Importation issues
by Kyrah Abattoir · in Constructor · 09/26/2012 (6:16 pm) · 11 replies
Okay, long story short, i'm using constructor as a "building mockup modeling tool", the idea being to do a first pass with it to build architectural stuff and then import the dae in 3dsmax to add details.
I've been having weird Torque3D import issues with the cathedral model for instance, missing or flipped surfaces, and some ... oddities in the CSG brush simplification.
Is it normal that detail brush do not get cut when crossing structural brushes? I mean i can understand that the point of their existence is to prevent further subdivision of the structural shape, but still, it's a bit like turning entirely off the csg brush merging...
So why would the dts shape import improperly into torque?
I've been having weird Torque3D import issues with the cathedral model for instance, missing or flipped surfaces, and some ... oddities in the CSG brush simplification.
Is it normal that detail brush do not get cut when crossing structural brushes? I mean i can understand that the point of their existence is to prevent further subdivision of the structural shape, but still, it's a bit like turning entirely off the csg brush merging...
So why would the dts shape import improperly into torque?
About the author
3D artist, programmer, game designer, jack of all trades, master of none.
#2
Constructor can't export cathedral
09/27/2012 (9:27 pm)
I believe the "cathedral" was mainly used for stress testing Constructor. Constructor can't export cathedral
#3
09/29/2012 (5:05 pm)
So it fails the stress test basically? 
#4
09/29/2012 (5:42 pm)
just to add extra comments into this, t3d has the basics of constructor built in so you can create shapes then export them. 
#5
Let's say you spend hours constructing a building. You import it into Torque 3D and use it to export to a Collada shape. Due to the 'optimization' of the geometry when the DIF file is created, the resulting geometry will be all kinds of awkward to work with any further in a 'real' modelling app. You then spend hours upon hours fixing up this geometry to make it more pleasingly arranged and usable. You would've been much better off simply starting with the modelling application to begin with.
And while the Convex Shape (Sketch) tool is similar to the basics of Constructor, it is really supposed to be a way to quickly prototype an example that you then hand off to an artist to use as a reference -- in a 'real' modelling application. Once the artist is done you replace the convex shape with the new model and it fits exactly where and how you 'sketched' it.
09/30/2012 (11:49 am)
No matter how much I liked Constructor several years ago when using TGE. It is dead! Throw it away.Let's say you spend hours constructing a building. You import it into Torque 3D and use it to export to a Collada shape. Due to the 'optimization' of the geometry when the DIF file is created, the resulting geometry will be all kinds of awkward to work with any further in a 'real' modelling app. You then spend hours upon hours fixing up this geometry to make it more pleasingly arranged and usable. You would've been much better off simply starting with the modelling application to begin with.
And while the Convex Shape (Sketch) tool is similar to the basics of Constructor, it is really supposed to be a way to quickly prototype an example that you then hand off to an artist to use as a reference -- in a 'real' modelling application. Once the artist is done you replace the convex shape with the new model and it fits exactly where and how you 'sketched' it.
#6
10/01/2012 (4:50 am)
So do you have another "regularly updated" csg brush modeling tool? 
#8
Just curious, why use another modeling tool if Max is already part of your workflow? Wouldn't it be easier to build the model all in Max?
10/01/2012 (10:37 am)
@KyrahJust curious, why use another modeling tool if Max is already part of your workflow? Wouldn't it be easier to build the model all in Max?
#9
Sure they are less flexible so i wouldn't use them to make actual, detailed models, but turning a sketch of maze of corridors into a building i can walk into, and get a feel for the design? Sure. And once it satisfy me i can just recover the Dae with most of the structural optimisation already done for me.
Plus there is some elegant simplicity to the way those "blocky" tools work that you do not find in fully featured modeling packages.
Unless there is a mapping/csg/better grid snapping in max that i am not aware of.
Now that's just me, maybe i'm a sucky modeler but i like to make interesting things in max intricate models and the like. Joining a floor to it's adjacent walls isn't what i call interesting :D
10/01/2012 (11:24 am)
Well i don't know, from my experience, CSG brush modeling tools tend to be more suited for level design activities, lining up textures on walls/floors tend to be quicker and more adapted to it.Sure they are less flexible so i wouldn't use them to make actual, detailed models, but turning a sketch of maze of corridors into a building i can walk into, and get a feel for the design? Sure. And once it satisfy me i can just recover the Dae with most of the structural optimisation already done for me.
Plus there is some elegant simplicity to the way those "blocky" tools work that you do not find in fully featured modeling packages.
