GMAX, 3D Canvas, Trainsim Modeller?

[rdamurphy]

Will it be possible to create add-ons for MSTS-X with any of these three apps?

I guess, my question really is, if I make cars now for MSTS in one of those, specifically GMAX, will I be able to later export them into an MSTS-X format?

Robert

[Old_Codger]

With the help of 3DCanvas Pro, most likely yes.
You can use 3DCanvas Pro to import dst files right now for export into RS.

[stonelance]

We are only supporting 3ds max in our tools now. I'm sure other people will be working on exporters for other programs. We are evaluating other options because we know not everyone has 3ds max.

[ChrisS68]

Hopefully other options become available since, unlike 3ds, the MAX format is extremely proprietary. Not sure how many hobbyists are going to want to spend a few grand just to create models for a sim.

[rdamurphy]

Exactly! If GMAX were supported, and TSM (which would be up to Abacus to update), and 3d Canvas, a majority of models could be "updated" for the new sim, and there would be loads of content right off the bat.

Remember, if 3ds Max is used, it can't be that different from MSTS because 3ds Max was used to create the original content - and current content - for MSTS 1. I guess we can always hope!

Robert

[stonelance]

GMAX has not been supported by Autodesk since 2005. I think we had to pull some strings just to get a FSX exporter, so I don't think it is too likely it wll work with TS2.

I do think decapod already has a FSX exporter for 3D Canvas, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is one for TS2 at, or shortly after ship. Here is the thread: FSX 3D Canvas exporter (http://forums.flightsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?t=272500)

[rdamurphy]

Even if there were a converter, as opposed to an exporter, like the one that shipped with MSTS1 for .3ds files. You're right though, if the information is available, someone can probably write one!

You might want to go ahead and pull those strings, since content creation is the holy grail of the Flight-sim/Train-sim communities!

Robert

[beatle]

Another possible option might be the Acron 3D Modeller (http://www.acroneng.com/3D%20Modeller.htm) from Acron Capability Engineering (http://www.acroneng.com/index.htm). Their Pro version currently supports both FSX and ESP V1. While the Pro version currently available runs around $1000, they are planning to eventually release a standard version for around $50. Since TS2 and ESP V2 will be using the same Core engine, when they update that to support ESP V2, that should make it usable for TS2 as well.

Tim
http://beatlesblog.spaces.live.com

[westerngy]

I can understand the concern of wanting to export some of the old and use it in the new but there isn't much old that I would want to use.What some call great work is not that great,so why export that into a new platform.The new sim will be able to handle polys around 40000 so do you want to export a low poly 8000 poly so so.
Before I get all excited and have the bubble burst I think I'll put the egg before the chicken.

[stonelance]

The new sim will be able to handle polys around 40000


Where did you get that figure from? Even our highest detail locomotives are around 20k polys. Remember, this is not Flight Sim where you will usually only see one or two airplanes close up. Your train wll have several locomotives all in a row, and likely near the same LOD level.

[NorfolkSouthern_37]

i didnt undestand his post totally but i think what he meant was odds are that it could handle 40k locomotives with ease. i have been known to hit 30-40k with the KRS GP38-2 units i made, and they all work just fine. in Trainz some have been hitting that or even more for a few years now. it doesnt make sense for you to do such boundary-pushing, being the game developer and having to tailor the game to run on a variety of systems. even if there is a hard polygon budget like with MSTS it should be easy to adjust the models. i was able to tone my 40k monsters down to about 10k so i could play with them in MSTS as well (which by the way is about 3 times the default stuff). just sacrifices i guess.

[Hack]

Where did you get that figure from?

Don't mind him, Steve. Dale's from Canada, and they have a different exchange rate there. :D

[ChrisS68]

lucky for us there's people like decapod who are willing to work on such things. 3D Canvas is a no-brainer as it's inexpensive and is already in relatively wide use. If a FSX plugin is in the works, hopefully a MSTS2 plugin won't be too far behind, and I imagine other apps will follow. I don't know anything about writing plugins; I wonder how hard it would be to write one for lightwave. Though, for 70 bucks, it would be a lot easier to just buy a copy of 3D Canvas. ;)

[empeck]

I wonder how hard it would be to write one for lightwave. Though, for 70 bucks, it would be a lot easier to just buy a copy of 3D Canvas. ;)

I thought the same about Softimage XSI ;) After all, I can import my object from XSI to 3dCanvas :)

I'd love to see second UV's set support in 3dCanvas, it would be very useful.

[stonelance]

Don't mind him, Steve. Dale's from Canada, and they have a different exchange rate there. :D

Haha, well I have to apologize anyway, because apparently some of our loco's ARE actually 38k triangles. We'll have to see how that affects perf, as that will affect whether they stay that way or not.

The game will definately support very high polygon limits, but the stuff we will ship will have to be more reasonable than what a 3rd party could create, as we need to hit a wider audience which might not have the latest tech hardware.

