[QUOTE=Grayman;43604625]...wait on Garry to get them setup.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't look like that he would start developing on GMod again any time soon. He is probably quit busy now. Before Christmas he said we would start again (in January) when Rust is released on Steam, well nothing happened jet.
[QUOTE=Grocel;43605052]It doesn't look like that he would start developing on GMod again any time soon. He is probably quit busy now. Before Christmas he said we would start again (in January) when Rust is released on Steam, well nothing happened jet.[/QUOTE]
He isn't working on gmod? Then who is? I'm pretty sure FP is still releasing new dev updates for gmod (last one 14.01.14)
[QUOTE=Grayman;43605745]He isn't working on gmod? Then who is? I'm pretty sure FP is still releasing new dev updates for gmod (last one 14.01.14)[/QUOTE]
GitHub Pull Requests.
[QUOTE=Bo98;43605869]GitHub Pull Requests.[/QUOTE]
Ah, I guess so. I thought Garry hired more programmers, but I guess if he did they would all be working on rust.
I just need to know [i]one[/i] thing.
Can you still prop surf/prop kill/do fancy prop shit with this physics replacement?
You wouldn't say, but it's quite important to me. Besides scripting that's really the only thing I do in GMod.
[QUOTE=FPtje;43606798]I just need to know [i]one[/i] thing.
Can you still prop surf/prop kill/do fancy prop shit with this physics replacement?
You wouldn't say, but it's quite important to me. Besides scripting that's really the only thing I do in GMod.[/QUOTE]
Well that's just ironic by all the counter measures DarkRP has
[QUOTE=FPtje;43606798]I just need to know [I]one[/I] thing.
Can you still prop surf/prop kill/do fancy prop shit with this physics replacement?
You wouldn't say, but it's quite important to me. Besides scripting that's really the only thing I do in GMod.[/QUOTE]
Not at the moment because player controllers are broken, but eventually yes.
Also, I fixed the problem with jeeps humping displacements aggressively.
Some flag with a raytester was swapped in the last bullet update, and since it was using a higher precision raytester which caused raytests to fail inbetween cracks in the displacements, this means displacements are totally broken. Woo.
And another side note: Please keep [url=https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=3UA358MF6QLZE]donating[/url] to me so I can keep working on this full time!
[QUOTE=Grayman;43607398]Not at the moment because player controllers are broken, but eventually yes.[/QUOTE]
Hurray!
[QUOTE=FPtje;43607615]Hurray![/QUOTE]
Lol dat.
Fixed an overflow bug in the IVPS loader earlier. Should make huge maps/props start working now.
What version of visual studio you running anyways?
[QUOTE=viperfan7;43617627]What version of visual studio you running anyways?[/QUOTE]
Answered in pm but for those who are interested, 2012
drift buggy better be doable
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;43621264]drift buggy better be doable[/QUOTE]
I really want to make the jeep and airboat behave the same as valve's vphysics, but I will include a custom vehicle controller where the developer has a lot more freedom on vehicle handling.
Fixed player vs. static prop/brush collisions (almost completely, the video shows the collisions from underside not working)
[video=youtube;uDPDuxDivm8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDPDuxDivm8[/video]
And about donations, I haven't received anything in 5 days so if anyone could, [url=https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=3UA358MF6QLZE]donate[/url] as little as $5/$10.
[QUOTE=Grayman;43626509]
And about donations, I haven't received anything in 5 days so if anyone could, [url=https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=3UA358MF6QLZE]donate[/url] as little as $5/$10.[/QUOTE]
Sent you some, keep up the great work
Do you accept TF2 keys as donations? :v:
I'm serious.
[QUOTE=sarge997;43629238]Do you accept TF2 keys as donations? :v:
I'm serious.[/QUOTE]
Nope, I play TF2 almost never.
Anyways, if you're receiving an out of memory crash it's because of the debug overlay, so disable it with "vphysics_renderoverlay 0" in console.
[url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5619434/Development/muyphysics.zip]Here's[/url] a new download link.
So you only put vphysics.dll in the Gmod bin folder? Than whats with the gmsv_vphysics_win32.dll?
