Game Space
by Howard Dortch · in Torque Game Engine · 08/19/2004 (5:40 am) · 15 replies
Has anyone used this product? Does the exporter do what it says? Any feedback?
#3
Mike thanks, like to see if it will produce torque assets easier that the others.
08/21/2004 (4:40 am)
Thanks for the info. One of the artists is looking it over and trying to decide if it's worth getting.Mike thanks, like to see if it will produce torque assets easier that the others.
#4
08/21/2004 (4:59 am)
Quick feedback cos I'm just off, but I have beta tested this product and can guarentee it does exactly what it says on the tin :)
#5
Guess it's back to Max Maya and LW.
08/27/2004 (5:45 am)
My artist is not happy with the lite version, can't export anything to see if it actually works or not and they say they are having trouble getting UV mapping. Guess it's back to Max Maya and LW.
#6
08/27/2004 (6:29 am)
The uv mapping is tricky, especially in the lite version, ifyou don't have the patch. But there is a good tutorial on caligari's site on uv mapping.
#7
I just spent about four days doing nothing but setting up and exporting most of my pre-existing .dts assets with the new exporter and the result has been flawless. Not one bug encountered.
08/27/2004 (8:44 am)
UV mapping is definitely one of its weaker spots. The silly unwrapper and shrinkwrapper (not even sure if these are in gameSpace, maybe just trueSpace) are near useless. The actual mapper tool is barely passable for simpler meshes. But thankfully there is native support for trueSpace/gameSpace objects and scenes in Ultimate Unwrap which is what I use.I just spent about four days doing nothing but setting up and exporting most of my pre-existing .dts assets with the new exporter and the result has been flawless. Not one bug encountered.
#8
08/27/2004 (10:42 am)
I just downloaded and am trying the demo of ultimate unwrap. It is so easy to use so far, wish I had heard about this months ago:)
#9
1) The UVMapping is awful, approaching unusable.
2) The node editing required to get even a simple mesh to export properly is maddening, text oriented, and non-intuitive. The node editor, in my opinion is a piece of hacked together junk that sometimes destroys nodes when you move node groups around.
3) The new "Save as" DTS option is undependable. Sometimes it produces a usable DTS, sometimes not, instead leaving the texture mapping out of the finished file. The Dark Industries exporter works better, if you have your node groups perfect.
I just switched to Milkshape and am 100% more productive with my low poly objects (which is all I have in my game, by the way). they export usually on the first try, with no artificial node group construction. For 10% of the cost of Gamespace, Milkshape is a wonder tool by comparison.
I think Gamespace needs more work before it can be considered a productive tool, especially for Torque.
10/28/2004 (9:27 am)
I bought Gamespace (a very expensive buy for my taste) and was very disappointed in a couple of things:1) The UVMapping is awful, approaching unusable.
2) The node editing required to get even a simple mesh to export properly is maddening, text oriented, and non-intuitive. The node editor, in my opinion is a piece of hacked together junk that sometimes destroys nodes when you move node groups around.
3) The new "Save as" DTS option is undependable. Sometimes it produces a usable DTS, sometimes not, instead leaving the texture mapping out of the finished file. The Dark Industries exporter works better, if you have your node groups perfect.
I just switched to Milkshape and am 100% more productive with my low poly objects (which is all I have in my game, by the way). they export usually on the first try, with no artificial node group construction. For 10% of the cost of Gamespace, Milkshape is a wonder tool by comparison.
I think Gamespace needs more work before it can be considered a productive tool, especially for Torque.
#10
trueSpace's UVMapping is definitely not worth using, not when there are tools like Ultimate Unwrap3D available (which is good for Milkshape users too). It can be argued that for its price, tS/gS should have better UV tools built in.
I wholeheartedly agree, but in the end there are many many other tools and controls in trueSpace unavailable in Milkshape that make it more productive by an order of magnitude for me. I feel more focused and in control of the look of my models and worry less about tedious point manipulation. I've re-done most of my older Milkshape models from scratch in trueSpace; they took less than half the time and look better, for comparable poly counts. At the end of a project that requires several hundred DTS shapes, I consider it a well justified expense.
The DTS node naming/configuration requirements, once done a few times, becomes easier. You can set up a Torque-specific project with common marker nodes and such ready to go (as I did in this downloadable example.)
BTW, The node naming/config convention is how the new DTS SDK works so Max, Maya and trueSpace all behave the same way. This is a good thing when modellers using different tools are interacting and discussing things. Milkshape is actually the odd man out in this case.
Anyway, I personally feel (despite its well known and often bashed quirks) gS/tS is a very valuable tool for Torque asset creation. It fills the gap between Milkshape and Max and offers a lot of functionality that streamline content creation.
10/28/2004 (10:34 am)
To each his own on tool preference of course. There are definitely many quirky things (and even buggy/poorly designed) about trueSpace/gameSpace that take some time to get used to, more time than a lot of people are willing to put in or tolerate. I'll admit I've used trueSpace on and off since tS3, I'm fairly comfortable with it so these are strictly my own observations and opinions.trueSpace's UVMapping is definitely not worth using, not when there are tools like Ultimate Unwrap3D available (which is good for Milkshape users too). It can be argued that for its price, tS/gS should have better UV tools built in.
I wholeheartedly agree, but in the end there are many many other tools and controls in trueSpace unavailable in Milkshape that make it more productive by an order of magnitude for me. I feel more focused and in control of the look of my models and worry less about tedious point manipulation. I've re-done most of my older Milkshape models from scratch in trueSpace; they took less than half the time and look better, for comparable poly counts. At the end of a project that requires several hundred DTS shapes, I consider it a well justified expense.
