CMP to SUR Conversion Tests

Yes, you hit the nail on the head, StarTrader!

But, seriously, I don’t think you are stupid. I just think that you are not thinking about what a SUR does. You have this idea in your head that your SUR should look like your model, and that is just wrong. Look at the vanilla SURs… they are very rough approximations made with a bare minimum of polygons.

If I understand you correctly, you want me to invest upwards of a hundred hours so that you can:

A) Build SURs for models that do not work correctly in-game.

2. Build SURs that function approximately the same as SURs that the builder builds now. The only difference is that they will look different in MilkShape.

Have I got that right?

Regarding Number (2), I am not sure that it is possible for the builder to guess what you want when you have objects that are just floating in space. How would the Builder know the right way to connect the pieces? No matter how much time I invest, it is not possible for the Builder to guess how to handle all of the crazy ideas that you seem capable of coming up with.

And, BTW, how does a model like your 14-box model render in-game? I’m just curious…

Automated tools must follow rules of some sort. In the case of the SUR Builder, the rule is that your optional multi-part SUR requires a well-constructed CMP.

I do not think that is an unreasonable requirement. In fact, I cannot think of a better rule.

Listen BW:

This is a very important utility to complete properly, and it is not far away. After so much effort it’s a shame to not finish it.

You just can’t be bothered, that is the simple answer. You want to sit on your laurels.

The 14-box test model is just that - I analysed and remodelled my model and discovered the shapes that the builder does not like, then removed the ship so that you could not say it’s the ship model.

The test model is to demonstrate that it has a problem, and where the problem is. Many ships are made of boxes. It will make a balls-up of them.

It cannot generate surs for several instances of the same simple box reliably. Just 12 polygons. It leaves gaps in surs where other smaller ships will pass through. It cannot be used for bases either while it does this.

That is IT.

It is almost USELESS until it can.

Anyway I have really had it, you are just unbelievable.

I just hope others confirm you are in the wrong, if not then everyone will be very happy.

dear ST, don’t you think, if most of us, and we mean here really most, exceptions are singular, are happy, that BW is in wrong only cuz you are such an exception? do model your surs yourself, use sur splice or the crossfire method, if you don’t like the builder. the builder is a simplified tool, mostly either for small ships or for lazy asses, not for beautiful, perfectly fitting surs. you just miss its purpose, and for its very purpose it is just good. not perfect, yes, but just fine.

You know what, Guys if it make anything better. Once i get far enough into my programing degree to understand certain codes and crap, I MIGHT ask Lancer to get the code for this sur builder and twwek with it.

StarTracker, I AGREE with you in saying THIS BUILDER IS NOT 100% COMPLETE, heck i’d only say its 60% complete. And until we know more about HOW A SUR FILE WORKS It may never be close to 100%.

Bullwinkle, I’m not siding all the way with ST, Its just that there is only so much that one person can or can not do. And you Sir have gone above and beyound.

BUT I also feel that there is two peoples work here and that they differance in the code is what MIGHT be casuing the errors. You may have to just BITE the bullet and shift though what to you seam to be worthless and disorgnized. Maybe that what is needed to do.

BECOME THE BORG, Bring order to the chaos, make the program one voice, one being, make this like the Borg! . . . . . . Well without the assimulating others and other programs please!

Bullwinkle wrote:
You have this idea in your head that your SUR should look like your model, and that is just wrong. Look at the vanilla SURs… they are very rough approximations made with a bare minimum of polygons.

no, StarTrader says that a simple model with simples shapes it is not processed correctly by the tool
he doesn’t talk about a perfect sur, he talks about missing parts in the sur

as i said above, event in SW, although this does not correspond to the technical reality of the universe in question, a bubble around fighters is largely enough.

ok, but the tools is also dedicated to build multi-part sur no ?
if no, deactivate the function.
if yes, missing parts is not acceptable.

I have no idea of the problem and I have no idea how to solve but i can know if missing parts is good or not

think about one thing, time is the more precious “commodity” in the entire univers
you cannot store it, you can only spend it
StarTrader takes a loooot of time to work on the model to help all of us and that means also you to build a better tool

and if i understand well, this is a random bug
despite all the respect i have for your work, i will not use a tool that generates a “random” hitbox

as i have allready said, if the sur builder is not dedicated to build multi part sur, deactivate the function and that’s finish

Thank you, guys, for your comments.

