Originally Posted By: AlbertoT
Quote:

With FBX you get that and cameras, lights, multiple UVs (if they are used) and more
... I suppose it could be a pain.


Agreed , it is what I have been repearing and repeating


Quote:

Gone are the days of simply using the extremely limited 3DS file format.


This is an interesting question

On one hand I have had a lot of issues with FBX on the other hand I suppose that FBX should have some advantage over the simple file formats, for the simple reason that all the modern engines are supporting it ( or Collada )

But what ?

Ok, 3ds is a very obsolete file , it does not support skeleton animation but if you look at the Unity recomendation for character animated file ( see my previous post) I dont see any reason for not using , for example , MilkShape

So the question is, what can I expect from FBX ( assuming it is bug free ) which I can not get from a simple game oriented file format ?


i havent read past this point, but ineeded to say something here. you keep "repearing and repeating" that this is the problem (extra info in the file) but what happens when you use the milkshape file and you need the extra uv set. ok, so now you decide, Ill just make a secondary copy, re_uv, write code to take one uv set from one file and its material, and all the rest of the info comes from the other file. Ok all fixed... wait, no now you need weighted vertices, which im not sure you can do in milkshape. so now you go out, get another package and still end up using fbx.

There is an inbetween for all of this. If you dont need extra UV's and you dont need weighted vertices, then use milkshape or something else. but just because you dont use them, doesnt mean fbx cant be used for "indie games" because i use it on a daily basis, it just needs you dont need it, and and that your not willing to put the time into finding a pipeline that works (admittedly difficult, and if its not needed, then there is no point in putting the work in.)