Modeling Format Request

Submit your own resources!

Andy Hawkins   (Oct 05, 2008 at 23:38 GMT)

I hear ya! The only thing I can think is that ...
a) the versions of max people are using is a copy - an "evaluation" copy
b) they are using an academic version
c) someone else bought it for them

I propose to make my models in Blender from now on, but I'll have a look at MS3D too. I'll also provide extensive docs on how to do it like I did with the Skeleton Pack so you don't have to know how to use the package to access the source files.

Randy Hearn   (Oct 06, 2008 at 01:15 GMT)

@Andy

Could it be possible that they actually bought the copy themselves? I didn't see that on the list.


For me I would rather see a neutral format available than can be imported into any package. But from what I have seen, importing into another package means you will loose something and end up having to fix. And for someone creating a content pack usually means more work. Perhaps Collada will be a good format in the future as soon as all of the packages get good working import/export plugins working for them.

Scott Wilson   (Oct 06, 2008 at 01:51 GMT)

Blender 3D is totally free and is better than milkshape in my opinion. Not to mention thanks to the guys here in the community we have a pretty decent exporter for it. Can't ask for much my than that imo ;)!

Kevin Keathley   (Oct 06, 2008 at 03:17 GMT)

He's probably referring to the artists making the packs. I have no doubt that many of them probably bought the software for themselves as many of them appear to be studios with revenue elsewhere (or probably even enough from selling packs here).

I think the generalization that he's making is rather towards indies here that buy and use the packs. It would be pretty reasonable to believe a starting indie developer wouldn't have the full version starting out - at least not starting from scratch, coming from the industry being one of many exceptions.

It did kind of perplex me why so much indie art is done with max nowadays. I can understand maya pre-merger because they had a cheaper version available, or gmax even before it got zapped. Even though people can probably afford 3dstudio at some point, for some reason or another most of us have made the decision to stick with more affordable tools (Torque, Milkshape/Blender, Gimp, etc). I know there have been arguments about needing to spend the money for the right tools if you're serious, but considering where we are, I think most of us have considered the right tools to not require a significant investment at this point (ex: why should we spend that much money on the art development tool and not the engine or the code development tools - Visual Studio Express and XCode work pretty good).

I wish there was some format that all of us could use, but as it has been pointed out, there's limits to each format and converting them. i will say, though, if it was MS3d or Blender, or some other inexpensive format, then at least it would be a cheap entry point to the rest of us to switch to that particular tool, as opposed to Maya or Max. COLLADA sounds good for this as Maya and 3DSMax work with it.

I'm not an artist, though, so I can't say with very much knowledge on which format would be better. However, I think I may represent part of the problem, as many indie developers/hobbyists may be one or small teams without a dedicated artist with dedicated high end artist tools :-) If I was, or did have dedicated artists, I just wouldn't buy your packs - since I'd have someone making their own in the first place.. makes sense?

Kevin Keathley   (Oct 06, 2008 at 03:19 GMT)

One more thing. I wish these forums would redirect you to the place you were when you decided to log in. Reading a blog and realizing you're not logged in means either copying the link and re-pasting it after you log in (backpage seems to log you back out) or finding the place you were at before. I can easily just click on the account link if I want to see my account, I'd rather have the login competion return me to the page I was at automatically. Sorry, that happened again on this blog..

Kevin McLaughlin   (Oct 06, 2008 at 04:16 GMT)

There's a lot of good, generic modeling formats out there. DTS just isn't one of them! =) I named Milkshape simply because the program has an excellent DTS exporter, and is a program heavily used for file conversion already. There's a lot more people who use Milkshape to convert than to actually model in the software.

Collada would work, as would Blender. There's a number of options. MAX just isn't a useful source format for most people.

David Janssens   (Oct 06, 2008 at 07:22 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Kevin K: the login page redirects you to the page you logged in from, when you click on the link at the bottom of the page. I had the exact same thought when I read your post, as it has happened frequently to me too. I usually use the link provided in the banner on top, and that redirects to your personal page.

@Kevin M: As much as I love Blender (I'll be going to the Blender Conference in Amsterdam in a few weeks), I have to admit that in this case, it isn't really the best solution. Instead of forcing people to use 3D Studio Max in their pipeline, you force them to use Blender in their pipeline. I can remember many posts on these forums that detailed what utter crap the Blender interface is according to some people.
Collada is a good alternative, as you have a format that is application-neutral and widely seen as the standard in the industry. OBJ might also be such a format. However, OBJ (and maybe Collada, I don't know for sure) does not support the more advanced things like skeletons and animation. So there is a choice to be made.

