Replace MED

Posted By: A.Russell

Replace MED - 04/29/06 16:43


I was just going through the comments on the DevMaster site, and one thing I've noticed nearly everyone agrees on, 3DGS proponents and protagonists alike, is that MED is crap.

Could MED be replaced by a tool for previewing, LODing, setting materials and (most importantly) file conversion?

You could keep the current modeling features in there, but just have them as an option for last minute editing after bringing models in from a 3rd party program. It seems a waste to develop it further since there are better modeling programs that are very cheap or even free.

Basically, my suggestion is to change the priorities for MED from modeling to conversion.
Posted By: ulillillia

Re: Replace MED - 04/29/06 19:11

When I had A4, the MED in 6.31 was otherwise the same. The only (that's right, only) considerable changes made were the addition of terrains, bones animation, and support for true color. The overall design is virtually unchanged. I don't recall the exact version of A4 it was. The skin edittor is practically the exact same in 6.31, the overall method to design things is otherwise the exact same. Even my "how to make levels in MED" tutorial applies considerably well for A4.

However, compared to A4, WED has quite a few changes and the engine itself, most especially, has more changes. The reason why MED is often though of as bad and not worth it is likely because it hasn't progressed anything. It's always WED, or the engine getting updates while poor MED gets left in the dust. I've been so fond of using MED, but even now, with all the annoyances, limitations, and bugs, I'm now starting to look into another modelling application. I repeatedly bring up suggestions (and the same ones) for how to make more worthy improvements.

There are quite a few major improvements that would make me use MED again. When using primitives, setting the size for each axis (rather than the confusing system used now with the ultra narrow input fields - a size of 12 with 18x9 edges doesn't mean 12 quants diameter, it's unpredictable and the size values indicated (32.000 for each for a sphere at the default settings) cannot be changed. Having tool options for each tool and in all modes would definitely prove useful. Only the move tool in vertex mode has any user-configurable options, that's it. Rather than having the tool options on the bottom, have them on the left side as there's plenty of space over there where a manager system could go for easy, instant access where any skins, group lists, and any tool options can be displayed, much like WED does. The last thing is when creating UV maps. Currently, there's no dependable way to accurately position skin vertices on a UV map to an exact scale like textures in WED, and it always causes texture misalignment and it looks weird. If I just set the scale to 0.25, the entire object would have the same texture scale and textures would line up properly, especially true for MDL terrains. Just providing these features would make MED much better so others don't have to resort to 3rd party programs constantly (of which I'm now thinking of doing).
Posted By: jumpman

Re: Replace MED - 04/29/06 19:36

yes there are better modellers out there, of course. But even then it is infuriating when you export a model from a certain format, only to find some key polygons not attactched to the mesh, randomly flipped normals and such. Quite a few times I realized it was my other modelling app that screwed up, not MED.

The key thing here is that MED is 100% compatible with the engine, and it CAME with the engine. Plus alot of people wishing to get their feet wet in some 3d game design get their first modelling experience in MED. I worked on an A6 project for school with 3 other students, and it was their first time using a 3d modelling app. When our class started going into Max 8, we were ahead of the game concerning fundamentals in modelling. And I think the majority of the users here are new to game design, correct me if Im wrong.

I dont think Id like to see MED go. It has a warm, buggy place in my heart
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Replace MED - 04/29/06 19:58

I totally agree with jumpman here, eventhough I mostly make my models in different programs, MED is always the last program in which I add the skin and animate it. I do care for it's modeling features, eventhough I hardly use them. They are great for cleaning up models and last minute changes. However I do hope some major improvements are being considered anyways ,

Cheers
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Replace MED - 04/30/06 05:00

I think MED is fine as it is, I like being able to add vertices sometimes, especially for attachment points and whatnot, also scaling, rotating etc.

I dont think anyone should do actual modelling in MED, and all the poeple who say MED is crap think that it is meant to be a full-functioned modeller. Its not nor has it ever been meant to be that.

However, given that, I dont think Contiec should ever bother trying to make it into a real modeller, that would be a huge task in itself, and pointless, when there are plenty of better modellers available. The important thing is better importers and export plugins for other modellers.

The max plugin for example is not so great...that should be fixed up, even for older versions of max like 5.0 (i still use 5.0)..it cant even export 32 bit skin files.
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Replace MED - 04/30/06 06:47

Well, it looks like I was wrong. A lot of people do still like MED.

