Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Akalabeth Angel on February 26, 2008, 11:02:07 am
-
Hey guys, I'm starting to learn a bit of maya . . . and wondered if it was a good program to model ships and the like with? Or . . not so much? I don't hear it mentioned too often on the boards (ie never).
EDIT - well, except for the thread three posts below mine. I see Maya in the title . . . :drevil:
-
Maya is a fine tool to work with, but currently, it has no export formats that can be read by PCS, nor does it have a POF plug-in like 3D Studio Max does (although that plug-in is really wonky in that it'll crash Max BECAUSE IT CAN).
-
Maya is a fine tool to work with, but currently, it has no export formats that can be read by PCS, nor does it have a POF plug-in like 3D Studio Max does (although that plug-in is really wonky in that it'll crash Max BECAUSE IT CAN).
So basically I can make a pretty ship in Maya but not play with it?
-
You can, but you have to convert it to a format either 3DSMax or Truespace ( Blender ?? ) can read.
-
Maya will be fine once i complete Collada XML support
-
Somehow I knew that it would be Kazan who comes up with a possible solution. :)
-
I dunno what Collada XML is but it sounds good.
In the interim, I've started my first model. Well . . . technically my second model since years ago I did some rough TBP Dilgar Fighter which got shot down because I didn't know what the hell I was doing.
I was just wondering, I'm taking like an intro Maya course right now . . and my instructor said something about . . . quads are best, triangles are okay, anything else is bad. Is this pretty accurate? I'm trying to stick to quads, but when I have a screwed up polygon, it's a little difficult to maintain the quads. By screwed up I mean there's no . . . well, basically the surface is concave, or convex, when it should be flat. So typically you can just join the corners, but then you get triangles rather than quads. So . . . yeah, I think 3sides and 4sides are good. Not totally sure.
Oh, another question. Do people still do those . . . 3d engine flares for fighters? Is that something I'm supposed to do?
Anyway, with luck I'll post the rough model tomorrow in a new thread. Maybe the day after. I'm still learning this maya/3d modelling stuff. But it seems to be going okay so far.
-
I was just wondering, I'm taking like an intro Maya course right now . . and my instructor said something about . . . quads are best, triangles are okay, anything else is bad. Is this pretty accurate?
For making in-game models?...Kinda. If a surface is flat, then by all means use quads or even larger - FS can cope with up to 20 sided flat faces IIRC. This is ever so slightly helpful for collision detection because it only checks the one polygon rather than however many triangles would make up the full face otherwise.
Oh, another question. Do people still do those . . . 3d engine flares for fighters? Is that something I'm supposed to do?
They do still work just fine, but overall no. I wouldn't worry about that at all and just leave everything thruster plume related to the thrusters in the POF data.
-
I was just wondering, I'm taking like an intro Maya course right now . . and my instructor said something about . . . quads are best, triangles are okay, anything else is bad. Is this pretty accurate? I'm trying to stick to quads, but when I have a screwed up polygon, it's a little difficult to maintain the quads. By screwed up I mean there's no . . . well, basically the surface is concave, or convex, when it should be flat. So typically you can just join the corners, but then you get triangles rather than quads. So . . . yeah, I think 3sides and 4sides are good. Not totally sure.
Just so you understand, that's only applicable to models that need to deform (i.e. organics). You can use tris when necessary and to keep from wasting time.
Ngons are bad unless you're not making a model to run in game engine. Still, use them only as needed.
-
Just so you understand, that's only applicable to models that need to deform (i.e. organics). You can use tris when necessary and to keep from wasting time.
Ngons are bad unless you're not making a model to run in game engine. Still, use them only as needed.
Okay, yeah the class is geared more towards animation I think so that's maybe why there's quads, etcetera
Man I've been working on my model for like hours . . . and it's still no where near where I want it to show people. Just extrudign the engines and spent the next 20 minutes figuring out what the hell was going on with all these intersecting polygons. Oh well, it's looking okay considering it's my first serious attempt. Though given how much time I'm spending on it, it damn well better look okay.
