CMP to SUR Conversion Tests
-
Doesn’t need to be, could be in a log file or whatever is easiest as a tracing tool.
Actually I meant programmatically speaking, as in the next line of code! lol
Thinking about it a log may be best if we need more tracking output later to get closer to the problem.
-
Not sure if LD will have the the source for 1.1 as that was Colin’s project, but you never know.
As for FLMM LD does have the source for it, as it’s now an ongoing EOA project, Matt dropped the whole lot in his lap a couple of years ago, Crazy released FLMM 1.5 last year as part of that project.
-
yea, ST, i think it is sensible if they get up here. ofc, we are kinda new generation, many of us are either teenagers or at least under 30 but moralic standards are irrelevant for technical work. what we need is knowledge, the ability to explain and the wish to keep the game alive. it is unimportant whether we like each other as long as we keep rationalic (sounds vulcanic, don’t you think?
). even to mention \v\ again: yes, we troll each other, which is most stupid time consumption ever invented. in end effect, you won’t disagree, that even such a project does its, even if tiny, but however is being a part of the initiative.
now, sorry, for offtopic…
isn’t it, that this v1.5 FLMM is even more buggy than 1.31? fortunately they call it a beta, so clean work is not to expect but once i tried out 1.4 and 1.5 me, and many others got back to 1.31, didn’t you? -
Update:
It’s taking me forever to isolate this…
OK, managed to get a 14-mixed-shape test file to generate complete sur parts as follows, but I know you won’t believe it!
What is not working?
1. Regular boxes (8 vertices, all 90 degree angles). One or more or even all always fail to be sur’d, no matter what the size. This is our problem.
2. Solid triangles (6 vertices) are frequently missed. When the length is close to 2 x width they can work but are unreliable,
3. The warning from LS & BW that minimum 5 vertices are needed for sur builder to work on a shape. So two faces with one common seam (4 vertices) will not work.
What is working?
Here are the shapes that do work correctly:
1. Sur Builder Settings: Sort: Type 2, No secondary sort, Duplicate Radius = 0.
2. We can have “boxes” made of 2-stack, 4-slice cylinders then they work fine - basically this is a double box, 12 vertices.
3. Thick triangles made using 1-stack 3-slice cylinders (8 vertices) are fine, even when one side is welded to make a knife-edge too (6 vertices).
4. Other shapes: spheres, geospheres, cylinders, “eggs” (stretched spheres) are OK.
5. Irregular-shaped boxes (looking down from above):
5a. Boxes MUST be tapered at the front or back, depending on their position and also depending on whether or not there is another shape beside it but further out from the centre line. This changes!
5b. If another shape is added the taper may need to be reversed!
I told you that you wouldn’t believe me.
One GREAT confirmation for all time: Parts do NOT need to be welded together to generate a good sur part in sur builder.
But Bejaymac is very possibly still right in that the sur may not work in-game, although his long and bad experience was not with surs made with sur builder.
On the other hand if the sur parts are all fine and present? So we need to test such a sur in-game to confirm. I don’t have time at the moment, please go ahead someone, make a ship with gaps and sur it and test it out. It WILL be fun seeing a rickety ship working in space!
How long did this proof take me? Don’t ask, my wife is so pissed with me you won’t believe. If we had a dog he’d be in the house and I’d be in his house for the next 2-3 weeks.
But this is how we avoid the box problem - now we found the cause, we have to get BW & LS to fix it.
Here’s the .ms3d file in a zip, it includes all the shapes, and the surs that were generated, so test it yourselves or make similar ones:
-
Gisteron wrote:
isn’t it, that this v1.5 FLMM is even more buggy than 1.31?Yes.
Also, the most recent report on Crazy’s blog is that the 1.5 source is lost. There has not been an update to 1.5 in over a year.
Those are the reasons that I asked ST to look into the source for FLMM. It sounds as though perhaps Louva Deus avoided ST’s request without giving him a real answer?
EDIT: I do not know what is going on with seriouszone.com. Yesterday I could not reach EOA’s home page. Today I cannot reach the forum, either!
Mirkha wrote:
so ? too simple shape won’t work ?
like a cube or a rectangle ?One of the known tips is to use enough polygons. Cursor found that tessellation fixed two CMPs that were not making complete SURs.
-
I’ve done some work on a simple FLMM clone, but I think this is definitely something that should go for another topic. Let’s concentrate on SURs here shall we?
-
Well in fact I was able to restore the FLMM 1.5 source code.
It’s buggy as it’s based on the FLMM 1.4 beta 4 source and not and the 1.31 source.I’ve planned to start fixing it’s bugs when I got a bit more freetime.
I’ll readd the bugtracker so that you can report current FLMM bugs. -
Crazy wrote:
Well in fact I was able to restore the FLMM 1.5 source code…
it’s based on the FLMM 1.4 beta 4 source and not and the 1.31 source.Cool.
While I agree that FLMM is off-topic, Crazy, you’re the right guy… does the 1.31 source exist anymore? Is there any chance of putting FLMM on someplace like the Forge and making it a community project? I would be happy to help, and sometimes many hands makes light work (although too many cooks can spoil the broth, as well).