[QUOTE=pilot;43630104]So you only put vphysics.dll in the Gmod bin folder? Than whats with the gmsv_vphysics_win32.dll?[/QUOTE]
vphysics.dll alters physics, gmsv_vphysics_win32.dll gives you Lua bindings.
[QUOTE=Grayman;43626509]Fixed player vs. static prop/brush collisions (almost completely, the video shows the collisions from underside not working)
[video=youtube;uDPDuxDivm8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDPDuxDivm8[/video]
And about donations, I haven't received anything in 5 days so if anyone could, [url=https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=3UA358MF6QLZE]donate[/url] as little as $5/$10.[/QUOTE]
That video raises a question, would this vphysics replacement get rid of the "laggyness" when running on props?
[QUOTE=winsanity;43633111]That video raises a question, would this vphysics replacement get rid of the "laggyness" when running on props?[/QUOTE]
I don't entirely know the circumstances around the "laggyness" from walking on props, but I can say that the player controller will be different from valve's player controller.
I don't entirely know for sure, but I think it might be caused by incorrect clientside prediction.
When will this support map compiles? vphysics is a requirement in compiling maps for vrad.
[QUOTE=Sally;43635310]When will this support map compiles? vphysics is a requirement in compiling maps for vrad.[/QUOTE]
You can still use IVP for maps as of now.
Problem with implementing this stuff in vphysics is deciding if I want to create my own format or use IVP's. If I create my own format, I can support more stuff like saving different collision shapes (spheres, cylinders, etc) to files at the cost of being incompatible with IVP (also maybe reduced filesize). If I don't create my own format and copy IVP, first I'll have to figure out exactly how IVP is packed which could take a while, and it won't be able to support new features.
It depends. Would you guys use my vphysics instead of valve's if it supported adding basic convex shapes to your maps/models like spheres/cylinders/etc? But even if vphysics supported it, studiomdl and hammer would have to support it too.
[QUOTE=Grayman;43635447]You can still use IVP for maps as of now.
Problem with implementing this stuff in vphysics is deciding if I want to create my own format or use IVP's. If I create my own format, I can support more stuff like saving different collision shapes (spheres, cylinders, etc) to files at the cost of being incompatible with IVP (also maybe reduced filesize). If I don't create my own format and copy IVP, first I'll have to figure out exactly how IVP is packed which could take a while, and it won't be able to support new features.
It depends. Would you guys use my vphysics instead of valve's if it supported adding basic convex shapes to your maps/models like spheres/cylinders/etc? But even if vphysics supported it, studiomdl and hammer would have to support it too.[/QUOTE]
So you are saying I can have a single brush cylinder with a hole inside?
[QUOTE=Sally;43638386]So you are saying I can have a single brush cylinder with a hole inside?[/QUOTE]
Nope! Has to be filled unless if there's a shape for that. Also in case the benefits are not clear to some, having a perfect sphere vs a bunch of triangles in the shape of a sphere is a (relatively) huge performance boost. Same with other circular shapes.
So anyways, a new file format will probably be the way I go, otherwise licensees will run into havok licensing issues.
The plus side about this is what I've already stated: Raw collision shapes can be used, so this should be good news for at least modellers who are concerned about physics performance for circular shapes. Of course, the whole model exporting process will have to be redone to support this. Woo!
And a side note: I only received $5 this week. Please, if you haven't already donated, donate atleast $5/$10. I really want to keep working full time!
[QUOTE=Grayman;43660430]So anyways, a new file format will probably be the way I go, otherwise licensees will run into havok licensing issues.
The plus side about this is what I've already stated: Raw collision shapes can be used, so this should be good news for at least modellers who are concerned about physics performance for circular shapes. Of course, the whole model exporting process will have to be redone to support this. Woo!
And a side note: I only received $5 this week. Please, if you haven't already donated, donate atleast $5/$10. I really want to keep working full time![/QUOTE]
Its sounding like we need to get some help from the guys from valve
[QUOTE=viperfan7;43662272]Its sounding like we need to get some help from the guys from valve[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm not too sure if or how I'll be able to change and redistribute studiomdl.
It isn't open source, so this support may have to be up to the engine licensees to implement.
Well lets email them, we all know that they are an agreeable, awesome bunch to email
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
