Player as a static mesh

[Shades of Chaos]

Hey all,

I have just started using UDK and I have watched a bunch of tutorial videos including the ones put out by Epic. I am having problems with assigning a static mesh for the player. I have a sphere that was created in maya and imported into UDK. I want to make my player that ball. How do I go about doing that.

Thanks
Clinton Walsh

[Lexluthor1]

Hey all,

I have just started using UDK and I have watched a bunch of tutorial videos including the ones put out by Epic. I am having problems with assigning a static mesh for the player. I have a sphere that was created in maya and imported into UDK. I want to make my player that ball. How do I go about doing that.

Thanks
Clinton Walsh

Its impossible..Only skeletal meshes can be players!

[Graylord]

That's not true.

You would simply not define a skeletal mesh component in your pawn (assuming you're not extending from the UTclasses), then define a staticmesh component instead. You would however not be able to animate it using animsets.
But for something like sphere character, the rotation when moving would generally be done through code anyway.

Doing this would require some basic scripting. How far along are you yourself? Have you set up your various classes?

[Lexluthor1]

That's not true.

You would simply not define a skeletal mesh component in your pawn (assuming you're not extending from the UTclasses), then define a staticmesh component instead.

And how will you animate it ?

[Graylord]

Through code.
Note that he wanted the player to be a ball.

Animation for a character such as a sphere can done just fine, if not the best way to do it, through code.
It will leave the animation to be purely based on the input and not some pre-animated sets that can be tricky to align and time to feel right.

[Lexluthor1]

Why would you use skeletal animations on a sphere?

To create physics for it .....

[Graylord]

Animations aren't used for physics, I assume you meant a skeletal mesh in general?
You don't need a skeleton for physics.

Particularily not a single-piece object.

[Lexluthor1]

You don't need a skeleton for physics.

Particularily not a single-piece object.

So can you apply physics rotation to a static mesh then ? Otherwise the ball is going to look a bit odd..
I didn't think you could !

[Graylord]

You can. It's really just a case of having it being physical object with a collision that allows rotation. The sphere collision you can create with the collision tool in UDK will roll indefinitely.
Staticmeshes can have any form of physics except for certain deformation based ones which requires bones.

You can do it with much better control if you use a lerping rotation rates, lerping between the initial speed and the max speed, which then matches the movement speed.
Though I am assuming he wants to control the character, rather than one that's being tossed around like ragdoll.

[Lexluthor1]

You can, besides, you don't really need it. It's a quick and dirty way to do it.

You can do it with much better control if you use a lerping rotation rates, lerping between the initial speed and the max speed, which then matches the movement speed.

Did Hourences use a static mesh in his game ? "The ball"

[Lexluthor1]

How would you detect collision too, with no physics?

[Graylord]

I don't know, I haven't really looked at it.

Though I guess they(?) may have used a skeletalmesh simply to enable the use of sockets. As to much more easily manage it locking into the weapon and certain objects in the environment. Could have just fine been done otherwise though. Depends on how they have set things up to begin with.

Physics wise, there's no reason for "The Ball" itself not to be a static mesh.

Edit: That was a responce to the hourences question.

Here's for the second question: Collision detection is done through the collision mesh of the object, it's phys_mode is unrelated. If that's what you mean.

[Lexluthor1]

I don't know, I haven't really looked at it.

Though I guess they(?) may have used a skeletalmesh simply to enable the use of sockets. As to much more easily manage it locking into the weapon and certain objects in the environment. Could have just fine been done otherwise though. Depends on how they have set things up to begin with.

Physics wise, there's no reason for "The Ball" itself not to be a static mesh.

If that's the case then, why isn't there a single game out with a static mesh as the player..Not just made by Epic but the entire game industry ?
If it was the norm, or standard practice then surely at least one company would do it !

[Lexluthor1]

There isn't a single reference to static meshes as characters on the UDN..
Have a look for yourself here...

[Graylord]

Ehm? I'm sorry?
I have to question your question there.

Every engine handles things differently, many engines have no sense of "skeletal meshes and static meshes". I know for a fact that I cannot tell exactly how every single game handles their characters or whatever object the player controls, and neither can you. And and I'm sure that there are tons upon tons of games that don't use a bone based character, it's just not that common for AAA titles.

And the ball is not a character, it's simply a spherical physics based object being tossed around. There's no reason for it to have a single bone unless animated.

Edit:

There isn't a single reference to static meshes as characters on the UDN..
Have a look for yourself here...