@Gisteron: Yes, you continue to have the balance right: If you don’t like the SUR Builder’s results, then use another method. Thank you for suggesting OPR8R’s SUR method. It is a promising-looking tutorial.

@ST: I would be interested in a second opinion about OP’s method. It looks good to me, but I do not have the right stuff to test it.

@Lonestar: Yes, incomplete documentation of the SUR format prevents a 100% solution.

@Mirkha: +1 for the suggestion to disable multi-part SURs. That is my favorite solution so far!

StarTrader says that a simple model with simple shapes it is not processed correctly by the tool. He doesn’t talk about a perfect sur, he talks about missing parts in the sur.

Yes, that is what he says. If that were the full story, then I would be interested in pursuing it. However, take a close look at his 14-box model (below). I am surprised that the Builder found as many of the parts as it did.

The truth is that every anomaly submitted in this thread has been traced to an issue with the model. The SUR Builder cannot read the mind of the modeler… it can only follow a continuous shape. Like any other computer tool, “garbage in = garbage out”.

Tips for preparing a model for the SUR Builder:

• Make sure that there is a continuous shape for the Builder to follow. Weld seams and close shapes that do not build properly.
• Add extra polygons for shapes that do not build properly (tesselate).
• Use one group per mesh (what is the best way of saying that?)

Bullwinkle wrote:
Tips for preparing a model for the SUR Builder:

• Make sure that there is a continuous shape for the Builder to follow. Weld seams and close shapes that do not build properly.
• Add extra polygons for shapes that do not build properly (tesselate).
• Use one group per mesh (what is the best way of saying that?)

ok, do you mean that each group need to be continuous ?
or the entire model ?
i thought that it was for each group
that the sur builder “draw” a hitbox one after one, so it is not necessary that each group should beside the other

Mirkha wrote:
do you mean that each group need to be continuous ?
or the entire model?

You ask the best questions, Mirkha!

I don’t know 100% of the answer to that.

The Builder attempts to build a convex hull by making successive approximations to the outline(s) that it finds in the model’s parts. I suspect that some models may build correctly without a continuous outline, while others will not. However, that is a bit of a guess.

I would be interested in reports on that topic.

BW is still ignoring the evidence I have put forward, and still accusing me of trying to fool the tool.

I cannot understand why you think that I would want to do that instead of assist to define and identify the problem so that it can be perfected, which is what we all want. We do not want more substandard tools, we have enough of those already as all of the modders here will confirm.

As Mirkha guessed, I did go to great lengths, many hours, over several days, to diagnose this problem and give you verifiable feedback.

Thank you for believing in me Mirkha, it is very much appreciated.

When there is an intermittent problem, the way to find it is to try to isolate it, and make it easily reproduceable.

I have done that for this case.

But you dismiss it. I even tried to avoid that…

The long diagnosis I made was with the ship model. But I needed more definite methods because the ship could be easily dismissed as “faulty”.

But it was a surprise that the sur builder cannot build surs for a series of boxes.

The test file merely narrows down and focusses on the problem, without the possibility of it being “the ship”.

There is no ship, only well-made, welded boxes.

They are formed differently to prove or disprove that the forward angle may make a difference to whether the tool succeeds or not - it does!

An obtuse angle fails, an acute angle works!

They were also placed left and right of the Origin to identify if position makes a difference - it does!

There is no logical reason that it would be OK to generate a sur part for one box but not for the same box when it is moved to the opposite side of the centerline.

Think about this and forget for a moment that you hate and despise me and that you think I am an irresponsible, horrid and spiteful teenager…

Look at the shapes closely, note each shape and its position, whether it had a sur part generated, and where its mirrored or identical twin is too, and whether that had a sur part made.

As you see in the jpg of my test file, the sur builder does build surs for parts that are not attached, not welded to each other, and are not adjacent to each other. That is a VERY positive result of the test file. The large box turned at 45 degrees at the back of the model proves that. And the individual surs at the front also prove that.