Apparatus   (Oct 06, 2008 at 07:22 GMT)

3dsmax exporter is an official one, 3dsmax is widely used by professionals, it's been around for long enough to become a good and preferred application. I personally can't stand the trickster.

DTS is not a modeling format, it's more than that; more than a simple object with texture information - it has it's own hierarchy and instructions (nodes) to be read by a specific application (engine)

If someone is looking to buy content packs for the source of the content primarily (rather than for the content offered) should look elsewhere: there are tons of websites with models sold primarily in mainstream modeling formats, including some of those low-budget or open source. People getting trough the trouble of setting up an object for a (torque) engine and usually selling it at a fraction of the price of something similar on fore-mentioned websites will find unfair to see that their content primary goal is bypassed. I understand the need to customize an object for your own project but that can be done via textures or adding more animations maybe.

Low-budget / open source sounds fun but is not productive. That's why they are low-budget and open source. The reason why some of these are popular are due to the price tag not usability, features or productivity at all. So my personal support for that segment is close to zero.

Sounds unfair a bit but when you think about it the real question is: can I use your time, your license / money to trick the process a bit and bypass some effort / expenses myself so I can make money easier.

On another note you don't really need high end software or dedicated hordes of artists to make games. Games are what the word says - games - not some paintings you ought to look at; Make games fun is possible without much money. Make money out of games requires you to actually put some money into it first: research, development, marketing and sales.
Edited on Oct 06, 2008 07:24 GMT

Kevin Keathley   (Oct 06, 2008 at 08:15 GMT)

@David
awesome on the login. Thanks for the info. I, by habit, would usually hit the Login link at the top of the page, near the banner because that's the one I use when I am logging in while reading the forums and news.

Thanks, I'll use the bottom one now when I'm replying to something.

:-)

Apparatus, yeah I understand what you're saying. I'm not a modeler so what I could do with it is pretty limited in the first place. Perhaps some people may need to make a tweak because their default pose is different (TMMOKIT perhaps) or they want to and know how to add a single animation, but aren't professionals.

I don't think any of this was an attack against the people that sell kits here in those formats because it's great to see stuff in the store. I think it's more of a 'you may sell more if you sell it this way'. Nobody's going to boycot or anything from what I'm reading, it's just some advice in the line of -it's really neat, I'd love to buy your stuff, but I think I'm going to buy this thing instead because I can mod it a bit'.

The market will work itself out. If not very many people are buying MAX models and this market is just an offshoot of the modelers real, intended market (this being an extra outlet) then I'm sure he or she will continue to put stuff up for sale here because it's no extra effort.

If someone is making and selling MAX models just to indies and sales aren't so good, that person can either pack up shop or try some other format. Someone else may come along and see there's a bigger market for non-professional models and take the market from them.

For example, I believe the people at Frogames (frogames.net) modeled their CS:Warriors and Commoners in MAX and provide the source in Milkshape's format as well. I dunno whether they've sold more that way or not, but I imagine once they have a full collection of men and women they would get at least some ttraffic from Torque owners as well as other indies because they went that extra mile. For most people here, nothing is probably going to change to allow everyone to either get ahold of 3DS MAX or the money to buy high-end professional models, so it's not really a choice of A or B. It's really only B, no matter the reason behind A (quality, selling models on the side of contracts, etc) and maybe there's a market for B by indie artists that use less than "professional" tools.

All of the packs sold on the MMOWORKSHOP site from Prairie Games are delivered in Milkshape format as well, though I dunno what WIT originally developed them with (I believe it was WIT that developed them for Minions of Mirth?). Btw, Minions of Mirth was low-budget and open-source(from the beginning I dunno) and it turned out pretty good during its heyday (GarageGames bragged about it as well I believe), even though he came from industry experience.

EDIT: Edited for some spelling and emphasis that I didn't catch.
Edited on Oct 06, 2008 08:17 GMT

Steve Flowers   (Oct 06, 2008 at 12:53 GMT)

Not to introduce another commercial tool to the mix... :) but I REALLY like Silo3D, from NeverCenter as a modeler. Clean, smooth, capable, and affordable.

Having the geometry in a transport format works for me. As aweful as 3DS is - it usually works.

Tony Richards   (Oct 06, 2008 at 14:17 GMT)

$50 Solution:

Purchase Ultimate Unwrap 3D for under $50. It imports DTS and exports to Milkshape (among many many other file formats).

Kevin McLaughlin   (Oct 06, 2008 at 14:29 GMT)

I *definitely* was not calling for anything like a boycott! =) I think the artwork we've been seeing lately is great, and love seeing it.