The UDN cannot cover every single aspect of every single kind of game. It covers the basics, it's up to you to make use of it.

[Lexluthor1]

Ehm? I'm sorry?
spherical physics based object being tossed around. There's no reason for it to have a single bone unless animated.

You answered your own conundrum..."Physics based sphere".Static meshes cannot have physics assigned to them when they move, that's why they're called static !

[Graylord]

I never said such a thing.

Static meshes can have physics just fine. They aren't called static because they cannot use physics, they are called static because they cannot use bone based animations.

[Lexluthor1]

Nevermind, I give up. You're seeing things. I never said such a ting.

Static meshes can have physics just fine. They aren't called static because they cannot move, they are called static because they cannot use bone based animations.

They can have physics when they're static, not when moving though! But no physics assets without bones...
So after spending hours trying to get your ball to do the most simple simulations as a static mesh, you may as well have added a bone and a physics asset and everything would work perfectly !

[Graylord]

An object cannot be both static and have physics, it's a logical impossibility.
You're right, there's no physics asset without bones, but you wouldn't use physics asset on a object that's a single piece.

You're pulling words from my statements out of context and giving them your own meaning, please end it, it serves no purpose.

You have misunderstood me. The coding suggestions I did earlier was simply if you wanted to control a character based on a sphere. It has nothing to do with physics in any way.
If you simply want physics on a static mesh, you simply enable it.

[Lexluthor1]

An object cannot be both static and have physics, it's a logical impossibility.
You have misunderstood me. The coding suggestions I did earlier was simply if you wanted to control a character based on a sphere. It has nothing to do with physics in any way.

If you simply want physics on a static mesh, you simply enable it.

Its like becoming a surgeon and saying, "Oh no. I don't need to use surgical instruments, it would be easier with a knife and fork"

[Graylord]

If you were to cut up your food, then yes that comparison quite apt

[Lexluthor1]

If you were to cut up your food, then yes that comparison quite apt.

Lol

So we'll agree to disagree about the static mesh dilemma for the OP,who will have to spend twenty minutes reading all our posts
Avoid any surgeons with cutlery on their surgical table before your next operation

[Graylord]

Here you go, A static mesh that can roll and be moved around:

class RollingSphere extends Actor
    placeable;

var StaticMeshComponent PhysicalMesh;


event PostBeginPlay()
{
    SetCollision( true, true );
    SetPhysics( PHYS_RigidBody );
    PhysicalMesh.WakeRigidBody();
}

DefaultProperties
{

    Begin Object Class=StaticMeshComponent Name=PhysicsMesh
        HiddenGame                            = false
        StaticMesh                            = StaticMesh'EngineMeshes.Sphere'
        Scale                                = 0.25
        
        CollideActors                        = true
        BlockActors                            = true
        BlockRigidBody                        = true
        BlockZeroExtent                        = true
        BlockNonZeroExtent                    = true
        bDisableAllRigidBody                = false
        RBChannel                            = RBCC_GameplayPhysics
        RBCollideWithChannels = {(
                        BlockingVolume        = TRUE,
                        Cloth                = false,
                        Clothing            = false,
                        ClothingCollision    = false,
                        Deadpawn            = false,
                        Default                = TRUE,
                        EffectPhysics        = false,
                        FluidDrain            = false,
                        FracturedMeshPart    = false,
                        GameplayPhysics        = TRUE,
                        Pawn                = false,
                        SoftBody            = false,
                        Untitled1            = false,
                        Untitled2            = false,
                        Untitled3            = false,
                        Untitled4            = false,
                        Vehicle                = false,
                        Water                = false
                        )}
        RBDominanceGroup                    = 15
        bNotifyRigidBodyCollision            = false
        ScriptRigidBodyCollisionThreshold    = 0.0;
    End Object
    Components.Add(PhysicsMesh)
    CollisionComponent                        = PhysicsMesh
    PhysicalMesh                            = PhysicsMesh
}

You'd still have to enable the physics the same way for a skeletal mesh to have it, there's no difference other then unecessarily adding and skinning it to a bone, then also having a mesh that's slight more performance intensive. Animating skeletal meshes are a bit more resource hogging. It wouldn't be much with just one bone, but still, when there's no reason to have it, there's no reason not to shave that extra bit off.

