The Perils of Art Packs - LOD issues

Submit your own resources!

Mark Berry   (Nov 13, 2007 at 13:56 GMT)

A possible solution is to use a tool like mootools Polygon Cruncher, and use that to create lower lod models you can then integrate into the dts.

I'm also using Silo as my modeling tool along with Milkshape. Both indie price range tools, both good at what they do.

Jay Barnson   (Nov 13, 2007 at 15:27 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

AMEN!!!

I constantly face this issue myself. There are issues with style, polygon count, LOD, format, and the good ol' EULA that really makes dealing with content packs almost more pain than they are worth. The key things I'd like to see are pretty much what you pointed out:

* Blender & MS3D formats - these are the quintessential "indie" modeling tools, at a very cheap indie price (like, free for Blender). I suspect too many indies have warez copies of Max (shame!), but really --- IMO, these formats ought to be top priority. (Granted, Blender doesn't seem to like animation from any other modeling package... that's a sticky point).

* Liberal EULAs - don't tell me how I must use your pack. I understand you need to protect your I.P., but I have seen too many EULAs that treat me, your potential customer, as a criminal before I even make the decision to purchase. And it really makes me question what kind of value I'm going to be able to get out of your pack. When I'm buying your pack, it's not about your artistic integrity... it's about what it does for ME to make my life easier. And I really, really doubt I'll be able to use your models without some serious modification first.

* Multiple LODs - because I really don't need 2000 polygons for an object that's only 20 pixels high.

Dave Young   (Nov 13, 2007 at 17:20 GMT)

Very true Arcanor...

Jay, I love these EULA notes (ad hoc but all real and recent)

1) Cannot use the models without loudly proclaiming our name in the credits
2) Can only use the models in one game
3) Cannot use these models with other textures
4) Cannot use these textures on other models
5) Cannot use our models in screenshots without giving us credit in the screenshot

Indies need quick and loose and most of all STANDARDIZED EULA so they can move freely. Good businesses sell themselves.

Logan Foster   (Nov 13, 2007 at 18:03 GMT)

Just as a friendly note, you can easily bring your system to a lurching halt by having enough DIF shapes wo/ LOD reduction within render distance. You need to ensure that the DIF shapes in your scene agressively cull down polygon data otherwise you are going to end up rendering a lot of needless polygonal data that you will never see.

As such I would highly suggest that you check that each and every DIF utilizes polygonal reduction technics such as LODs and Portals to reduce performance crunches that are you seeing.

Jay Barnson   (Nov 13, 2007 at 18:34 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Dave - I haven't seen #3 and #5 yet, or #1 taken to a bad extreme. But #4 was a deal-breaker for me recently, #3 and #5 WOULD be deal-breakers, and #2 immediately cuts the value of the pack at least in half. Especially when you are considering things like expansion sets (does this count as a new game?).
Edited on Nov 13, 2007 18:35 GMT

Aaron e   (Nov 13, 2007 at 20:54 GMT)

Hi all,

Just offering my hearty "Amen" to what has been said already.

Dave's list brings back all kinds of hostile emotions about some of the packs I have licensed. Some of them did not make the EULA available before purchase and left me promptly abandoning a product as soon as I downloaded it and was able to read the 'agreement'. Arghhh!!

Stephan (viKKing) Bondier   (Nov 13, 2007 at 20:54 GMT)

At the same time, guys you must admit price is so low no one can really make a living with it.
Most of the packs, as written on GG webstore, are destined to prototype your game.
Specific and dedicated stuff is far more expensive.

I do understand your point though, as I'm also a user of such packs.

On the EULA discuss:

Quote:

---

1) Cannot use the models without loudly proclaiming our name in the credits

---

Well, a mention of the name in the credits is mandatory, there would be even no need to tell it's needed.

Quote:

---

2) Can only use the models in one game

---

Come on, you can't afford to spend $50 per game?

Quote:

---

3) Cannot use these models with other textures

---

I don't like this one, this is a bit excessive.

As for point 4; is a second LOD model really a different model? yes and no. It is technically a different model, but in the end it belongs to the same structure, all LOD being merged in one file.

