Hard Light Productions Forums

Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Akalabeth Angel on October 15, 2003, 01:09:52 am

Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 15, 2003, 01:09:52 am
Hey, I just spent the better part of four or so hours trying to make my first model with Truespace. I'm about 80% done but when I looked over at some of the fighters and such found within the VPs I noticed that their models are a lot more simple. A thrust port for instance on one of the models has about 4 facings whereas mine has about 12. I'm not sure about the polygon count, but my model's already at about 1200 facings. So I'm guessing that its too detailed for the game???

  Here's some pics of the model. It's supposed to be a Dilgar fighter for the Babylon Project (I'm not involved in the project, just planning to make some MODs of my own to compliment it). The fighter still needs a cockpit and 8 claw like projections on the rear fuselage area, so obviously the face/polygon count will go up more.

(http://members.shaw.ca/pbcbrown/fs2/thorun-wireframe.gif)
(http://members.shaw.ca/pbcbrown/fs2/thorun-coloured.gif)
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Starfury on October 15, 2003, 02:16:02 am
You're in luck.  SCP Fairly recently released a version of FS2 that's Direct3D supported, and therefore the models can be MUCH more detailed..  So, from what I've been led to understand, your model is barely scratching the surface of a fighter right now ( 2 - 5000 polys :D )
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: aldo_14 on October 15, 2003, 04:35:17 am
Uh oh.  I think you may have a few problems with yer booleaning there - it looks like a lot of stuff is not actually attached to vertices with edges, which means the face where it intersects won't be shown.....

Regulst (no H T&L) Fs has a limit of about 850 polys per subobject, and 500 overall.  You may need to triangulate that model to get it's textures to display properly, too.
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: GT-Keravnos on October 15, 2003, 04:54:06 am
I love the dilgar, and I salute your effort ! :nod:
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: GT-Keravnos on October 15, 2003, 04:59:35 am
You do know about the B5 homeworld mod that has some dilgars. Maybe it could help you some...

I don't know, converting them over here maybe..

I can't find screenshots but I remember it was REALLY COOL!

Here it is, (in beta form)

http://www.tgu.org.uk/users/gw/gw5/TDI_Beta1_0.zip
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: karajorma on October 15, 2003, 07:10:02 am
Nice model. It will probably only work in the HT&L build of freespace but who cares? I've already gone over to building HT&L models only and the rest of the modding community are probably following suite anyway. :)
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: mikhael on October 15, 2003, 11:06:09 am
Aldo is right. You need to check some of the geometry on the wing struts. You'll also want to subdivide all the surfaces down to 3 and 4 point polys.

For vanilla FS2 use, you should consider subdividing it into seperate subsystems too.
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Deepblue on October 15, 2003, 11:10:31 am
Maybe its cause freespace models were done in Max.
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: KARMA on October 15, 2003, 12:59:26 pm
with FSO it would probably work althought intersections, you just can't be sure of the result until you try it in game: Bobbau's enhancements of z-buffer code made the engine more flexible in those situations.
Btw remember it is ALWAYS better to avoid intersections and make solid objects
about pcount..IIRC with FSO you can have around 3000 polys x subobject ( limits have been already bumped in actual FSO), but until the HT&L system will be released, it is better in my opinion to don't go over around 1500 polys for a fighter.
You can reduce a lot the pcount, consider that you vasted a lot of polys in many points.
With a wise use of the shadings, you don't need overdetailed circular shapes; for example, on a shape so small like a fighter, a cylinder of around 12-16 edges will always look like perfectly smoothed, therefore you can reduce a lot the pcount without loosing much quality
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: aldo_14 on October 15, 2003, 03:14:23 pm
I never knew Bob had worked on the z-buffer...........  neat.
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: KARMA on October 15, 2003, 06:06:44 pm
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,16586.0.html

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,16727.0.html
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 15, 2003, 06:58:49 pm
Quote
Uh oh. I think you may have a few problems with yer booleaning there - it looks like a lot of stuff is not actually attached to vertices with edges, which means the face where it intersects won't be shown.....


   Yeah, I dunno what the hell I'm doing. I think the thrust pods on the wings are one model but the rest is just glued together as the same hierarchy or whatever. I tried making the wings one model and the program complained about something not being right. I haven't really found any good tutorials for truespace, just one on Kara's telling me what some of the buttons did. I've only got TS 3.2 and there's a few tutorials in there but it just goes by really fast and its hard to see what's actually going on.

Quote
For vanilla FS2 use, you should consider subdividing it into seperate subsystems too.