My suggestion was simply that DTS packs gain significant added value by having an indie-usable source format. Most people don't want to use "the same art as everyone else" - and even slight mods to art will let you give it a new feel. Sometimes you can do this with textures. Sometimes, you need to access the model. Adding new animations is a GREAT example - you really need the source model for that, and many games will need new animations.

Is this asking someone to put out more effort to help our games? Perhaps. But then again, they're also selling a Product. We are potential Buyers of the Product. And right now, there are a few packs that I might purchase if they had usable source formats, but that I will not be buying because they have MAX as the only source.

Again, although that is a professional standard, that is not a legally usable source format for 99% of indies. ;)

How many other people are in the same boat as me? Potential buyers who hold off because there is no usable source format? My guess is, many. Those are dollars which go instead to other artists, who make other packs which have more source format variety. I have no way of knowing if the extra work involved in another format would equate to enough extra sales to make it worthwhile; I suspect that it would, however.

Arcanor   (Oct 06, 2008 at 14:33 GMT)

I can vouch for the Ultimate Unwrap 3D suggestion, and I've used it successfully to bring in the Ava pack from DTS, and then export to a variety of output formats. This includes animations as well.

Apparatus   (Oct 06, 2008 at 15:06 GMT)

I don't defend my stuff here (my EULA is very open) but some content pack creators may not allow reverse engineering their (DTS format offered) work. Check the respective agreements before doing so. The reason why some authors may not allow backwards pipeline (fetching up the source from a DTS model) is outlined in my previous post.

Logan Foster   (Oct 06, 2008 at 15:55 GMT)

@Kevin

1) Like or or hate it, 3DS Max is probably the most popular modeling application used here in this community, and especially by the talented commercial artists who are capable of providing quality content that is being sold as content packs. As such you are just going to have to live with the fact that most of the native content pack source comes from it. MS3D is like #7 on the list of what commercial artists use here (even lower in what we call the 'real world') in this community, so you'll just have to live with the fact that its not going to have native model data in content packs usually.

2) Since you have never put the effort in to make or support a content pack I will give you a pass at how absolutely nieve you are to think that exporting model data to be used in other applications is easy. It is not. 3D model data is rarely read in and parsed the same way that it came from the original source data, because of this it takes a lot of time by good content pack developers that provide multiple model source data to ensure that the data exported works and will generate a valid DTS file (something RRGTS should look at considering before they release another content pack). Either way this costs time which translates out into money, so for some people its just not financially feasible for the price that these content packs sell.

Arcanor   (Oct 06, 2008 at 16:46 GMT)

@Logan Foster:

1. Obviously, Max is very popular among the artists that have been producing model content packs. I agree with that small part of your point. However, I think the real point of the OP is that exporting to ANY standard format (such as the Autodesk-recommended FBX interchange format) really does take very little time, and gives end users a lot more options than just coughing up several thousand dollars for a Max license. Here's a link to the Max page referencing their (free) FBX plugin: usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=8108755#connectivity. The content pack creators don't have to spend hours and hours on this.

2. It's not nice throwing words like "nieve" (sic.) around in a forum such as this. It's fine to disagree with someone, but calling names rarely helps anything. Stick to assessing the facts of the matter, rather than publicly posting your opinions of someone else's personal merits.

3. And, for the record, Kevin McLaughlin is a smart guy who has been around this community for quite a long time. He's earned my respect many times over. I feel his original point was quite valid, and I agree.


@Apparatus:

If the content pack creator didn't want end users to be able to modify their models then why would they have provided MAX files at all? This isn't an argument about whether or not end users should be modifying purchased models, it's merely an argument about the output format(s) provided when such modifications are allowed. I agree with the OP in saying that if a content pack provider is going to provide any sources at all, then it would greatly increase their product's value if they would also provide an export or two to "standard interchange formats", again, such as FBX, COLLADA, .X, etc.

Logan Foster   (Oct 06, 2008 at 17:05 GMT)

@Arcanor

While formats like Filmbox (FBX), Collada (DAE), OBJ and 3DS are pretty common interchange formats they still all have a lot of problems with properly translating and preserving data either do to limitations of the format itself, bugs and/or the fact that the format is just so new it doesn't have the kinks out of it. Nevermind the fact that you actually have to rely your own application reading and translates this data back into your modelling application correctly (which is a whole other bag of issues on its own).

As someone who is an experianced industry vetern trust me when I say it is not an easy job. Every time you export the data out you have to check it to ensure its valid, reglardless if its a DTS, FBX, MB, DAE, OBJ, 3DS, LWO, MS3D or whatever other format you are dumping it out to. You need to check the validity of your data and this takes time. Which was the main point of my post.

