CorwinWeber
-
Posts
62 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CorwinWeber
-
-
Hm, have you ever considered mapping for TDM, then? You could use our lovely editor and create great maps!
Actually TDM's genre just doesn't do it for me. I have used DR for editing regular Doom 3 and would love to use it for Half Life 2 and Portal editing.
I wasn't a huge fan of Thief and I'm essentially burned out on fantasy altogether. For what TDM is, it looks great. I can appreciate that aspect. Just not my thing. The editor is fantastic tho.
-
Hammer uses displacements instead of patches. I'm sure at some base hiearchy they are somewhat compatible, but how they are used/created/manipulated is different.
Patches are manipulated by dragging verts and are made by using one face of a brush.
Displacements are manipulated by dragging verts and/or painting vert info. Hopefully we'll get vert paint in the future. But they can also be created from any/all sides of a brush (another feature we'll hopefully get).
Patch cylinders are made through the menu. Displacement cylinders are made by using the 4 outside faces of a brush, converting to displacement, then sub-dividing. So I don't know how well it would transfer from DR to HL2.
Lights in Doom3 are square with shaders to change shape, make them round.
Lights in Hammer or sperical, can't have textures (I don't believe) and have falloff settings.
Hammer compiles lightmaps and takes major impacts on performance from any single lightsource that is dynamic. Doom3 doesn't compile lightmaps and does pretty well with dynamic lights.
So from my experience you could deffinately use DR for brush work. patch/displacement thing is questionable. Lights are probably a no-go.
Anything in hiearchies(placing objects, AI, etc...), scripts, entities... probably none will work. unless of course someone can write plugins for all Hammer game related stuff.
Anyway, Hammer and DR aren't that different to work in. I deffinately like displacments better than patches, but DR is customized with Thief gameplay in mind. So most of the best stuff in DR isn't even useable for Hammer games. (ojective editor, readable editor, S&R system...)
Then there are model formats and whatnot. Whether or not DR can read SMD (?) files, etc..
But other than short-cuts I honestly can't see a reason to use DR over Hammer for Valve games. The two editors are very similar in basics, if you don't like one you probably won't like the other. I like them both but have no reason to use Hammer anymore.
Actually I love DR and loathe Hammer. It hasn't had an interface update since about 1998. It's clumsy as hell. You have to be in the 'right mode' to do anything and it takes four or five steps to do something that takes 'click and drag' in any Radiant based editor. I finally managed to tinker with the settings to make the font in the program large enough that I could actually read it instead of it being so tiny, but if I have a part of the interface that's just in my way.... my choice is to completely remove it, (if I can find that option) or just deal with it. No moving it to an area that's out of the way where I can still use it if I need it. It's not officially supported by Valve and doesn't seem to be actively being worked on. Personally I'm not sure how anybody makes levels in Hammer. Tiny viewport, no way to scroll that viewport incrementally, (even clicking the scrollbars sends your perspective over by about a third of the screen) and basically none of the aspects of interface design that people have figured out over the last decade or so.
Radiant in general (and DR in particular) is an elegant program. I can actually do what I want to do in Radiant without having to fight my tools every step of the way. DR adds more options into that, and does so in the same general way. The models menu? Works. Textures list? Works and I can actually read the name of the texture. Changing my perspective so that I can actually see what I'm working on? Works. None of this is true with Hammer.
-
Well, I guess it would be easier to directly use the hllib by a DarkRadiant C++ plugin, instead of jumping languages the way of hllib > Python > DarkRadiant. But that's idle speculation on my behalf.
I didn't realize DR used C++ for plugins... thought it was all python....
-
I don't know anything about HL2 map formats or archive files, but I'm sure that Python alone won't do the trick here. It may be possible to write a set of plugins for reading map formats and archive files - but additional C++ coding is needed for sure.
Also, DarkRadiant's editing features are specialised to handle D3 brushes, D3 patches and D3 lights. I don't know whether any of these are compatible with HL2 or not.