In any case, I think it would be good if conversions from other formats were prioritsed.
Posted By: HeelX

Re: Replace MED - 04/30/06 12:34

Yes, especially .x model export.
Posted By: FoxHound

Re: Replace MED - 04/30/06 16:48

It would be a brilliant idea to make MED a true all in one modeler. 3dgs would have pretty much everything you would ever need to make a game at that point it would be one full studio then.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Replace MED - 04/30/06 21:48

Quote:

Well, it looks like I was wrong. A lot of people do still like MED.


I hate MED, MED is crap, you can easily get my vote to get rid of it, change it, or replace it.
Posted By: ulillillia

Re: Replace MED - 04/30/06 21:59

I only use MED because it's the only modelling program I have and the first one I've used. MED needs several radical changes to it to make it anything worthy. I'm constantly running into bugs, annoyances, limits, and other strange things, of which has now gotten me thinking about getting a third-party modelling program to replace the flawed MED. I'm having a hard time getting into designing in 3D due to all the issues and problems with MED. Short of using thousands of blocks and getting 6 fps frame rates, 2D is currently my only option, short of getting a third-party modelling program.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Replace MED - 04/30/06 22:08

MEd isnt crap. It's needed. You need a simple editor to set up your models, like arrangeing and naming animation frames, adding vertices for vcarious reason, setting up skins and formats and such. You NEED something like MED.

Calling it crap is just displaying your ignorance of how Gamestudio works, and what tools are made for. MED is a basic modeller that is mostly used for setting up models for the game engine. It has the basic modelling functionality for super-newbs or people who simply cant afford anything better, and theres no reason to remove that funcitonality.

But I use MED all the time, I need to use MED, otherwise how am i to set up the skins on a mesh, determine whether they are stored internally or externally, name the animation frames and so on? Just saying to get rid of it or "change it" is unproductive. MED is fine for it is meant for.
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Replace MED - 05/01/06 01:47

If you'd read my posts Matt, you'd see that my recommendation was to prooritise MED for import/export and final adjustments like setting skins, materials and LOD rather than having it primarirly as a modeling tool.

Seems you all like it as a modeling program very much and think it should continue to be developed as such. Very well, carry on.
Posted By: William

Re: Replace MED - 05/01/06 02:17

I use MED for adding bones, verts, scaling, import/export, and changing the skin. I don't think any further development in the actual modeling department should be added. Just work on solid exports/importers, and some nice refinements(like I reccomended 4 months back to make re-adding external textures quicker when swapping the model alot with new versions).
Posted By: Guardian

Re: Replace MED - 05/01/06 07:54

Med is quirky little program I've made most of my models thus far with it.

My copy of Med lost its ability some how to activly scale reference pictures while building models witch makes it nearly useless, but I'm an obsesive nut and I persist.

Lately I've been using FragMotion its about 10 times more efficient a modeler then Med.

Maybe conitec should contact the fragMotion developer. The fragMotion guy has not been as active as he had been. Seems he got a real job as reported on his forum.

Conitec should hire him or buy fragMotion and replace Med with it or at least use it as a template for a new more modern and useful Med.

Med has advantages but it feels so out of date and is not always stable.

Just my feelings, hope it is helpful.


Guardian
Posted By: Thomas_Nitschke

Re: Replace MED - 05/01/06 14:46

I am also one of the MED users out there, basically because I lack alternatives. However, I think MED's modeling abilities should indeed be further enhanced and developed - since MED is advertised as "model editor" in a package named "studio", one could expect a modeling program that has at least the basic features. And today, basic features are a little bit more than just being able to place and edit vertices etc.

In fact, I think MED _does_ have what you need, only its workflow is, well... it's crappy, let's face it
Seriously, a depth-test when selecting triangles/vertices together with a bigger (adjustable!) vertex click radius and a solid camera movement would speed up things enormously!
Posted By: Damocles

Re: Replace MED - 05/02/06 23:40

Med is good as a basic tool for making models fast for 3dgs, such as
I am using paint next to gimp, as in paint I can create and save a dummy-bitmap in 10 seconds,
without having to start gimp (which takes a while)

Med is not ment to be a tool for professional artits,
though I dont want to learn complicated 3d Apps, just to make my basic models.
Posted By: Inestical

Re: Replace MED - 05/05/06 06:16

What I red, you are ready to get one crate made in 30 minutes in max then export it to med and then use it, when you'd do it in med adding one box? hm.. MED is for lowpoly modelling and making simple objects, as far I know.