[Lexluthor1]

Here you go, A static mesh that can roll and be moved around:

class SandboxSimpleBody extends Actor
    placeable;

var StaticMeshComponent PhysicalMesh;


event PostBeginPlay()
{
    SetCollision( true, true );
    SetPhysics( PHYS_RigidBody );
    PhysicalMesh.WakeRigidBody();
}

DefaultProperties
{

    Begin Object Class=StaticMeshComponent Name=PhysicsMesh
        HiddenGame                            = false
        StaticMesh                            = StaticMesh'EngineMeshes.Sphere'
        Scale                                = 0.25
        
        CollideActors                        = true
        BlockActors                            = true
        BlockRigidBody                        = true
        BlockZeroExtent                        = true
        BlockNonZeroExtent                    = true
        bDisableAllRigidBody                = false
        RBChannel                            = RBCC_GameplayPhysics
        RBCollideWithChannels = {(
                        BlockingVolume        = TRUE,
                        Cloth                = false,
                        Clothing            = false,
                        ClothingCollision    = false,
                        Deadpawn            = false,
                        Default                = TRUE,
                        EffectPhysics        = false,
                        FluidDrain            = false,
                        FracturedMeshPart    = false,
                        GameplayPhysics        = TRUE,
                        Pawn                = false,
                        SoftBody            = false,
                        Untitled1            = false,
                        Untitled2            = false,
                        Untitled3            = false,
                        Untitled4            = false,
                        Vehicle                = false,
                        Water                = false
                        )}
        RBDominanceGroup                    = 15
        bNotifyRigidBodyCollision            = false
        ScriptRigidBodyCollisionThreshold    = 0.0;
    End Object
    Components.Add(PhysicsMesh)
    CollisionComponent                        = PhysicsMesh
    PhysicalMesh                            = PhysicsMesh
}

I'll give it a go

[Graylord]

Note that if you want the player to push it around, you need to set it to pawn = true, and it should work unless your pawn's collision also isn't set to collide with rigidbodies.

I'd also like to point out that physics assets are also rigidbodies, so this is all done the same way wether you use a skeletal mesh or a staticmesh, except with a skeletal mesh, you'd have to define the physics asset, setup the physics asset and potientally define the location of all impulses.

Also if you'd want the push ability that the weapon in The Ball has, you'd do a trace to see if the ball is hit. Then you'd simply have to call AddImpulse in same direction that the player is facing.


Again, I don't think this is what the OP wants though, I think he wants a ball that's controlled through player input, rather than a physics one (Rather than how the ball is controlled). This would be done as I explained back on the first page.

Edit: Damn, I was supposed to go to bed 3 hours ago, you kept my busy you vile person you!

[Lexluthor1]

Note that if you want the player to push it around, you need to set it to pawn = false, and it should work unless your pawn's collision also isn't set to collide with rigidbodies.

I'd also like to point out that physics assets are also rigidbodies, so this is all done the same way wether you use a skeletal mesh or a staticmesh, except with a skeletal mesh, you'd have to define the physics asset, setup the physics asset and potientally define the location of all impulses.

Also if you'd want the push ability that the weapon in The Ball has, you'd do a trace to see if the ball is hit. Then you'd simply have to call AddImpulse in same direction that the player is facing.


Again, I don't think this is what the OP wants though, I think he wants a ball that's controlled through player input, rather than a physics one (Rather than how the ball is controlled). This would be done as I explained back on the first page.

Why not just add a bone
You wouldn't have to do anything then !

[Graylord]

Because I already said why three times now.

Yes you would, you would have to do all the same things. A skeletal mesh does not have any more physics just by itself any more than a static mesh does.

Are you confusing physics with animation?

[Lexluthor1]

Yes you would, you would have to do all the same things. A skeletal mesh does not have any more physics just by itself any more than a static mesh does.

Are you confusing physics with animation?

The physics asset would take 5 minutes to make !

[Graylord]

And? That doesn't make player have physics. In addition you would still have to do what I did above.

But as I said, this might have nothing to do with what the OP wants, I am quite certain he wants nothing physics based. (I am not in any way saying he cannot use a static mesh as a character by this statement)

[Lexluthor1]

And? That doesn't make player have physics. In addition you would still have to do what I did above.

The skeletal mesh ball would be the player pawn in my scenario with a custom pawn class...All in all about an hour to set up it perfectly...Then no pawn needed to push it around, it would roll of its own accord !

[Graylord]

That was just an example. You're the one who brought up the ball, so I gave an example of that setup in return.

The controls are done exactly the same way wether it's a static mesh or a skeletal mesh.
None of your questions or arguments (if they are) have any relation to the OP's question
Why do I have to keep repeating this?

