Ok i am trying to import a complex model a building and for performance sake i wanted to have colision boxes but its imposble to allighn the boxes corectly especialy when the view isnt in orthografic mode.how you create yout complex models colision boxes?

I also am having trouble with collision boxes when using the import tool (which I don't often use), very hard to align as you say. Not really sure what the solution is at the moment. Need better view modes, I've tried them all and not much luck. Will keep at it and see what I can do.

yes this is a problem... maybe just a colision model import when you are at model import room? or Just a free camera to view the object at any side?

I agree, we can't rotate the camera when we adjust collision, you can't make precise collisions, this is almost un usable.

Agreed that it's an issue. I use multiple boxes only when I have to because it's so hard to be precise. Sometimes, none of the options are ideal as they are now so it becomes a game of finding what works best in the moment. It's not an engine feature that I'm obsessed with by any means, but one that definitely needs big improvement when the time is right.

Bored of the Rings how you import your models is there another way?

Split the house model into pieces in the model program, Floor, exterior wall, interior walls, ceiling. Export them from the model program where they are. Make an fpe file for each on. Use box collision on floor, Use colmode=11 for ceiling, use polygon collision for the walls. This will work for what you want.

Place the parts in the editor at the same insert point. Works for me all the time this way and takes less then a minute to assemble in the editor.

You are over complicating things when we just need to quickly place some boxes on a house model for collision.
And your way will create more entities instead of having only one, so you ask more draw calls, this is not good for performance until you want to make houses in a modular way.
I know only few GG users use the Entity Editor and import stuff, and GG does not aim to be the nex big game maker, but let's be serious , a fixed camera , this is a really poor implementation. And there is no valid work around to get full camera control and be able to work correctly for collision or model editing.

Then dont do it this way. I have been doing this with classic and Game Guru for years now. Complicated whole geometry is not your friend either.

It is not that difficult to split up the model and there are less collision errors this way.

Sounds like you have no preference for any way that game Guru operates right now. Maybe this is not the engine for you.

Sorry if you find that harsh, but that is my opinion.

If GG fits me or not is not your business lol
We talk about game optimisation and drop houses models without needing to split them up in several models, you know Skyrim, Follout 4 exterior maps for example. This is how it works with default buidlings or houses used in GG that are not splitted.
We talk about an entity editor that is a poor implementation made quickly, it could be lot better.
But you are right more i use it, more problems like this i discover , the less i want to keep working with software that has many issues like that.

Can I ask what your trying to create ?
I mean I created a whole Enterprise Deck in sketchup without any collision problems..
And its got some pretty complex geometry ..

@Mouaa: It is my business to give instructions on how to make it work in Game Guru.

If you dont want advice you get from myself and seasoned users of this program on how to make things better and make them work in Game Guru, then there is nothing I can do for you or want to.

Good day sir.

I think there is some confusion about physics in GG which uses the Bullet Physics engine for physics.
Bullet physics uses a triangle mesh collision shape for static objects which does not slow down physics.
Changing it to a box collision shape will not gain any speed over a triangle mesh.
The primitive collision shapes in Bullet are for dynamic objects. Also the fastest
dynamic collision shape is actually a convex hull as compared to the other primitives
e.g. box, sphere, cylinder, capsule.

Hi Stab,

Are you saying that in Bullet a single mesh (say of a one room building) containing 72 polygons is quicker than six boxes (walls, floor, ceiling) when the player is inside the structure? I have not done this test but assumed the box check would be infinitely quicker than drilling down to each of the triangles in the mesh. In the new EBE, I deliberately convert the reduced rectangle volumes into Bullet box shapes for the static collision rather than lump the whole building mesh into a triangle mesh shape on the assumption the box shapes would be faster.

Yes, according to the Bullet documentation and my own tests the bvhStaticTriangleMesh shape is
faster. The bvhStaticTriangleMesh collision shape is designed for static objects only and does not get
a mass calculation like dynamic objects. In my opinion you should be using it for all static objects.
Also according to the Bullet documentation and Erwin Coumans ( author of Bullet ) convex hulls are faster
then the primitives for dynamic objects. I believe that this is where Bullet differs for other physics engines.
Also if you were to use six box collision shapes together for one object it would be best to combine them into a
compound collision shape as this is faster whether it is static or dynamic. You can email me if you need further info.

P.S. You should be reusing collision shapes to conserve memory and save out the collision shapes to file and load
them rather then recreating them each time for faster loading.

Thanks for the offer of help, I am sure there are many areas within my Bullet implementation you would find a little alarming I have added your advice to my task list, as it should not be too difficult to switch my static boxes to a bvhStaticTriangleMesh and measure the performance differences when a lot of buildings are in close proximity.

Nice one.
I've readed you can even re-scale existing collision shapes.

Running vehicle demo via vs, looks really nice, plane to give a try next weekend, maybe adding some obstacles to see what happens.

3com

What are you talking about in this statement?

I'm running this demo from visual studio 2015.

3com