Quote:

---

5) Cannot use our models in screenshots without giving us credit in the screenshot

---

Same as point 3.
Artist already gets credits in point 1.

Stephan (viKKing) Bondier   (Nov 13, 2007 at 21:01 GMT)

@Aaron: hopefully it wasn't the case with a skiespack of mine! ;-)

Aaron e   (Nov 13, 2007 at 21:47 GMT)

@Stephan

From your blog page, your sky pack looks very nice and is a very generous offering.

But I was referring to a tropical theme pack that I paid for without having access to the complete EULA before purchase (yes, that was dumb of me). Upon downloading and finally having access the models, textures and the EULA, I learned that a) there were no LODs provided for the objects and b) I wasn't licensed to use the textures on other models (even lower poly re-works of their high-poly meshes that I would have to do myself).

Yes, I could have made my own low-quality textures while I was building the lower-poly versions of the models, but the whole situation soured me on the contents of that pack and the company/people that made it. And that's a shame, since the lead artist does absolutely amazing work -- truly beautiful stuff.

Even now, over a year later, I still haven't found any EULAs on their company website (prior to purchase). That's what bugs me most. The in-game credits requirement doesn't bother me, though.

Ultimately, content creators should have the right to establish the terms of use for their products. They made them, after all. However, they should also be diligent in making those terms available up-front, and easily accessible *before* the customer hands over their money so those customers can decide if the content is really worth the price or not.

Anyway, sorry to rant so much on this topic.

Stephan (viKKing) Bondier   (Nov 13, 2007 at 21:59 GMT)

@Aaron: I was not meaning there would be a EULA problem with my stuff.
Fine EULA (credits that is) and free.

I agree the EULA should be provided before the content can be bought, this is a major step in the customer/content provider relation. I certainly know which company you are referring to, and I'm hoping reading this, they will decide to act in the right direction.

David Dougher   (Nov 13, 2007 at 22:15 GMT)

With all the Packs we have purchased and reviewed for inclusion in Adellion I can testify that I have seen all the items listed in Dave's list - in spades. #4 only made sense when I did a little digging and discovered the models were made with somebody else's textures and they were only licensed to the original purchaser for use in model art. They were stretching their license to make model kits using the art and could not legally allow the purchaser to separate the textures from the model.

It was very annoying but understandable. We simply tracked down the original creator of the textures and purchased a copy of the textures from them - freeing us to use the textures on any model we wanted.

I do want to go on record as saying I really think that models, especially large models like buildings need to have LOD in order to be of any use in a game. The hit from artwork without LOD is painful and obvious. We have artwork that we would otherwise return - except for the fact that we try to support indies and can usually get something out of any pack we purchase. But it does limit our interest in future offerings from them.

Tony Richards   (Nov 13, 2007 at 23:11 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

These are exactly some of the issues we're solving at IndieZen.

Artists are free to create high detail models and the game developers are able to export the models at whatever LOD(s) they choose (assuming the model is created correctly). There are certain limitations, but at long as high-quality loop based modeling is used, the results are fantastic.

For BSP / brush style models we have a different approach that works nearly as well, and yet another style that is specific to vehicles.

As for licensing, all models and content packs sold through the IndieZen store will go through a rigorous QA process and will be available with standardized licensing that is simple to read and understand. (License types will be: Standins for Development / Prototype, Single Game, Multi Game, Fully Redistributable with Royalties, and Exclusive).

I know, it doesn't solve the problem now, nor will we have a complete solution for all of these problems until early 2009, but at least the solutions are on the way.

If you want a sneak-preview, come check out IMGDC 2.0... we'll be there with a nice technology demo that shows off some of the things we've completed and we'll be at GDC 2009 when hopefully we'll be "gold".

Alan James   (Nov 14, 2007 at 00:08 GMT)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that Kyle and I have been amiss in several of the areas mentioned, mostly due to overload more than anything else. We've been a bit negligent on getting our ducks in a row in regards to publishing EULAs, privacy agreements, etc. on the website and when we do we usually bork the page the next day anyway and then don't realize it's missing until someone kindly points it out to us.

Regarding Dave Y.'s list from above, I believe that #4 is the only thing in an EULA that we've been guilty of, and for the exact reason David D. mentioned.