Player controls are something else entirely.
I can guarantee you that your control setup would completely ignorant to the mesh being skeletal or static.

Forget about it, you're not reading what I am typing, you're having some fantasy argument with someone who's not saying the same things I am.
I've already explained the things you ask several times before, every time you ask them.

Good day sir.

I will wait for further elaboration from the OP on what he wants.

If he simply want his static mesh as his character, that has already been explained.
I don't mind giving an example if he wants.

[Lexluthor1]

That was just an example.

Forget about it, you're not reading what I am typing, you're having some fantasy argument with someone who's not saying the same things I am.

Good day sir.

I will wait for further elaboration from the OP on what he wants.

He he simply want his static mesh as his character, that has already been explained.

.......................................

[Graylord]

Actually, I think what's happening is that you are confusing consfusing static meshes, skeletal meshes, physics, physics assets, translation, rotation and animation all together into one big mess.

These are the straight forward and clean facts.

Static Meshes vs Skeletal meshes:

Both static meshes and skeletal meshes can, Translate, Rotate, Scale and use RigidBody Physics.

What static meshes cannot do are animate.
This means that you cannot import an animation from a third party program and apply it to the static mesh. It can however, still do everything above.

Physics Assets:
A physics asset is an extra step required for a skeletal mesh to achieve rigidbody physics.
This has do be done so that the physics engine can determine how to treat multiple limbs.

This is not required for static meshes as they are to be treated as one solid piece any way.

Once this is done, the process of actually making the object have physics is exactly the same for both static meshes and skeletal meshes.

Physics VS Animation:
These are not the same.
This can not be emphasized enough.

Physics are calculations done by a physics engine to create realistic reactions to objects that are given impulses through various forces. These are calculated realtime.

Animations are pre-constructed translations and rotations made in a third party program such as 3ds max, that are then replayed within the game engine.

Animations and Physics have no relation to eachother. One does not need animations or the ability to animate in order to use physics or vice versa.

The ball uses physics, not animation.

Animation & Physics VS Translation, Rotation and Scale
Animations do not mean translating, rotating and scaling.

If you do not want a character that is based on physics (take the ball from the game "The Ball", (which isn't even a character) for example), you can still control it like normal through rotation, translation and scaling.
You if you simply replace the skeletal mesh with a static mesh, it will control exactly the same way the skeletal mesh did.
It will just use animations such as the default walkcycle.

On a character that's one single object, you wouldn't need anything like that anyway.

For a sphere you can just animate it through regular rotation.
If you made it a skeletal mesh and added "rotation" animations, you will simply add a lot more work for yourself as you will have to make the animation fit every single nuance of your controls if it is to look any good.
It might not even be possible as controlling animations is quite limited.


Shades of Chaos, I apologize for the off topic. The answer to your problem was already given at the 3rd post.
If you need an example or further direction, don't hesitate to ask and I will be as straight forward as possible

[Lexluthor1]

Actually, I think what's happening is that you are confusing consfusing static meshes, skeletal meshes, physics, physics assets, translation, rotation and animation all together into one big mess.

These are the straight forward and clean facts.

Static Meshes vs Skeletal meshes:

Both static meshes and skeletal meshes can, Translate, Rotate, Scale and use RigidBody Physics.

What static meshes cannot do are animate.
This means that you cannot import an animation from a third party program and apply it to the static mesh. It can however, still do everything above.

Physics Assets:
A physics asset is an extra step required for a skeletal mesh to achieve rigidbody physics.
This has do be done so that the physics engine can determine how to treat multiple limbs.

This is not required for static meshes as they are to be treated as one solid piece any way.

Once this is done, the process of actually making the object have physics is exactly the same for both static meshes and skeletal meshes.

Physics VS Animation:
These are not the same.
This can not be emphasized enough.

Physics are calculations done by a physics engine to create realistic reactions to objects that are given impulses through various forces. These are calculated realtime.

Animations are pre-constructed translations and rotations made in a third party program such as 3ds max, that are then replayed within the game engine.

Animations and Physics have no relation to eachother. One does not need animations or the ability to animate in order to use physics or vice versa.

Animation & Physics VS Translation, Rotation and Scale
Animations do not mean translating, rotating and scaling.

If you do not want a character that is based on physics (take the ball from the game "The Ball", (which isn't even a character) for example), you can still control it like normal through rotation, translation and scaling.
You if you simply replace the skeletal mesh with a static mesh, it will control exactly the same way the skeletal mesh did.
It just not animate such as the default walkcycle.