  Uh, sounds good but I don't know how to do that :)

Quote
Btw remember it is ALWAYS better to avoid intersections and make solid objects about pcount..IIRC with FSO you can have around 3000 polys x subobject ( limits have been already bumped in actual FSO), but until the HT&L system will be released, it is better in my opinion to don't go over around 1500 polys for a fighter.


   Well as I said I tried to join the two parts of the wings but TS didn't like what I was doing for some reason. It looks as though I should probably just re-do the model with less detail. This was alright for a learning experience. After I do a model I'd like to send it over to someone so they could tell me what I've done wrong, but even posting the image here has obvious shown some errors in what I'm doing.
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Unknown Target on October 15, 2003, 07:04:10 pm
Ok, two things about the model:

1) Too simple for that many polygons. Try to make the cylinders a little less round ;)

2) Fix that wing geometry :) Select and snap those vertexes together, don't make the wing section go into the other.


Oh, yea, and Bob bumped the counts out insanely, so you're model is OK as it is, I'm just saying it's a bit too simple for that many polies ;)
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 15, 2003, 07:06:56 pm
Quote
Oh, yea, and Bob bumped the counts out insanely, so you're model is OK as it is, I'm just saying it's a bit too simple for that many polies


   Yeah, well the fighter is just a bunch of cylinders when you get down to it. Nothing special. I'll try a new model and see how it goes. I think I can do the wings in one object but yeah,  I tried to join the wings into one object but TS didn't let me. Is there a "snap to point" for the vertices in TS 3.2 just like Adobe Illustrator? Because I have Ill 10 so I'm a bit familiar with that kinda thing.
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: karajorma on October 16, 2003, 02:55:36 am
Have you tried the Boolean union option? I suspect that is what you are looking for.
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Bobboau on October 16, 2003, 06:27:42 am
that will work technicaly, but man, try to make it out of one subobject, it just looks like a bunch of cylinders glued together
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: KARMA on October 16, 2003, 07:30:18 am
Yes, build them as solid objects, intersections doesn't work always, we tryed to convert some models from xwaupgrade (wich are all built with tons of interceptions). Some work but some  (namely the bwing) have some "bad intersections", with this result:
  (http://www.swooh.com/peon/Sigma/FS2-files/b-wing.JPG)
actually I'm building a new really overdetailed mesh specific for HT&L

from what I can see from your pic, it is very possible that the wing pylons will create some weird effects in game
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Bobboau on October 16, 2003, 01:17:50 pm
have you tryed that model in FSO recently?
I made some changes to the z buffer that (c|sh)ould fix that
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: KARMA on October 16, 2003, 02:33:29 pm
well the test was done by sigma with -i think- the most recent build of fso, btw I'll tell him to update the exe and redo the test.
anyway, I opened the model in truespace to use it as reference and, believe me, it is a bit odd, some intersections  don't create "clean" edges, that means there are some very "ambiguous" situations that I imagine can easily generate those problems
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Unknown Target on October 16, 2003, 02:48:06 pm
Bob, does your latest thing with the T&L include everything you've done?


Namely the Z-Buffer, Specular Highlighting, T&L (Duh :D), ship trails, etc?
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 16, 2003, 03:38:30 pm
Quote
that will work technicaly, but man, try to make it out of one subobject, it just looks like a bunch of cylinders glued together


   Yeah, it wasn't so hot. Anywhere, here's my second attempt, I posted it on the TBP board too.
I tried to make it out of less objects and used a lot less faces. It's a little better though I think the aft-fins need some repositioning as I can't Boolean Union them . . . well actually I can do it for 2 out of 4, but not all of them for some odd reason. (and it's not always the same 2 that I can do. Just whichever two I click first work, and the 3rd and 4th don't)

(http://members.shaw.ca/pbcbrown/fs2/thorun2-wireframe.gif)
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: adwight on October 17, 2003, 09:30:02 pm
I really like that design.  Good work :D
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: StratComm on October 18, 2003, 12:34:50 am
cool design, but you've got a couple of problems.  The wing passes right through the fusilage, which may still cause the clipping errors you were warned about before.  It also doesn't look like the pods are attached to the wings correctly (when you attach them, make sure to split up the adjacent panels to prevent a polygon with 4 colinear vertices.  If you're going to model this way, you need to learn how to boolean and clean up after the operation.
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 18, 2003, 05:37:57 pm
Yeah, that was an earlier one which wasn't one object. It was because I couldn't attach the tail fins correctly until I triangulated them which seemed to do the trick. Here's the new images:
I boolean unioned the wing to engine pod and TS gave me no problems, so I'm not quite sure if there's a problem and if there is I don't understand what it is :) (dunt understand yer math talk)