Of course, why not improve it to the level of max? Why not to get the better med free, rather than buying max or maya? (of course best tool is blender.. but I don't know a thing of it, sam knows and thats enough ).
Posted By: Thomas_Nitschke

Re: Replace MED - 05/05/06 08:00

Basically, I also think that MED is fine as is, concerning features. There could really be more, but there don't necessarily have to be. What MED seriously needs though are workflow improvements (see my previous post)! I regard the following as absolutely necessary:
- Depth test for polygon/vertex selection
- Adjustable vertex click radius, or at least a bigger one than is currently implemented
- A working undo-function! The current one often randomly stops working o_O
- Automap-methods; these are planned anyway, according to the forecast
- Camera movement like in WED! Currently, MED doesn't even know of the third mouse button / wheel O_O


Just my two cents, as always.
May we have a response from Conitec?
Posted By: ulillillia

Re: Replace MED - 05/05/06 19:49

Quote:

Basically, I also think that MED is fine as is, concerning features. There could really be more, but there don't necessarily have to be. What MED seriously needs though are workflow improvements (see my previous post)! I regard the following as absolutely necessary:
- Depth test for polygon/vertex selection
- Adjustable vertex click radius, or at least a bigger one than is currently implemented
- A working undo-function! The current one often randomly stops working o_O
- Automap-methods; these are planned anyway, according to the forecast
- Camera movement like in WED! Currently, MED doesn't even know of the third mouse button / wheel O_O


Just my two cents, as always.
May we have a response from Conitec?




Work flow improvements is certainly a must. I've provided some other suggestions as well that could improve workflow:

1. Have all tools in all modes have tool options. Also, have it so that the user can manually type in values for better user-friendliness.
2. Have a side banner on the left that is similar to WED. This side banner should be where any tool options, snap settings, etc. are displayed. This way, they are easy access.
3. Creating UV maps should have a feature to set the texture scale (rather than just a "best fit"-only method), like with WED. This is especially useful for MDL terrains with tiling textures to line the textures up.
4. Vertex click radius - make it adjustable. I've suggested this several times, and it's been even 9 months or so since I first came up with it.
5. The undo function is grade F. Yes, quite often, it doesn't even work at all. Not even pressing the usual control+Z works as it should be set automatically as with WED.
6. I support the camera movement in WED idea. I once tried making an animation using MED (and taking dozens of screenshots), and the camera positioning is almost always inaccurate which made it more difficult.

Things for MED need a major change. When the 6.4 update is released as an official update (rather than a public/private beta), much more focus should be spent toward MED.

In my 2D game, I figure that, if something is configurable in any way, provide configuration options for it. With this in mind, virtually everything in my 2D game is configurable in some way. MED should use a similar system as well (and not just MED, but WED and SED as well).
Posted By: FBL

Re: Replace MED - 05/06/06 12:14

Stupid forum... gave me an access denied... so only in short everything again:

- improve face selection
- get rid of all those tiny bugs that had been reported and never fixed
- improve import/export
- OLD vertex placement method. It just was great to first set the crosshait and THEN placing the vertex exactly where you want it...

about bones:
not sure if those are already in (I'm using A5):
- inverse kinematics (like in QMe)
- bone to frame conversion for animating frame based models (as it was done in Qme).
- possibility to set keyframes for bone aniamtion, possibility to export/import those to apply animation to several models with the same bone structure
Posted By: Pappenheimer

Re: Replace MED - 05/06/06 15:23

Funny, how this thread turned out, from a "Replace MED" to a "Please improve MED"!
Posted By: Thomas_Nitschke

Re: Replace MED - 05/07/06 18:39

True indeed
However, this is of course related to the thread's original topic - we don't want to replace it, thus we want to have some improvements on it!
Posted By: Alberto

Re: Replace MED - 05/12/06 19:18

In my opinion MED should focus on animating and texturing rather then modelling
For example including some prefabricated animations
Modelling needs skill ,it is not just a matter of having a good tool
Also animation need skill of course but just a few type of animations are really very hard to make
Also you can find a lot of cheap models on the web while it is almost impossible to find the animation you are looking for
Sometime ago the author of Chartographi shop offered his new world editor
Although I like CS I think that WED is also fine.
However he produces also an excellent but unfinished animator tool
3DSG and CS might shake hands
MED is really poor in my opinion
© 2024 lite-C Forums