Some Questions About Darkradiant

[Bukary]

Which tutorials you want depends on what 3D application you are using to create your objects.

It's 3ds max.

[sparhawk]

I'm using Blender, but in the beginning I also found it tedious, untile I properly determined how you must do it. Now it works everytime the first time. The major problem I had was, that there are contradicting ifnromation in different tutorials as how the material must be named in the model to make it work. So it was more a try and error until I figured it out once and for all.

[OrbWeaver]

Or am I missing something here?

 

I believe that in TDS everything (including material exports) is done through the closed-source Max 5.1 plugin, meaning that for Max 5.1 users it is exceedingly easy, while for everyone else it is impossible.

 

Moving to Doom 3 with its open formats may seem like a hassle if you are used to having everything done automatically, but the openness and flexibility is much more important. In particular there is nothing stopping someone from creating an all-integrated export plugin for their 3D app of choice.

[Bukary]

Another question: is there a way to change model size in Radiant (e.g. make the barrel two times bigger)? In T3Ed there was DrawScale property that allowed us to do it.

 

Do I need to use e.g. 3ds max in order to change mesh size?

[OrbWeaver]

Another question: is there a way to change model size in Radiant (e.g. make the barrel two times bigger)? In T3Ed there was DrawScale property that allowed us to do it.

 

I think somebody did manage to do this on D3World by using the rotation matrix to perform a scaling operation.

 

I don't know how well it worked though, normally I would recommend getting the size correct during the modelling stage.

[Bukary]

So... I've finally found something that is better implemented in T3Ed.

[New Horizon]

The material name can be far more simple than all that. The only place you might run into trouble is if the material name matches up with something in default doom3. I recently changed all the materials to only use a single description, but I've been rethinking this and I believe it should be something like.. tdm_materialname. Should run far less risk of having any conflicts that way.

 

For example.

 

tdm_treesmall
{
qer_editorimage Textures/dram/trees/trees.tga
nonsolid
	twosided 
noshadows
{
	blend diffusemap
	alphatest 0.2
	map		Textures/dram/trees/trees.tga
}
{
 if ( parm11 >= 0.5 )
	blend  add
	map	Textures/dram/trees/trees.tga
	rgb 0.5
}
}

 

 

So... I've finally found something that is better implemented in T3Ed.

 

Well, it can't really be compared to T3Ed because the function to scale within the editor isn't officially implimented in Doom 3 Ed. It's just as easy to rescale in the 3D app that the model was built in.

[OrbWeaver]

So... I've finally found something that is better implemented in T3Ed.

 

It's certainly no worse in D3 than in T3Ed, it's just that rescaling in the 3D app is generally the better solution in any case.

 

Nevertheless, there ARE things that are better in T3Ed, such as the entity browser/menu (which is absolute crap in DoomEdit and top of my priority list of enhancements for DarkRadiant).

[Bukary]

It's certainly no worse in D3 than in T3Ed, it's just that rescaling in the 3D app is generally the better solution in any case.

Yes, but in T3Ed there is an (buggy) option. In Radian it is not possible at all.

[SneaksieDave]

So... I've finally found something that is better implemented in T3Ed.

At least one, yes, fully agreed. To get out, resize a model, perhaps retexture it (I don't know), perhaps re-material it (again, I don't know - and that's part of the problem - the know-how needed beyond a simple single action within the editor itself), versus just setting a scale property to 2.0? T3Ed wins there. Hopefully it can be put into the modified version of the editor.

[Dram]

At least one, yes, fully agreed. To get out, resize a model, perhaps retexture it (I don't know), perhaps re-material it (again, I don't know - and that's part of the problem - the know-how needed beyond a simple single action within the editor itself), versus just setting a scale property to 2.0? T3Ed wins there. Hopefully it can be put into the modified version of the editor.

 

no it's as simple as bringing it up in milkshape (can import/export all D3 formats except for ase and md5mesh (but can import md5mesh)), select all and scale 2x or whatever. Super simple. Plus Milkshapes grid is the same units as D3's grid. Though for modelling milkshape is very basic.

[OrbWeaver]

Yes, but in T3Ed there is an (buggy) option. In Radian it is not possible at all.

 

Who said it's not possible?

 

It IS possible as far as I know, you just have to edit three values rather than 1 (to scale in X, Y and Z respectively).

[Renzatic]

It IS possible as far as I know, you just have to edit three values rather than 1 (to scale in X, Y and Z respectively).

 

Yeah, it's possible. But it does the exact same thing it does in T3Ed...it rescales the model but not the collision box. So unless you're using it for objects you'll never run across, it's about useless.

