Spring RTS Engine

Kloot wrote:

FLOZi wrote: 1. Use Blender

Just to clarify: you *need* to use Blender (to set the piece hierarchy, etc) if and only if you want to run the metadata generator script I wrote. You don't actually have to *model* in it, so long as your $editor_of_choice can export to a format that Blender can import (eg. OBJ). That may make the situation less objectionable to some.

(extending Wings' code just so that it allows *setting* a hierarchy would be decidely more painful than modelling in Blender allegedly is, so making the metadata come from Blender which is fully scriptable seemed like the best option)

FLOZi wrote:I talked to smoth and got the impression that Wings can't be used for setting up hierarchy, origins etc.

FLOZi wrote:Bam, 90% of spring modders can't use their choice of software in the way you intend.

The options become:

1. Use Blender
2. Pirate Max / some other fully featured software
3. Stick with Upspring and s3o
4. Hand write your metafile

HeadHunter wrote:Okay, so the simplest way to go now is to throw away wings (which is buggy shit anyways IMHO), and use blender to make just a normal model with couple extra properties and it would work... Well, I'll sure try that and see what happens=)

model = {
   radius = 25.0,
   height = 40,
   midpos = {0,-20,0}, -- model center offset
   tex1 = "corraid1_512.dds", -- same as S3O texture 1
   tex2 = "corraid2_512.dds", -- same as S3O texture 2
   invertteamcolor = true, -- invert tex1 alpha channel
   fliptextures = true, -- turn textures upside down
   pieces = {
      root = {
         rotate = {-90,0,0},
         offset = {10,0,0}
      },
      turret = {
         parent = "chassis",
         rotateZ = 30,
         offsetY = 20,
      }
   }
}
return model

• Blender is not required to make new models, no involvement in blender is necessary
• If you have an s3o you have a source file, which means you have a modelling tool, which means you can just use that tool and/or a metafile, no blender necessary
• ASSIMP does not replace/remove the s3o pipeline. s3o models still work. There is a lot of resistance that ASSIMP was never needed, that UpSpring worked fine, that people are happy and comfortable with that workflow so why change it? Well nobody changed it.
• You can safely ignore the ASSIMP stuff, and let people who want to use it use it. So why are you complaining and whining about something your not going to use anyway?
• The ASSIMP pipeline provides a new way of doing things that better suits other people.
• s3o won't be made obsolete until pretty much every mod is using the ASSIMP model, which would take years anyway. Heck we still have 3do support, you can use 3do builder if you so please.

1. S3O is not disappearing overnight I agree
2. Upspring is not fit for purpose. I agree
3. Several people keep putting ASSIMP forward as the answer to all problems for all people - it isn't; especially for anyone who isn't an existing Blender user.I agree but not where blender is concerned save for the specific operation which is unneccesary for new users anyway

2. In favour of keeping s3o as a parallel format. Which as you helpfully point out it is - but only because of the pressure applied on Spliff to keep it so.

FLOZi wrote: Are the obj/assimp metafiles fully compatible yet? Last time I talked to Car he seemed to have some concerns over the obj metafile (and I don't know who else is trying to use obj in a real project, anyone?).

FLOZi wrote: I do accept using Blender only for the final stage, as a direct replacement for Upspring isn't too objectionable, though I imagine Blender won't render the textures in a 'spring like' way regarding channel usage?

FLOZi wrote: What you gain in some respects you may lose in others. The likelihood is we'll still be seeing s3os in game archives for some years to come (We still haven't fully outgrown 3do!), and Upspring is still the only tool to really deal with them (yes they can be converted - so can 3do, and yet they aren't).

though I imagine Blender won't render the textures in a 'spring like' way regarding channel usage?

HeadHunter wrote:at the moment, I will try to fix the upspring build. Just because assimp chain is undocumented and not ready anyways.

SpliFF wrote:The issue seems to be simply that wings3d has too few features (it's a mesh editor, not a model builder) and blender has too many features (and quirky interfaces) to make it easy. Milkshape is a better fit but it's shareware (and windows only I think).

UpSpring fills a pretty narrow role. Most of it's features nobody actually uses (like the scripting stuff). It's main role is simply adding the hierarchy, height and radius to a file that doesn't have one. It has no purpose outside the Spring community so developer mindshare is minimal (hence the reason it still has serious issues going on years).

In short, UpSpring and S3O itself were custom measures to deal with limitations of legacy 3d editors and their export formats. However better model formats now exist and so do better editors and tools. Keeping UpSpring around may be prudent in the short term to medium term, particularly for existing projects, but in the longer term it's a poor use of developer time and newer projects should consider the advantages that these newer tools and formats can bring.

@Flozi, Please don't mention OBJ in relation to assimp. It is an even more limited format than S3O. It doesn't support hierarchies (without a metafile) and a range of other things that may become useful later on. OBJ is not a generic term for "everything other than S3O". The recommended formats for use with assimp are 3DS or Collada.

I can also write you up a quick howto for using models with assimp but in the meantime most of what you need is already in the assimp thread and AssimpMod (look in the objects3d directory for examples of models and metadata).

Kloot wrote:

FLOZi wrote: Are the obj/assimp metafiles fully compatible yet? Last time I talked to Car he seemed to have some concerns over the obj metafile (and I don't know who else is trying to use obj in a real project, anyone?).

Not yet, and only for the former does a generator exist. There is indeed one issue left with it, due to lack of demand.

FLOZi wrote: I do accept using Blender only for the final stage, as a direct replacement for Upspring isn't too objectionable, though I imagine Blender won't render the textures in a 'spring like' way regarding channel usage?

That's true, but then again the "Spring way" is highly non-standard. At some point the texture1/texture2 system will have to make way for more advanced common rendering techniques, otherwise assimp's added support of new formats will ultimately be pointless (beyond removing UpSpring from the equation).

FLOZi wrote: What you gain in some respects you may lose in others. The likelihood is we'll still be seeing s3os in game archives for some years to come (We still haven't fully outgrown 3do!), and Upspring is still the only tool to really deal with them (yes they can be converted - so can 3do, and yet they aren't).

If most existing 3DO/S3O content is still being edited (not created) regularly, it might indeed be worthwhile to patch up UpSpring, but if not, that time would IMO be better spent writing im- and exporters for well-established tools that can perform the same "rigging" functions. (obviously, for Blender those already exist, and IIRC also for 3D Studio)

smoth wrote:3ds can go die in a fire, any issues with collada?