Lastly I am sorry that you took offense to me stating that it was nieve of someone to expect that exporting valid model data is easy. I have gone through these paces more than probably most people here in the community have, so what I am stating isn't me just spouting off some opinion, its shere fact. Exporting data is difficult and time consuming if you want to do it properly and it's nieve to think otherwise.

Matt Mitman   (Oct 06, 2008 at 17:26 GMT)

Logan is pretty much spot on, on export issues. Formats like FBX are on the right track, but they still aren't entirely reliable for moving from one app to another (heck, just the same app can have weird results on occasion). If I were to release a content pack, I probably would consider including fbx versions, but there would have to be a big disclaimer about it not being guaranteed to work, as there's just too many variables possible there. Which of course, would just add to the support load required for the pack.

As far as porting things from one app's native format to another's, its extremely time consuming to get everything over exactly, particularly if you're trying to ensure an export from one app results in the same dts/dsq files as an export from another. I suspect the time investment would be better off just making another pack in most times, even if it means a potential hit in sales.

Arcanor   (Oct 06, 2008 at 17:58 GMT)

I'm not saying the artist needs to spend their valuable time ensuring a bullet-proof art pipeline for all possible inexperienced end users who want to bring their models into milkshape, blender, fragmotion, etc. I'm just saying they could easily make a small effort that is very likely to help lots of people, and then just leave it to the user to work out the kinks on their end. At the indie prices that these content packs are going for, you're absolutely right that it doesn't merit a lot of effort to ensure absolute compatibility with every possible indie modeling application. But does that mean that zero effort is appropriate?

The content pack producer has four levels of choices:

1. DTS only - no modifications allowed. Obviously the artist does have this option, but it has a trade-off in terms of usefulness to the end user. This approach will probably result in decreased sales as some end users may be reluctant to purchase assets that are immutable.

2. DTS + original source format - This means you have to own the same modeling program, or you're effectively just as restricted as in #1. This is friendlier than #1, but not by much, and it implicitly requires many end users to change their art pipeline. In this particular case, that means a change to a pretty expensive one that doesn't match with the rest of what's going on in this community, including the price of content packs, add-ons and the engine itself, all of which are relatively inexpensive.

3. DTS + original source format + a couple of "standard interchange" formats - This is a really friendly way to go, and allows your end users significant flexibility in their own art pipelines. Don't spend a lot of time or effort to debug it all, because that wouldn't be a worthwhile investment of time that could instead be spent developing a new different content pack. Depend on the end user to resolve any issues that come up with their particular pipeline. Adopting this approach will very likely have a positive effect on pack sales.

4. provide support for flawless exports and corresponding imports into MS3D, .blend, etc. - While this may be the indie end user's dream, we can't really expect this to happen, since it really WOULD take a lot of effort to provide this sort of level of service. But who knows? Maybe some artist out there would be willing to produce content packs with support for such a mainstream indie format. This would be a very high level of service, and would almost certainly significantly increase sales, and even command a higher pricetag in this market.

Bottom line is that as new content packs are made available, every content developer has to make a choice as to which one of these approaches they will take in support of format interchange. But meanwhile, potential buyers will be judging the work both on its artistic merits and also on its compatibility with their particular art pipeline. Providing better support for format interchange is a great way to provide additional value to your customers.

This whole thread is just a reminder to content pack producers of what the typical indie end user really wants to see in a content pack that they're considering buying. If I were creating art content packs, I'd appreciate this sort of feedback, as it would help me to find ways to provide better value to the consumer.

Michael (silentMike) Hall   (Oct 06, 2008 at 18:09 GMT)

The actual spelling of the word is "naive".

I'm only an amateur. My art production is something that I "dabble" in, if only to round out my skills. I've used a friend's copy of Studio Max and exported many, many static models into other formats. All relatively painlessly and simple as could be. The only issues I ran into were from models that contained animation data. Also, in turn, I've exported models from other programs into other formats without any major issues, other than animations.

But I'm only an amateur, and I'm probably missing something that a "pro" would notice, but the argument presented above, to me, has little merit for most objects.

And after spending time messing around with these various formats and "tweaking" previously made objects I actually found that creating your own unique models from scratch is a more rewarding experience than modifying someone else's who had a visual concept/design that differs from your own. My interest in being able to use source art (ie. being able to open it up in something other than Studio Max) was for learning purposes. After learning how various objects, and even some animated ones, were set up, they were no longer needed.

Just because an application is an industry "standard" does not make it superior to any other. It's all in your own unique talents and with what you're comfortable with using. Even Max has it's quirks and disadvantages, as does Maya, or Lightwave. Personally I'm quite happy with Blender, regardless of price.

