How to export multiple collision meshes

[SACarrow]

I've been looking into the multiple collision mesh issue again. I had just posted again to the Niftools forum when I remembered RW's post earlier in this very thread. I had seen it a while back, but I didn't know enough about all of this to connect the dots. But now...

HOW TO EXPORT MULTIPLE COLLISION MESHES FROM MAX (ON PURPOSE)

Versions: Max 8, NifTools Max plugin 0.2.9.

- Make your model with all its components, then your simplified collision meshes (CMs) for those components.
- Combine (via Attach) all of your CMs that you wish to share the same Havok properties; this is probably not necessary, but simplifies things.
- Make sure that you have set the Havok properties for all of your CMs with the NifProps tool.
- At this point, you have a set of non-CM meshes and a set of CM meshes. Use the Max group function to make one group of the non-CM meshes and one group for each of the CM meshes. At the end, you should have N+1 groups, where N is the number of CMs.
- Then export the model, ensuring that the "Remove extra bones" option is not checked.

Notes:
- I've only done this for statics,
- the bhkListShape block still must be inserted for each CM to fix the arrow-penetration problem.

Hope this helps,
Steve

[Razorwing]

Nice one sacarrow! :goodjob:

It's always bothered me that I can only use one material for a model, most often because staircases in the model don't give off the proper sound.

Speaking of the arrow-penetration problem, I don't think we have any information on it here yet. Would you consider writing a little tutorial on the subject? =)

[Razorwing]

I extracted your tut to a thread of its own to make the information easier to find.

I did everything in your description but it didn't work for me, only one collision mesh got exported. I made sure to have three ordinary meshes in the scene too, but it didn't make any difference. Perhaps my export settings differ from yours. Just to make sure, could you take a screenshot of how the settings should look to get it to work?

[mirrored]

Originally posted by sacarrow- Combine (via Attach) all of your CMs that you wish to share the same Havok properties; this is probably not necessary, but simplifies things.

How do I do that?

[Razorwing]

Convert one to an editable mesh, then scroll down the editable mesh rollout until you see two buttons called "Attach" and "Attach List". If you click the left one you can then click on the model you want to attach to the selected one. If you click the right one you can select which to attach from a list.

[mirrored]

Originally posted by RazorwingI did everything in your description but it didn't work for me, only one collision mesh got exported.

Same here, only one CM. Are you sure you haven't missed anything?

[SACarrow]

I sent a PM to RW with an example in Max, my settings, and the exported NIF so he could check out how closely my instructions have "mirrored" reality. I'll let him post here and he can also edit my original post to clarify.

On rereading my post there are a couple of things that might not have been clear, though. Each CM that is to be exported must:
- Have its NifProps set,
- Be a single mesh,
- Be a group in Max.
For instance, I have a group called "CollisionStone" that has one member, a mesh also called "CollisionStone".

Here's my NIF export settings too.

Hope this helps,
Steve

[SACarrow]

Yeah, I was never happy with the way that came across in the original post, but I could never figure out how to make it more clear. Feel free to edit the initial post.

Later,
Steve

[Razorwing]

Eureka!

It took a dozen tries to get it right, but I eventually I understood how you meant. One group for the models, and one group for each collision mesh. I probably wasn't thinking straight when I read your last post the last time... I have a hazy memory of trying to pair up real mesh + collision mesh in separate groups a few times, to no avail.

Thanks SACarrow!

(I moved this thread out of the archive so I could continue the discussion)

[Razorwing]

Originally posted by SACarrow
Yeah, I was never happy with the way that came across in the original post, but I could never figure out how to make it more clear. Feel free to edit the initial post.

Later,
Steve

Sorry if I came across the wrong way in my post. It was my bad that I didn't get it, because your last post clarified everything