Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

We're offering banner ads on our site from just $5!

1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


#ActualKoehler

Posted 25 July 2013 - 04:55 PM

Glad to see you caught my mistake. I was calling "indices" weights, also. Clearly I didn't test that code :/

 

Those results look good! I am surprised that the ancients have so many bones. If I had to guess, maybe WC3 probably did software skinning so it didn't matter?

 

As an option, maybe you could look through the model and split the mesh based on the bone indices accessed? (half for indices < 110 or something, half for >110) and do two draw calls for the big guys.. This would work best if pieces don't rely on the root bone bones too much.

 

Alternatively you could split the model and duplicate the most shared bones into each of the two smaller models' bone arrays, changing the indices on your vertex data appropriately. It still might let you cut down the number enough to fit into your uniform space. 


#1Koehler

Posted 25 July 2013 - 04:54 PM

Glad to see you caught my mistake. I was calling "indices" weights, also. Clearly I didn't test that code :/

 

Those results look good! I am surprised that the ancients have so many bones. If I had to guess, maybe WC3 probably did software skinning so it didn't matter?

 

As an option, maybe you could look through the model and split the mesh based on the bone indices accessed? (half for indices < 110 or something, half for >110) and do two draw calls for the big guys.. This would work best if pieces don't rely on the root bone too much.

 

Alternatively you could split the model and duplicate the most shared bones into each of the two smaller models' bone arrays, changing the indices on your vertex data appropriately. It still might let you cut down the number enough to fit into your uniform space. 


PARTNERS