Same question for FriendlyFire regarding his FLMM clone.
And, yes, I would love to see a separate thread about a current FLMM project(s).
-
next try
and 1 success, type2 + no sort in secondaryhere all the files
you have the cmp/mat (grey this time ^^)
- each .sur generated and the screenshot
the shapes were made in 3dsmax, one triangle is a duplicated mesh (for testing)
tomorow i’ll try with hole in the cmp
edit : for ST
the sur import in milkshape
-
Mirkha wrote:
so ? too simple shape won’t work ?
like a cube or a rectangle ?Correct.
This is the bug we need BW & LS to fix in sur builder, then it will be what we want it to be.
By the way if you use other sort settings than those I stated above in sur builder, the good shapes will also not all work.
I (and I am sure everybody else too) don’t want get-rounds, I am tired of so many other otherwise great utilities with “gotchas” in them.
We need this fixed please BW. It should be simple to troubleshoot by generating sur parts for a bunch of boxes while stepping through it.
I will be happy to help in any way I can and there are others that have more knowledge than I, but LS must remember his program well enough to spot it very quickly.
You have the faulty ms3d file and also the last ms3d file that has all the working shapes in it.
Thanks in advance, this is so important to all modders.
Gwumpy wabbit.
-
StarTrader wrote:
This is the bug…It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Clearly LS’s estimate of 5 vertices minimum is insufficient in the general case. If hexahedrons (boxes) are unreliable, then tessellate them.I am curious whether/if there is a point at which SUR Building approaches 100% reliability. Nine vertices? More?
I will, of course, put this into the documentation. Thank you, Cursor, for pointing it out. And thank you, Mirkha, for confirming it.
And thank you, ST, for beating the drum loudly enough that we got it figured out.
-
Well, yeah, OK, but at least it has to reliably skin cubes and 8-vertex boxes!
Any bloke can document a failure, I did that already. You’ve got special skills, and access to the code - we don’t want you to document that it can’t do it, we want you to get on with fixing it!
Gorblimey!
You’ve got till Sunday for the next release!
-
StarTrader wrote:
at least it has to reliably skin cubes and 8-vertex boxes!Why?
Five minutes of your time (required rarely) beats dozens of hours of my time any day.
Unless, of course, you’re paying my standard rate…
-
I started writing you the most angry response I have done for a very long time.
How long has it been, three days?
Anyway, I deleted it, and here is the mildest form that I can manage in view of your blockheaded incompetence and now evident incapability that your are trying to hide behind waves of excuses and derision.
I will summarise it as follows:-
Most models contain series of boxes as well as other shapes. How did you think they are modelled, by magic wand?
No it’s not five minutes per model. You never made a model, did you!
But you took on a modelling utility. And without the ability to understand it enough to fix it! Hah! That is REALLY crass….
It’s just taken me over two hours to fix one model this evening. And when many people need this and need to re-sur hundreds of models, you are barking mad if you think it’s just five minutes of our time.
It should be a couple of hours of YOUR time to fix it now we have identified the problems for you.
And there ARE many waiting here for it, they are just silently waiting for a fixed release.
I spent over 40 hours in defining the problem so precisely for you again and again by different methods to prove it to your small-capacity brain, deaf ears and blind eyes, and got ridicule from you for it.
Because you STILL don’t understand it.
I have already given you the problem isolated, and we need a shield bubble option that I have also described for you.
It will be very easy to isolate and fix, even stupid ME could do it if I spend the time unravelling the code a little and learning the language it’s written in.
Your time?
WTF are you talking about?
Volunteering to take on this project with a view to continuing it means exactly that, you DID volunteer your time, not to kill it and prance around like a stupid proud goofy self-inflated peacock telling us how well you have done for us already - you’ve done buggar all and are refusing to do what we actually do need from it.
You pretend you “want to do something for the community” - well, that is US, wanker, and you are ignoring us!
Because in reality you just wanted to boost your own ego by searching for gratification and swoons and thanks all round.
It would normally be given freely by all.
But for what in your case?
All I see in almost every post of yours is a stubborn, stupid, spoilt child, giving mule-headed resistance to everything we have asked from you, and not prepared to give anything to “the community”, because you can’t be bothered to do what is required but merely scoffing and spouting more stupidities while looking for support for your own stance.
In this way you are SHOWING us that you are incapable of fixing it.
I now firmly believe that, especially since you had no clue about how to isolate the problem and scoffed that it is a “feature”. You are a blockheaded posturing imbecile. You don’t “smell” right, you are just a clown.
You are evidently one of those incapable and insecure people who relish the thought of being in charge of something - anything, it boosts your ego and makes you want to wag your tail and pee in your pants for joy.
But you are not prepared to do anything for it, because you are terrified of doing anything even mildly challenging in case you don’t succeed at it, and you are afraid of failing and spoiling your self-image of being great; you think of yourself as a godsend to us.
But you have absolutely no bloody clue and do not want to listen to the people here who are waiting for it, nor to do what is needed.