I know that Kyle and I don't care if we get in game credit or not (we know what we've done) but a amiable reference is always nice.

I don't care if you use our models with other textures, again...we recognize our work and aren't really concerned about IP issues. If someone really wants it, they'll get it one way or another.

Again, use our stuff in as many games as you want...but remember we'll probably use that as a selling point! =P

We have used textures that, although they have been modified, are still pretty much limited primarily because we don't want to appear as a clearinghouse for someone elses work. But all of our sources are noted in the ReadME of our packs, and you are completely welcome to acquire any additional license from the folks we licensed through.

I know at least for us, just over sixty days into this thing, we've had to fall back and take a good hard look at what we've learned. Since the initial release of our first two content packs I've released just as many minor updates and I'm right now in about 25% through a MAJOR one for both of those packs. All of which will be and will always be free updates. It's a lot of work. What I'm looking at right now is about a 60% rework of nearly every DIF based building, primarily because you just don't resize a mapped texture on a .BSP based model, it all has to be re-aligned. Anything with an interior is getting portalized (although the bulk of the buildings are "exterior" content).

I am not sure with this update there will be a LOD modification. I've done some experimenting and basically, because of the particular designs, other than some long distant LODs (i.e. from several hundred polys down to a square box) I haven't been able to produce a outrageous gain. Torque just doesn't like crowded polys and that's all there is to it. Not saying that it's out, but I'm going to focus more on getting the texture loading/overloading of the GPU down as my next primary goal.

I know that this wasn't directed at us in particular but we have had some of these issues so I figured it would be appropriate for us to voice our particular company's response. And in any case, if anyone EVER has a problem with our content, Kyle and I would not hesitate to refund anyone who felt that they were misled or didn't get their dollar value for the content provided...no questions asked...ever....period!

- Alan
www.monsterpacks.com

Dave Young   (Nov 14, 2007 at 02:53 GMT)

For what it's worth, when it comes to the value offered and keeping quality artists doing what they do best, I am of the personal opinion that most content packs are 10-20% underpriced...

/action puts on flameproof vest

Stephan (viKKing) Bondier   (Nov 14, 2007 at 07:35 GMT)

@Alan: as a customer ;-), I terribly miss LOD from your packs, but each time rambling about that, I also know

Jay Barnson   (Nov 14, 2007 at 08:07 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

I just want to make sure I offer words of praise to the indie artists who are trying to make a go of it with content packs. I have used them, and intend to continue to use them, and REALLY appreciate the effort that goes into them (especially now that I have had to learn how to "do it myself" for many art assets).

So I hope my criticism is taken correctly. I want to give you guys money. I really do. I want to buy your stuff. What I'm really suggesting is ways to make it far easier to convince me to do just that.

Incidentally, a company I am very happy with lately for some models I purchased from them is 3drt.com. While they are on the pricier side, they had some great things going for them:

#1 - LOTS of alternate textures for the models.
#2 - Multiple formats, including Milkshape and Torque (!!!) - no Blender, unfortunately.
#3 - EULA available on the main site, and very, VERY straightforward. These models are extremely easy, licensing-wise, to use in a game. And there's no language in the EULA preventing any kind of modification. Just making sure that they are reasonably protected from being extracted and used outside your product.
#4 - Plenty of screenshots, videos, and even sample web-applications showing off the models.
#5 - The models were of very high quality for a mid-level 3D real-time application (like a Torque game!)

All is not perfect, of course. There were no LODs on the models I purchased, which ordinarily would be a big strike against them (for my current project, however, that's not a problem). And no Blender format... /sigh. But I'd consider using their products again.

Canon   (Nov 14, 2007 at 09:09 GMT)

It's very difficult to make money with art content packs.

I'm making and selling art content packs for 3 years now, and today, indies expect more quality in packs than they expected a few years ago. It's a good point, but at the same time, indies don't want to pay more.

To make profit, I have to sell at least 100 copies of a pack, and after 3 years, I made profits for only one of my products. Look at my store : I'm not a genius, but all my products are good quality packs, EULA are not restrictive and prices are reasonnables.


