Thomas Fabini

Mikhail Luzyanin wrote:

I’ve checked the mesh, it’s all ok with it. The problem not in depth write and zero faces but because of not sorted faces in trancperency mode.

Thank you very much for testing this, Mikhail.
I’ve tried this now, too, with a similar but clean mesh with no zero faces and the problems with depth sorting are just the same.

I’ll try alpha hashed, too – I tried to avoid it, mainly too prevent Quest 2 / 3 performance drops on heavier scenes.

Yuri Kovelenov wrote:

Those will be available in the first preview of Verge3D 4.8. Stay tuned!

Great news Yuri, thank you very much!

Mikhail Luzyanin wrote:

Works fine for me. You need just set for all cubes Pass Index 1 or more and for some cubes set the checkbox Depth Write, it’s unchecked on some of them.

Thanks for looking into this Mikhail,
you are right – with Depth Write I’m able to control which objects are rendered above or below other objects.

Thing is, I’ve got some mesh geometry which doesn’t work well without Depth Write, can’t uncheck it for this mesh. The cause might be geometry with a large number of zero faces, which I have been unable to repair. The object is highly complex, rigged, rebuilding it from scratch would take quite some time.

That’s why I was looking for a solution that *might* work without Depth Write.

Plan B is disabling Depth Test through API in situations where Icons need to overlay and setting Depth Test back on when they don’t – which works fairly well.

Hi Yuri,
copy and paste between projects is such a life-saver… thank you for this feature.

I have a question though, regarding the “Render Order” setting: I’ve got the feeling this setting is ignored when using 4.7.1 with a pre 4.x blender-version (3.6.x LTS, in this case).
Might have something to do with the newly introduced transparency hacks in 4.2?

It seems only values like zero and bigger than zero are taken into account. Transparency stacking with multiple different values (like i used with 4.6) doesn’t seem to work.

Hi Tom,
yes the process itself is more on the technical side and tedious at first until you get everything right. The manifest, all the requirements for building, all that. Then, once you got the hang of it, it’s quite straightforward.

But it is a different approach. It means your clients will have to upload the apks themselves, meaning, they need to install SideQuest or other tools unless the app is released in the Oculus store – which with proprietary content isn’t what you usually want.

On the other hand having an url and a pop-up asking to install your app is much easier in most aspects. That if – regarding your actual question – oculus would support it. I have to admit i never have seen the installation prompt when testing out my PWAs. The information i found is contradictory: Oculus states it should actually work, as Alexander pointed out. Another website stated in 2022 that ‘When a user visits a site, the Oculus Browser can help them discover the app if (and only if) it is available in the Oculus Store.’ This might be a reason why they (officially) work, and same time don’t work, but it would defy the purpose of a PWA completely, from my point of view.

If i happen to find out more about app discovery for the Quest 2 / 3 i’ll try and post my findings here.

Yes, degrees of freedom, i suppose as421465683 refers to the description of two navigation modes in VR, with 3dof being three rotation axes, basically ‘sitting’ or ‘standing’ mode where the user can look around and 6dof with three additional translation axes as in ‘walking’ and climbing or flying, for that matter .

Regarding the question itself, hard to say, a combination of the ‘virtual reality’ demo navigation with the additions which kdv posted for 6dof. 3dof would require then locking the translation movement and adding a teleport feature, which i am unsure if it has been showcased on the forums.

About switching between these two – its a matter of personal preference, but i can’t imagine (yet) a scenario where you would like to switch between those, especially if you went all the way to implement 6dof navigation with raycast collisions or even physics collisions. Teleporting can help prevent the user from walking through walls by limiting teleport areas in a simpler way than using collisions with 6dof. (He can still walk through walls in VR if he chooses to physically walk, nothing except a physics collision system will prevent this, afaik).

Hi Yuri,

Congrats on the 4.6 release! Thanks for all the work you put into this.
Already switched to the release version and testing it right now.

A note regarding the issue i described above – in Firefox it worked right away after updating the App with 4.6 release, in Chrome it still wouldn’t show the items from the init tab until i switched ‘insecure content’ in the site settings on. I assumed it was related to the non-secure protocol of the local server since webxr wouldn’t start either… So this setting seems to work for Chrome.