The DTS node naming/configuration requirements, once done a few times, becomes easier. You can set up a Torque-specific project with common marker nodes and such ready to go (as I did in this downloadable example.)
BTW, The node naming/config convention is how the new DTS SDK works so Max, Maya and trueSpace all behave the same way. This is a good thing when modellers using different tools are interacting and discussing things. Milkshape is actually the odd man out in this case.
Anyway, I personally feel (despite its well known and often bashed quirks) gS/tS is a very valuable tool for Torque asset creation. It fills the gap between Milkshape and Max and offers a lot of functionality that streamline content creation.
#11
All-in, though, we have a lot more to do on the mapper. I personally use Ultimate Unwrap ;) and I've been using tS since v1.1 - though I have used the gS/tS editor quite a bit for simple mapping. I think the changes will make the internal UV editor much more useable.
Cheers,
Michael
11/04/2004 (8:39 pm)
FYI, all, we are working on an update for gS that will include an improved UV editor. Importantly the mapper will now be non-modal (meaning you can work back and forth with it and the main modeler at the same time) and selections will be shared (select a poly in the mapper and the poly in gS will be selected. All-in, though, we have a lot more to do on the mapper. I personally use Ultimate Unwrap ;) and I've been using tS since v1.1 - though I have used the gS/tS editor quite a bit for simple mapping. I think the changes will make the internal UV editor much more useable.
Cheers,
Michael
#12
11/04/2004 (10:38 pm)
That is wonderful news, Michael! I can't wait to see Caligari bring their typical level of innovation to the mapper. Will this also be in a near-future trueSpace release for those of us that use it as opposed to gameSpace?
#13
That is the plan but it won't be instantaneous.
The UVE is already non-modal in the test patch I have. Coordinated selection is coming next version. I think there are some other little improvements coming alongside that before they are done working on it.
I am not sure how much work is involved in bringing that updated code back to trueSpace but I do not think it is prohibitive - and it's something a lot of users have asked for so we just have to schedule the development assets to get it done.
HTH, and it's good to see Caligari users out and about! :)
Michael
11/05/2004 (7:41 am)
Luke,That is the plan but it won't be instantaneous.
The UVE is already non-modal in the test patch I have. Coordinated selection is coming next version. I think there are some other little improvements coming alongside that before they are done working on it.
I am not sure how much work is involved in bringing that updated code back to trueSpace but I do not think it is prohibitive - and it's something a lot of users have asked for so we just have to schedule the development assets to get it done.
HTH, and it's good to see Caligari users out and about! :)
Michael
#14
11/05/2004 (8:17 am)
Any chance of getting a future demo version that allows exports for testing? I dont mind spending the money on tools if they work for us, hate to buy a "pig in a poke" so to speak. Thanks for working on improvements....
#15
Unfortunately that's one of the decisions that Roman made when deciding to release gS Light. The idea, of course, was to make the product available for testing and learning but not give away something that was seriously useable in the long term.
To enable DTS/MAP export (and most other formats) would require enabling plug-ins in general and that would open up a whole range of issues with people using gSL in ways we're not comfortable with.
If you've got a specific model you'd like to test I would be happy to try to load and export it for you so you can check out the results.
We probably should have made the lite version so that it exports fine but loses polygons or something (like Polytrans demo does) but that would have limited the useability as a learning tool.
Sorry I don't have a better answer for you than that :(
Michael
11/05/2004 (3:13 pm)
Howard,Unfortunately that's one of the decisions that Roman made when deciding to release gS Light. The idea, of course, was to make the product available for testing and learning but not give away something that was seriously useable in the long term.
To enable DTS/MAP export (and most other formats) would require enabling plug-ins in general and that would open up a whole range of issues with people using gSL in ways we're not comfortable with.
If you've got a specific model you'd like to test I would be happy to try to load and export it for you so you can check out the results.
We probably should have made the lite version so that it exports fine but loses polygons or something (like Polytrans demo does) but that would have limited the useability as a learning tool.
Sorry I don't have a better answer for you than that :(
Michael
Torque 3D Owner Luke D
Default Studio Name
Assuming you mean the free .dts shape exporter, it works fairly well, with a few minor bugs that can be worked around. The company responsible for this exporter (www.darkindustries.com) has been working like crazy to release the next version which is feature-complete and offers everything the Maya and Max exporters do.
I've been able to use the original exporter (version 1.1 I believe) for quite a few characters and static shapes for my projects without much trouble. I've also had the pleasure of using a beta of the new version as well and the new capabilities are sweet. The workflow has changed considerably between the two versions, the old version having made use of gameSpace's layers while the latest version is almost identical to how Max/Maya exporters function.
In case you were referring to the interior (.dif/.map) exporters, despite being a general critic of 3D software .map exporter limitations in the past, I've come to love the Mapper product from Aeon Games (www.aeongames.com). Despite a few bugs that are being fixed in the next version and the general hurdles of using a full 3D package for structure creation (like the convex-shape limitation) I've actually become more productive with this exporter than I was with QuArK or Worldcraft. This is not to imply I was an expert of either of those programs mind you. :) What I truly enjoy about this workflow is I get to use all of my familiar and advanced editing tools and don't have to keep remembering interface differences, orientation differences, etc. In my opinion, texturing is a very weak spot for any of these .map exporters, though Mapper does try to make the process less painful and a new version coming helps this even more.
Hope this helps!