New model folders

[Springheel]

Baddcog, I see you added a new folder in the kitchen section for food. I can see the logic behind that move, but it creates problems when we already have food in the main kitchen folder. If we move them, it breaks existing maps. If we don't move them, it creates confusion when mappers look for food models.

 

I'd rather not create new sub-categories inside existing folders unless there's a pressing reason. In this case, I think it's pretty intuitive to look for food in the "kitchen" folder.

 

I'm interested in hearing how other people feel about it, however.

[Baddcog]

Well, we do only have the muffin and cake (which I think is to be aced/replaced anyway) and your loaf which I don't have (is it on SVN, I thought I was up to date)

 

I really think we need to start using subfolders myself, that's why I added that one. It's possible we will end up with 20 kinds of food, 30 dishes, silverware, pots, pans, bottles, sacks... Pretty soon we're gonna be scrolling thru 50+ things to find a loaf. I'm a firm beliver in organization and it needs to be sooner than later or we'll start getting map issue and it'll be too late later.

 

Another good reason to sub-folder is certian objects have different props. If I'm building a level and looking for something to feed the player I don't wanna search thru pots and pans.

 

I think that's a problem that we keep facing is lack of good folder structure from the get go. We have sacks in kitchen and under containers. Iwould've never pout barrels under containers, I can live with it but doesn't make sense to me. Containers should only be things that hold something for player IMO.

 

I can find instances of this in each folder, graveyard has bones_... then way down the list skull. I'd personally rather open a graveyard folder and see

 

gravestones

 

bones

 

debris

 

stautes

 

then if I want a gravestone I can look only at gravestones and search the 10+ stones, if I want statues I'd only look in that folder...

 

that's my 2 cents anyway

[Komag]

I think lots of folders are a good idea too, so that in the future when more and more models are created, especially including after the public release, there will be enough of a structure to accommodate them all

[Springheel]

It's possible we will end up with 20 kinds of food, 30 dishes, silverware, pots, pans, bottles, sacks

 

You could be right, but to me that seems really excessive, especially when we can use skins to create different versions of things. How many different kinds of dishes are there? Do we really need six different kinds of bread model or four different types of spoon?

 

Remember this is a toolset. We aren't necessarily supposed to include every single model a mapper might conceivably want--if we did that the size of the mod would be enormous. If a mapper is making a bakery and needs six differently-sized loafs of bread, there's nothing stopping them from resizing the existing models and adding them to their pk4. But do we need everyone who is downloading the mod to download six different bread models?

 

That's not entirely connected to the issue of sub-folders, but it is related.

 

If we decide to add more folders (which will mean breaking maps) then we should definitely do it all at once, not a few at a time.

 

How many models is too many for a single folder?

[Komag]

My opinion is that I don't think download size should be much of a consideration. People download 3 and 4 gig files pretty often, 1 gig is almost standard for game demos lately, and we'll probably do some sort of free DVD mailout for the broadband challenged.

 

From a mapper's perspective (and someone who has never made any custom content, which most Dromeder's don't for instance), a ton of models would be very nice. When I've edited in Dromed and Thief 3 I've always wanted more more more when it comes to objects. It shouldn't increase the download too much I would think. Or are they really quite large?

 

Items per folder - I'd say 3-20 or so.

[PinkDot]

At this moment we're still lacking models so it's hard for me to imagine situation where we have them too many. And lack of variety in models was also an issue after playing a dozen of FMs, so six diffrent breads repeated 10 ten times seems to be better for me than one bread repeated sixty times.

 

As for the broken maps - at this stage it still can happen, same as it happens with the textures, cause we're still in developing stage. And since maps are text files, wrong paths can be easily fixed the same way as textures.

 

The only problem I can see is that such a change should be discussed before. There's no one way of sorting models and what's obvious for one person might be not the best for somebody else.

 

BTW: I always had a feeling that models folder structure is somewhat smaller than the one in Thief 2... I'd say new folder for a food could be a good thing. The question is if it has to belong to kitchen or be at the same level as kitchen.

[Baddcog]

I think ultimately since we will probably have alot of T2 authors using the tools set the oprimal thing would have been to follow T2's hiearchy structure. Much too late for that of course, I also realize we'll have T3 authors, people who've never used Dromed ect... So people will get used to what ever we give em, maybe everyone won't agree with the organization but they'll get used to it. With that said...