On a character that's one single object, you wouldn't need anything like that anyway.

For a sphere you can just animate it through regular rotation.
If you made it a skeletal mesh and added "rotation" animations, you will simply add a lot more work for yourself as you will have to make the animation fit every single nuance of your controls if it is to look any good.
It might not even be possible as controlling animations is quite limited.


Shades of Chaos, I apologize for the off topic. The answer to your problem was already given at the 3rd post.
If you need an example or further direction, don't hesitate to ask and I will be as straight forward as possible

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah...That's why Hourences didn't use a static mesh in his game the ball..I looked into it!
Plus Epic has never used one as the player character either !

If all you've said was feasible, why has no one else done it ?
A simple analogy would be building a house out of plastic.........
You wouldn't build a house out of plastic, (Even though you can) because bricks and concrete were invented and timber exists !

[Graylord]

Wow. You have to be a troll. There's no other way.
You have no idea how hard I facepalmed when I read your response.

You're not responding to my posts at all. You are reading something completely different than I am writing. Your responses don't have anything to do with my posts, you come to conclusions about things I never said in my posts.
You could literally say "Nobody has made a game where a character is a balloon because elephants are not pink, nobody has made a balloon character, just look yourself." and it would be based just as much on this discussion.

You can't have such a lack of reading comprehension, it can't be humanly possible, surely you must be trolling me?

Why are you even here if all you do is make up things yourself anyway?

This is pointless.

What the OP wants to do can be done can be just fine and there's absolutely no reason not to do it for his use. Every single response since the 3rd post has been utterly meaningless.

[Lexluthor1]

Wow. You have to be a troll. There's no other way.
You have no idea how hard I facepalmed when I read your response.

You're not responding to my posts at all. You are reading something completely different than I am writing. Your responses don't have anything to do with my posts, you come to conclusions about things I never said in my posts.
You could literally say "Nobody has made a game where a character is a balloon because elephants are not pink, nobody has made a balloon character, just look yourself." and it would be based just as much on this discussion.

You can't have such a lack of reading comprehension, it can't be humanly possible, surely you must be trolling me?

Why are you even here if all you do is make up things yourself anyway?

This is pointless.

What the OP wants to do can be done can be just fine and there's absolutely no reason not to do it for his use. Every single response since the 3rd post has been utterly meaningless.

That's laughable coming from you about trolling....You're the one who spends most of his time on here posting ten threads a week!
If you don't understand the point I was making, then there's no point in explaining!
Why go through all the grief of doing somthing that isn't normal and then telling the OP that it is............If it was, everyone one would be doing it because what's the point of having SK meshes if you can just use static meshes..Why would you need to change the code for static meshes if they're normally used.

Get real and get some bloody game development done instead of spending your entire life on here!

To the OP......
When you spent weeks and months f****ng about with your static mesh and getting crap results, resort to the normal way of doing things !

[Saishy]

Just posting to say Lexluthor1 is an asshole and I have already done a game with a static mesh as the player.
Also, isn't the Whizzle done with one also?

[Lexluthor1]

Just posting to say Lexluthor1 is an asshole and I have already done a game with a static mesh as the player.
Also, isn't the Whizzle done with one also?

It takes one to know one, numpty

And no, the whizzle team had brains and are profesional developers..They used skeletal meshes



Whizzle main character



You pair of idiots carry on using your static meshes while us profesionals will use skeletal........

[Saishy]

You pair of idiots carry on using your static meshes while us profesionals will use skeletal........

You will never be a professional if you can't have an open mind to new ideas.

It takes a fool to find something brilliant.


Also the character was initially a static mesh since it was supposed to be a bubble and don't have animations:
http://www.udk.com/elements/download...cument_1_2.pdf

So if you don't have animations static meshes are perfectly fine and will actually increase performance.
In reality they never removed the static mesh as it was better for collision handling than the skeletal mesh they added for animation

[Lexluthor1]

You will never be a professional if you can't have an open mind to new ideas.

It takes a fool to find something brilliant.


Also the character was initially a static mesh since it was supposed to be a bubble and don't have animations:
http://www.udk.com/elements/download...cument_1_2.pdf

So if you don't have animations static meshes are perfectly fine and will actually increase performance.
In reality they never removed the static mesh as it was better for collision handling than the skeletal mesh they added for animation

And why did they change it? Because it was useless without anims!
The whole point of why I first commented on this thread........

It also takes billions of fools to carry on being fools.....

"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it."
Edith Sitwell