Arcanor, how much did you pay your skeleton dungeon? Did you think about asking the artist to add LOD and pay him for it?

Christophe

Arcanor   (Nov 14, 2007 at 12:18 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Canon:

My problem is that I bought a whole site download license which was much more costly than a single art pack. I don't want to go into the reasons here but I've grown frustrated with the artist's lack of understanding about things like customer communication and consistency. Let's just say I'm very reluctant to throw even more money at that particular indie artist.

Furthermore we've already spent a significant amount (for a demo) on assets from various sources and we need to show something for our investment now, before spending more. Purchased asset packs are just intended to make our demo, but as I said above we have hopes to replace most of the purchased assets eventually, so they're just placeholders for a while. But placeholders are only good if they can be used as simple easy-to-implement solutions for the short term. I feel it's not worth spending a lot of money or effort on them unless they can be used for long term solutions, which would certainly be worthwhile from a buyer's perspective, as long as the artwork style, asset list, and the overall quality are in line with our project's needs.

edit: whoops, accidentally hit the Rating submit button. I wish I could delete it as I always feel odd about rating my own thread.
Edited on Nov 14, 2007 12:20 GMT

Tony Richards   (Nov 14, 2007 at 12:42 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Arcanor - I'm right there with you... I purchased a two-year unlimited storewide license from a particular site and I've been very disappointed.

The problem with the packs aren't the artists or the stores or the developers trying to use them.

The problem is with the tools.

This leads into the "Game Development 2.0" (sorry for the euphemism e.g. Web 2.0) discussion I've been having with a few other indie industry leaders and I'd like to expand the discussion with the Garage Games community.

Tools should be more like MakeHuman and Daz3d / Poser where you can modify the models by using pre-set sliders, but they should also be flexible enough to allow you to create your own modifiers.

Content packs should be something that can be manipulated. They should be dungeon construction kits instead of a bunch of dungeon pieces that you cobble together. A good example of a Game Development 1.0 content pack is the Commoners and Warriors pack from Frog Games.

Take that a step further and instead of two exported morph types (fat and slim males) it should have procedural morph types (male, female, orc, goblin, elf, fat, slim, etc), and it should have a huge variety of level of detail so you can create a high detail single player FPS type game and a low poly massive multiplayer game with the same content pack.

An open model format needs to be created that includes modifier stacks and supports the required procedural augmentation. COLLADA is close but it falls disappointingly short, besides the fact that XML is extremely verbose and inefficient.

A few key industry leaders have been doing the indie community a huge disservice for several years now. We've been told to "concentrate on games, not on tools" and too many of us have been listening. Well, I'll tell you... the tools suck for indies.

The pro tools are meant for one-off models, not content packs. Most of them are actually designed for either creating high detail models for rendering at 2 minutes per frame, or they're designed for last year's non-shader based game engines and require special modeling techniques like brush based modeling or manipulation of individual polygons. Even the indie tools that have recently been created are just following suit.

I challenge everyone that reads this to think about this:

Indie game development is a different breed of game development, so why are we using tools that were created for a different purpose? What if Indie game development tools were created specifically for our needs? We don't need tools that are based on designs and procedures created ten years ago. We need tools that specifically meet our needs today.

Indie game developers don't need a cheap or free version of the same tools that already exist for other industries. Even if price were no object, the current set of art creation tools do not meet our requirements.

Sorry for the rant...
Edited on Nov 14, 2007 12:44 GMT

Canon   (Nov 14, 2007 at 13:00 GMT)

@Tony

It's possible to make the CS:Warriors and Commoners a super tool with sliders and auto export for TGE, 3DS max and Milkshape.
But then, you will pay this pack $1500 instead of $150.

Tony Richards   (Nov 14, 2007 at 13:28 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Canon - Actually, I only paid $75 since I was an early adopter. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved your CS: Warriors and Commoners and I'm using it in my Fractured Universe game.

Like I said, I don't blame you or any of the other artists working hard to create beautiful content packs. It's the tools that don't meet the needs, not the artwork.

What if 3ds Max, Maya, Blender, Milkshape and other tools had a plugin that supported the file format I mentioned previously? What if tools existed that made it possible for you to easily create morph targets and multiple levels of detail?