Brushes yes, patches no, lights.... sorta. The patch function at least just wouldn't work. So far as I know, Source just doesn't use them at all. Lights could potentially get a bit funky... or not. There are dynamic lights in Source, but they don't work the way idtech dynamic lights do. That would mostly be a compiler issue tho.... not specifically something the editor would need to worry about much.
Python alone won't do the trick, no.... but there's a set of libraries and other functions (all GPL) called hllib. GCFScape uses them to extract files from the GCF's, and a python add on could call the same function to give the editor access to the assets. It's the sort of thing you don't have to do with idtech4 because a pk4 file is basically just a renamed zip archive.... so it will just open with no further fuss.
And on an unrelated note.... I find it odd that my browser's spellcheck chokes on idtech.... but not on idtech4.
-
That's pretty much what DR does. At the start or in the preferences, you can specify where your game or your mod can be found, or simply your assets. DR checks all files inside that directory and adds them to the virtual filesystem, including files inside pk4 files. The VFS is then used to access the files.
Ok, so.... for example making a copy of the doom3.game file and editing it appropriately would be a start.... there would be more tho, I know. It would have to get into the GCF files to get the assets. Now, that's possible.... there are libraries available to do it. I'm just not sure whether that could be done outside of DR itself or not. Maybe a python plugin to call the right functions?
-
Can you create a dummy doom 3 directory with definition files and assets and "crank it up"?
(If so, I will be installing DR on my work PC for my Sunday "slow days"
)Sure.... you'd just need to extract the pk4 files.... but I'm not sure how DR would go about finding that....
-
I believe that DR uses the Doom 3 executable to parse for assets. If that was not the case, I believe DR would have been granted the ability for parse the whole OS file-system "explorer-style" long ago.
I see that GTKRadiant supports HL1 but not HL2, I believe that is pretty telling about how far Source has verged from it's Quake roots...
Just a guess...
The issue with that is that apparently there's a way to make GTKRadiant work with HL2.... but the instructions all seem to have been posted years ago on webhosts that are now defunct....
My impression is that Source's structure isn't different enough to make the two completely incompatible, just incompatible by default. It's not that it won't work at all, it's that it won't work without tinkering with it. Ok, I despise Hammer enough that I'm willing to tinker.
-
A while back I was looking for a way to make DarkRadiant usable for editing Source games as well as idtech games. I've been poking around and I'm still interested, but I'm not exactly sure where to start. I guess what I'm looking for as a starting point is to find out how DR knows where to look for a game's assets? Is it the .game file? Is it one of the libraries? Combination of both?
It has to be more complicated than just editing the doom3.game file and renaming the result, I'm just not sure how much more complicated it needs to be....
** edit **
** sigh ** I just realized I posted this in tech support rather than editor's guild.... please feel free to move the post if that's appropriate. My bad.
-
How about instead of a plugin you download the new 2.53 beta. If you find the new UI confusing, you'll find all full featured 3D modeling applications confusing.
The last beta I tried was an improvement, but it was still a pain in the ass. Don't think I've tried 53 yet.
-
Little Britain for the win.
You can download plugins that makes blender have a more intuitive interface, so perhaps don't rule it out completly until you've explored all the options. I downloaded one that made it look and feel like 3ds max, although the only downside i guess is that you wouldn't really be able to follow the tutorials.
Otherwise, you might want to go with gmax, I love using 3ds max and gmax is essentially just a watered down version for modders.
Here's something that might interest you
I've never seen such plugins, you don't happen to have a link, do you?
-
Ah a shame, I was hoping I could fix some of the most problematic LWO issues
I think there's something odd about Doom's implementation of lwo. I can't get lwo's from Blender to work right either.
-
Corwin, have you been able to export/import .LWO files with AC3d? I tested the linux version and it never exports anything, and on import it says some error about "error 0 at byte 12" or whatever. Maybe I am missing something?
No, I haven't. Actually I get exactly that same error when I try.
I've been working with original models and focusing on ASE as a format, so it hasn't been an issue. I've also been working more with Blender because AC3D does seem to be missing a few features I've needed..... that might just be because of the demo, tho.
Blender's less of a clusterfuck when you find some decent scripts. Kind of like Photoshop in that respect.
