Modeling Format Request

#21 @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.

#22 @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

#23 @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).

#24 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.

#25 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.

#26 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.

#27 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..

#28

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.

#29 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.

#30 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!

#31

Quote:What more could you ask for????

Can you make my game please? ;-)

#32 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.

#33 @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.

#34 @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.

#35 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.

#36 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.