[rdamurphy]

I can understand the concern of wanting to export some of the old and use it in the new but there isn't much old that I would want to use.What some call great work is not that great,so why export that into a new platform.The new sim will be able to handle polys around 40000 so do you want to export a low poly 8000 poly so so.
Before I get all excited and have the bubble burst I think I'll put the egg before the chicken.

Different people have different opinions on that particular point, besides, some of the stuff out right now is very highly detailed, and would be right at home with the equipment in Microsoft's video.

I'm also a little, shall we say, hesitant to label anyone's work as "not that great."

Robert

[3Directions]

I can understand the concern of wanting to export some of the old and use it in the new but there isn't much old that I would want to use.What some call great work is not that great,so why export that into a new platform.The new sim will be able to handle polys around 40000 so do you want to export a low poly 8000 poly so so.
Before I get all excited and have the bubble burst I think I'll put the egg before the chicken.

Agreed , easier to start fresh .

~A~

[CajunRon]

GMAX has not been supported by Autodesk since 2005. I think we had to pull some strings just to get a FSX exporter, so I don't think it is too likely it wll work with TS2.

I'm not sure I understand the connection between when Autodesk stopped supporting GMAX and the ability to create an exporter. GMAX still works fine without Autodesk support. Does Autodesk have to be involved in creating the exporter?

In any case, I think an MSTS-2 exporter for GMAX would be a tremendous asset that is well worth the string pulling effort. The steam locomotives I created for MSTS where more than the 8k polys mentioned. I was pushing 20k and I think with a little tweaking here and I could easily improve on the resolution to make them into decent MSTS-2 models if a GMAX exporter is available. I'll be very disappointed if I can't do this.

[empeck]

I'm not sure I understand the connection between when Autodesk stopped supporting GMAX and the ability to create an exporter. GMAX still works fine without Autodesk support. Does Autodesk have to be involved in creating the exporter?

Probably you have to buy a license to make an exporter for particular title. If there is no Autodesk support for Gmax you don't have anybody to buy a license from.

In any case, I think an MSTS-2 exporter for GMAX would be a tremendous asset that is well worth the string pulling effort. The steam locomotives I created for MSTS where more than the 8k polys mentioned. I was pushing 20k and I think with a little tweaking here and I could easily improve on the resolution to make them into decent MSTS-2 models if a GMAX exporter is available. I'll be very disappointed if I can't do this.

There is a way to export your models from Gmax to any other 3d package. So you can export your model from Gmax to supported software.

I hope to see a cheap alternative to 3dsMAX, and I don't care what program it will be, Blender, TrueSpace, 3dCanvas, etc... In the end I will model my objects in XSI just like I'm doing it for FSX, and then export to Gmax, or whatever the alternative will be.

[rdamurphy]

I wonder, is it too much to ask to use the same format as objects in FSX?

Robert

[stonelance]

Does Autodesk have to be involved in creating the exporter?

Yes, actually. Autodesk has to sign any GMAX plugin binaries. This is done because they don't want any exported content from GMAX to be able to be converted to other formats.

I wonder, is it too much to ask to use the same format as objects in FSX?

We do use the same format as FSX, but we have added several new graphics features that are not supported in the FSX exporters for GMAX. You could still use the FSX exporter, you just won't be able to do any of the new stuff.

[rdamurphy]

Well, that's good news! Actually, I'm sure one of our resident genuises will figure it out eventually! We have a lot of great talent around here.

Robert

[CaptainBazza]

The game will definately support very high polygon limits, but the stuff we will ship will have to be more reasonable than what a 3rd party could create, as we need to hit a wider audience which might not have the latest tech hardware.

20thou polys (not triangles) for a decent steam is a bit on the thin side. They are much more detailed than most diesels, or sparkies, thanks to spoked wheels, suspension, valve and motion rods, stacks, domes, cab, pipework, air tanks, etc. TS1 supports, with some encouragement, 20 thou+ models.

Cheers Bazza

PS Nice to back posting on TS.com again.

[rdamurphy]

Nice to have you back, my friend! Hey, how'dya like to go back to being my favorite beta tester! As I recall, you tested all of my early stuff for me.

Robert

[CajunRon]

20thou polys (not triangles) for a decent steam is a bit on the thin side. They are much more detailed than most diesels, or sparkies, thanks to spoked wheels, suspension, valve and motion rods, stacks, domes, cab, pipework, air tanks, etc. TS1 supports, with some encouragement, 20 thou+ models.


This has always been a confusion to me. What do you see as the difference between polys and triangles? I don't consider myself a professional at this but as best as I recall, in GMAX, when I use the poly count function it gives me the face count (which I have interpreted to be triangles or polys. (In my simplistic way of looking at this a triangle is the simplest polygon). I use poly and triangle interchangeably but this may be incorrect

I've used tricks such as the use of 2D planes with transparent alpha channels to achieve detail without adding much to the poly count. With creative modeling tricks I think a high detailed 20k poly count steam locomotive can be very convincingly modeled. Personally I think this was achieve to a very acceptable degree in some of the steam models in MSTS-1.