-
I've been working with AC3D and so far I like it. It's not free, but it's cheap. (I think it's 40 bucks, which compared to Lightwave and such is nothing.) It's also cross-platform, Windows, Mac and Linux all have native versions.
There's a two week free trial and I've had decent luck with it so far, I think the trial disables plugins but not much else.
-
It's important to note that the engine isn't looking for a TGA file when it looks at the bitmap line although your modeling application might. Instead it's looking for a material shader reference.
Purgatory is just a prefix that I preface all my shader references with that tends to work for me. There several options that work such as...
*BITMAP "//base/models/mapobjects/myModel/ myShader"
*BITMAP "//doom3/base/models/mapobjects/myModel/ myShader"
*BITMAP "//purgatory/purgatory/doom/base/ models/mapobjects/myModel/myShader"
The thing to take note of is that in each case the part in bold is the same. It is that part which is a material shader reference.
In your case I assume that you have a material shader named "textures/outside/outfactory_new5" so you should change the bitmap line to read...
*BITMAP "//purgatory/purgatory/doom3/base/ textures/outside/outfactory_new5"
The good news is that most of my custom models now look normal in the editor. The bad news is I still have one that shows up white and untextured in game.... although I made your changes and now it looks normal in the editor..... //doom3/base/textures/base_floor/ghotile3.tga is one of the textures and //doom3/base/textures/base_wall/steel.tga. Tried removing the .tga and that didn't change anything. I can try remaking that model.... it's two textured cylinders.... should only take a few minutes....
-
WOOT! Fixed it, thanks. I changed my path to just \\doom3\etc..... and now it finds it.
Hmm.... lemme try that with forward slashes to see if that still works....
** edit **
K. Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to care whether you use forward or backslashes.
Thanks! (Figured there was something I wasn't doing.)
-
In the ASE files I've compared yours with I have ...
*MATERIAL_SHINESTRENGTH 0.0000
... where you have nothing.
In your file I see ...
*MATERIAL_TWOSIDED
... and ...
*MATERIAL_SOFTEN
... where I have neither.
Also worth noting is that for the materials with a diffuse stage (about 5 of 20) there is no indentation. Those without a diffuse stage probably aren't used and could be deleted.
For testing purposes I changed the bitmap line in your files to
*BITMAP "\\purgatory\purgatory\doom\base\textures\darkmod\stone\natural\dark_dirty"
And I see this in the editor
I'm thinking you need to change the bitmap line to point to a material shader. I'm not sure any other changes are necessary.
Ok, trying..... for reference, what is purgatory? Your system? Part of the directory structure?
-
Models and textures and brushes and entities and worldspawn and patches and meshes and bumpmaps and visportals and ragdolls and prefabs and func_statics and shaders...
I can't imagine where the confusion lies.
Yeah.... me either....
Maybe it's my sobriety.....
-
What format are you using? ASE? Post an attachment.
Yes, it's an ASE. I have yet to get LWO working right overall.... besides, I've gotten the impression that ASE just works better with idtech overall.
Here's one, ASE renamed to txt. Again, Doom sees it fine and actually DR can see the textures, it lists them in the model browser when I select the model. It just doesn't display them in the editor.
-
So I started modeling, (ac3d is actually very good, if Blender aggravates you as much as it does me, check it out. Two week free trial.) and I've come across an issue..... when I create a model, all is good. I browse to my extracted textures and apply them to the object. Object is textured in the program, but when I insert the model into my map it comes up with the blue and black 'shader not found' texture. Oddly enough.... it DOES work right in the game. (Um, usually. I'm tinkering with one right now where this is not the case, but overall, Doom displays them fine.)
I figure there's something I just haven't told DarkRadiant about where to find the textures used in the model.... I'm just not sure what and where to tell it....
-
Yeah, they really go for tiny increments in version number. 2.25 came out 8 years ago and now we're on 2.5 alpha 2. Just make sure you have a tutorial for the correct version. 2.49 has a tonne on youtube and vimeo. Also the manual on their wiki will cover it.
I might be wrong but I think they stripped that out ages ago. It probably got merged with edit mode. I vaguely remember the UV Face Mode, but it's been a while.