That day is coming... I can't speak for the other tools, but give us another year and IndieZen will close to achieving this goal. And it'll be well under $1500.
Edited on Nov 14, 2007 13:29 GMT

Alan James   (Nov 14, 2007 at 13:29 GMT)

@Everyone, definitely hear where you are coming from. One of the reasons Kyle and I have stuck exclusively with content for Torque is engine familiarity...and even with that we screw up things like scale and such. But we have at least ran the models in the engine...=P

We have and will try and take everything mentioned into account, but at least I know in our case (and I believe in others who have chimed in here) we have been more than fair in a lot of ways. I've seen single buildings on Turbosquid in a single format (Max - unusable to the average indie) without LOD, no collision mesh and outrageous sized textures going for hundreds of dollars...and that is not the exception but the rule.

Again, I know that we specifically include every art asset in formats that are Indie friendly that we produced the original models with, with our packs. If you desperately need to change something you have what you need to do it, and at a price point that the time you turn around and invest basically might be a wash, or it might make sense why it wasn't done in the first place.

Like Christophe mentioned, it's a hard road to hoe...as it sits right now, without the hours I'm going to be putting into an albeit useful and necessary update, I'm working at a dollar or two an hour. You can't do this because you plan to retire on it...you just have to love doing it.

@Stephan, part of your post was cut off here in the thread, but fortunately it came through in the email notification of this, and the answer is yes, the 40s and 60s buildings will be part of the current update I'm working on. To what extent beyond a 75% reduction in texture size, I'm not sure. Again we will have to see.

Stephan (viKKing) Bondier   (Nov 14, 2007 at 13:45 GMT)

@Tony: lots of good things on the horizon then?

@Alan:

Quote:

---

I'm working at a dollar or two an hour

---

That is something programmers must understand too.
We are in a looping configuration scheme:
Indie programmers can't invest too much AND indie artists can't spend the required time for "perfect" stuff without raising prices.

Quote:

---

part of your post was cut off here in the thread

---

8-P, thanks.

Dave Young   (Nov 14, 2007 at 15:01 GMT)

Which is exactly why I think most content packs are underpriced. While I appreciate a good deal like anyone, I also know when something is so low priced the artist can't possibly be making his living on it, and it saddens me because the next logical thought is that the good content packs will not continue.

Jay Barnson   (Nov 14, 2007 at 16:27 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Content packs don't exactly have a huge market, admittedly.

One possibility for revenue for indie content creators might be "non-exclusive" customization. Let's say you have some monster models. I need a dragon a little different from what you have in your content pack - one that's more cartoony, maybe. At that point, you could offer me two options:

#1 - I could pay to have you create a new model or a mod of the existing dragon. Rate would / should be based on some kind of estimation of an hourly figure based upon the artist's speed / skill / availability and my (the customer's) needs & schedule.

#2 - I could pay a DISCOUNTED rate (half? Quarter?) for a "NON-EXCLUSIVE" customization, if the artist deems my needs are broad enough to have some marketability to the indie community. In other words, he thinks he would be able to earn back the discount (and then some) by either incorporating the mod into an existing pack (either at an increased price, or simply to make it a better value), or by productizing it all by itself.

Sure, I like the idea of a modeling tool that lets me input a few settings, move a few sliders, and press a magical "create content" button. I also want a game engine that will let me do the same for making games. But I'm not gonna hold my breath, though I expect the tools will continue to improve.

The other thing that is a challenge is that I do not even KNOW where to buy some of these content packs. I know of some of them, sure. But I was trying just this morning to remember where I'd seen that Commoners & Warriors pack (and I'd forgotten the name of it, too!). And TurboSquid - with its complete lack of standards and widely varying quality, formats, poly counts, etc. - is a terrible, TERRIBLE place to try and find stuff. But it's even harder to find indie game assets available for purchase than it is to find indie games.

Stephan (viKKing) Bondier   (Nov 14, 2007 at 17:53 GMT)

Maybe a website regrouping info about all those TGE/TGEA/TGB packs with a users review system would be good?
It should provide screenshots, description, links and pricing info from the artist, as well as rating from users.
Something has been started, but it is very straight ATM.

