Questions about 3D World Studio

#1 Do not buy 3d world studio, wait for Consrtuctor. It'll be out in a couple of weeks , so don't waste your money.

#2 @Maurice: Last I heard, Constructor was due in November! Am I confused?

@Chris G: I love the 3DWS interface; it's easy to use and intuitive. It has some issues here and there, mostly the same problems inherent in all BSP editors, but I find it to be much better than Quark overall. I have high hopes for Constructor, but in the meantime, 3DWS is the main link in my pipeline.

Quark to 3DWS? Sure, it should be able to read your Quark-generated .MAP files with no problem. I've moved back and forth between the two programs in the past.

Translucent surfaces? Yes, but you'll need to implement the Interior Transparency fix to use it in Torque.

Meshes? If you mean DIF interiors and structures, yes, I'm using it exclusively right now to generate my interiors for Torque. With the transparency features, I also use it for fences, simple immovable furniture, and other goodies.

Negatives? A few. Tech support is sometimes lacking. You'll need to tweak the Torque.def file slightly (a text file) to open up the Torque-specific features like lighting. You can't edit the Worldspawn attributes directly, but I've written a resource to address that. (GG hasn't approved it yet, but you can download it from my site if you're eager.)

You can download a trial version from Leadwerks to try it out, but unfortunately, their website appears to be down right now.

Good luck!

#3 Thanks John for the response.
I think that 3DWS has changed hands, I found info on it from theGameCreators: http://3dworldstudio.thegamecreators.com.

#4 The Game Creators are reselling it for LeadWerks.

I'm going to generally agree with Dopp. The only thing I'll warn you is that the developer is a real jerk, so while I am happy with the product, I am unhappy about having given him my money... but it's probably the easiest to use thing goin'

Of course, your rmileage may vary.

I think Dopp may have misunderstood what you meant by Meshes though, but I could be the one that's wrong. I know 3DWS allows placing meshes into your maps that are NOT BSP... I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that thes will not be exported by map2dif_plus.

#5 Cliff,
In the 3DWS feature list it talks about meshes...

Meshes

* Referenced meshes
* Load .x, .obj, .md3, or .gls meshes
* Shadow-mapped meshes with gile[s]
* Adjust scale to fit meshes without distorting vertex coordinates

#6 Yes, that was what I thought you meant... so I'm pretty sure Dopp's response was incorrect, according to my understanding the map2dif_plus exporter will not convert the mesh parts of the map. I could be wrong, but I don't think 3DWS even exports these to the map file in the first place.

#7 It allows you to load reference meshes. It does not convert them to CSG geometry.

#8 Right, I gotcha. It makes sense that it wouldn't export -- they're only references.

However, I'm a bit puzzled about how one would import these meshes. The File > Import option imports .CSM, .MAP, and .WMP files. File > Open and File > Merge handles .3DW files. I see nothing about the other file types.

Here's another negative -- the Help file is located on Leadwerks' site, which is currently down. Grrrr. I don't think much of placing help files on a remote resource, requiring the user to have internet access on their development workstation.

Oh, there's a nice feature in 3DWS that lets you save groups of brushes/hulls as "prefabs" in a library. I find that useful, as I make a lot of structural elements in DIF, and being able to place those at will in different files is pretty handy.

#9 You add them the same way you add textures, I believe. It's been a while since I did it, but I think that was how I did it.

#10 Do yourself a favor and keep using Quark until Constructor!!!

#11 @Mark: Why? What do you like about it over 3DWS? (Not being argumentative here, just curious.) =)

#12 If you can handle the QuArK user interface, it is more powerful... but the workflow is just too harsh for me.

#13 In what way is Quark more powerful?
I'm happy using Quark at the moment except for 2 things.

1. Complex shapes and some no-so complex shapes (eg. spheres) are difficult if not impossible to construct
2. It takes ages to build stuff!

#14 Sadly, the difficulty in creating spheres and similar shapes is really a limitation of the BSP technology, not the editor. I have yet to see the editor that can create a sphere reliably.

I've found 3DWS to be slightly more cooperative when it comes to making curved shapes, but only slightly. On export, both 3DWS and Quark's brushes foul up on occasion; I'm not sure if this is actually a limitation of Map2Dif or a flaw in the editors. Either way, it's a royal pain in the butt, and when push comes to shove, I turn to DTS shapes for most curvy shapes.

Speed is the #1 reason why I'm partial to 3DWS. The interface is so much more intuitive, IMHO. It's a personal preference, though; I've heard people say how much they love Quark's interface over 3DWS, so go figure.

One tactic I've adopted recently is to use Quark to build primitives, save them in a .MAP, then import those into 3DWS and make them info prefabs. Best of both worlds! =)

#15 I recently sent a payment to Leadwerks for 3DWS. Within moments their site went down! Anyone know what is going on with them? How long did it take for you to receive your registration code? (I've received nothing so far...)

#16 @Art: I got my code promptly, but other folks have reported problems. Leadwerks is obviously having major technical difficulties at the moment: give them a few days to get recombobulated.

#17 Chris - QuArK has significantly more powerful texturing tools is the big one I noticed... you cannot control all of the available texture mapping parameters in 3DWS that you can in QuArK. Even so, I use 3DWS because I cannot get into the QuArK workflow, so my knowledge of the differences is not as significant as it might be for others.

Art - It really depends on the type of payment... it took us about 4 days to get our registration code.

#18 The best is 5.43 it does work, any thing after i had to many problems. I use it for simple things and wait for the constructor for the rest. I still use quark to fix alot of stuff and alot of it is me, but not all. The entities i cant get them to work right. It's not bad but not worth the price payed . I got it for $75 Cartography Shop and upgraded to 3dws for around $59 not worth it to me now. FOR TORQUE.

#19 Ok, Thanks everyone for your input.
I guess for the moment I'll stick with Quark as I know how to use it and wait for constructor.

#20

Quote:
@Mark: Why? What do you like about it over 3DWS? (Not being argumentative here, just curious.) =)

@Doppler: First thing is I still do use 3DWS, but I use version 5.43 as many other users do. I think he is up to 5.49 now. Version 5.43 to me was the last stable working version for Torque users. I am not going to argue or say anything more about versions after 5.43. I enjoy using 3DWS 5.43. However, you still have to use Quark to fix some things that 3DWS for some reason cannot fix or support.

As for the release date of Constructor... They have said several times... it will be done when it is done. They are going to make sure this product is going to be as bug free as possible. I have been waiting over a year now for it. It was in a blog that it was going to have a intro price of around $59 I think...don't quote me on that.
Now the Constructor was built for Torque users in mind. 3DWS was not originally for Torque, though around 50% of the users use Torque. 3DWS is mainly for the game engine he is making (hence the default format he uses for textures). The Constructor is being beta tested currently.

@Chris G: A thing to consider is what your budget allows you. If you are scrapping for money to buy things, you may want to wait. $59 compared to $100 ...


edit: here is the link to the blog about the Constructor: www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=10765