Unless there is a mapping/csg/better grid snapping in max that i am not aware of.
Now that's just me, maybe i'm a sucky modeler but i like to make interesting things in max intricate models and the like. Joining a floor to it's adjacent walls isn't what i call interesting :D
#10
XSI
------
(1) Create PolyMesh -> Cube
(2) Scale to 0.1
(3) Translate with Snap ON to coordinates.
(4) Vertex manipulation to fit Cube's surfaces in grid.
(5) Repeat steps 1 .. 4 to create a total of 6 cubes.
(6) Assign a material to each one of them that will be your texture.
(7) UV Texture edit each one so that only the inward face is getting textured.
(8) Cleanup vertex editing to ensure that all points are snapped to grid properly.
(9) Select all polys
(10) Model -> Create Model
(11) Export to DAE
Constructor
---
(1) Click Cube tool
(2) Drag shape out
(3) Adjust bottom and top to fit grid
(4) Click texture button and assign texture
(5) Shift+Drag cube to make the other 6 cubes (Versus Duplicate/Instantiate in XSI which can skew texture co-ords)
(6) Export
Time taken in XSI: Maybe 10 minutes.
Time taken in Constructor: Maybe 1 minute.
This is a barebones, simple, cube room and I'm not counting the overhead for learning either tool (for which XSI is orders of magnitude harder to learn). It's fine that XSI can be a level design tool, but I don't think it should in most cases. Brushes can lead to suboptimal performance but if you're never going to reach the point where that matters: Why worry?
Most of the time eaten in XSI is in texturing and shaping. In Constructor its a single click operation; in XSI it's a bunch of select point -> translate w/gridSnap -> repeat; not to mention disconnecting UV components and the annoyance of the UV controller not parented to the object (thus moving the object 'slides' the UV around). You can prevent that, of course, but that's just more steps to do the thing that Constructor was doing better in the first place.
Anyway my point is: XSI is optimized for modeling. Constructor is optimized for level design. Both tools are justified and work better for what they're meant than the other; there's a place for both and I wish there was more support for both.
10/07/2012 (3:44 pm)
Workflow for building a room (XSI vs Constructor)XSI
------
(1) Create PolyMesh -> Cube
(2) Scale to 0.1
(3) Translate with Snap ON to coordinates.
(4) Vertex manipulation to fit Cube's surfaces in grid.
(5) Repeat steps 1 .. 4 to create a total of 6 cubes.
(6) Assign a material to each one of them that will be your texture.
(7) UV Texture edit each one so that only the inward face is getting textured.
(8) Cleanup vertex editing to ensure that all points are snapped to grid properly.
(9) Select all polys
(10) Model -> Create Model
(11) Export to DAE
Constructor
---
(1) Click Cube tool
(2) Drag shape out
(3) Adjust bottom and top to fit grid
(4) Click texture button and assign texture
(5) Shift+Drag cube to make the other 6 cubes (Versus Duplicate/Instantiate in XSI which can skew texture co-ords)
(6) Export
Time taken in XSI: Maybe 10 minutes.
Time taken in Constructor: Maybe 1 minute.
This is a barebones, simple, cube room and I'm not counting the overhead for learning either tool (for which XSI is orders of magnitude harder to learn). It's fine that XSI can be a level design tool, but I don't think it should in most cases. Brushes can lead to suboptimal performance but if you're never going to reach the point where that matters: Why worry?
Most of the time eaten in XSI is in texturing and shaping. In Constructor its a single click operation; in XSI it's a bunch of select point -> translate w/gridSnap -> repeat; not to mention disconnecting UV components and the annoyance of the UV controller not parented to the object (thus moving the object 'slides' the UV around). You can prevent that, of course, but that's just more steps to do the thing that Constructor was doing better in the first place.
Anyway my point is: XSI is optimized for modeling. Constructor is optimized for level design. Both tools are justified and work better for what they're meant than the other; there's a place for both and I wish there was more support for both.
#11
if you can handle deled it exports into dae, which is ideal for t3d vs TGE/A, its now completely free i believe, although its torque exporter no longer exists
10/08/2012 (8:05 am)
well, there are a number of snapping and grid tools available in max, it is not very well documented as it isnt a 'primary' feature for many users, if you download the full set of large max manuals from autodesk it has a section pertaining to that very issue. Also, you can switch between your hard snapping and grids to do the fine work.if you can handle deled it exports into dae, which is ideal for t3d vs TGE/A, its now completely free i believe, although its torque exporter no longer exists
Torque Owner Jules
Something2Play