 

I think kitchen is an alright place for food to be. It could go a million ways for sure. Food could have it's own folder, but not nessecary.

 

I have added a few folders alread (example: nature/flowers). I did try to add ones that made sense, and in some instances I didn't make folders (lights for example) but maybe should have.

The extinguish list is pretty small. The non-extinguish list is getting large, now I've made one 'magic' lamp and will try and make more, these would probably be a 'mage light' for the most part. Authors can use em however they wish, but I think establishing items by faction could be a good thing also. When authors make a mission in Dromed most of them realize that this or that was a mechanist item, or a hammer item. We're at a disadvantage as we don't have a full game built so people can reference this. If the magic light is just under lights will people use it in the correct setting most of the time? Will it be a mage item as intended or will it just be a generic light used in taverns and sewers? I realize we can't control what authors do and someone will use stuff 'wrong' no matter what, but this is one whayt we can suggest how/where to use stuff.

 

Just easy of use really, sure we don't need 10 loaves of bread, and probably won't have them. But why have bread with dishes? That's my point. Under kitchen sure, alot of stuff is in kitchens, food would be one of em.

 

As for broken maps, this is why I haven't touched anything else, just started organizing things I made as I saw fit.

But as PinkDot said it is and will happen so best to get it done before release if we need to.

 

I really think releasing a well organized toolset will only be a good thing in the long run.

 

I can easily see us doubling the objects by release. 1 1/2 years is a long time. I tend to go in spells but I can usually do a few objects a week. 2x75 weeks. That's 150 right there, plus skins.

 

@Komag,

The file sizes aren't too large. Most of our objects are average between 8k and 200k. It's the skins that really up the size with most TGAs between 1-3MB each. Of course I assume we'll have those converted to dds at some point, so they'll probably be 50k to 1 MB. But still, you have a pot that is 50 k and 4 skins at 200k (then again alot of these skins are used on 4-5 objects).

The flowers I just made use a skin for each color of flower, but they use Springheel's bush tex for the stems.

117 k for object, 256k x 5 for tga's.

[sparhawk]

I think it makes sense to have a seperate food folder. Kitchen could be used for kitchen stuff like pots, pans, dishes, etc.. If the folder grows later (which I hope), then it will be more navigatable if the folder strucutres are shallower.

[OrbWeaver]

We could always employ a heuristic like "If there are 3 or more objects in a particular subcategory, create a folder for that subcategory".

[sparhawk]

IMO that's bad, because it means that we constantly have to move objects around. As soon as the limit of three is reached will have to creaet a new subfolder. Then what do we do with the current models? Move them and break maps, or keep them and create in inconsistency?

[PinkDot]

Baddcog - sometimes model's name is enough to figure out what environment does it belong to. The best way of grouping models is doing that by their function, as most of our folders do. If you have magic light they still can be of both kinds - extinguishable or not.

 

On that topic - I'm going to move anchor model from misc to nautical folder soon. That's the only model I have to move there, I suppose and the only place it was used (AFAIK) was jdude's map. We can establish a rule that whoever in the future moves models from one folder to another, should change all map files available at SVN. And of course, as I mentioned earlier - all changes should be discussed to avoid mess. This would be fair, I think.

[Springheel]

Authors can use em however they wish, but I think establishing items by faction could be a good thing also. When authors make a mission in Dromed most of them realize that this or that was a mechanist item, or a hammer item. We're at a disadvantage as we don't have a full game built so people can reference this. If the magic light is just under lights will people use it in the correct setting most of the time?

 

Well, there really isn't a 'correct' setting to use stuff like this in. A magic light might be inappropriate in an inn, or it might not. Maybe the owner gives free room and board to a mage in return for 'favours'. As long as the name makes it clear that it's a magic light, that should be enough. That's why I've added naming conventions to the wiki. I think the names people used in the past, like wchair01, are not descriptive enough. We should try and use names that give the mapper relevant information about the object, like chair_rustic_crooked, or something.

 

As far as new folders, I'm not big on the idea of changing them as we go. If we're going to add new folders, we should make a list and do it in one swoop. There are actually a few things I'd like to reorganize about the model folder structure, so if we did everything all in one go it would be better.

