Constructor vs art pipeline
by Backman · in General Discussion · 11/23/2006 (2:48 am) · 4 replies
Hiya, I'm new to Torque and will most likely get my first copy within a week or so. I like everything about it apart from a few things, like the art pipeline. I've heard it's a pretty nasty business, changing any art in your game takes ages and if anything's not done exactly right, Torque crashes or hangs. I'm going for TGB for starters anyway so not a big deal just now, but would like to hear from you Torque users if you agree or not.
Is this the reason why Constructor is getting made in the first place?
I'd love to see a straight export from Maya/LW, with UV maps, textures, lights etc.. thought the exporters available handled many of these things already?
Is the Constructor there as a cheap alternative, or is there more reasons? Sorry for the maybe silly question.. just trying to understand as much as possible.
Thanks in advance. :)
Is this the reason why Constructor is getting made in the first place?
I'd love to see a straight export from Maya/LW, with UV maps, textures, lights etc.. thought the exporters available handled many of these things already?
Is the Constructor there as a cheap alternative, or is there more reasons? Sorry for the maybe silly question.. just trying to understand as much as possible.
Thanks in advance. :)
#2
I can't talk much about Constructor, but it is not an inexpensive solution to the artflow problem--that's not to say that it will be expensive, but that it is not directly addressing the problem you are posing. Leadwerks 3D World Studio, Quark, DeleD, GameSpace and its Level Exporter tools, etc are not as expensive as an UnrealEd license, and are mostly under a hundred dollars. Quark is free, though many people hate it. I actually don't have a problem with it, though I do like the interface for 3D World Studio. And, actually, WED from Conitec (used with 3D Game Studio A6), is one of the most intuitive world editors that I've used. But most CSG modelers will be happy with Constructor. As with any app, they might like the interface of WED or Quark (though not likely) or 3DWS more, but if they are working with Torque, it is a brush-based godsend. People are going to be very happy with it.
You will want to combine static and dynamic lightmaps for your maps, which means you will be mapping out and generating your static lightmaps for your brush-based geometry and then decorating it with strategically placed dynamic lights for the atmosphere for your game.
I'm pretty much a crap artist and I haven't had difficulty with the artflow. It is unoptimized in many ways and lacking in features (multi-UV's, etc) that would be nice, but it is not the horrific experience that it is often made out to be. It is not as nice as the Blitz3D Max toolset or BeyondVirtual's Lightwave integration, but then, you will have to write your own culling routines in Blitz3D (which makes sense as it is a language) and model with specific constraints in BV to make sure that the engine doesn't crawl. Unity is similar to BV in that respect, though it seems to be more optimized with its FBX/C4D usage.
I probably just muddied your waters even more, now that I think about it...
11/23/2006 (8:54 am)
There is no one-stop-shop out of Maya into Torque. You will create all of your detail objects, models, and animated meshes in Maya. Then, using a brush-based editor, you create your detailed geometry that is culled and zoned to avoid keeping the entire model in memory and "rendering" at one time. There are a couple of other engines that work similarly, like Source and Unreal 3. They do have a more intuitive workflow, but the underlying system of level creation and decorating is the same.I can't talk much about Constructor, but it is not an inexpensive solution to the artflow problem--that's not to say that it will be expensive, but that it is not directly addressing the problem you are posing. Leadwerks 3D World Studio, Quark, DeleD, GameSpace and its Level Exporter tools, etc are not as expensive as an UnrealEd license, and are mostly under a hundred dollars. Quark is free, though many people hate it. I actually don't have a problem with it, though I do like the interface for 3D World Studio. And, actually, WED from Conitec (used with 3D Game Studio A6), is one of the most intuitive world editors that I've used. But most CSG modelers will be happy with Constructor. As with any app, they might like the interface of WED or Quark (though not likely) or 3DWS more, but if they are working with Torque, it is a brush-based godsend. People are going to be very happy with it.
You will want to combine static and dynamic lightmaps for your maps, which means you will be mapping out and generating your static lightmaps for your brush-based geometry and then decorating it with strategically placed dynamic lights for the atmosphere for your game.
I'm pretty much a crap artist and I haven't had difficulty with the artflow. It is unoptimized in many ways and lacking in features (multi-UV's, etc) that would be nice, but it is not the horrific experience that it is often made out to be. It is not as nice as the Blitz3D Max toolset or BeyondVirtual's Lightwave integration, but then, you will have to write your own culling routines in Blitz3D (which makes sense as it is a language) and model with specific constraints in BV to make sure that the engine doesn't crawl. Unity is similar to BV in that respect, though it seems to be more optimized with its FBX/C4D usage.
I probably just muddied your waters even more, now that I think about it...
#3
And probably the water is indeed a bit murkier now, cheers.. ;) Nah, just kidding, I'm pretty set on Torque so not going to look into Blitz/BV or any other stuff much more for now although they do seem to have some nice feaures there. Just wanted this last bit clear, so thanks again.