Gives a better appreciation for the work that people are doing anyway.
-
Personally speaking, I think maya is the best 3d modeling package out there. I use it for all my models.
What makes it difficult is that most people are using MAX to do modeling and most tools/mods are created for that application.
-
Yah, maya seems pretty intuitive as I get to know it more and more. Haven't done much modelling but I'm getting into the animation side of things now and it's pretty good. Especially with additional scripts added on.
I wonder how Kazan's collada-something or other is coming along. Not sure what it does, but if it helps to avoid Truespace or something similar I'd be all for it.
-
Yea for sure, Going from Maya to Truespace is like cutting your legs off after youve won a 100M sprint.
I dont know what collada is, but if it makes my models and UVs easier to import then im all for it.
-
Gorram. Maya related question.
So I have some 2d reference for a ship I'm trying to model. I have two images, front and side view, exactly the same image dimensions. I import them as image planes into the respective windows, but for some reason they're different vertical heights. All their attributes seem to be exactly the same, but one is simply taller than the other. What the hell??? Has anyone else had a similar problem? I know not many people work with Maya, but grr, you'd think working from reference would be easier but when the reference doesn't match up because one of them's scaled differently for no good damn reason. . . :P
-
Perspective? or ortho mode?
-
All those gundam models I've posted were HW2 ones. HW1/2 was built with MAYA (and required if you want ti import content to a lot of Relic games).
Most of the problems I had in conversion were with hierarchy (as Kazan suggested) or problems that occurred from cross-type conversions. A direct plugin would eliminate a lot fo that I bet.
:D
-
Perspective? or ortho mode?
Orthographic. I attached it to the cameras in the front and side view, and then in general I'd work in perspective. Because working in the side/front had a tendency to move things out of alignment when I didn't want to. Seemingly even when I locked the attributes I'd either move the camera or the image plane. Regardless, if I look at them together in perspective one of them is not the same height as the other despite being identical gif files more/less in dimensions.
-
I'm a bit worried because Autodesk now owns AutoCAD, Revit, 3D Studio MAX, and Maya-- all the big professional 3D design packages. Not only does this mean there's no serious competition (and therefore less innovation and higher prices) but there's virtually no support for operating systems other than Windows.
Akalabeth, .3DS model format will preserve your basic model attributes, like smoothgroups, quads, and UV mapping. From there you can use Max or *urgh* Truespace to make a POF.
-
I'm a bit worried because Autodesk now owns AutoCAD, Revit, 3D Studio MAX, and Maya-- all the big professional 3D design packages. Not only does this mean there's no serious competition (and therefore less innovation and higher prices) but there's virtually no support for operating systems other than Windows.
Well not sure about modelling, but I know Soft Image (XSI) seems to be the big competition when it comes to animation, etcetera. At least in North America.
-
Some more questions, so I'll resurrect this older thread.
Does anyone know of an easy way to combine objects? In a recent model I did, the fighter had 3 engines the same size, each with 3 flaps. Rather than try to make two identical engines, from the main body, I just created another object, made the basis of the engine or flap there, and then what I did was "combine" the two objects, and basically did a lot of snapping of vertices to other vertices, merging, etcetera until the second object was a part of the first.
But is there an easier way to do this? Because that was a big pain in the butt. Haven't checked the help files yet, might do that when I next need to do something similar.
-
what I did was "combine" the two objects, and basically did a lot of snapping of vertices to other vertices
Depending on the object, just combining them without merging vertices will be a lot faster. Joining some mesh pieces together at the vertex level can result in large amounts of extra polygons.
-
what I did was "combine" the two objects, and basically did a lot of snapping of vertices to other vertices
Depending on the object, just combining them without merging vertices will be a lot faster. Joining some mesh pieces together at the vertex level can result in large amounts of extra polygons.
Yeah, it did. Then I had to go back in and delete all the crap I used to merge it and basically re-polygon up that area so it was a bit more efficient. It was one object, so I assume it would need to be physically merged but maybe not. Eitehr way it's probably bad to have objects crashing through one-another.