Yeah, some googling let me know about uv face mode, but not really what replaced it...
-
Ok, I think I've figured out a major part of the problem with Blender.... it goes back to what Fidcal was saying about the lack of a tutorial. There are dozens... hundreds of tutorials out there for Blender. Plenty of information. This isn't the problem. What IS the problem is that the Blender foundation makes such radical changes to the software between minor version numbers (this is a HUGE no-no from a development perspective) that 99% of the available tutorials are completely useless because the instructions refer to menu options and processes that AREN'T THERE due to changes in the already cryptic interface. (This is why it's a huge no-no.)
Any tutorial for any version number in the 2.x range should be reasonably useful for any 2.x version of Blender. The problem is that while there are dozens of tutorials out there for that range, almost all of them are only useful for their specific version. I'm trying to work through texturing and uv mapping a simple shape. The tutorial I have is for 2.45. The menu options it refers to (switch the display to 'UV Face Mode') isn't there in 2.49. (I have to assume it's somewhere in the interface, but I have no idea where.... it's not where the tutorial says it is.)
-
At it's heart all modeling applications are the same. It's all vertices and polygons. The tools might have different names and they may be accessed in different ways but they all do the same things.
I started modeling with Lightwave back in 2004. At first I struggled with it. It took 2 years and a couple hundred dollars in training materials before I knew enough to feel comfortable.
I would have stuck with Lightwave if it weren't cost prohibitive. But I'm just a hobbyist and with Blender the upgrades are free and frequent. At the time the UI was nasty but they've done a great deal of work improving it over the last few years.
At any rate, if you expect to install Blender and suddenly know modeling inside and out you're mistaken. You have to practice regularly and it helps if you drop some money on training materials although there are some decent free sources.
I'd love to have some insight as to what is giving you all trouble. But I don't think it's possible for a novice to put it to words without omitting essential information. Would it be too much trouble to ask you guys to record narrated video captures of the things you're trying and failing to do in Blender so that people can better help you?
Ultimately it's not that Blender sucks. It's just that you don't know how to use it.
It shouldn't take me two years to learn how to make a basic girder. That's nonsense. I've used everything from Photoshop to AutoCad. And yes, I picked up the basics of using the Doom level editors in an afternoon. Wasn't tough. More complicated and impressive stuff? I'm still working on that.... but I'm getting it bit by bit. With Blender, we're talking about taking weeks to figure out how to make the modeling equivalent of two box rooms and a hallway. I'm not even in character modeling yet. Nothing bizarre, nothing terribly complex. What complexity there is is largely due to having a large number of items in a given model.... but while there are a lot of them, they're regular. Replication is your friend.
What's giving me problems? I can express some of it at least:
The 'objects' you create don't act like objects created in other software packages (such as CAD) or like objects in the real world. Your 'object' is just the little primitive shape created by the editor, even after extrusion when you would EXPECT that now that you've extruded a cylinder, your object is now the large, extruded cylinder. There is also no way (apparently) to select all of said extruded cylinder.
The interface is counterintuitive. Clicking and dragging doesn't move or deform an object unless you use some obscure, poorly documented (and unintuitive) key combination.... and even then it rarely moves or deforms it in the way you want it to. My first attempts at extrusion, for example, extruded wedges out of a cylinder. Every.... other.... wedge. Why on EARTH I would even want to do this in the first place still escapes me.... let alone why it's the default behavior.
The controls are wonky. I've used worse.... try driving in HalfLife2, for example.... but still, they're pretty bad. Panning around your item basically works, but it's irregular and clumsy.
There seems to be a heavy emphasis on animation at the expense of usable tools (and the documentation of said tools) for creating static models. I quite frankly don't give a damn about camera angles and lighting. I want to make an object. That's all. I don't WANT hippos in pink tutus dancing around it.
Minor nitpick: It's ugly as hell. You have grey, mauve, and grey. Occasional swaths of pink and puke green. For artists, the designers don't impress me here at all.
No program should ever omit 'File,' 'Edit,' 'View' and the like. My method of exiting the program should only consist of 'killall -9' when the program has crashed, not because I can't find 'File > Quit.'