Apparatus   (Oct 06, 2008 at 20:26 GMT)

@Arcanor~ Mitman answered for me.

Quote:

---

As far as porting things from one app's native format to another's, its extremely time consuming to get everything over exactly, particularly if you're trying to ensure an export from one app results in the same dts/dsq files as an export from another. I suspect the time investment would be better off just making another pack in most times, even if it means a potential hit in sales.

---

And it's actually worse; would be nice to have 3-4 high end apps licenses and squeeze the entire pack content in various shipping formats so someone could open it in Blender or Milkshape. Sounds like a job for a Foundation With A Ton of Money And Nothing to Do to me. It doesn't sound fair to those using low-end apps because it's not fair at all. Unfortunately the system works that way, you can't buy a $1 product with 25 cents. Regardless it's value (w, since the system is faulty) could be higher than $1 - or even free.
Edited on Oct 06, 2008 20:27 GMT

Alan James   (Oct 06, 2008 at 20:41 GMT)

@Logan

Quote:

---

3D model data is rarely read in and parsed the same way that it came from the original source data, because of this it takes a lot of time by good content pack developers that provide multiple model source data to ensure that the data exported works and will generate a valid DTS file (something RRGTS should look at considering before they release another content pack).

---

Could you please elaborate, since I'm not sure where you're going with this? I've had absolutely no difficulty in producing valid dts objects from the included .MS3D original source files that we include, along with the .obj files included (with the occasional exception of a 90 degree rotation issue here or there, but definitely not a show stopper) - this of course was with the $35 Milkshape app...I don't know what a $3500 app does with them since I can in no way justify (or desire) the expense for static mesh work...but I do figure if someone has 3D Studio Max they can probably scrounge up the $35 dollars for Milkshape.

The original source art IS .MS3D, since they were primarily put together in Milkshape and exported from there. When any other source beyond .obj files have been included, we have noted that they are pretty much "as is" and only tested being reloaded into MS 3D and exported from that particular app.

In regards to content work it does seem that a lot of folks want the best of both worlds. Give us AAA content with six types of original source art, full license to modify to our hearts content but a price point that is half the price some folks charge for a single model. Content Packs have been and pretty much always will be what they are -- placeholders and guides to prototype while developing game play and functionality. I'm pretty sure that's how we've always represented our work.

Quote:

---

If I were to release a content pack, I probably would consider including fbx versions, but there would have to be a big disclaimer about it not being guaranteed to work, as there's just too many variables possible there. Which of course, would just add to the support load required for the pack.

---

That is dead on. Honestly it would be insane to attempt to cover all the desired formats, know that they work in everyones "favorite" app, export flawlessly and keep the price point anywhere near an indie range. If I can load at least two very common formats (.MS3D and .obj) and have them produce valid dts objects, I believe that I have been fair, honest and accommodating in an effort to provide what I can for indie devs at the price point we ask.

What seems even odder in this whole discussion is that if any particular content developer was working with Houdini for example the argument would be mute, since the licensing does not permit any source art to be included, only dts objects.


@Arcanor

Decent breakdown...I guess we fall somewhere between level 2 and level 4. =P


@Kevin

Sorry for the aside - i.e. minor hijack, but regarding your original point, I absolutely agree that not everyone has access to $3500 apps -- or even wants to do so. That's pretty much why the directory structure that is our final distro of a particular pack is the original working directory...whatever we used to produce the model is included, be it .MAP or .MS3D -- both formats accessible with either free or very inexpensive editing applications. And for the price point I don't think it's too much to ask that if someone really wants/needs to modify a model in 3D Studio Max, Maya or the like, that they dig deep, pick up Milkshape or Fragmotion and export to their hearts content.

-Alan

Logan Foster   (Oct 06, 2008 at 23:00 GMT)

@Alan

I will try to not hijack this guys thread so I will keep things simple, feel free to email me if you want to discuss it in more detail though.

The main problem I had with the pack is that the OBJ files provided do not have any of the DTS scene markup needed to load and export them from an app like Max, Maya, LW or XSI. As such if one needed to make changes to the models, such as the fix the many sorting issue with the tree leaves or create more optimized LOD levels (or in my direct case, do all that plus break the trees apart so they can be blow up like in Crysis) the task became painful because you had to redo all the DTS hierarchy and markup. So we ended up not using the RRGTS DTS shapes at all for our game because it wasn't worth the many hours it would take to correct this issue (did find a few terrain textures and some foliage to use wit the TGEA Ground Cover that was what we wanted though).

I also found getting the TGEA content into TGEA to be a bit of an annoyance since the data wasn't organized the same as it was with the TGE content (plus loading in the Specular into the Diffuse as native TGEA requires it kind of became the cherry topping of a long day).

