|
|
Re: Better modeling formate adapt
[Re: HPW]
#78948
06/22/06 21:48
06/22/06 21:48
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
3DS should stay , caus for static objects it's perfects and allowmultiple textures / materials.
But the same thing can be said for OBJ and it is a more modern format without the severe polygonal limitation that 3DS has. OBJ is simply more robust and 3DS is simply very outdated.
Quote:
the problem is that each FBX plugin for maya or 3DSMAX or nay other
has it's particularities , and for example you must
follow some things when exporting from 3DSMAX and another rules when using Maya.
Not really. You simply created in your 3D app, export via the FBX exporter and import in the other via FBX. It is really simple. The only mix up that can happen is if one or the other app is using an outdated version of FBX, but this is easily fixed by making sure each 3D app has the latest version.
|
|
|
Re: Better modeling formate adapt
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#78949
06/22/06 23:35
06/22/06 23:35
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 681
Massachusetts, USA
Ichiro
User
|
User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 681
Massachusetts, USA
|
Is there a consensus on the awesomeness or lack thereof of Deep Exploration? I poked around here and elsewhere (there's no FBX support yet but maybe someday), but have heard nothing definitive. (Probably not a popular utility for use with 3DGS because it's about 3 times as expensive as Unwrap 3d -- though I could have sworn Unwrap was even less expensive.)
|
|
|
Re: Better modeling formate adapt
[Re: Ichiro]
#78950
06/23/06 01:10
06/23/06 01:10
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,856
TheExpert
Senior Developer
|
Senior Developer
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,856
|
3DS is perhaps outdated  Dan : If i just need to place some static models with multiple textures. 3DS format really does the job. additionnal bump , specular textures could be added throught the future material editor, or in the obkect viewer if i use BV engine. For FBX , the plugin developped for Maya or 3DSMAX is not done by same people. just go to BV forums to see that to obtain the final FBX you have to follow rules under 3DSMAX or Maya. Well let's wait , i can only encourage Conitec to adopt FBX it could be a great thing. 3DSMAX , or Maya users will only have to use FBX without compromises to successfully export textures and animations : )
|
|
|
Re: Better modeling formate adapt
[Re: TheExpert]
#78951
06/23/06 05:59
06/23/06 05:59
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 7,490
Orange Brat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 7,490
|
Here's an idea:
Using the Forecast enhancements as the baseline, beef up MDL7 to the most modern state possible, polish it, and freeze the format. After this, Conitec recruits a small team of beta testers with the specific task of testing a series of official MDL5/MDL7 plugins created for each of the major 3D programs. Create a user poll to determine the applications to support.
Conitec would no longer have to be concerned with potential engine conflicts because of some miniscule change made to a 3rd party format like FBX. It should also be simpler given it's native and has no bloat. Simply figure out what needs to be eliminated per application and export the appropriate MDL file that will work flawlessly. This would give users the greatest freedom of choice and should eliminate most if not all exporting problems from 3rd party programs.
I'm sure this would involve a fair amount of work, upfront, but once the deed is done, it's finished and upkeep should be that much easier. It would also be an expensive undertaking given the financial investment, however, the end result is a fantastic marketing bullet point, and the potential return from future users and "on the fence" upgraders should outweigh this initial investment.
My User Contributions master list - my initial post links are down but scroll down page to find list to active links
|
|
|
Re: Better modeling formate adapt
[Re: Ichiro]
#78952
06/23/06 09:07
06/23/06 09:07
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Is there a consensus on the awesomeness or lack thereof of Deep Exploration? I poked around here and elsewhere (there's no FBX support yet but maybe someday), but have heard nothing definitive.
(Probably not a popular utility for use with 3DGS because it's about 3 times as expensive as Unwrap 3d -- though I could have sworn Unwrap was even less expensive.)
I own Deep Exploration, but haven't used it since god knows when, ever since I'm making my models in Wings3D and simply animate them with bones in MED. Only sometimes I find it useful to export vertex animations through Deep Exploration and the vast amount of formats it can import/export is very impressing. I used it a lot when I was still making MODs for games like Homeworld and Max Payne, but that was some time ago... (Mostly because I was scavaging the internet for models and found all sorts of formats, where most games only supported a few, sometimes even just 1 format.)
Yeah, the price is high indeed, but it's one of the programs that are a must to have, contrary to programs like lightwave or 3d studio max heheheh I can live perfectly without them, but that's just me I guess,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Better modeling formate adapt
[Re: Ichiro]
#78954
06/23/06 17:51
06/23/06 17:51
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
Quote:
Using the Forecast enhancements as the baseline, beef up MDL7 to the most modern state possible, polish it, and freeze the format. After this, Conitec recruits a small team of beta testers with the specific task of testing a series of official MDL5/MDL7 plugins created for each of the major 3D programs. Create a user poll to determine the applications to support.
We talked about this before with Conitec. The problem is that you cannot just go and develop plugins for various pieces of software ... not without HAVING that piece of software to begin with. For example, you need 3D Studio MAX in order to develop and test a MAX plugin to export/import MDL5 or 7. Conitec, from what they said, was not willing to spend the money on a copy of MAX. I am guessing the same would be true for Maya, Lightwave, XSI, C4D, Modo, etc.
Quote:
Dan :
If i just need to place some static models with multiple textures.
3DS format really does the job.
So do the other formats. In any case, I don't know why you keep going on about this. No one is suggesting that 3DS support be dropped. Therefore, there is no need to defend the format.
|
|
|
Re: Better modeling formate adapt
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#78955
06/23/06 19:40
06/23/06 19:40
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,829
Neustadt, Germany
TWO
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,829
Neustadt, Germany
|
Quote:
We talked about this before with Conitec. The problem is that you cannot just go and develop plugins for various pieces of software ... not without HAVING that piece of software to begin with. For example, you need 3D Studio MAX in order to develop and test a MAX plugin to export/import MDL5 or 7. Conitec, from what they said, was not willing to spend the money on a copy of MAX. I am guessing the same would be true for Maya, Lightwave, XSI, C4D, Modo, etc.
If I read right, he meant that not just Conitec should develop plugins, maybe payed A6 clients with one or more app and C++ skills, too
Orange Bratīs idea is a very good and I would support it
|
|
|
Re: Better modeling formate adapt
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#78957
06/23/06 20:25
06/23/06 20:25
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
Doug
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 8,973
Bay Area
|
Quote:
The problem is that you cannot just go and develop plugins for various pieces of software ... not without HAVING that piece of software to begin with.
Yes. Also, there are SO MANY different packages that trying to supporting all of them would be foolish. We try to support the major ones with 3rd party tools, but they get outdated quickly.
That is why I'm interested in FBX. FBX is an "exchange" format, think of it as a translator. We wouldn't support FBX in the engine, instead we write a single tool that converts FBX files into MDL7 files. Then we could use any package that writes to FBX.
This would be insanely great if three things hold:
1) Is FBX really free (as in speech)? It looks good but I always worry about "free" tools from for profit companies (look closely at the "free" physics SDK for PhsyX). So what's the catch with FBX?
2) Will this become the standard? So far it looks good, but writing a conversion tool is only worth while is other people are writing to the format.
3) Does it support everything we need? Can you export your animation, shaders, etc.?
From what I've read, FBX may answer all these questions. But I'd like to hear what other people think.
|
|
|
|