 

When I came up with that folder structure, we only had about twenty models (and I knew a lot less about modeling than I do now). I'd actually like to get rid of the whole "props" subfolder and move everything up a layer, and do something with the ever-expanding texture folder.

 

Maybe we should get a list of the folders people think should be created that aren't already there. I know we're going to be adding a "nautical" folder, so let's start adding to the following list:

 

New Folders:

 

nautical (ship/docks related)

food

statues

[Baddcog]

Well, first there is models/props

that folder should be deleted. there are only 2 things there.

 

I also wouldn't mind getting rid of the models/darkmod/props folder. There are ALOT of folders to navigate to get into ANY folder with models.

 

I don't have time now but I can do a list later.

 

But Gizmos is a good one to add. This is a folder in Dromed where most of the switches, levers and machines were.

[Springheel]

Well, first there is models/props

that folder should be deleted. there are only 2 things there.

 

Yes, I'd like to get rid of it but we can't delete that one without messing up some internal code. It's an unfortunate holdover from the original model structure.

[greebo]

Does anybody know what internal code sections are still referencing the models/props folder? I can't quite imagine that it's hard to replace the references to it in the code.

[Springheel]

I don't know--it's been years, but I vaguely remember it having something to do with the af rope.

[greebo]

So far I only found one single reference (models/props/misc/lightgem.lwo) which can easily be changed, I reckon.

 

@sparhawk: Do you know whether this would cause any troubles?

[PinkDot]

nautical folder - already exists (boats are there so far)

statues - isn't decorative oversized supposed to be the one for statues? what will be left in there if we create separate folder for statues only?

gizmos - what about existing mechanical folder?

 

to be honest - I don't understand the idea of gen folder. It's against the logic of the rest folder structure. The way model uses texture is only technical thing and has nothing to do with its usage, which is the thing mappers are more interested in.

[Springheel]

statues - isn't decorative oversized supposed to be the one for statues? what will be left in there if we create separate folder for statues only?

 

Problem is, some statues are in the decorative folder, along with 'statuettes'. Decorative oversized is supposed to be anything approximately man-sized or larger, so it's not always clear where almost man-sized statues should go. If we made a folder for statues, then decorative_oversized could be kept for fountains, large sundials, monuments, etc.

 

gizmos - what about existing mechanical folder?

 

Agreed. The mechanical folder is exactly for those things.

 

to be honest - I don't understand the idea of gen folder. It's against the logic of the rest folder structure.

 

I agree here too. It doesn't make sense to duplicate models twice, or to group them based on what skins they use. We should just modify the original textures so they fit the gen uv-map and then get rid of the gen folder.

[sparhawk]

So far I only found one single reference (models/props/misc/lightgem.lwo) which can easily be changed, I reckon.

 

@sparhawk: Do you know whether this would cause any troubles?

 

Well we have to update the code. I also assigned a cvar to it I think. It's been a long time. But chaning the reference in the code shouldn't be a big deal. It should be only one place anyway.

[PinkDot]

We should just modify the original textures so they fit the gen uv-map and then get rid of the gen folder.

I'm not sure what you mean. Couldn't we just move those models to appropriate folders without modifying them?

[Springheel]

Yes, but they are duplicate versions of models that already exist. AFAIK Ascottk took existing models and redid the uvmap so that it would fit the gen textures. Moving them would just mean we have two identical versions of the same model, but with different uvmaps.

[PinkDot]

I don't know how changing textures to match gen UV layout will work in practice. I wouldn't mind having two identical buckets one with gen_ prefix, so people can figure out it uses diffrent set of skins.

 

Besides that - are you sure all of them are duplicated? I couldn't find pump model anywhere else.

[Springheel]

That was my impression--I can't check the mod right now but the pump is listed under "misc" on the model website.

 

If they're not duplicates, then there's no problem, we can just move them to the right folder. If they are duplicates, rather than having two different pumps with different sets of skins, it makes sense to have just one model with access to ALL the available skins. I'll look them over and see what needs to be done--changing the original texture won't be difficult.

[PinkDot]

You're right - waterpump is in misc folder as well.

 

I still can't imagine how you can make one model using reasonably gen texture and standard one with one and the same UV layout, but I'll just wait for your results.