Jump to content
Ultra Engine Community

Monkey Frog Studio

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    165

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Monkey Frog Studio

    Brushes vs. Model Geometry?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Thanks for responding, Ma-Shell. But what I am really wanting to find out is if there is an advantage to using brushes to build level geometry vs. models, as far as performance in the game engine. There is an advantage when creating the geometry in the editor because you don't have to UV map brushes, textures instantly tile, and any CSG brush can be manipulated at any time (made longer, taller, etc.). 

    So, let's say I build a simple room out of CSG brushes. This room consists of four walls, a floor, and a ceiling. In another level, I build the same sized room out of three models - one for the floor, one for the ceiling, and one for the wall (duplicated to make the four walls). Both the CSG room and the model use the same materials. So, would both have about the same performance?

    If, for example, CSG brushes had a significant speed advantage over models, then I would create most of the simple, flat stuff (floors, walls, etc.) out of them so I could take advantage of that and then create the more complex stuff (pipes, chairs, etc.) out of models. If, on the other hand, it's a toss up (i.e. similar brushes and models affect performance about the same), then I can do whatever I please  ... models for walls or brushes ... whatever is best at the time. If models are easier on the engine, then I can build my entire interior level out of only models if I want. 

    So, I am just looking at this from the perspective of performance, if that makes sense.

    Import models with no hierarchy

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Funny thing is, I hear you and agree with you. Still, there are issues. FBX has become a universal exchange format, but it keeps changing and it's difficult for developers to keep up with (let alone a few other Autodesk related issues developers have to put up with). And in some cases, open-source software, like Godot (a game engine) will never support FBX due to licensing conflicts. Collada has turned out to be problematic, OBJ is limited, etc. So, for many, glTF is the way to go.

    As far as "It's the job of your 3D modelling application  to save your assets in a preserving, non-destructive way", that's why each 3D app has it's own format - 3DSMax has .max, MODO has .lxo, etc. But these formats do more than save your assets in a non-destructive way, they also store GUI info (how the viewport was, for example, when saved) and a few dozen other program specific things that are not needed outside of that particular app. These internal file formats do a great job at what they were supposed to do, but are (obviously) not intended to be used anywhere but within the app for which they were created. FBX is an industry standard to exchange 3D assets. However, it's a huge pain in the you-know-what for most developers to support. So, what are we left with?

    I do thank you for the info about data being truncated as a result of being exported to ASCII. It makes sense.

    Import models with no hierarchy

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Sigh. glTF is not just for game engines. It is intended as a means to get 3D information into a 3D application (be it a game, a 3D modeling program, or an HTML5 website, etc.) and to get 3D information out of a 3D application. According to FileInfo.com:

    Quote

    GLTF files can be used to save and share digital assets between different 3D modeling tools, similarly to .DAE files. However, they are also optimized for download speed and load time at runtime, which makes them easier to use in mobile- and web- based 3D modeling programs. They are also a more streamlined format for uploading and downloading from online digital asset databases, such as Remix 3D.

    So, two purposes - save (export) and share (import) 3D digital assets and optimization for download and load at run time. 

    Import models with no hierarchy

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    They may not have used the word "exchange", but they use the word "interoperable". That implicitly implies "exchange" as it is a part of it's definition. So, they used a better word, because Khronos described BOTH export and import by using it (i.e. going both ways). 

    glTF's primary purpose may well be an "end-of-the-pipeline" format, but it's not the only purpose. It is a 3D format, like DAE, like .X, etc. It's intention is to carry 3D information (geometry, materials, lights, animations, etc.) so you can get it into another application (yes, especially game engines). Since it does this, it can be used to both import and export as well. 

    As far as game engines - I know a few that are adding it for import as well as for exchange (i.e. to take the glTF info convert it into their own, internal file format). So, not quite "end-of-the-pipeline" there ... though pretty close, right? ;)

    What it comes down to is it's a better format than Collada (.dae), supports more than DirectX (.x), is free from the burden (and cost) of Autodesk's constantly changing FBX format, is not limited like OBJ, and is modern (i.e. supports PBR, etc.), unlike .3ds and others. Frankly, who the frell cares what it's intended purpose is? glTF is catching on and just about everyone is able to use it. Model in Max, Maya, C4D, MODO, or Blender? You can export to it. Want to get it in Godot, Unity, Unreal? No problem. 

    • Like 1

    Import models with no hierarchy

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    7 minutes ago, Bolt said:

    glTF is not an exchange format.  It's not for converting from one format to another.  It's a runtime format for game engines.  The model data is written so game engines can load it directly into their buffers without modification.  FBX, on other hand, is an exchange format, which is why glTF won't replace it.  It'll just complement it.

    Perhaps I used the incorrect words. However, the fact is that glTF is being used to both export and import models, materials, and more, into more than just games. There is an importer for Blender and Sketchup, for example. I'm sure that more will be added. According to Khronos, the developers of glTF 2.0:

    Quote

    glTF™ (GL Transmission Format) is a royalty-free specification for the efficient transmission and loading of 3D scenes and models by applications. glTF minimizes both the size of 3D assets, and the runtime processing needed to unpack and use those assets. glTF defines an extensible, common publishing format for 3D content tools and services that streamlines authoring workflows and enables interoperable use of content across the industry.

    So, according to Khronos, this is not just about games, but about applications. This includes everything from Facebook to games to 3D modeling programs. 

