Export is HELL

#1 Are you sure it is "cut up" and not just a light leak? What does the debug render look like (F9 with a debug version of the Torque executable)? What do the lightmaps look like in Export + Mapped mode?

I'm having a *really* hard time seeing what the problem is in the pictures you provided. Perhaps you should send me a file with just the problem brushes?

Also, something that could be causing a problem is that detail brushes *will* slice up other detail brushes (they do in map2dif as well as Constructor).

#2 I dont have a debug build, and am not going to make one just for this(over 90% done with this current project and never needed a debug build) Is there any other way to turn them on? Perhaps email me any old DEBUG build EXE?.


Here you can see the LightMap.


Its not a light leak. It is not 'detail' brushes slicing up other detail brushes.

Im 100% sure 'Export as Legacy' is doing alot of crazy cuts, that little corner is only ONE example of MANY. AND this map will export fine using the OLD(2005) map2dif.

#3 I am at a loss to explain the "crazy cuts" since what you see in the Export preview is exactly what gets exported into the DIF.

Feel free to send me a nice simple example of this behavior (with textures) and I will take a look at it. Other than that I am out of advice.

#4 I can't comment on the bsp generation, but you've mentioned lighting issues in previous posts. We're wrapping up work on TGE 1.5.2, which contains a number of lighting bug fixes - these might help a bit.

If not feel free to email me with a test csx and I'll be happy to check it out.

#5 There is already a test csx, in the above mentioned Forum thread (link in first post^).
Im using 1.42TLK not 1.5, so yippy for the lucky 1.5 owners...

EDIT:
Just wanted to note, that the 'Export as Legacy' crazy cuts also move around. I can 'Export as Legacy' multiple times and get multiple results.

#6 Man, I feel your pain because I'm facing porting my whole project to 1.5.1 just to use the native DIF export from Constructor. The reason I am contemplating it is because the DIF export from Constructor to 1.5.1 is DEEPLY, PROFOUNDLY more robust than anything that has come before. I can carve like a madman at "it just works". I've got a number maps I used to have convert in a dozen pieces...now it's just one big thing like it should be.

If I were GG, I would feel compelled to leave legacy support out altogether, because the old map2dif is a toy in comparison.

#7 The old map2dif and QUARK have exported some truly incredible, complex geometry for me without much problems. Sure i have "SOME" of the same issues im complaining about here (and in the previous thread), but before Constructor there were only a few problems and easy to camouflage (in the exact same geometry), with Constructor its a full blown plague.

If the 1.5's new DIF code is so KEY to Constructor success, why cant we get a resource with the needed code changes for the old TLK owners?
As it is Constructor do not even work upto par with the earlier map2Dif, its a step BACKWARD. I would be happy if i got the same (or better) results that QUARK/map2dif were already giving me. Imagine my surprise when i find out it is resulting in worse Dif?

#8 The test scene you linked in the previous thread was to show how a scene won't export through map2dif_plus in Constructor not to show how your brushes are getting "cut up".

At this point we can not help you unless you give us a solid reproducable case where we can see it "not cut up" by map2dif_plus and "crazy cut up" by "Export As Legacy DIF...".

We (and most of the other 2000 Constructor users) are simply not seeing the same problems.

TGE 1.5.1 and TGE 1.5.2 is quite a bit more than a simple "resource" or "patch" and we will not be providing steps or explanations on how to achieve the same results in TGE 1.4.2. TGE 1.4.2 is a dead repository that we no longer support or develop against.

#9 Hi Caylo,

I meant the lighting updates were to fix bugs in TGE 1.5.1. We made a number of changes for static mesh and smooth shading support in 1.5.1 - these caused a few lighting and shadowing bugs that we addressed for 1.5.2.

You can continue to use TGE 1.4.2 and to my knowledge it should work fine, though I would continue using the 1.4.2 map2dif, it was designed for that version.

#10 Wait a sec, you still offer 1.42 for sale.... http://www.garagegames.com/products/1/

That early example map, when 'Export as Legacy', shows 2 odd cuts, they are faint but noticeable.

Im going to be very upset if when i DO get 1.5 i find out it takes a little work of merging to get 1.42 Dif's to work like 1.5# Difs. So pissed of infact im sure my faith in GG will be shattered...

#11 Why use the legacy export if the TGE 1.4.2 map2dif works correctly?

#12 For some reason I've also had better luck than previously using the Export | Torque Game Engine (Map2dif_plus) option in Constructor, rather than going through it via 3DWS or other packages. Presumeably Constructor makes a map file that it likes better?

It's a little weird, you have to manually save a map file first (from Constructor), but then it works fine. The program version it reports is still 1.0r, so presumeably it's the same code as in 1.5 and 1.4. But again, it definitely works better than with the maps made straight from other packages.

Just out of curiousity, what is the difference between that path and the Legacy DIF?

#13 Why use the legacy export if the TGE 1.4.2 map2dif works correctly?

I wanted to use the new light smoothing most of all.

Why use Constructor at all? If QUARK is working perfectly well? Why make any new game if the old games are still fun to play? Why watch a movie when all plots have already been written? Why continue to breath if im just a variant DNA copy of my siblings? Why ask WHY when someday an end will come to human ignorance?