Devon Winter   (Nov 15, 2007 at 00:13 GMT)

I just wanted to add my "+1!" to this thread. Besides the LOD and Eula issues raised already, there's the enormous problems of compatibilty across formats, as mentioned. There are so many potentials for problems in going from one format to another, out of one tool to another, that I'm just about at the point where I won't purchase a content pack that hasn't already provided at least one set of .DTS and .DSQ exports.

My experience has been, sadly, unless you are able to open the asset in the program in which the artist created it, you can just plan on spending some time fixing the asset up. Open a .3DS model in GameSpace, for instance? Animations don't load.. normals are flipped.. bones don't translate. I'm currently in the process of considering upgrading my GameSpace license to Truespace, and I spent several entire nights attempting to open various versions of my content pack assets insideof the Truespace evaluation, and was constantly frustrated at every turn. Mind you -- I don't blame the artists, this just the sad state of the industry.

Long and short, I'll gladly pay double for some of the content packs I purchase if I can just be assured the creators have already gone through the headache of putting the assets in game-ready format.

One other caveat about art packs I've run into is a question of style. While I'm only in proof of concept stage right now, my prototype already is a mish-mash of styles. Wherever possible, I would love to purchase assets from the same artist, in an effort to achieve a more consistent art vision. But artists tend to specialize in one area only.. which means you buy characters from one vendor, creatures from another, and buildings and flora from someone else. So I emplore artists to build "collections" as much as possible -- multiple types of assets tied together thematically. If you do, I promise you'll get my business, at least.

edit --
@Alan -- btw, I wish I had a need for a haunted house, cause the interior and exterior of that building looked incredible. I'd gladly pay twice that for an awesome looking futuristic sci-fi house. Just sayin.. ;)
Edited on Nov 15, 2007 00:43 GMT

Flybynight Studios   (Nov 27, 2007 at 18:19 GMT)

I bought a couple of GG content packs and to be honest I feel you get what you pay for.. I think alot of people in the Torque community look at content packs as a way to make a quick buck and unfortunately the quality of the work represents that. This isn't a wild hammering rip at people who release content packs, honest :) It's just a fact.

@DaveY: Dave you say that content packs are underpriced... I wholeheartedly disagree for several reasons. First, most packs are designed by people learning their trade. Almost all of the packs that I have seen have glaring deficiencies ranging from terrible to no LOD, terrible polycounts, bad scaling (IE windows and doorway sizes dont conform to the "standard" torque player size), etc.. I appreciate that you feel content packs will only get better if quality artists can make a living at it but as a direct counter point I have to add that if a person feels they should be able to make a living at something they should be very skilled, dare I even say "professional", about what they do.

Let's get down to brass tacks here. Most of the content packs that I have seen are not "retail" ready. They are meant as development tools/placeholders for advancing the detail level of your game throughout the stages of development. Of all of the people who have bought content packs how many of us have actually "released" a commercial game? IMO, if an artist wants to make a living doing game content, great. If he has the skills let him do contract work in the industry like everyone else. If he is working on his portfolio however... and expects un-funded, indie, development groups to pay their wages.. that seems kind of unfair.

This is all opinion. I dont say any of them are right or wrong and the bottom line is that the artists control what can be done with their creations and all the complaining in the world wont change it :) I think that if content creators want to get more recognition or more return financially for their stuff they need to focus a little more on making their work very "good" instead of "meh.. good enough".

In closing - There are a lot of budding content artists out here in the Torque community who do fabulous work. They are honing their skills and do not have an over-inflated sense of self regarding their work. They take feedback, they work with people to get their content even better and in the long run, IMO, those are the people that not only benefit the entire indie community but reap the rewards of such by gaining recognition for taking their skills above and beyond. This isnt to say that people doing content packs aren't skilled.. quite the contrary.. some are exceptionally skilled. But if people want to make a point about getting better content they need to hold the quality of content packs accountable to a higher standard.

One common element through this entire discussion has been the rather dissappointing level of quality in a lot of the packs that people here have purchased for one reason or another. If indie artists want the respect and financial return for their work they need to bring their "A game" and make sure their end product is worth using..

