Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Trying to make an elevator

Recommended Posts


Long time no visit the forum and come back with more questions... :whistle:

I'm trying to do an elevator ... in fact already been done, but the problem is that the "soldier proof" of the map editor, not inside the elevator, but it passes through it.

It is as if the ground was not able to raise him.

I leave a video and the file object (ascensor.xml).

Does anyone have any idea what could be the problem? :unsure:

Thanks all !!!


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

<dynamic_object xmlns:xi="x">

<diesel file="/data/objects/props/ascensor/ascensor.diesel" orientation_object="root_point" materials="/data/objects/props/ascensor/materials.xml"/>

<body editable="true" name="ascensor" template="static_ground" max_walk_angle="30">

<object name="root_point"/>

<object name="ascensor" collision_type="mesh_mopp" hidden="false" material="stone" shadow_caster="true"/>


<animation_group name="ascensor" playing="true">

<object name="ascensor"/>



<marker name="ascensor">

<offset x="0" y="0"/>



<decal_surfaces static="true">

<ds_mesh object="ascensor"/>



<object name="ascensor" height="512" width="512"/>



Link to post
Share on other sites


Only thing i know what can do collision problem is that the object name in 3ds isnt match

the name in script...

I would agree with Whiskey to check your names between MAX, your "u_" file and the object file (which you provided).

Don't know if this would make too much of a difference, but perhaps your template could be changed to just a "static" prop and adjust your collision to a box type. My thinking is that there is more to landscaping than just the max angle that need to be in the XML to make if function properly, so perhaps just dummy it down to a prop.


<body editable="true" name="ascensor" tag="stone" template="static">
<object name="root_point"/>
<object name="ascensor" collision_type="box" hidden="false" material="stone" shadow_caster="true"/>


I would also change the ascensor to a prop in it's "u_ " xml file versus a landscape object.

Hopefully this helps... and by the way... this is sooooo sweet!!!


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old XML syntax which I never worked much with but here goes...

Looking at your physics body, it has the root point as the body root. That is not animated I guess (as it shouldn't be) but it controls where the physics body is located and so the collision doesn't move with the graphics.

So the answer is that you need another physics body, where the animated object is the root of the body and it should not be static template as then the body is locked down by the engine. I don't have GRAW2 around atm so I can't check what it should be but I would guess... default maybe if I remember the old settings right...

You will still need the keep the current body, but probably with another template and another shape as it will only be used in the editor for placement and selection (and it will crash if the first specified body doesn't have the objects root point as it's root in this older verion of the Diesel engine)


Hmm... just remembered that the template you want is probably template="animated", not "default". Otherwise you can't use a mesh mopp collision and you will have problems with it detaching from where you place the unit. Or that could be from the new template setups and there is no animated defined... in which case it should be template="static" and keyframed="true"


Maybe I go over peoples heads here with the root point talk. The thing is there are root points for different things.

The unit has a root point, defined in the orientation_object=" " attribute. This defined where in the world the entire unit is located and how it is rotated. This has to be defined first in the first body in the XML in the version of the engine GRAW2 runs on.

Then there are body root point, which define where in the world the physics body is located and how it is rotated. This is whatever object is listed first inside a body tag, so it can be any object in the diesel file. But it's important that any following objects defined in the body should be linked directly under the body root point inside Max (in other words the Diesel file), of you could get problems with bodies not retaining the shape you want when using multiple objects.

If you want a body to animate, the body root point has to be the object that has been keyframed inside Max or it won't move. It also won't move if it has a body template set to static or has the editable attribute set to true. Anything with the editable attribute is movable in the editor but static in game.

It's a bit of a big dive into game physics and how that works in combination with the syntax of the XML the old Diesel engine, so it can take a while to get your head around when making more complexed units like we did in Bionic Commando (but we updated the engine and I cleaned the template setups to have them make more sense for that game).

Sometimes you will have to use constraints to keep a body in place if it is not static or doesn't have the editable attribute, but it should be ok if the root of the body is keyframed (and the body has the keyframed="true" attribute).

Link to post
Share on other sites

HEY Wolfsong!!! Glad to see you around. Great post and completely understood {mostly}. Hopefully you will land on your feet real soon (noticing your signature), but in the mean time, do you have a DXE decompiler/recompiler that we can use ;) What about any props, landscapes, vehicles, helis, etc. that may not have made it to the final patch for GRAW2 that can be distributed.

Let me know. We need some new refreshing material to keep GRAW2 more active.

Thanks and take care of yourself,


Link to post
Share on other sites

DXE compiles automatically when bundling like the XMB files. There is no decompiler for them. Sorry.

I do have the old particle editor we used for GRAW2, but I'm not sure you can use it with the retail version of the editor. I'll have to test it some.

I can probably dig up some source file for some vehicles... could be interesting as ti would allow modifications to that type of vechile, like more pickups and tanks. It will not allow variations like more or less passagers and such as that will probably cause a crash due it all being script connected dummies.

Right in the middle of some interviews (probabaly have a contract again quite soon) and planning my wedding, but I'll dig around some.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...