Talk:$staticprop: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
TomEdwards (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Tom - I hope you will include the deleted information in another more relevant article? --[[User:Beeswax|Beeswax]] 03:53, 26 Apr 2008 (PDT) | Tom - I hope you will include the deleted information in another more relevant article? --[[User:Beeswax|Beeswax]] 03:53, 26 Apr 2008 (PDT) | ||
:Read the text carefully - nothing has been removed at all. --[[user:TomEdwards|TomEdwards]] 04:03, 26 Apr 2008 (PDT) | :Read the text carefully - nothing has been removed at all. --[[user:TomEdwards|TomEdwards]] 04:03, 26 Apr 2008 (PDT) | ||
:: Then you'll have no objection to my replacing it? --[[User:Beeswax|Beeswax]] 04:31, 26 Apr 2008 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 04:31, 26 April 2008
I think it's worth to point out this $staticprop explanation from VERC:
- You should always use the $staticprop qc option with prop_physics models.
- $staticprop is named similarly to prop_static entities for historical reasons - but the two things are completely separate concepts.
- $staticprop removes all of the bone info for the model and collapses the object to a single coordinate system. You want to do this always (unless you're making an animated prop/character) because it makes the model more efficient for rendering.
see Jay Stelly - #10. Re: prop_physics collision model issues --n-neko 22:03, 19 Nov 2006 (PST)
Recent Edits
Tom - I hope you will include the deleted information in another more relevant article? --Beeswax 03:53, 26 Apr 2008 (PDT)
- Read the text carefully - nothing has been removed at all. --TomEdwards 04:03, 26 Apr 2008 (PDT)
- Then you'll have no objection to my replacing it? --Beeswax 04:31, 26 Apr 2008 (PDT)