looks correct on a quick glance. Also it can simplify things to try HTTP rather than HTTPS initially just to remove the problem of any SSL certificate complaints. Just noticed you are asking for HTTP 1.0. Could be the problem. I think this is old and might be rejected by some servers. The 404 response is responding with HTTP 1.1 you'll note. The way the HTTP request is being built is very manual and feels 'hopeful' that the server will like it. Instead I would try to see what an actual browser or tool would send and pretend to be that first with regards to HTTP 1.x spec, user agent etc.
×
×
  • Create New...