Logan Foster   (Oct 06, 2008 at 23:02 GMT)

I should say that the content pack has the real possibility of being a winner. There are just some things standing in the way of it getting that far.

Neill Silva   (Oct 07, 2008 at 00:13 GMT)

Only read blog start:
1. Get academic version... $150 too much? Then you need to get a job.
2. Make whatever art you are going to for a game.
3. Make a portfolio
4. Get it noticed, funding
5. Get final version from your games funding, which you got because your game looked good because your art was good.

Then again, if you're looking to develop games and you can't pay monthly for 3ds Max you're also doing something wrong. Its not a lot of money if you're really dedicated.

Kevin McLaughlin   (Oct 07, 2008 at 01:41 GMT)

Well! It's always good to know you can get a healthy debate going around here. ;) I have a few general comments and replies to folks.


First, a couple of people seem to be under the impression I am a novice here. While I would not consider myself a professional artist, some of my models and textures are for sale by GG. I've also got two demo games to my credit (one of which for the now it seems defunct Dream Games contest, the other winning another game contest). And I've got art credits in three other games as well. So - not a pro, but not a complete novice, either.


Neill:
Academic version is illegal to use for commercial work. If you earn even one dollar from your work with an academic version, you are liable for some pretty hefty fines. So I would recommend against this advice. ;) Personally, I find that for game art, I can do everything I need in Blender or Truespace - so spending $3500 on Max is an irrelevant expense. I've used it; can use it; but opt not to expend the resources on it.

For most Torque users, spending that much money on 3DSM is simply not even an option.


Logan:
The energy it requires to export to an indie friendly format is microscopic compared to the effort involved in making the models themselves. ;) Really, though, it is up to the artist! My experience says that opening the formats to a broader user base results in a tenfold or better increase in sales. Personally, I think that's worth the effort, but your mileage may vary. ;)


Apparatus:
Really respect your work. I think you have totally misunderstood me here. =)

Basically, you are saying that we should not expect to pay cut rate prices for a set of models with a broader format base. What I am saying is that the small amount of work involved in adding a format or two will likely result in more sales, ergo more income. It has nothing to do with it being fair or unfair, and everything to do with more money for the artist for minimal output of effort.

Kevin Keathley   (Oct 07, 2008 at 02:34 GMT)

I'm not a commercial game developer. At best I'm a hobbyist or indie game developer. I have no intention of getting funding or geting published by a big name anytime soon. I thought that's why this was a good place to come. I haven't been in school in a long time, so getting the academic version would be illegal for me to do, I believe.

I'm not looking for real fancy commercial artwork. I imagine many people aren't. Then again, I'm not looking for sketches either as I'm sure ther's an in-between. I think the idea is to find indie artists. Most of us aren't looking for artwork to compete with games like Mass Effect or Halo 3. As naive as it may be (as someone has said), there's no reason to try and convince people here otherwise, because many of us just aren't going to spend the money on it for a hobby or small independent endeavor. Most of us do have jobs and play around with Torque and development on the side.

I think the blog entry should really be looked at as "hey, lots of us are here that may buy your stuff it it does this, this, this". I see it as a hint to help artists here find more customers than they already do. I know that many artists have already taken the advice to heart as you can find indie/hobby-priced art (2d and 3d) in formats outside of MAX.

Like any advice, people can take it or leave it. Just think of it as free marketing research for indie artists. To reverse things, if you don't want to produce what some of the people are looking for, don't get upset if those same people look at other products first :-)

I think most people realize that there may be sacrifices in quality or features in many cases where soemthing is exported or produced on something other than THE development environment such as maya or max or lightwave, or whatever it is. That's fine with many people. We also know that hiring a full orchestra for soundtracks would be an optimum solution, but we are alright with sound clips from an indie artist, or making our own sounds with a mic hooked up to our computer.

I haven't used Visual Studio Enterprise at home for years. I use the free Express versions on Windows and XCode on OSX. I use the full versions at work for my needs there and understand I am missing some really handy features. It works for me though :-) I use the full version of IDA Pro and HBGary at work whereas I only use OllyDbg and the Free IDA here at home (and believe me, the free IDA is missing some good features).

The OP is trying to help you sell more of your stuff.. :-)

EDIT: On the sound side of the art pipeline, all of the resources I've bought here are in OGG format, which is a good format that's lossy, and I have been really happy with them. While something like FLAC may be a superior format (lossless and also open like OGG), OGG works just fine.

