CMP to SUR Conversion Tests
-
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.**
-
yes, even me have to agree here. although ST maybe really does tryings many modelers would not have in their models and although such problems most likely are irrelevant for the functionality ingame, the issues he found are partially important enough to be fixed and are weird enough to be a problem. the tool wouldn’t deserve its name as automatic sur creation tool, if it decides on its own what to do and what not. its not a shame to ask for help, most of us started like this and evolved just like this, only a few really have found something new that was unknown before. it is much more a shame of honor to claim for something that does not happen in end effect. that damages the own name and does not help anyone. taking on work is always sensible, regardless whether on a hobby or private project, like FL or in RL or at work, when you know, that you either can do it or can learn it and can do it than and only if you are ready to spend as much time as needed to bring it to an end. if not, just say that you cannot or do not want to, noone would bother, maybe even someone else comes up and sais he is gonna do it.
-
You guys bashing Bullwinkle do understand that he was the only one that even would have a look on the code of the sur-builder, right?
AFAIK nobody else volunteered in any way. I’d guess that if anybody stepped forward to fix this, BW would be glad to hand the project over.
-
maybe he was just the first…
anyway, its full in his possibilities to ask for support. were no egoistic trolls here, whoever can help him with the code stuff likely would. maybe not taking on the project but helping? why not? ofc not everyone can but unlikely anyone who can would denie, would they? -
@ w0dk4
It’s all very well moaning about why there’s moaning, so why take the project on in the first place then? If there’s no movement forward then hand it to someone who can do something with it. Trick is finding someone i agree, but i think for those that can, helping out would be a plus as well, instead of these insane arguments
-
I can give no credit to anyone who takes on responsibility for a project and then kills it.
He deserves this final bashing from me ten times over.
He has had offers of help from others, and more now.
He has had my hours of isolating the problem to where it can be so easily repeated so it can be found and the tool fixed.
He just says its a feature and he will document it.
He insulted me several times by accusing me of merely trying to break his lovely tool.
So I made other methods to isolate it for him even more simply, that even a child can understand and reproduce, and he again accuses me of merely trying to fabricate a non-existent problem.
…
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.He does not know that many of the ships and bases this is needed for are HUGE. And a missing large box will be quite a hole!
Lost the plot? HE NEVER HAD IT!
He STILL INSISTS I AM TRYING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN!
- OF COURSE I AM YOU STUPID IMBECILE PLONKER, I AM SHOWING YOU THE PROBLEM THAT YOU ARE DENYING!
He has no idea of any programming since he does not understand isolation and diagnosis.
It is not a matter of tesselating a shape, the tool still misses it and I have had to remake sections time and time again.
He should not be here. AND ESPECIALLY NOT IN THIS PROJECT THAT WE HAVE WAITED FOR FOR SO LONG!
All he wants to do is strut around on the forums pretending he has done something useful - nothing I can see at this stage.
Unless you can call the destruction of this project as an achievement?
It is probably a ten minute fix now we know what to look for.
And adding a shield bubble what - another hour’s work at most since the model boundaries are already calculated when building the overall sur shape.
BUT HE CAN’T BE BOTHERED!
I have no more time for this foolish dickhead.
-
Please calm down now, I don’t want this thread to devolve into a flamefest. ST, as you said, maybe you should take a small break from this topic. This is a strong suggestion.
@w0dk4: For a good while, I thought Schmack was working on something? Maybe he’d want to pick up the SUR builder then? That’s at least a possibility right there.
@BW: Despite ST’s less-than-correct rebuttal of your attitude, his overall point is true. If you cannot do it, just say it. There will be a lot less frustration that way than to just beat about the bush over and over. And if you CAN do it, well do it. If you don’t WANT to do it, see above.
-
Yes FF I agree, I am tired, bewildered and frustrated and going for a break.
The outstanding issues are simple ones and the .ms3d files demonstrating the problem are in the posts above, and several of the guys here also understand the problem so it should be easy to follow.
If it were not so close and already so good I would have given it up already.
I am sure Lancer could fix it in a jiffy if he would not mind looking at it with the problem files.
-
IF there is NOONE Else out there that has more programing than myself I Volentary to try and take a wack at this program. Heck i UNDERSTAND what Startrader is saying and I agree this needs to be looked into and FIXED! And if the person that is working one it does not know HOW to fix the problem then find out how a fix can be made. Not just sit around and make up reasons it can not be fixed or claim it to be a feature like Mircoslope er I mean Mircosoft.
I would only need to know what peograming laugange this is in so that I can go online and touch up on the codes and format for it. As with gather the tools needed to work on it.
