Game Development Community

3D World Studio vs. QuArk

by Breakthrough · in Artist Corner · 12/09/2006 (10:48 am) · 1 replies

So, i've tried to follow some of the dialogue here re: map creation programs, and the merits of those with smooth exporters and those without.

can anyone give me a straightforward response. i've tried out 3D World Studio, and it seems much more straightforward than QuArk, but it appears as though the exporter is not as reliable as the CS 4.1 & pipeline. is this true? since i can't test it out with the demo, it's hard for me to make a measured decision. and from what i've read it seems as the lighting, and some textures, are lost once brought into the game engine. is this true?

secondly, quark seems to more fluidly generate .dif files more compatible with torque, however, when i attempt to load in my mission, the program inevitably crashes. any suggestions as to why?

i'm not happy with either, and constructor seems to still be out of reach until march 2007 by which time this game is already set to launch.

any preferences from avid users of both, and suggestions for more reliable exporting steps.

advice would be greatly appreciated!!!
NextNext Thread
PrevPrevious Thread
More from Artist Corner


Torque Owner N R Bharathae
#1
12/09/2006 (11:32 am)
Basically, either way you'll have problems to deal with. Given that the question becomes what problems are you willing to put up with to complete your project. In the past I've advocated Quark only because I've stuck with it long enough to overcome the learning curve and produce good results. I can't speak for users of 3D World since I haven't put time into that program. So to be fair I can only respond with a list of pro and cons you WILL encounter with Quark. Maybe someone who uses 3D World can do the same for that program.

Pros;
1. Texture Orientation- Quark has an advanced set of texture orientation controls that allow you to move or shift brush textures just about anywhere you want them. This includes tilt and shear controls.

2. The latest map exporter does a supperb job of catching bad or non-volumetric brushes and eliminates them before export. Bad brushes are the common cause of DIF models that will crash Torque games. Matt Fairfax's new exporter simply deletes these from the final model export so they don't make it into your project.

Cons;
1. Light Leaks- Quark requires a very specific method of building to achieve dark spaces and proper lighting. If this method is not followed you will develop light leaks. I'm not sure if this problem actually lies with Quark or the map2DIF exporter. It may be that the building method I'm referring to is only applicable to Torque maps. In any event this building method is only sparcely documented and largely requires several hours of experimentation to learn.

2. Building Features- Many of Quarks advanced building features, such as Make Hollow or rotating brushes at anything other than 90 degrees, will skew your geometry and produce cracks and light leaks. The result is new users get frustrated with mangled models after using the advanced build features, not understanding why when in fact they should stick with the basics of using retangular brushes and using simple stacking techniques.

If you do a keyword search for 'Vespers3D' you can find some examples of the work I've produced using Quark. Any screenshot you can find of the Vespers monastery is an example of Quark generated-work.