You are doing Lancer no credit either, because you are dismantling his good work.
You just wanted ownership of this project, or of ANY project, that is all it is to you, something to have control over. SHAME that this one just happens to be very important for many of us here!
It is now so simple to complete, so be a slightly good plonker at least and give it to someone who has two cents of common sense, a bit of willingness to do and to listen, and a bit of programming skill - and then EFF OFF to your tossing pit and have a good go!
You are absolutely the most pathetic unco-operative and useless shithead that I have come across so far, you win first prize, YOU ARE A DISGRACE.
LANCER!!
Where the F*** are YOU?
You made a mistake here as far as I am concerned.
Get it back off this stupid obstructive tosser and get it finished for us please, I have had enough of this pratt and of his effing PONCE-HEADED stupidity.
There is so little left to do it’s a shame to leave it as it is and an even bigger CRIME to leave it with this self-inflated, self-opinionated, incapable, DICK-HEADED, obstructive and IRRELEVANT Tosspot Wanker.
Well - actually…
Hold on a moment…
Let me see…
…er…
Since I seem to be the ONLY one asking for this utility to be finished, and with these functions, to be able to identify and sur any shape boxes of 8 vertices (6 would be great and 4 would be ideal for anything!) and give us an optional shield bubble as decribed in a previous post, I guess there is NO REASON to do so really, is there?
The rest of you non-English pals here have just learned a lot of new Real English terms in correctly-structured context, note it down carefully because you may not read it again anywhere, and individual words are not as effective as complete phrases.
This is the mild intermediate form.
You can ask me for any clarification when I have cooled down a bit, although since I have emphasized the most important points, as I usually do in other “tutorials”, the meaning should be quite clear to many.
This Tutorial is on how to permanently break off a relationship with a person of whom you previously thought well, without wishing for any chance of recovery. Stupidity and obstructiveness should often be dealt with in this way, it would be greatly reduced if adopted by more of the silent observers.
Note also the advanced techniques of reminding the reader of the requirements, and of the use of the sarcastic antithetal viewpoint of being the only one interested in achieving the required result!
Anyone else need lessons?
Just irritate me one time too many, it’s not so difficult to do if you know how!
Translations into German, French, Russian and Italian are welcome below!
-
Five minutes of your time (required rarely) beats dozens of hours of my time any day.
i hope you’re kidding …
have you ever modeling anything to know how long it could take ?
trust me it’s not five minutes, it’s hoursssssssssssssssssssss
hours on the model and most of the time the texture to correct to.i’m sorry but i have to agree with ST,
what you answer is a shame
you don’t want to spend hours ONE TIME for us to correct the tool ?
so we need to spend EVERY TIME hours ?wouah …
you don’t want to spend hours ?
well it’s your right but don’t come here and explain us that what we’re making is just very easy and take 5 minutes
it’s insulting, insulting regardless all the nights we all spend here for our respective mod and all the community at the starport
i have never read Why, Wodka, Adoxa or any one else said they don’t want spend hours on a projectthey said that is possible or not, that’s not the same thing at all !
because if it’s not possible, it’s the end of the discussion
we have to deal with but if it’s possible and you don’t care about the wishes of the community you have nothing to do hereyes we choose on what we want to spend hours and you had choosen to work on this utility so spend hours for all the community !
or leave.simple.
think of something, do you really think that if we go 5 minutes on our models we do not want change them?
You would take us for fools?we are all here because Freelancer is our passion, so trust me hours for your passion is not really important …
if it’s possible do the modifications and if you don’t want let someone else make it ! -
Mirkha wrote:
-
have you ever modeling anything to know how long it could take?
trust me it’s not five minutes, it’s hoursssssssssssssssssssss
hours on the model and most of the time the texture to correct to. -
You would take us for fools?
- Wait… I know that modeling can – obviously – take a huge amount of time. That was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the amount of time that it takes to tessellate a shape that does not have enough data points (vertices) for the SUR Builder.
To answer your question, I do not know whether tessellation is a push-button operation, or whether the extra faces have to be drawn.
Remember, the above condition is a rare occurrence among our test models (except when ST tries to make it happen). And, even when it does occur, half of those occurrences are not very important to gameplay.
- Not “us”, no.
Overall, however, Mirkha, my point is correct only if my assumption is valid (that tessellation is not difficult).
If tessellation is hard to do, then let me know. Certainly thousands of hours of tessellation would trump my weeks-to-months of reverse-engineering sparsely documented code that generates an UNdocumented data format.
That does not meant that I can change the way the Builder does what it does, but that is a different discussion.
-
-
**Following this thread as it slowly falls apart. What’s becoming clear here is that problems are being found while solutions are not. All i’m seeing is “i’ll add that to the documentation”. Well truth is, if you can’t fix the problems BW then give it to someone who can. I’m seeing enough hot air here to send a balloon to Mars.
I appreciate it’s not easy, and certainly not a five minute fix. You need to be dedicated to fix the issues and i’m seeing a severe lack of that tbh. So why not just hold your hands up, admit it’s too much for you and ask for help, be a lot easier on everyone.**
