Development Screens (Each post contains a picture OR contributing post)

That’s why I’m not doing that, because you are. It would seem like I copied you otherwise. What about just calling it the Gavril Marque

 

What I mean is don't make it a Burnside, cuz I already took that Idea, but you can make it a the other Gavril Marque

 

Yeah but I’m going to make it a Gavril, it’s already decided. I know there’s a Mercury Grand Marquais, but calling it the Gavril Marque doesn’t count as copywright does it?

 

https://www.beamng.com/threads/200bx-wagon-downloadable.55013/#post-864525
BAM!

WIP

 

you should also have a four door version. Then maybe make a four door 200bx and call it the 400bx. I guess I went a bit overboard, .but i love four door wagons.

 

You suck like so bad j/k

As all graphical modding is so lame and uninteresting, I hid all new parts under the bonnet and made a video of Nannannnannannannaanan, which also sucks so bad:

 

Beautiful!

Messy

 

I forgot that baking normals is a torture.

 

Wow... was'nt expecting that. i'll make sure to speed things up a little
thanks, i'm flattered.

 

There is rare quality in you, you can look world from different angle than many ever will even dream of, that added to your talent is rare indeed, they should hire you, seriously you could bring lot of new to team that would be impossible to buy or create even by dozen of common guy!

 

DING-DING-DING! *Price Is Right sound* (I actually have that for system default sound here...)
Yes they should entirely consider hiring @Ghost187 I've seen some rather nice things come from him. The attention to detail in his small but beautiful maps really show just how beautiful BeamNG can look. While they might not be the biggest in quantity, they do have the quality, and that quality makes for an absolute awesome photo-shoot with your favorite vehicle. Some of the best in PC graphics work I shall say. It's seriously awesome.
I hope it means a little extra coming from me - because I make maps - and I mean what I say.
Just happened to see this before I post so figured I'd add in.
Onto other things more on-topic:

---

Does anyone even realize that it takes *HOURS* to make this @#$%ing stupid corner of an intersection!?
No, really, that and I want an opinion, if anyone thinks it's going to cause an issue, let me know. This will be the collision mesh, I'll add a bit of bevel for the curb face and of course textures for the detail mesh.
I just want to know if these faces would be too small for a collision mesh (I mean, of course I shall test this object feverishly; but I just wanted some expert opinions, here - maybe this is the wrong place to ask).
This is for the up-and-coming city map. I've got a regular road done too, as part of a modular kit (nothing's textured yet, and sadly I couldn't make much use of the Sketch-up models I made last year!), this modular kit will be released when a map comes out that uses it.
So yes! I do want some feedback on it if anyone thinks the collision meshes will bugger up and eat cars! Yes, yes the roads are tapered, just like in real life, it's called the 'cant' of a road surface, so water runs off. They'll all be like that. This is not San Andreas or Mid-Town Madness, the roads will NOT be flat. Gosh I hate that, that's a peeve of mine. Okay for a bridge or two but not for a real city. These roadways are divided into many sections now, some will have a lot less, this is just a very primitive shape. It's also there so I don't have to re-add all the divisions for sections that will be 'less perfect in shape'... e.g. road patches, natural imperfections in road surfaces, and the such.
--Cheers!

 

I think that it will be okay.

 

I'm thinking about those rounded bits and computing power available, as all collisions will run all the time, there might be value in optimizing to minimal calculations possible.

So maybe if those rounded bits are replaced with simpler form, that might save you a little CPU room without sacrificing quality of collision function?

This is really horrible crude mockup, but idea I'm thinking about is like dividing number of faces until you have simplest form that provides the function. Of course that will be lot of extra work, but you could use simpler form as a further away LOD version too, so it could have a double use?

 

shortness

snugness
(fuel tank moved not modeled)
--- Post updated ---
in game!!!


but we have orbital issues with parts

 

Sometimes smallest of things cause feeling of giving up becoming quite high.

My .dae file has this line <node id="hopper_SR20_distributor" name="hopper_SR20_distributor" type="NODE">

It shows up in blender:


I have it in jbeam:
["hopper_SR20_distributor", ["hopper_engine"]],

Yet no distributor in game:


I did even export it to new .dae file and no, it won't work.

It did work just fine before I moved all the parts to 2nd layer for easier exporting in blender, if I move it to 1st layer it will not start magically to work.

Other parts work just fine, this one, no.

Am I going to spend again 2 hours or more diagnosing issue that should not happen in first place? Probably not. I just hit Shift-D and rename it to hopper_SR20_dist, change that in jbeam and magically all is well again, distributor shows up in game without an issue. THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!!!!

Well, you know the feeling...

 

I did that (that is how I usually input name to jbeam to avoid errors) and it refused to work, only way to get it to work was to give new name.

It has to be something do with cache, even ctrl-r should not use cache, afaik. Restarting BeamNG did not cure the issue either.

I can live with it having few characters shorter name, but when you have a part working and it stops working out of the blue like that even everything checks out and should be working, it is rather frustrating.

To get it working all I needed to do was change name in Blender and in Jbeam, but if I change name back to what it was, it will not work, despite it did work earlier with that name. It really can't be many things, either cache, or there is awfully short character limit, I believe other possibilities have been exhausted.

 

how about the JBeam groups the mesh is assigned to in the part file?

 

Haven't touched that, it is exactly same with new name as it was with old name. I told you guys, it does not make any sense, everything checks out and it did work perfectly, but stopped working with that earlier name, it has to be called ["hopper_SR20_dist", ["hopper_engine"]], for it to work, that is just removing few characters from the name of part in Blender and that line in Jbeam, no any other changes is needed to make it work or to make it not to work.

It should not be like that, it should not happen, yet it is so, I checked it so many times and from some reason game just could not find correctly named mesh.


In this post I did copy paste all names from same locations where they are now working with a shorter name, so it can't be a typo, mesh had to be in there as I could copy paste it's name from .dae file and still game did throw an error of not finding that mesh. That should not be possible, maybe there is a bug? IDK, but such is annoying when you have very limited time available and for matter that should take 5 seconds you have to spend a long time to diagnose.

Ugly, but it remotely reminds a distributor if one has enough vivid imagination:

 

hmm