I had seen someone talking about the Unwrap program before, and i've heard that it is really good. It may indeed be an option. As someone above mentioned, it's just a matter of the EULA with the artwork you're buying, but I imagine if you see something that doesn't give you the freedom to modify or convert it, there are probably 10 other resources out there that you could buy that will..
Edited on Oct 07, 2008 02:56 GMT

Kevin McLaughlin   (Oct 07, 2008 at 03:05 GMT)

Quote:

---

I had seen someone talking about the Unwrap program before, and i've heard that it is really good. It may indeed be an option. As someone above mentioned, it's just a matter of the EULA with the artwork you're buying, but I imagine if you see something that doesn't give you the freedom to modify or convert it, there are probably 10 other resources out there that you could buy that will.

---

Yeah, the UUWrap tip was a good one, I had forgotten that. Does it keep animations in the DTS->whatever export, though? That's critical in many of these cases, since it's the animations that Shaper has had issues with sometimes in the first place.

As for art with a EULA that prohibits modification... I don't think I've seen many such, I know I have never bought any such, and I cannot imagine anything which would make me WANT to buy such. I don't think an artist who put stipulations like that on their product would make many sales.

Kevin Keathley   (Oct 07, 2008 at 03:13 GMT)

Most of the restrictions I've seen with regards to art (not just models) has been to ensure the product is distributed within your game with at least a minimal attempt to obfuscate it from casual extraction and re-use. I've always found this requirement to not only be reasonable, but expected. Even GG has the requirement for games that you make so someone can't turn around and make their own game with their engine. It's just decency, really. As far as the RE restrictions, I was just going off of what someone said above for artwork. I do software RE as well as development for a living, so I really only know how it applies to software (binary code) and not artwork.

Thanks go out to Alan and silentMike for their inputs. You two sound like the 'indie/hobby' in indie/hobby artists just as many of us are the 'indie/hobbty' in indie/hobbyist developers. :-) I think that any format that can be exported to DTS and has an associated editor the cost of or less than Torque is a good idea. Most of us know not to ask for everything under the sun as well :-) Of course, that can scale as a successful developer moves up into the commercial license, then he would probably scale up his other tools as well when he wants to scale up his artwork requirements (exclusives, custom work, etc).

EDIT: One other thing. I think the reason Milkshape comes up is because it was what many people were referred to in the various books that G sells through their store. I dunno if that has changed or not in newer versions.
Edited on Oct 07, 2008 03:20 GMT

Rex   (Oct 07, 2008 at 23:13 GMT)

If any Commercial Content Provider needs help with a 'lowEnd' Milkshape or similar conversion; please feel free to contact me at BrokeAssGames.com or my personal profile email address here at GG's site.

I will be so bold as to say I can get just about any 'high end' source file down to where the more common denominator hangs; out on the MilkFarm!

I can keep your vertex weighting[up to 4 influences] and keep it to a precision level that Ms3d will parse easily on to DTS/DSQ.

I have a SDK KORK ready to go at the 'lowEnd'.... I've asked Derek here at GG to see if it could become part of the licensed SDK; the Max provided Source file is fine[if you have access to max]. This shape will export to DTS and load the existing SDK Max produced DSQ animation files; it also allows extension of the existing SDK shape.....;), by allowing DSQ export to fit the DTS shape!

What more could you ask for????

Cheers!

Andy Hawkins   (Oct 08, 2008 at 23:17 GMT)

Quote:

---

What more could you ask for????

---

Can you make my game please? ;-)

Randy Hearn   (Oct 09, 2008 at 00:16 GMT)

Don't want to dig up old blogs, but after seeing the other responses just wanted to throw in my .02 cents on the format. After working in the CAD Design world for over 25 or so years having the ability to freely transfer 3D files using common industry accepted formats such as STEP/IGES/JT/DXF to successfully draw a 3D model in your companies native CAD format send a STEP file to NASA and have sweat things like the parts for the International Space Station or even smaller pieces for satellites machined and maintain several thousands of an inch accuracy. Using the JT format you can combine the graphics packages of several CAD formats into a single viewer where the end user does not need to have the CAD package the model was created with to view. Granted industry has more money to fund these type activities but I beg to argue they have more talent than what I have seen on these pages. All it takes is for the Industry Leaders (GG/AutoDesk/Houdini/XSI) to adopt a single format and support it! Its really as easy as that, and Collada seems to be best choice right now. I agree with the comments that it takes to long to verify and correct exports to other formats. The problem is the exporters not the formats. Also, the problem is you have to develop your model to strict guidelines to ensure that it exports properly. It can be done and can provide great benefits for rapid development.