I'll leave you with this thought:
If a person spends 40 man hours working on a model and gets it to "almost retail" level it's still only worth the price of a placeholder.. If that person spends the next 10 man hours finetuning that model and polishing it so that it can be proudly displayed in any Xbox 360 game.. the value of that model just quadrupled.

EDIT:
Before anyone goes off telling me you cant purchase an Xbox 360 ready player model for a reasonable price (Like sub $200 per) do some research. I'm not talking out my hat.

http://dimension-z.net/ <<-- These guys do modelling at indie prices and their work has been used in television, advertising and many tripleA commercial games.
Edited on Nov 27, 2007 18:25 GMT

Bryce Dorman   (Dec 23, 2007 at 02:43 GMT)

Thanks for the critique. To me, these clauses in the EULA make them completely useless. The only one that is reasonable to my thinking is the one game limitation. Especially if the EULA is not made clear before you buy the pack. My partner picked up a couple of the most popular packs, and tells me it's all completely useless to him anyhow. Not everyone is lucky to have a great modeler on staff, but the idea of opening up a content pack and then getting a ridiculous EULA like that annoys me a great deal.

Also, how can you possibly tell if you want to use these packs without opening them up? It is a huge waste of time and money to find out something has no LOD models and has a ridiculous polycount, or that you can't alter a texture that completely clashes with your hue and saturation levels in your game.

Wolf Dreamer   (Dec 28, 2007 at 23:53 GMT)

Did you post your complaint about the Arteria packs on their official forum? I notice when people complain about things, sometimes they get changed.

How hard is it to make the LOD yourself? Do you just save the file you have in a lower quality level in any art program there is? Does it require a lot of work? I would think most things can be saved in various quality levels quite easily by the artist, when he goes to save it in that format. I'm going to post over at the Arteria forum and ask.

Its only fair that if you have a problem, you let the person you have a problem with know. Since he does not develop in Torque, perhaps he was unaware of the problem.

Arcanor   (Dec 29, 2007 at 02:29 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

@Wolf Dreamer: Why would you assume I'm not being "fair" about it? Trust me, he's plenty aware of the issues (I correspond directly via emails), and he's not given me satisfactory answers as to how he plans to resolve them. I WAS, however, trying to be somewhat discreet in this blog. But I see you've gone and posted there on the Arteria forums already. So much for trying to keep this low key. Gee, thanks.

In any case, we started down the road of making the LODs ourselves, but it was an unanticipated need, and our art resources are very limited. My art guy then decided it would take less time to produce all new models to replace the Arteria dungeon construction kit stuff. So that's what we did, and the new models look great, AND have appropriate LODs.

My point in bringing it up here was only to say that when dealing with purchased art packs (not just Arteria), we have had to spend a lot of unanticipated time doing things that I took for granted but found were missing, or done incorrectly, or in a non-standard or non-optimal way.

Stevie   (Jan 08, 2008 at 11:16 GMT)

Hi

Regarding LOD of textures, i know for sure that this really helps performance in game, as i do the same with dts shapes. I ran some tests whereby i had 3 lod variations on foilage i had made in dts, whereby i reduced the texture size at 512, 256, 128, sometimes even going down to 64, and FPS soared, whilst removing the lod of textures affected performance hugely.

The reason i have never implemented lods on my saleable objects, is my one complaint with the way torque handles LOD, in terms of pixel size and not camera distance, therfore LOD can vary alot if people are playing on a low resolution, to those playing the same game with a higher resolution setting, therefore how does one determine the correct LOD for an individuals game requirements.

If it was don on camera distance away from an object, then it wouldnt matter on which screen resolution the game was played in, and thus would make the LOD process easier to determine.

Any thoughts would be helpful on this

Steve

Jay Barnson   (Jan 08, 2008 at 18:34 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Actually, I really prefer the way Torque handles things. Pixel resolution is a more accurate measure of LOD visual tolerance than camera distance. I'm constantly telling my artists that a particular model DOES NOT NEED 1000 polygons when it is only 16 pixels high.

But it makes sense that if you are double the screen resolution, you can double the distance before an LOD switch is noticeable.

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