(http://members.shaw.ca/pbcbrown/fs2/thorun3-wireframe.gif)
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: KARMA on October 19, 2003, 05:57:12 am
Quote
Originally posted by Akalabeth Angel

I boolean unioned the wing to engine pod and TS gave me no problems[/IMG]

It may SEEM simple..but it isn't
when using booleans you have to verify for bad geometry probs (like double verts, etc)
They can work in game or not, but it's always better to check and fix them.
An example of bad geo is the connection between the wings and the lateral pods, but usually it is far harder to see it...with some experience you will be able to anticipate when a boolean operation will likely generate bad geo
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 20, 2003, 12:59:31 pm
Quote

It may SEEM simple..but it isn't
when using booleans you have to verify for bad geometry probs (like double verts, etc)
They can work in game or not, but it's always better to check and fix them.
An example of bad geo is the connection between the wings and the lateral pods, but usually it is far harder to see it...with some experience you will be able to anticipate when a boolean operation will likely generate bad geo


   Okay, so, if it is bad geometry, and you seem pretty sure that it is. How do I rectify the problem? I loaded up Truespace and tried the "Fix Bad Geometry" button and the "decompose into objects (if they're not connected good)" button but niether of them seemed to do anything. Do I need a Truespace extension of some sort?
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: StratComm on October 20, 2003, 01:44:28 pm
I've never found decompose to do anything at all.  However, for fixing geometry problems, see what defines bad geometry in Kara's FAQ (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/freespace/intro.html) and you just have to try to fix things up until it works.  With your current union, there are problems with the pod-wing connections still; the polygons on the pods around the wings have verts that cannot be connected by a straight line, and that doesn't work correctly in game (as Freespace can't resolve which side of the edge to fill in)... The rules are pretty explicit, it's just playing with them until you get it right.  Only comes with experience I'm afraid.
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: KARMA on October 20, 2003, 06:20:25 pm
I'm nots sure those kind of probs are covered on kara's faq, btw the main rule is simple: keep your model solid
Actually, you can try non solid models and they really often will work w/o problems, but they more likely will have problems, will be rendered in odd ways in game, will be harder to be textured, will cause TS to crash, will not be converted, will cause some poly-wasting.
The more pro/expert you are the more you will be able to create models without using strategies that can cause those problems and the more you will be able to see where those problems are and fix em.
With solid mesh I mean a mesh with all the vertices connected to the neighbor vertices.
Stupid example that should help you understanding: imagine a line with three verts, the two extremities and a vert in the middle.
(like this: x--x--x ) With solid I mean that you have three verts in a row connected by two edges. But for many reasons it can happen this: x--xx--x with the two verts in the middle not connected and sharing the same position. This is nonsolid: you have two different and separated lines that look like only one.
You will not be able to see the difference between the two situations until you try to move one of the two verts in the middle.
In your ship the connection between pods and wing is an example of nonsolid geometry (but if you are lucky it will work anyway, you just have to try)
To fix this you have to
1-pick one of the vers in the midddle and move it
2-connect manually the two verts in the middle
3- restore the first vert to it's original position
4- weld the two verts
Also triangulating should help fixing those probs.
The try to fix bad geo button is useful, but only to fix solid models with some faces screwed by TS bugs or bad operations (it's a bit long and hard to explain, I'm not sure I would be able to, and anyway is useless at this point, just use it as last resource)
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: Kazan on October 21, 2003, 01:06:07 am
FYI: FS2 has always supported Direct3D

when [V] Released it it supported: Direct3D5, Glide

FS2 Open: Direct3D8 HTCL, Direct3D8, [Direct3D5 - inaccessable], OpenGL, Glide
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: karajorma on October 21, 2003, 10:49:07 am
Quote
Originally posted by KARMA
I'm nots sure those kind of probs are covered on kara's faq


I didn't cover it cause I linked to IP Andrews Tutorial which does. I guess I could make that fact more clear though :D
Title: Simplifying models?? (some graphics included)
Post by: TrashMan on October 22, 2003, 07:32:25 am
Don't glue! Union!

Allways keep the deltete edges and triangulate first off!
Allso, use add vertex to keep the faces concave... I have a pic somewhere to show you what I mean...I'll post it if I can find it...