As to the issue of that you can go to any website and buy 3D models for use cheaper, I have to disagree. I just downloaded a 3D model of a Tank similar to the Tank Pack for testing. Its very high poly detailed, can not be exported as is and will require extensive modification to get the model in a format I can even export to a DTS file. The Tank Pack is cheap, looks good and not to take anything away from the artist, but I simply need more into it. I will pay for a content pack that I can modify that I know will at least get into the game and I can add the animations, detail and changes to make mine look different than the other prototypes as well. The fact that this is considered cheap is actually rather puzzling. The high poly high res model was free, similar models range $40-50 dollars. This is a fair price considering I am not contracting or hiring the artist to create the model specifically for me, they are free to sell it again and again to whoever they want. Its reusable and resalable. Once the prototyping is done and I am ready to create a final product, I will gladly fork out the $400 for the models that I already have my eye on, for a more one of kind specialized model that hopefully no one else will have. And yes, some models will be higher. By the way, I can buy complete model libraries of cars/bolts/washers/gears the same way for the design industry to use which reduces costs of the engineers creating the same part over and over again. And again, those can start out in a neutral format.


Sorry for the rant. But I honestly felt the OPs original comments were viewed as an attack on the artist creating the content packs and I think it was a legitimate view that is already present in other industries.
Edited on Oct 09, 2008 00:18 GMT

Neill Silva   (Oct 09, 2008 at 02:12 GMT)

@Kevin...

I thought common sense would come to most people in seeing that you use the Academic version to show that you can create profitable work with 3ds max, and then you could use that work to show to get funding to buy the commercial version to use your models in your project.

Kevin Keathley   (Oct 09, 2008 at 08:13 GMT)

@Neil

I think what the other Kevin (I know most of the comments were to him since he's the OP) was saying is that not everyone qualifies for the Academic version, commercial or otherwise. The requirements are pretty straight forward for Maya and 3DS Max. Of course, you could buy it anyways and use it unlicensed (if you're not a student or qualified faculty member), but then again if you're going to do that there's notmuch point in buying it at all as you could find the ful version for free somewhere. I wouldn't recommend that, but as someone else mentioned above, that may be part of the reason behind so many people using Maya and/or 3DSMax. There's no difference in a non-student using an academic version than someone using a ripped version license-wise.

If the tools had a non-commercial license that allowed for prototyping but not for commercial distribution, then that would solve quite a lot of the problems with acquiring the software. If you are trying to get into the commercial sector, I think starting off with an unlicensed copy of your toolset would be a bad start (unlicensed would be someone not qualifying as a student having their own copy of the academic versions of the toolsets).

Technically, if you're going to go that route, there's not much reason to buy the packs or artwork in the firstplace - you could just download them somewhere and use them internally, then buy the high-end artwork (music, models) when you're ready to ship.. I'd highly recommend not doing that though, for many reasons.
Edited on Oct 09, 2008 08:18 GMT

Andy Hawkins   (Oct 09, 2008 at 23:15 GMT)

Well for me, I am an indie game dev and I have thought about getting 3dMax but it's just too expensive. I use it at work so I know how to use it, but the outlay versus returns on Content Pack royalties just doesn't add up.

I don't know how many companies out there are using Torque commercially - these are the people that could afford it. I guess if you got a small loan, or you got your parents to buy it (mine bought me Lightwave) then you could use Max - but really? Who can justify the cost, when you are investing in a $150 engine. How can you afford it?

My main gripe is that people want content packs in 3dsMax format, but not many people making indie games can afford it. I vote for Blender, Silo and MS3D formats. Well that's what I'll be doing anyway. Of course I will still be supporting Lightwave,3ds and FBX - geeze when I get time to make content packs again - I can't rest on my Skeleton Pack laurels.

Rex   (Oct 10, 2008 at 20:36 GMT)

I think the OP's original train of thought was to ponder that there is a larger market for NON-max and highend Source files than you might think....and why do commercial content providers only cater to the highend with Source files? Is it to demonstrate a 'elevated' level of skill[Ugh, can't be bothered with Ms3d!!]? I'd think providing lowend Source a true test of 3D skilz....."Look what I did with a rock and a stick, everybody, no fancy Modifiers here!" LOL!!

I've evaluated Max, I also maintain licenses for more than a few programs; some at the lowend of the price point ladder. In my opinion, it would seem be in the content provider's interest to include as many formats that export to DTS/DSQ as possible....

Yes, oh yes, the interWeb is full of free/lowcost geometry; and it really doesn't take that much to get it functioning inside TGE, which is why the commercial content should have as many formats that export easily as possible included, not just highend DCCs.


...and why I lilke maintaining the skills to 'work' that end of the ladder.

You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.

Home | Products | Solutions | Downloads | Support | Search | About Us
Copyright © GarageGames.com 2000 - 2008 All Rights Reserved