Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Change getVolume to use visual clipping type #1130

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 1, 2019

Conversation

Wakbub
Copy link
Contributor

@Wakbub Wakbub commented Apr 30, 2019

When merged this pull request will:

Arma 3's 1.92 update changed boundingBoxReal so that it can be passed a number for clipping type. Visual clipping type (0) gives more precise measurements when estimating the volume of an object compared to general clipping type (3).

Real bounding boxes with visual and general clipping types are shown below for certain objects (a vehicle, an ammo box, and a building) where the differences are profound. Some objects have almost identical real bounding boxes despite different clipping types (e.g., a Strider has less than 1% difference in volume). Real bounding boxes with visual clipping type are colored in white and those with general clipping type are colored in black.

Vehicle
Figure 1. Real bounding box of a vehicle (I_Truck_02_fuel_F). Visual clipping type: 105.406 m³. General clipping type: 280.191 m³. Difference: ≈62%.

Ammo box
Figure 2. Real bounding of an ammo box (Box_T_East_Ammo_F). Visual clipping type: 0.171219 m³. General clipping type: 1.37109 m³. Difference: ≈88%.

Building
Figure 3. Real bounding box of a building (Land_cargo_house_slum_F). Visual clipping type: 69.1653 m³. General clipping type: 174.096 m³. Difference: ≈140%.

There exists two other clipping types: shadow (1) and geometry (2). For the tested objects there were no differences in volume between shadow, geometry, and general clipping types. Regarding performance, there was no noticeable difference between any of the four clipping types. It thus seems motivated to use visual.

@commy2
Copy link
Contributor

commy2 commented Apr 30, 2019

This is cool. Do I understand correctly that the old unary command and the new binary command with left hand side argument 3 report the same result?

@commy2 commy2 added this to the 3.11 milestone Apr 30, 2019
@dedmen
Copy link
Contributor

dedmen commented Apr 30, 2019

Do I understand correctly that the old unary command and the new binary command with left hand side argument 3 report the same result?

Yes. We talked about implementing this command a year ago when I wrote it and sent it to BI and they didn't take it ^^

@commy2
Copy link
Contributor

commy2 commented May 1, 2019

Thanks.

@commy2 commy2 merged commit 4d1a847 into CBATeam:master May 1, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants