The Perils of Art Packs - LOD issues
by Arcanor · 11/13/2007 (4:02 am) · 33 comments
Unanticipated development issue: art pack standardization.
As we've been adding more and more content to Arcanoria we're running into some limitations of the model packs we've purchased. They've been written by different authors/artists, meaning there is no standardization. The model packs have always been intended to get us to the point where we can attract artists to help us with our own model designs, however at this time we have no actively dedicated modelers on our team so we're having to "work with what we've got". Some of our model packs don't have ANY LODs, which is a huge performance problem! LOD is Level Of Detail, and it's the way the engine deals with objects that are far away from the rendering camera. As an object is further and further away from the camera, the engine renders it smaller and smaller on the screen, and when it reaches a certain number of pixels the engine can render a less complex polygon mesh in its place. But those pixel levels and less complex polygon meshes must be built into the object itself. Unfortunately none of the Arteria models (which we use heavily) seem to have any LODs built in. This is a huge unanticipated performance problem, and every time our player character faces towards our skeleton dungeon (built with the Arteria dungeon construction pack) the frame rate drops immensely. On my reasonably powerful system (Radeon X1950pro, Athlon X2 4200+, 2.5 GB RAM) I'm seeing framerates drop from 30fps to 5fps just by facing in that direction. I can get over 90fps by facing the ocean. Obviously this is a priority for us to fix, but it probably means replacing/revamping all the Arteria models (and some others) with new models that have appropriate LODs, and that will mean a lot of time. Yuck!
My advice is to make absolutely sure that any model packs you buy come with a source format you can actually (and legally) edit. Many of the packs available here on the Garage Games website come with sources for 3DSMAX. But not many of us indie developers have access to a $6000 MAX license, so we're stuck using cheaper tools like Blender, Milkshape, etc. which can't read MAX format. If the model pack you're purchasing comes with alternative formats, I'd strongly suggest loading it up in your favorite 3D editor and making sure you can re-create the DTS with modified LODs and animations.
As we've been adding more and more content to Arcanoria we're running into some limitations of the model packs we've purchased. They've been written by different authors/artists, meaning there is no standardization. The model packs have always been intended to get us to the point where we can attract artists to help us with our own model designs, however at this time we have no actively dedicated modelers on our team so we're having to "work with what we've got". Some of our model packs don't have ANY LODs, which is a huge performance problem! LOD is Level Of Detail, and it's the way the engine deals with objects that are far away from the rendering camera. As an object is further and further away from the camera, the engine renders it smaller and smaller on the screen, and when it reaches a certain number of pixels the engine can render a less complex polygon mesh in its place. But those pixel levels and less complex polygon meshes must be built into the object itself. Unfortunately none of the Arteria models (which we use heavily) seem to have any LODs built in. This is a huge unanticipated performance problem, and every time our player character faces towards our skeleton dungeon (built with the Arteria dungeon construction pack) the frame rate drops immensely. On my reasonably powerful system (Radeon X1950pro, Athlon X2 4200+, 2.5 GB RAM) I'm seeing framerates drop from 30fps to 5fps just by facing in that direction. I can get over 90fps by facing the ocean. Obviously this is a priority for us to fix, but it probably means replacing/revamping all the Arteria models (and some others) with new models that have appropriate LODs, and that will mean a lot of time. Yuck!
My advice is to make absolutely sure that any model packs you buy come with a source format you can actually (and legally) edit. Many of the packs available here on the Garage Games website come with sources for 3DSMAX. But not many of us indie developers have access to a $6000 MAX license, so we're stuck using cheaper tools like Blender, Milkshape, etc. which can't read MAX format. If the model pack you're purchasing comes with alternative formats, I'd strongly suggest loading it up in your favorite 3D editor and making sure you can re-create the DTS with modified LODs and animations.
About the author
www.arcanoria.com
#2
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.
11/13/2007 (7:27 am)
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.
#3
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.
11/13/2007 (9:20 am)
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.
#4
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.
11/13/2007 (10:03 am)
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.
#5
11/13/2007 (10:34 am)
@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?).
#6
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!!
11/13/2007 (12:54 pm)
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!!
#7
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:
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.
Artist already gets credits in point 1.
11/13/2007 (12:54 pm)
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 creditsWell, 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 gameCome on, you can't afford to spend $50 per game?
Quote:3) Cannot use these models with other texturesI 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 screenshotSame as point 3.
Artist already gets credits in point 1.
#8
11/13/2007 (1:01 pm)
@Aaron: hopefully it wasn't the case with a skiespack of mine! ;-)
#9
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.
11/13/2007 (1:47 pm)
@StephanFrom 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.
#10
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.
11/13/2007 (1:59 pm)
@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.
#11
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.
11/13/2007 (2:15 pm)
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.
#12
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".
11/13/2007 (3:11 pm)
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".
#13
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
11/13/2007 (4:08 pm)
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
#14
/action puts on flameproof vest
11/13/2007 (6:53 pm)
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
#15
11/13/2007 (11:35 pm)
@Alan: as a customer ;-), I terribly miss LOD from your packs, but each time rambling about that, I also know
#16
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.
11/14/2007 (12:07 am)
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.
#17
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
11/14/2007 (1:09 am)
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
#18
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.
11/14/2007 (4:18 am)
@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.
#19
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...
11/14/2007 (4:42 am)
@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...
Torque Owner Mark Berry
I'm also using Silo as my modeling tool along with Milkshape. Both indie price range tools, both good at what they do.