The workspace and objects are too arbitrarily small, and the workspace can't be changed. Get working on anything of a usable size, and you're off the grid. You also can't manually enter in the dimensions of an object. (No, I don't want to drag it out to the right size.... especially when the right size is several dozen times the size of my available window. I know how big I want it, let me type the number in.)
Too.... much.... crap. There's so much going on on the screen that the viewports end up being too small to be usable. Frankly, outside of small detail work, I can't SEE what I'm doing.
The documentation. Oh, the documentation. I've written software documentation. Professionally, even. I'd like a long, heartfelt talk with the authors of this documentation. Preferably involving some Thorazine, jumper cables and a baseball bat. Failing that.... forcing them into a basic technical writing class (at gunpoint if necessary) would be a start. It skips steps, avoids mentioning issues that I later find out are common problems and skips ahead to what the author thinks is interesting when what you're looking for either doesn't get mentioned at all, or only gets mentioned in passing with no useful details.
There's a reason software interfaces are the way they are. That reason is that THEY WORK. Messing with this is something that should only be done for a very VERY good reason, and I'm not seeing that reason aside from art students either not knowing anything at all about software design, or deciding that they just wanted to do things differently for the sake of doing things differently.
Bottom line: To do even the most basic things I have to dig through a half dozen websites to find a vague description of how to do what I want, then I have to jump through five flaming hoops just to make a thrice-damned support structure that I could make in ten minutes in a more well designed program. (I know this, because I've done it. Checked out AC3D this afternoon, and I'll probably be buying it after the trial runs out. The girder that was giving me fits? Ten damn minutes and I cranked it out.)
-
In fairness I think the problem is that A. Modelling is complex so there is a lot to learn, most especially with texturing, B. Blender doesn't use conventions common to all Windows programs which most of us are used to so very little is intuitive, C. It is not written with exporting to a game like Doom3 as a main priority so most information comes from a different direction. D. There is no ideal, comprehensive tutorial so you spend 10 or 100 times longer to learn which is frustrating and time-wasting. This is actually the main, perhaps the only problem because with really good guidance it probably could be mastered in a reasonable time.
Modeling is complex, but it's not THAT complex.... Blender doesn't use conventions common to all programs, regardless of OS. It also doesn't use conventions common to all graphics programs outside of one particular branch of 3d modeling. For those of us like myself that cut our teeth on AutoCad.... it's frustrating as hell.
The problem is that you find yourself asking over and over again 'why are you doing that?' and the explanation (when you can find it) invariably triggers the second question: 'why the hell would I even WANT to do that?!?!?!?!?!'
It's not written for exporting to games, no... it's written for making cheesy CGI movies that nobody else will watch but look great when you're stoned.
Sorry, I'm letting my frustration bleed through.
-
Yeah but I think all stickies should perhaps all be in their own child forum or they get to clutter up the main forum. Anyway, good luck with this. Drove me crazy for a while but I'm OK now and completely also not confused at even when not thinking about still when absolutely clear on and not a bit.
I'm actually looking at other programs. I despise Blender with a passion that rivals that fires of Hell. (Which, since I'm looking at doing models for Doom 3, is actually kind of appropriate.) Stuff should NOT BE THIS COMPLICATED. Nothing makes sense. I can create a model, can't select the whole model after I'm done.... stuff like that.
I've tried both 2.49 and 2.5.... and while 2.5 seems to be an improvement in some ways.... it's horrifically bad in others. Come on.... this program doesn't even have File > Edit > View etc.....
Ok, revisiting a project....
in TDM Tech Support
Posted
Meh, I can cope with taking a mostly finished map and loading it into Hammer for some finishing work if I absolutely have to. The viewports thing.... the best way I can describe it is that the whole program feels like I'm working in 1024x768, but with none of the benefits like readable fonts. If I'm lucky I can see one room at a time in the viewports and using the 3d window is kludgy as hell. In DR? No problem. I have one window for most of my editing and can quickly switch between top down - side - front views, and one window for 3d. They also feel like I'm actually working in 1280x1024.