Will get TGB next week, really looking forward to it.. and by the time my first game's done, I hope TGE will have fixed stuff like the fixed terrain resolution etc.. or have TSE and TGE integrated as one.. still not sure what the real differencies are between those two but that's a lesson to be learnt another day.
Cheers!
11/25/2006 (6:31 am)
Thak and David, thanks both. I think this was my last bit of worry regarding my future Torque-ing career.. :)And probably the water is indeed a bit murkier now, cheers.. ;) Nah, just kidding, I'm pretty set on Torque so not going to look into Blitz/BV or any other stuff much more for now although they do seem to have some nice feaures there. Just wanted this last bit clear, so thanks again.
Will get TGB next week, really looking forward to it.. and by the time my first game's done, I hope TGE will have fixed stuff like the fixed terrain resolution etc.. or have TSE and TGE integrated as one.. still not sure what the real differencies are between those two but that's a lesson to be learnt another day.
Cheers!
#4
First, the exporter is fairly unstable in general. It's not written using the best software development practices.
Second, it doesn't allow you to work at a reasonable scale; it forces the 1 world unit == 1 meter scale on you. As anyone using Max knows, this makes camera and selection control quite finicky. The sad thing is, it's very simple to apply this scale -- I even provided a resource that does it.
Third, the automatic character lod creation feature has been crashing for several years now. It uses casts to interfaces that are no longer implemented -- the MultiRes modifier uses a ParamBlock2, not a SubAnim, these days. However, the method is still documented as how you create LOD.
Fourth, the SDK ships with headers for 3ds Max 4. That's a version from six years ago, and the Max ABI has been broken three times since then -- you need a current SDK to build a working exporter. It's un-clear whether the pre-compiled exporters have been built with the old headers (as is the default in the distribution), or whether they have separately pointed the exporter at an up-to-date Max SDK.
The fact that you have to create your objects with a given pivot or object orientation is just more proof that the exporter writer doesn't really understand the Max SDK (and, in fact, the source code is littered with "I don't really understand this, but it seems to work..." comments, followed by highly dubious code). While the Max SDK interface is ugly, it IS well defined, and it is quite possible for someone who actually understands programming and computer graphics to write a solid, robust, flexible exporter. Just the kind of exporter that Torque doesn't have.
Last, there are several versions of the exporters, called "plus" or "pro" or other such suffices. However, there's no real documentation about which is doing what, or which is supposed to be used.
12/02/2006 (6:40 pm)
Yes, that's right. The 3dsMax exporter sucks ass. Even the new, 1.5 exporter sucks.First, the exporter is fairly unstable in general. It's not written using the best software development practices.
Second, it doesn't allow you to work at a reasonable scale; it forces the 1 world unit == 1 meter scale on you. As anyone using Max knows, this makes camera and selection control quite finicky. The sad thing is, it's very simple to apply this scale -- I even provided a resource that does it.
Third, the automatic character lod creation feature has been crashing for several years now. It uses casts to interfaces that are no longer implemented -- the MultiRes modifier uses a ParamBlock2, not a SubAnim, these days. However, the method is still documented as how you create LOD.
Fourth, the SDK ships with headers for 3ds Max 4. That's a version from six years ago, and the Max ABI has been broken three times since then -- you need a current SDK to build a working exporter. It's un-clear whether the pre-compiled exporters have been built with the old headers (as is the default in the distribution), or whether they have separately pointed the exporter at an up-to-date Max SDK.
The fact that you have to create your objects with a given pivot or object orientation is just more proof that the exporter writer doesn't really understand the Max SDK (and, in fact, the source code is littered with "I don't really understand this, but it seems to work..." comments, followed by highly dubious code). While the Max SDK interface is ugly, it IS well defined, and it is quite possible for someone who actually understands programming and computer graphics to write a solid, robust, flexible exporter. Just the kind of exporter that Torque doesn't have.
Last, there are several versions of the exporters, called "plus" or "pro" or other such suffices. However, there's no real documentation about which is doing what, or which is supposed to be used.
Torque Owner Thak
The Artpipeline is straight forward and no trouble at all. Theres a few Important aspects you need to be aware of when modelling to make it smooth as silk. (Size, Nodes, Facing) But once you understand that theres no trouble at all. Cant speak for any other exporters but the MAX version is doing a great job. Likely will the Maya and LW.
Constructor is a Brushbased modeller for interiors. It will have all the extras needed for TGE/TGEA built in, but, I can't much comment as I have only briefly glimpsed the Beta.
Quark and DeleD do a good Job on interior modelling and exporting as well so again not much of a problem even with Constructor not yet ready.
Maya/LW/Max are used to model everything except large buildings and interiors, stuff that needs collision, to walk on etc. Thats done with Quark/DeleD and Constructor.
Cheers