One possibility I thought of, to force a subobject's alpha to be drawn before the main object's alpha, would be a setting like "do not merge this subobject". Then the whole subobject would be drawn before the main object (this already is the case for non-merged subobjects, but we don't have that setting for attachment subobjects). This would allow, for example, as in your case, a dashboard's alpha to be drawn behind (before) a glass panel of the main object. But it has the downside of a lower efficiency. Combined objects are more efficient. Though I don't see this as a problem for one or two subobjects.
The other thought is some sort of "unsorted alpha" setting. An alpha surface marked in this way would be drawn before the other transparency. The idea of "unsorted alpha" is for something like a dashboard overlay. In track building we use it used a lot, for things like paint lines over a road. Unsorted alpha is the name I use for transparency that is drawn after the solid surfaces, but before the sorted alpha. The idea is that unsorted alpha is suitable where there is no possibility of transparency being seen behind it (therefore no need for sorting).
Yeah, i know there are always problems with alphas in games, especially with trees. I'll take a look at Editor as soon as possible. First i need to finish my mod on existing tools, then i be able to install new OS with no regrets.
Hello Sir Scawen, I have made a mod called Formula RC6 and I'm having problems with suspension that as much as I have worked and asked other people for help, we have not found a solution so I have decided to ask you with the hope that it can finally solve this problem.
Rear Suspension damage: https://youtu.be/T1GARTvwP3Q
Front suspension camber: https://youtu.be/O566GVHDA5M
That is unfortunate and I suppose it is a bit surprising, as I don't remember this happening to the BF1. I guess your car must have more extreme downforce than the BF1.
Each wheel should be able to take, in the vertical direction, 3 times the weight of that end of the car. E.g. if you had 50:50 then each front wheel should be able to take 1.5 times the total weight of the car before becoming damaged.
In the lateral direction, each wheel can take 6 times the weight of that end of the car. E.g. with 50:50 then each front wheel should be able to take 3 times the total weight of the entire car in the lateral direction.
Some questions to consider:
1) Is the car hitting the bump stops? You would see this as upward force arrows going red when you watch the car (in a replay) with F (forces) mode. I would expect damage to occur if you hit the bump stops as there is a spike in force at that point.
2) What lateral acceleration (G) are you getting on such high speed corners? Have you made sure it is within realistic limits?
Sorry, but now that's me have such issue. The car is Formula Groundeffect. This starting to happen after I import some realistic CFD data.
1) No. I've already try raisen height and stiffen spring and it still damaging suspension.
2) The lateral acceleration will be nearly 5.5G at highspeed corner, or even above. And yes I'm pretty sure that's what modern formula cars can do. Lando Norris once said their 2021 car go though maggots to becketts took an maximum G of 5.5 in the race(not even qualifying). Considering 2022 regulation will make a car slower at lowspeed corner and faster at highspeed corner to make a 0.5-2s laptime drop with same heavy 145L fuel load, and by development it can matching current car performance in the end of 2022 I'm pretty sure with it. Even some cars can survive a crash(eg. HAM VER crash at Copse)
In fact even 2004 V10 car won't have this much downforce, because at that era the car only weight 600kg including driver. This BMW Sauber are just only 620kg. Modern 2018-2021 car have 742kg, already faster than 2004 car, and will grow to 792kg in 2022 so that's some raw force. That's how technology growing.
Yes, the suspension damage model is definitely not ideal. I think it was designed originally to work with the S1 cars, and was probably updated enough to work reasonably with the BF1.
Even though it's not realistic, as in real life most types of suspension won't just bend a bit more with more a more force, but instead would reach a high point and then just snap. So it really needs an update.
This is because the trailing arm object is central, it looks for a central wheel to be associated with, like a vehicle with only one rear wheel. To implement trailing arm for two rear wheels, you will need two trailing arm objects that are not central. I think it should be possible to create one on one side and set it as a mirrored subobject, to create the two sides that way.
P.S. The colours look strange on your LFS editor screenshot. Is that a gamma setting?
Hello, i have an issue where the opposite side of the mapping resets when i exit the modeller. when i exit it says "cross-texture triangle found - mapping corrected" altough when i add the opposite side of the mapping it doesnt say it, and i had fixed it when it did say it. now it disables the opposite side whenever i leave modeller. i dont see any triangles which would be cross-textured, thanks in advance
The error message may be a bit misleading because although it says "cross-texture" it really refers to a triangle that is trying to refer to two separate *materials* (rather than textures).
I assume you mean it is the mapping m1_right that has its opposite cutout unexpectedly corrected when you leave the editor.
So I believe that two facts cause this:
1) As you say, you can't seem to see the offending triangle in that screenshot. That makes me think the 'cross-texture triangle' is in one of the LOD meshes. So the unexpected correction might take place if you view one of the lod meshes, not only when you leave the editor.
2) The 'cross-texture' problem (which should be called 'cross-material') should only come up if the texture is different or the other material properties are different, in the cutout and the opposite cutout. I can't see your list of cutouts, but as yours appear to use the same texture (no texture) this makes me think that your cutouts 'm1_main' and 'c1_left' have different material properties (e.g. one is shiny and the other is not, or something like that).
Which means almost nothing. There are so many things that could be 32 bit or not. When I saw that, after wondering about it a while, I thought, I'm not going to answer such a ridiculously brief question. You can make a bit of effort if you want a response!
Unfortunately our system does not support solid or live axle yet.
I've seen people suggest using linear or trailing arm but these suspension types make the wheel lean with the car body, so their camber relative to the road changes as the body leans. A solid axle keeps the two wheels linked together and their camber to the ground does not change as the body leans.
So, for vertical loads, trailing or linear can approximate a live axle but it's different when cornering.
The LFS Editor version of LFS is still built as a 32-bit program but cannot run on Windows XP as it uses Direct3D 11 which is only supported on Windows Vista (with a platform update) or later. I haven't heard anything about it working on Vista. I would recommend Windows 7.
But note, there are 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows XP and of Windows 7. Just pointing this out so we don't start confusing register bits and Windows versions.
EDIT: Are you saying the installer itself says something about not working on a 32-bit operating system? I don't believe that is a check that it should do. As far as I know, LFS Editor should work fine on a 32-bit install of Windows 7. If you could describe the exact message that you see and when you see it, that may be helpful.
I think we'll need a lot more detail before we can try to answer, like what you mean, what you've tried, what didn't work.