That is If Lancer does not mind helping me get it started and working on it.
Also,
That huge post from StarTrader on the last page. . .
I AGREE WITH HIM !Lonestar out. . . . . .
-
w0dk4 wrote:
AFAIK nobody else volunteered in any way. I’d guess that if anybody stepped forward to fix this, BW would be glad to hand the project over.Exactly right. I responded to Lancer Solurus only when I did not see a response from anybody else for a very long time. I did not want to see his code lost to the community forever (like FLMM).
I already created a Forge project that will eventually hold all of Lancer’s tools, so that his legacy can live on at the-Starport. It is a part-time job for both of us (a few hours per week, at best), and I am certainly not holding up anyone else who wants to help.
I do not understand the emotional outbursts (although I now understand why nobody else volunteered).
I thought that I asked simple questions:
-
Is it difficult to add a couple of extra polys when a shape does not build correctly? Cursor made it sound as simple as pushing the “Tessellate” button, but I have no first-hand knowledge. Even if the polys must be drawn manually, how difficult is it to split two faces into four?
-
Is there a consistent number of vertices required for reliable building?
-
-
Would anyone like a peanut? Anyone?
I can haz cheezeburgr?
My knowledge in this area is… well i dont have any. All I know is that a lot of you put in a lot of work to provide people with these tools.
Whilst i agree with ST, purely on the basis that its frustrating when you point out a problem and nothing is done.
However i appreciate that BW is trying, but if others offer help, constructive critisim, take it and do something with it, cause in the end its about benefiting the community.
Thanks to all that really give it their all and to those that try to give us the tools we require to create our dreams.
FF for the win.
I luv cheezeburgr…
-
hm, BW, problem is not the creation of additional polys. problem is, that noone knows where to add them and what to expect, as the tool does almost randomly decide which parts it saves. and making your model time after time, exporting and surring again and again is not worth it, if you can use even the model tool for a proper sur. that’s what the modellers mean, the tool is great but what we mean here is definately not a feature but a bug and if it is possible to fix it, than it has to be fixed. yes, maybe many of us do not know how to help you and are only criticising your work, but we don’t hide, we can’t help (partially), we criticise only your refusage, not more. we are thankful for that you took it on but some of start being frustrated, as we do almost not see any results, almost no improvements. yes, not everyone is kind once he is frustrated, don’t you take it personally. when you took it we had expectations and not everyone likes his expectations to go down, you know…
-
Gisteron wrote:
-
problem is not the creation of additional polys. problem is, that noone knows where to add them
-
what we mean here is definately not a feature but a bug
-
we criticise only your refusage
-
we do almost not see any results, almost no improvements.
-
don’t you take it personally
Thank you for posting a thoughtful message that I can respond to, Gisteron.
- We have discussed this many times. Shapes without enough vertices sometimes fail. Therefore, if a CMP part fails, and it has very few vertices, then create more vertices (avoid pinpoint 5-vertex and knife-edge 6-vertex shapes; split faces if necessary; more than 8 vertices may be required). OK?
Here is the process:
a) Create model.
b) Build SUR.
c) Check SUR.
d) If a part does not build correctly, then check for enough vertices. If the part has very few vertices, then add more vertices and re-build.Most models only need a-c.
- It is not a bug. No amount of flaming or ranting or intentionally insufficient test cases will make it a bug.
As Lancer and I have explained several times, it is the way that the convex hull generation part of the Builder works, along with its associated limits.
We do not know the exact limits yet, because nobody seems interested in answering my questions.
-
I refuse nothing. I have done (or am in the process of doing) everything in my power to preserve Lancer’s code for the future; for the benefit of the entire community.
-
When I got the SUR Builder it did not work at all on the majority of models. I fixed several real bugs before releasing it. All that is left to do is some documentation and further cleanup of the user interface.
I have no plans to add new features, or to change the way that current features work. The tool seems brilliant as it is now. If somebody else wants to work on it, then it will be on the Forge. I have already invited a couple of other developers. So far, nobody has been interested.
- I do not take it personally. I ignore the emotional noise and work with the facts.
-
-
Now for one last time…
It is not a case of dividing a shape into more vertices, this has not worked - see below.
Random failures on exactly the same shape are not acceptable, especially with 8-vertex boxes!
They MUST be generated, EVERY time.
They are used in models everywhere.
Dividing the box into 2 did not work for me either, and it now has 12 vertices!
The only way it worked is by making it as I have already described, as a 2-stack 4-slice cylinder!
It has more vertices - 14!!
A thick triangle has 6 vertices. I would prefer that it should be generated, but there may not be sufficient reason.