[Dram]

Yeah, it's possible. But it does the exact same thing it does in T3Ed...it rescales the model but not the collision box. So unless you're using it for objects you'll never run across, it's about useless.

 

Well true, but you can put a clip brush there to imitatie it. Of course, it still means that you can't rescale moveables.

[Bukary]

Who said it's not possible?

 

It IS possible as far as I know, you just have to edit three values rather than 1 (to scale in X, Y and Z respectively).

How? How do I rescale objects in Radiant?

[SneaksieDave]

Okay, a reword then:

 

1. Leave editor, fire up milkshape or whatever, do as described, save it out as a new object, material-ize it, and then use it in a mission

 

-versus-

 

2. set the scale property

 

In T3Ed, you'd use clip objects to block around it if you wanted a quick collision fix. The whole second remake of my map (which will likely never see the light of day ) is based on it.

 

Anyway, Bukary, you have to play with the rotation property. For instance,

 

rotation 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

 

gives three sets of three numbers, in this case, scaled to one. So for double scale,

 

rotation 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

 

But it starts to run into problems when you want to rotate them. They become skewed or otherwise not-easily-manageable. The addition of scaling alone would be such a boon to D3Ed in my opinion...

[Bukary]

Anyway, Bukary, you have to play with the rotation property. For instance,

 

rotation 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

 

gives three sets of three numbers, in this case, scaled to one. So for double scale,

 

rotation 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

 

But it starts to run into problems when you want to rotate them. They become skewed or otherwise not-easily-manageable. The addition of scaling alone would be such a boon to D3Ed in my opinion...

I've just tried working with rotation key. It does scale objects, but - as you said - it makes them "unrotatable" at the same time.

 

Well, I guess we have to stick with the first method.

[Gildoran]

It doesn't make them impossible to rotate... it just requires you to do the rotation math manually.

[Dram]

Okay, a reword then:

 

1. Leave editor, fire up milkshape or whatever, do as described, save it out as a new object, material-ize it, and then use it in a mission

 

-versus-

 

2. set the scale property

 

aargh, no! By rescaling it in milkshape it means it's collision box will be correct, unlike the scale

[sparhawk]

I don't know how well it worked though, normally I would recommend getting the size correct during the modelling stage.

 

This should work pretty simple, because the rotation/transformation matrix can do this without extra steps. This is not something that has to be designed in, it is a characterstics of the fundamental math. So you would have to take extra steps to prevent it, instead of the other way around.

[Bukary]

It doesn't make them impossible to rotate... it just requires you to do the rotation math manually.

Hmm... I guess there's so much more to learn for me... I have no idea what you're talking about. Well, back to Radiant.

[OrbWeaver]

Hmm... I guess there's so much more to learn for me... I have no idea what you're talking about. Well, back to Radiant.

 

Don't worry about it. You will never have to concern yourself with matrix transformations when using Radiant for ordinary editing.

[Domarius]

Yes, I did. Have you played OCOD? Did you like it?

Whoops, sorry I missed this.

 

Yes of course, that's how I like the mission so much. I played it before I realised the principal was to pack as much fun into a small a place as possible, and when I realised this is what was going on, it blew me away. The level feels bigger than it really is. And all the custom stuff that happened, like the explosion, was great. The mission had such a memorable and unique atmosphere, created by the visuals (architecture and effects) as well as the plot and scripted sequences, I won't forget it.

[Bukary]

Yes of course, that's how I like the mission so much. I played it before I realised the principal was to pack as much fun into a small a place as possible, and when I realised this is what was going on, it blew me away. The level feels bigger than it really is. And all the custom stuff that happened, like the explosion, was great. The mission had such a memorable and unique atmosphere, created by the visuals (architecture and effects) as well as the plot and scripted sequences, I won't forget it.

Thank you. I hope that in the future I'll be able to use my skills in Dark Mod service. Right now it's all completely new to me... I'm trying to learn how to do some things with brushes (additive geometry is... strange) by analyzing other people's maps. For example, "Trite Breeding Facility" is extraoridinary. It'll take me ages to learn how do do some of this stufff... But I'll keep on trying.

[OrbWeaver]

I never found looking at other people's maps to be particularly instructive, as it usually involves being faced with a totally incomprehensible mishmash of brushes and objects with no easy way of discovering how each part was built. I find it easier to work up from the basics by following a tutorial and experimenting.

 

What I have found useful is using the r_showSurfaceInfo cvar while playtesting, which allows you to point at something an immediately see what model it is and what texture is applied. You can then look up the model in a 3D app if desired, examine the individual textures or whatever.