Yeah, I purposely waited a few days to chill out before I replied to this. I thought maybe I could be all wrong, and was just spouting like an asshat... so I carefully re-tested my earlier findings.
As it turns out, I wasn't, and I didn't.
So, to recycle a handy quote, "where do I begin?"
| First, I WAS talking about VC, duh. Why would I be talking about "LC" and "revision models" if I was talking about GTA3. |
You know, you kinda had me scratching my head about that, myself. To wit:
| rulebreaker: Whenever breakable glass is present, the flag must be a 0, even if the model has transparencies. Check out Easy Credit Autos in GTA3 (in LC the revision model was given a 4 so the place had some nasty dissapearing in the latest build). |
The way that reads,
"Whenever breakable glass is present, the flag must be a 0, even if the model has transparencies. " = Thesis
"Check out Easy Credit Autos in GTA3" = Antithesis
"(in LC the revision model was given a 4 so the place had some nasty dissapearing in the latest build)" = Synthesis
No problem, as you explain your stance:
| I said "Check out Easy Credit Autos in GTA3" because that's where the model originally came from, but for stupid people and those that don't know, LC IS A MOD FOR VC. |
Sorry, you'll have to bear with us confounded Stupid People. We tend to take things literally, and simply refuse to use telepathy to understand your meaning.
... and I was so
completely unaware of the existence of the LC mod- thanks for bringing that to my attention. Cookies.
Now, on to the facts:
You state that: "Whenever breakable glass is present, the flag must be a 0, even if the model has transparencies."
You further make it uncomfortably obvious that you are referring to the Low-Z object when referring to the flag which needs to be set to 0, and not the Hi-Z object with breakable window attributes.
I posit that this is incorrect.
For the test I created a unique object with its own .dff & .txd, defined it in generic.ide and object.dat, giving it the same properties as wglasssmash.
I placed it in the driveway at Sunshine autos, where I could demonstrate a variety of flag combinations conveniently.
The first pic shows the initial scene with all flags for all objects in their original values. The test window has its rendering flags set the same as wglasssmash (1028), which is the windows seen in the showroom. As you can see, only the land/building (one model) is set to 0. The other objects have other settings, some listed on the pictures. It can be quite easily seen that everything is rendered correctly, despite the fact that these "revision models" have flags other than 0
. Note that with these basic settings, the ped models' shadows are culled...
changing the ground/building model from 0 to 64 (disables shadow culling) has no effect on the shadow...
... that's because this flag affects the window, not the object behind it, removing the window from the Z-order stack, so that the specified effect is not culled from behind it.
As seen here, adding 64 to the test window's flags disables the culling of the shadow on the ground, or wherever else it appears:
Note also that the ground is now set to 64, not 0
. In fact, setting its flag to anything else will yield the mundane results seen in the picture above.
Incidentally, the game doesn't care if the model is a building, window, tree, piece of ground or whatever. It treats them all the same as far as the rendering flags go.
From this alone, nearly anyone (even us Stupid People™) can figure out that the 0 flag simply represents the default culling mode, and is not necessary unless that is specifically the effect you want for that particular model. The remaining flags modify the default culling mode by specific parameters, each covering a finite aspect of the culling sequence. It is simply a matter of observing and recording the various permutations to arrive at an adequate description of the flags, which is what this is all about.
I've taken the liberty to document my plain sense observations and share them with the community, and provide some substantial "photographic" evidence, lest the cretinous masses be misinformed with disinformation.
have to stick together, you know.
Now, shall we continue to argue against plain evidential facts, or are we ready to chill out and move on?
| I just spent the last half hour testing your theory even though I had already tested it because whenever someone that I respect tells me that I'm wronge, I retest my work, but now I see that you don't deserve respect.|
Meh, your loss, not mine... and only one person's opinion- apparently based on a cursory half-hour perusal of the situation. If you had researched this in any depth, you would have been busy for the better part of a day, and could have offered something more substantial than "Check out Easy Credit Autos" to back up your assertion before jumping in stinger-first with a hasty flame. At least you didn't spell work as "wrok"... that would just be so wronge
Anyone who's familiar with my posting habits knows that I'll be the first one to admit I'm wrong, and to accept correction when pointed out to me. It's about content, not ego or r'spek.
Don't worry, I don't hold it against you; I realize you're not a Wakelam... just a little touchy is all.
Hell, for all I know, everything here could all be wrong. This just appears to be the most accurate description. If anyone can come up with more convincing evidence to the contrary, then the definitions will stand corrected. That doesn't mean I'll have egg on my face, it just means that we all will have the best info available.
Anybody can be wrong about anything. Big deal.
*** *** ***
Have some screenies showing the effects of various flags on the models.
Unless otherwise noted on the picture, all objects' flags are set as they normally are ingame.
I only posted some of the most important ones, as most look alike, and some flags are "specials", only for interiors or tobj's.
oh, and one more tidbit for the "stupid people and those that don't know"...
NEVER attempt to embroil me in a verbal beat-down. You will not "win". If you can walk
away, you will do so disappointed.