MED is intended to be a convertion utility, so I would just like to have better editing features for skins and a commandline interface for some other basic operations like resavem, merging, skin editing and thats it. I guess this isn't so hard.

I see in WED more a frontend tool for composing levels, not a real content editor. Especially when you compose your scenes, WED lacks a lot (see my and other's previous posts about this in this and that other thread I was referring to). GameEdit is really cool for composing levels, but I wish some of the most basic GameEdit features were available for WED, too.

In addition, it would help much to have an integrated content management system in strong relationship to a material template interface. Like actions, it would be cool to load assets, assign shaders, set references to source texture files and how they are converted (into which skin, resize option, automatic conversion from source format (e.g. PSD) to DDS, DDS preview, Alpha-Channel preview in WED, ... such things are improvements.

Maybe we expect too much from our little group of maybe 3-5 fulltime 3DGS developers, but I don't really like the argument "you can do this by yourself" or "you can do this of course: (insert complicated way here)".

If a specific request for workflow things is being established by one or many people (which is maybe already supported by several other authoringh tools), I would like to hear at least an explanation why the crew doesn't want to program this.

Well, I am currently satisfied, but it's so much work sometimes with this software to achieve the easiest things.

Yes I have to agree with you there HeelX, sometimes its just dam impossible to get things done in WED with its native CGI set like setting snap and finding it all unsnapped upon compile. Other editors like Nems MegaTerrain Generator snapps CGI like a well timed breeze, or hammer etc.

Would love something like UT edit for CGI work, awesome man! But now, I need to learn Game Edit as thats one I havnt really tried yet.

Workflow for me is building in WED, MED and SED testing, each an entire volume on their own, I mean even looking at quants its difficult to know what the norm is we all use.

The engine ??
Well for engine , you have free ones, with all last shaders,projection textures and lot even more 3DGS always years before 3DGS

Find one or two programmers, and use Ogre3D or cheap TV3D engine

I think it should be like UT3 or Cryteck Sandbox editors.

You modelise, texturise with dedicaed programs :
Blender for 3D is outstandgly great like Gimp for 2D.
Cheap packages like Silo are great also : )
these tools are best suited for buildings,characters, moutain cliffs , trees etc ... and better for unwrapping also.

after thta WED should only have a terrain with vegetation editor like Cryteck or UT3 , and you should place in top of it all you want :
moutains parts/cliffs , buildings, bridges,etc ...

I think it's the best workflow and what do these big AAA tools.

So why WED keep BSP ?
why keep the poor WED modeler instead of attaching normal/specular maps
directly to characters models in the main level editor or a special tool just to adjust maps and shaders to models ?
No need for modeling at all, open source packages like Blender are 10 years
in advance compared to the poor MED !

I just don't understand C Lite engine alone ??
there are lot of free programming engines, perhaps in C++ but easy and lot more advanced like Irrlicht,Ogre3D !

Artists , game makers want all tools ready to go like UT3 , SandBox editors
Far Cry game has been made when tools were ready, like Gears Of Wars also.


Well just my advice.

Let's hope A7 will change deeply things , and not try to rearrange existing ones.
The engine keep old BPS , and others things, i doubt A7 to be a totally new engine.

Conitec could use Ogre3D for rendering , no more problems
always up to date for Next Gen.

I won't buy A7, i'll wait A8 to see if Conitec guys will be clever to make the right decisions.

Quote:

---

I think it should be like UT3 or Cryteck Sandbox editors.

---

And at UT3 or Crytek like prices?

I don't understand these threads. I mean I'm all for improving 3DGS and taking it to new heights but I don't get that people don't understand that this comes with a price. The saying "you get what you pay for" comes to mind and $1000 bucks is nothing in game development I'm afraid. If you want UT3 like tools, then you will have to pay UT3 like prices; it's as simple as that. So if you have half a million dollars, then don't bother with 3DGS and use these engines with their (perceived) better tools and workflow. But if you don't (I'm 499 thousand short myself), then you work with something like 3DGS and their (perceived) worse tools and workflow.

These threads always come off like someone buying a Honda Civic and then going back to the dealership to complain that it doesn't have the performance of a Lamborghni Diablo but it should!!!!

It`s more like complaining that the Honda is driving like an oldtimer

Should we better wait for the freeware ones to be better than 3DGS before we complain? There is not this much missing.

Feature wise, I think that OGRE is on the same line or ahead 3dgs. However, the tools are somewhat missing. Of course you can use blender, but it would be nice if there would be a some kind of general tool for editing ogre levels and stuff. Most of the free engines don't have a good set of tools. Lets hope that this will change in the future .

look around, there are so many engines available, choose the one that suits you most. but beefing is bad style.