Constructor have some nice things to offer, its just too bad the nice things it DO have to offer require me to shell out cash, spend a week merge and debugging suffering with the fact that 1.5 code base runs like crap on my lower end test computer (YES IT DO! i hate to say it, but 1.5 vrs 1.42 is much slower on my little P4 2Ghz 512meg with Geforce2MX "low end test system'- when comparing the same mission file WITHOUT any lighting other then SUN). NOT to mention the fact that i have already invested over 2 years of 10+hours a day hard work on my project based on 1.42(the upgrade from 1.3 to TLK to 1.4/1.42 was simple fast, easy and well within my already overly exhausted budget).

Then here comes Constructor; like so many other GG products making promises it is sure to break, like "Export as Legacy" for pre 1.5 Torque Engine. And when i mention Export as Legacy is not working correctly LESS the fact it do not yet support PORTAL'S (as we are assured promises that it will be forthcoming), im told to upgrade or shut up? Im about fed up with this crap, and would be most upset if i actually DID pay money for this crappy product (Constructor), that took GG so much time to develop! Im not as easy to hypnotize with a few bells-n-whistles as most your fan club here seem to be(Come on Constructor is NOT easier then QUARK to use, nor do it build better geometry! PROVE ME WRONG!). I know what to expect from a good BSP editor, and forgive me for complaining when I see a problem.

Plain and simple "Export as Legacy is not working correctly for Legacy SDK's." I have already gone over what is wrong, and what to do to reproduce the exact same errors in so many other Constructor forum posts. Also whilst im at it, i have also notice and (re-tested a multiple of times), anything i 'Export as Legacy' is getting far less FPS performance then using the old map2dif way of exporting, at least read what im typing- dont let your ego get in the way. If this is a herald of things to come, then only the fool will follow GG as a great game engine, its getting crappier every time a product is let out to the public.

#14 Calm down man, I was just asking for information not to be rude - I've be very friendly in my responses. It sucks that you're are having a frustrating time, but I didn't do anything. :)

If Quark works best for you then stick with it. Constructor is freely available to make work easier for people who want to use it - there's no pressure to use it. Quark is still supported through map2dif.

Smooth shading and static meshes required changes to the dif format and the engine code, so they aren't available in the legacy dif format. Because the legacy format is the same, exporting as legacy and using map2dif offer the same features (actually map2dif offers more with portals), so use whichever makes your work easier (sounds like map2dif).

I'm just trying to help out. :)

#15 I expected as much. Always you with the "Calm down man", when im not even near emotional about the matter at hand. Im not even close to handing over my emotional well being for fellow humans to control, you nor any other living breathing person have the power to control my emotions, so give the "Calm down man"a rest, im not even close to NOT being calm!

Smooth shading, actually DO work when 'Export as Legacy' is used (and in the NEW version of map2difplus- as ship with the Constructor- what i have already covered the bugs and problems with), and is why im trying to use 'Export as Legacy'. Then i found 'Export as Legacy' is chopping up brushes like some sadistic axe murderer on a rampage in a quadropedic nursing home, then crippling my FPS performance. So i figure the "powers that be" might want to know something is amiss. Only to get that overused adage; 'upgrade or die!' or 'We (and most of the other 2000 Constructor users) are simply not seeing the same problems", and understandable i have argument against that type of thinking...

I know you and Matt and everyone else are trying to help, but so am I, by pointing out simple flaws in the coveted 'Constructor' export pipeline. Knowing there is something wrong is the hard part, fixing it- for a bunch of geniuses like the GG staff, should be the easy part. Out of the many problems i DO have with Constructor, im very sure many of them can be chalked up to the fact that it is a YOUNG program with alot of room to evolve and expand, im not complaining about ANY of the simple problems such as memory use, clumsy little bugs, and lack of functions. Im talking about deeper core functionality. I am not ever expecting to get the (for me..) useless function of exporting DTS along with my DIF, as nice as that could be, I understand fully well that is a 1.5# function and ever so willing to upgrade to 1.5 when i need that function. Im talking about the simple ability to export a map as fluently as it was in the days BEFORE Constructor. And as i have said many other times before, in many other place- Constructor have some functions that COULD save me many hours of work, its texture alignment features, and true to Torque lighting system are top of the line- but meaningless if the export functions do not work correctly.

What is the point of rewriting the export tools, if only to have them working LESS functional/optimal then the old ones? Is not that like building square wheels? Sure a square wheel would be something new, but in no way is it close to as functional as the old wheels everyone is so found of.

#16 First off I am with you on this Caylo Cypsyblood .. and I have run out of breath talking about how Constructor and the map2dif cuts up brushes like it does and how you have to jump threw hopes to get things to work right (with any tool to make map's for dif's) it is just sad that you have to do this to get a main feature to work right.. and I am not going to get my feathers ruffled again.. I am out..

#17 EDIT: non pertinent reply content removed for the sake of continuity.

What i have done over and over is present some problems, post some examples, screenshots, step by step methods that lead me to the problem. On my end i tested every one of the problems, multiple times before posting a single word here on the forum. I feel i have done everything humanly possible to try and communicate in a clear and precise manner not only WHAT my problem is; but how to re-create the problem; then i even go as far to post example files that YOU yourself can take, and recreate the same problem.


If the beta testers did such a great job, why is Constructor still full of little bugs? I found many in the first few days using Constructor- and find more every time i boot it up. (try changing texture alignment on a brush face a few times, at some point it will go haywire)

EDIT: non pertinent reply content removed for the sake of continuity.

#18 Caylo, I apologize for getting overly defensive and being unprofessional. I have deleted my post.

#19 Thats ok Kenneth, There is a chance im in the wrong... And sometimes I do come across as conseated or stuck up(as careful as i try NOT to).

#20 "conceited"

sorry, couldn't resist.