-
Eitehr way it's probably bad to have objects crashing through one-another.
Well turret arms in FS work that way in retail, plus most of the rotating items.
If you look at the MVP Fenris - most of the greebles on the side are not physically connected to the main mesh but are still part of it. PCS2 is also quite happy to convert a bunch of mesh items from one TS group, into a single object. So you do have some choice in how you use it.
-
It was one object, so I assume it would need to be physically merged but maybe not. Eitehr way it's probably bad to have objects crashing through one-another.
Not quite. :)
As Water says - PCS2 and FS can handle intersections just fine, but you must be careful in how you use them. This is because if you build a ship shape out of loads of much simpler parts that all intersect, then you also get:
1) Massive waste of texture space if you have geometry inside other geometry,
2) A much more difficult mesh to work with in the modelling app,
3) A much harder job bug hunting when much more frequent errors occur,
4) Very tricky UVing processes,
5) Depending on the model, a far more tedious debris and LODding process.
I have found that the best approach is to build the core hull as one object, then detail it up with greebles that are a part of the same object but NOT connected to the actual hull. This makes the mesh easy to work with during modelling and texturing, has no wasted texture space, and also makes it easy later on if you want to make the greebles use detail boxes etc.
PCS2 is also quite happy to convert a bunch of mesh items from one TS group, into a single object. So you do have some choice in how you use it.
Hmm, it can yes - but I've seen doing just that destabilise a mesh for no apparent reason, so it's generally better to avoid it.
It is handy for making glass canopies though - since you can easily ensure the polygons of the glass come last on the list. :)
-
Hmm, it can yes - but I've seen doing just that destabilise a mesh for no apparent reason, so it's generally better to avoid it.
Current or old versions? Your meshes or reconversions? I'm interested because I rely on PCS2 to join multiple materials due to the current Blender exporter limitation.
-
You know, I can't remember exactly. :\
I know it wasn't with my stuff and I think they were UV mapped, but I do remember that PCS1 would hang indefinitely on these models, even when the only subobjects in the scene were those making up the hull shape.
I would get them into Blender, join all the separate objects that formed the hull into one mesh and get it back into TS where it would convert just fine with no other changes.
Still got no idea how that would fix it, or even how it was causing problems in the first place - it just went on my 'avoid doing' list.
-
Still got no idea how that would fix it, or even how it was causing problems in the first place - it just went on my 'avoid doing' list.
Cool - You had me worried for a bit. :cool:
-
I'd say it's still something to watch out for, though with the infinite-loop-causing logic hole plugged in the next PCS2 build it should be much less of an issue in future. :)
-
Hmmn, well for fighters I might go the mostly "all one object route". I'm a glutton for punishment when it's doing things the easy way or the hard way.
-
Though, just realized after the fact that it was really good to ask because I just did a fighter: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,51903.msg1096141.html#msg1096141 (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,51903.msg1096141.html#msg1096141) and it's got some damn asymetrical gun on the fuselage and I thought I'd have to like, UVMap one side except the gun, then mirror geometry (which also mirrors the map), then delete the gun from the other side, and UV map that side and the gun. Which would've been a royal pain in the ass.
I think instead i'll just take a page from some responses in here and cut the gun off, and just combine it to the gunless fuselage so I don't have to do any more painful UVMapping than necessary.
-
Another question which is not deserving of it's own thread.
When a subobject has a debris form, does the polycount of this second state impact the game's performance? Ie, the Faustus has a good radar and a busted radar. Does the game render both even when it's not destroyed sorta thing?
-
Another question which is not deserving of it's own thread.
When a subobject has a debris form, does the polycount of this second state impact the game's performance? Ie, the Faustus has a good radar and a busted radar. Does the game render both even when it's not destroyed sorta thing?
Yes, but the answer really depends on the vid card. Mostly the number of polys won't be an issue. Are they both in memory? probably.
For detail boxes, the hi and lo version are both on screen even though one is invisable. Both have collision detection and can be shot at.