I have not checked but I think this shape will always be convex, so maybe it can just be duplicated as a sur shape directly?
But if not or if it will be too complex, then let’s set the minimum at 8 vertices. Why not?
I don’t think anybody will have a problem if a shape is skipped deliberately when its vertex count is less than 8, but we will need a message saying cmp group xxxx skipped, less than 8 vertices so the modeller knows the sur is incomplete without losing time inspecting it carefully, and so can go directly to the shape and fix it.
Bejaymac affirms that knife-edge surs do not work correctly in-game, so in fact this could be a good thing if some are removed at generation.
We already proved beyond all disbelief that open shapes (such as mid-wing sections) unwelded shapes and unconnected shapes do not cause problems in sur builder, good sur parts are still generated.
This is great, and I would happily call this a FEATURE!
But modellers should take care to ensure that each cmp group is properly welded, especially when converting a model from another modelling program, as vertices may appear to be one but may in fact be separated into several vertices when zoomed in. Unfortunately MilkShape’s “Weld to nearest” doesn’t have a clear radius setting to fix that easily.
Do this:
Go find the .ms3d file with the Goran fighter that I posted.
The right wing tip (4 vertices) failed to generate even though it is a reflection of the left wing tip that worked.
We won’t mind that it does not generate for the knife-edge reason but the left one should not generate either. We can ignore the primary failure for now.
Select the right wing tip and Face… Subdivide 2. It now has 6 vertices.
Export and generate. It still failed when I tried it.
We can ignore this as we will skip shapes with less than 8 vertices.
Divide it again into 2.
Export and generate. It still failed to generate when I tried it. How many vertices do you see now? Unacceptable.
Delete the shape.
Make a flat pizza-box.
Export and gen (just do it to see what happens as a checkpoint, it will become clear in a minute). It worked for me.
Select it and move it to the right over the old wing tip.
Export and gen. It FAILED for me. What did we change? NOTHING except position to the right of the Origin.
Unselect the box and reselect it by vertex, do not ignore backfaces.
Put it in place of the right wing tip, pin the bottom left corner over the top-left connection vertex of the right wing by deselecting that vertex, and move the bottom-right corner over the right connection vertex on the wing. Release that and make the box roughly square again.
Export and gen. It worked for me, but it’s not the shape we want, obviously.
Select and move the top-right corner and bring it close to the top-left corner and slightly behind it in the z-Axis.
Export and gen. It failed for me. Why?
Bring the same corner up so it is in front of the top-left corner in the z-Axis.
Export and gen. It worked for me. But it’s not the shape I want. obviously.
Why should only moving one corner forward of another in the z-Axis cause a failure to generate the sur?
Bug.
When I made another square flat box and placed it on the right of the right wing tip box, the gen failed on the right wing tip box when it had succeeded above! Why?
How long has it taken to do this?
And I still don’t have a successful sur.
This is the reason I posted the file, for others to verify my findings.
I do not accept that the builder can work on one 4-vertex shape but fail on its reflection, or work first and then fail when another box is added beside that one and not be a bug.
I have no problem if shapes of 6 vertices and less are ALL skipped deliberately, but a message must be issued so the modeller is alerted.
One more excercise (sidetrack - this is the correct spelling, I hate American spelling in England and especially as this word has invaded the English dictionaries too) :-
Open the other model of many flat boxes.
Some generated ok.
Others did not.
Note the shapes - they were all the same simple flat box.
If you are still convinced, explain how this is not a bug. I will not beieve you.
So do me a favour.
Fix it so all boxes (8 vertices) will generate without failure, no matter what the distortion, we need it badly.
By all means deliberately skip any cmp shape with less than 8 vertices, and issue a message to that effect.
And add the shield bubble option using the squashed sphere.
Then we will wash your feet and dry them with our hair.
OK?
Stop denying, it pisses us off badly.
And stop continuously refuting our evidence, it takes time to make it.
Here’s a fix outline steps:
1. Detect a shape, count the vertices. If less than 8, issue a message “Group xxx not generated, less than 8 vertices.”.
2. If more than 8, do (the existing?) check routine to be sure it is convex.
3. If yes, Copy it as a sur part.
4. If no, make it convex (by disconnecting the connected low vertices and connecting the highest vertices on the 2 adjacent faces causing the concavity - this is called the “Turn Edge” function in MilkShape).
5. Repeat concavity check and fix any other concavities.
6. Save it and go to the next.
Yes, I agree, I am not a programmer but I do know the steps will be complex and I am being glib - but you guys must know how to do this. I am fine with maths, and some simple programming languages, but C, C++ etc. are unknown to me.