    Notice the last sentence and the use of the word "interoperable":

     
    Quote

     

    in·ter·op·er·a·ble
    ˌin(t)ərˈäp(ə)rəb(ə)l/
    adjective
    1. (of computer systems or software) able to exchange and make use of information.

     

     
    The base idea for glTF, according to Khronos, is the EXCHANGE and USE of information. That's a two-way street - both EXPORT and IMPORT. At least that is the intention of Khronos. Whether it gets used that way or not is up to developers.

    Brushes vs. Model Geometry?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Hello. I am curious if there is a difference, as far as performance is concerned, between using brushes (CSG) and models? For example, if I were to build a level with a room (walls, floor, and ceiling) built from brushes and another level with a room (walls, floor, and ceiling) built from geometry, would the level with brushes perform better than the level using only models? Or would they perform about the same. This is assuming the models use the simplest geometry (i.e 12 tri faces for a cube and not 10,000, for example). 

    I realize the advantages of CSG for quickly laying out walls, floors, etc., and how well they work with textures/materials (especially when tiling), but are they, overall, more efficient in Leadwerks? If a level had 100 CSG cubes vs another level with 100 model cubes, both with the same material, would they perform the same or would one be more efficient?

    Thanks.

    Multiple Materials per Mesh?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Ah! That simple answer was just what I needed. I was looking at the materials in Leadwerks and not at the models! So, make my model with several surfaces, each with their own material, export to FBX, bring the model into Leadwerks (and all materials), open the model in the Model Editor, select each "part" and apply the material to each one. Thanks! 

    Multiple Materials per Mesh?

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Hello. How, in Leadwerks, would you apply multiple materials to a single model? For example, let's say I have an axe model and have a material for the metal bits (axe head, for example), a material for the wood part of the handle, and another for the leather that is covering it. By material, I am not talking about texture (as in diffuse information), but actual material information that controls individual AO, specularity, normal maps, etc., per "part" of the model. Is this even possible in Leadwerks at the moment? 

    Some bugs

    in Leadwerks Engine Bug Reports

    Posted

    12 hours ago, carlb said:

    4.6 beta will still say 4.5 

    if you got steam set to beta you have 4.6

    I don't believe so. It had said 4.6 once and then Josh said he had rolled it back to 4.5 because of issues. So, from what I remember, 4.6 has not been re-released as beta ... yet.

    How to use the available material shaders?

    in Game Artwork

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Phodex Games said:

    Ok thank you :) I tried it and it works, but is there a way to increase the radius/intensity of the emission?

    I am not a programmer and don't play one on TV ;) , so I don't know if there actually is a way or not. From what I've seen, the only thing you can do with this shader is determine the color. It appears that all this does is ensure the area is not affected by light at all (no shadows, no being overpowered by bright lights, etc.), so the color shows at 100%. This means it does not glow, so there would be no radius or intensity. The only way I can think of to affect intensity would be by the color you use. You could paint the area to look brighter toward the center, for example.

    Again, I am not a programmer, so I can (so far) only approach this as an artist.

    How to use the available material shaders?

    in Game Artwork

    Posted

    Emission is pretty easy to use. It is set up to use texture slot #4. The texture you create should be all black for the areas you don't want to emit. You can use any color for the areas you do want emission and they will glow that color. Well, they don't really "glow", but instead do not receive any shadows and are full-bright in those areas (i.e. not affected by your lighting or lack thereof). But you can make some cool effects with it.

    • Thanks 1

    Use Scale to Change Light Range

    in Suggestion Box

    Posted

    Currently, to change the range, we have to select the light, go to the scene tree, click the Light tab at the bottom, and enter in a number representing the range. This can be a bit of hit or miss (to a degree). It would be great if we could simply select the light in the viewport, go to scale, and drag on the light to change the range of the light. This would not only save steps, but give the end-user a visual way to change a light's range.

    Sci-Fi Hallway Test

    in Showcase

    Posted

    These screen shots are just from a test as I am getting my graphics pipeline down for getting assets from Blender into Leadwerks. But this was fun to build. If I were to actually use this in a level, I'd need to add a lot of little details, though.

     

    sfhal02.jpg

    sfhall01.jpg

    I learned a lot and the next level test will be much better (I hope)! :)

    • Like 5

    Import models with no hierarchy

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Wow, macklebee, you are one hostile dude who, while claiming everyone is missing they key point, missed key points. Pot, meet kettle. It's simple. It's not that me or Phodex Games missed your key point about Josh simply ADDING glTF alongside FBX import to Leadwerks, we were simply providing information to OTHER things you had said, concerns you had brought up. It was honestly trying to be helpful and instead of either letting it go or saying thanks, you decided to be an *** about it. Nice.

    Quote

    I have been playing around with game engines and 3d models for at least a couple of years, so I don't need an explanation that models can be converted from format to format. But thank you for your input.

    Well, a couple of years now, is it? Nice. It'll take some time for you to catch up to me on that regard ... but no worries. I was developing graphics for games and real-time simulations for businesses back when character models could only have 800+ polygons. If I am touting glTF, there's a damn good reason for it. And since Josh seems to be about as enamored with glTF as I am, there must be a reason for that as well. But, hey, you've had a "couple of years" at this. What the hell do I know, right? ;) 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
Copyright © 2024 Ultra Software.
All rights reserved.
×
×
  • Create New...