Even with today's high end systems we need to be judicious in our modeling complexity. A few higher poly count models are okay but I don't think we could manage a whole lot of them in a consists.

[CaptainBazza]

Hi Rob, long time, eh? I'm in the same situation, I get my stuff beta tested and because it's mostly US NG 3ft these days and there seems to be no end of volunteers.

My current MSTS1 project has struck a snag, the single LOD, 34.4thou poly K27 Mike runs fine in TS1, but the latest version has missing textures, ie white void on shape, something I've not encountered before.

It's related to texture size, perhaps, coupled with very high polys. Damn these Yankee locos with their external plumbing and other details - LOL. The model is not yet animated, either, although most external detail is nearly completed.

Cheers Bazza

[rdamurphy]

Oddly enough, I ran into the exact same problem today. It came about because the texture in the game folder didn't match the one in the project folder. How that could affect the shape file is beyond me, I had to Get! and Put! to repair it in the gmax project, then copy over the .s and .ace files in the Trains folder.

Robert

[CaptainBazza]

Hi Rob, the texture names are inside the shape file. If one or more of the names don't tally then the sim has a hissy fit. What I don't quite understand is why the sim is happy to have the shape in this instance and uses a white void in lieu of the textures. I have doublechecked that the texture file names in the shape tally with the file names in the loco's folder.

I have never been able to process a shape from mesh to shape where there's been a problem with textures from the start. These little errors can creep in, that's why you need to check everything before commencing the conversion process. The sim is not forgiving of errors, hence my puzzlement over the white void.

Cheers Bazza

[empeck]

This has always been a confusion to me. What do you see as the difference between polys and triangles? I don't consider myself a professional at this but as best as I recall, in GMAX, when I use the poly count function it gives me the face count (which I have interpreted to be triangles or polys. (In my simplistic way of looking at this a triangle is the simplest polygon). I use poly and triangle interchangeably but this may be incorrect

Yes, this is incorrect. For game art you should always count triangles, not polygons. Triangle is the simplest form of polygon. Polygon may contain one, two, three or more triangles. Easiest way to count your triangles it to use polygon counter in editable mesh mode, you just have to convert your model. For example, in editable poly mode one quad is counted as one polygon, in editable mesh mode it is counted as two, as it should.

[ChrisS68]

hmmm... maybe the nomenclature I'm familiar with is a little different. what you're describing as triangles vs. polys. I would consider polys vs faces. Polys are polys, be they triangles, quads, etc., while faces can be made up of multiple polys.
Though I guess we might be getting into semantics...

[Portergraphic]

Polygons can be NSided, and can be convex as well. We count the triangles of the model, but work in polygon mode. Each polygon is made up of one or more faces. If you turn edges on, you can see each of the faces that the polygon is made from.

Polygonal modeling allows us to work with LOD's much more effectively, by allow us to select edge loops, cut faces and delete edges and vertices without messing up UV's.

I am not sure what's going on with your model Capt. I think the textured one looks great. On to your problem.

I wish I have worked with original MSTS1 so that I could help. Let me ask one of the guys here that is a huge MSTS1 fan and modeler. He may know what's going on.

He has built quite a few trains in 3DCanvas.

[CaptainBazza]

Hi Mike, I tried various tweaks....but the great white void is still eating Kenny :-) I could try deleting even more hidden poly faces, but I'm inclined towards the realisation that TS's modelling limitation has finally caught up with me. I may have to rethink techniques.....but you cannot get around the fact that steam locomotives are naturally heavy on polys, even in reality.

Thanks for your interest amongst what must be a busy schedule.

Cheers
Bazza

[rdamurphy]

Have you tried splitting into sub-objects? One article I read said that it's easier to draw a large number of small sub-objects than a small number of large ones.

Worth a try, anyway!

Robert

[CaptainBazza]

HI Robert, yes, that's what Shape Fix does, and very well. It takes two passes (thru SF)for the K27 'as is', but a third pass shows 'no changes'. I have tinkered with some SF settings, so I may have to tinker further.

Cheers Bazza

[Simon12345]

My guess is that this is also a possible candidate for a 3d program: http://www.caligari.com/

Microsoft acquired this firm for its Virtual Earth project, just as Google did with Sketchup.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/02/07/microsoft-acquires-caligari

For what I've seen of it, it looks good. It is also free. Don't know yet what the learning curve for this program is, but it comes with several video tutorials.

Just my two cents.

[CaptainBazza]

I managed to 'save' the K27 project by changing to a different version of the class with simple motion...#460. A lot of other detail could be removed, thus saving some vital polys. Most of the original model is unchanged.

Cheers Bazza