Sur builder centers each sur part on the shape it covers, and this is good too - invalidating BW’s comment “how would it know where to place the part”? Clearly, it does, and does it well!

And every box in the test file is properly welded, they are complete boxes.

But in my original model the two wings were not properly welded, some of the vertices were separated, and the wing ends were open - but the sur builder still made a good sur for those wings, only the right tip was not made.

But when I moved the left wing-tip to the right wing (deleting the right wing-tip), it did not make a sur part for it.

Did you understand that?

The only difference is that the part was moved to the right of the Origin.

It is not necessary for ship parts to be welded together, but obviously in a good model they will be adjacent or overlapping if not welded together, otherwise there will be gaps in the model and maybe its textures, not a good thing.

But note - the sur builder can make a good sur for a sphere that is placed between two ship arms without touching them, this is absolutely great - a “plasma” weapon held in place between two booms by “force fields” could now be possible in a model.

I did attach the .ms3d file of the tests too, with the jpg, but it was ignored. So you can make the same tests yourselves that I did.

If you disable the multi-group function of the sur builder you will have destroyed it and LS’s good work.

It will remain a single-sur tool and we already have one that does that well enough.

It will be of no more interest to me, but somehow I don’t think you will care.

After all I believe you think I am an irresponsible twerp bent on discrediting you, or having a laugh at your expense, rather than the opposite, of trying to assist you by spending a lot of my time investigating this and developing a method to isolate the problem, to identify the exact problem, so that you or LS or someone else can debug it and make it the great tool that it can be.

But it’s in your hands, it’s really too much effort, and you ain’t about to let it get better if you can help it, are you.

I wish someone else had taken this on, I really do. As far as I can see right now this superb tool is lost to us.

to progress : Bullwinkle can you make a very simple model like a tie ?
i mean by your own, two sphere + 4 rectangles
less simple will be difficult ^^
and try to make a sur

at the end i think we’ll need a tutoriel with all we need to do and especially what we must not do

at the end, the sur builder is to make multipart sur
as StarTrader says, if it’s only for one group hitbox we can easily done that in milkshape

this tool, for me, is dedicated to replace the sur splicing method
maybe not as acurate than the sur splicer but not so far

can you ?
that maybe can identify if the sur builder treat each group one by one or as an entire model

okay, first of all, ST, stop trolling. you just provoke BW to troll back, that won’t help anyone. BW, don’t take critiques personally, if we report issues, no matter how much, mostly theire supposed to help rather than to disrespect someone.
okay, that being said.
i think we need to pay attention on ST’s investigations, as, if he sais the truth, and shapes are not surred correctly depending on their coordinates or angle, this is not a feature anymore and clearly has to be fixed. ofc, approximation is good, but we can splice approximate surs so what would we need a tool for, if it does deside to build or not to build on its own?
now, to OP’s method. unfortunately its limited to ten model groups, do work or do not work almost randomly and are in this way inefficient for larger ships. moreover i experienced that the random unability of model parts does only appear when you use the ships as solars (sattelites in my cases), while, when you fly them, all parts work just great.
another problem is, that the whole model is streched to the very edges of the mesh by resizing. small parts like a forward gun, if modeled, do sometimes cause unfitting sur shapes. this likely can be avoided by sizing it with the modeltool by factor one rather than by cmp model. in that case it is necessary to have put the model where the ship is, too, if the ship is not centered.

the splicing method is btw very similar, but with one difference: while the ship works fine as satellitte, with both, collisions and shots, most parts are disabled when you fly it (maybe all except for the first?) to collisions, however do detect all armament hits.

StarTrader wrote:
I believe you think I am an irresponsible twerp bent on [something]…

I do not know your reasons for ranting, but I do listen when you effectively communicate a valid point. I certainly respect your experience.

However, I cannot do anything about a phantom that I cannot reproduce. Can you show me a valid model that fails? One that does not include the issues that we have discussed?

StarTrader wrote:
I wish someone else had taken this on, I really do.

So do I, StarTrader.

So do I!

@Mirkha: Actually, I cannot make a model. I don’t even have the tools. I am dependent on you modelers for test objects.

Are you having trouble making a SUR for a Tie Fighter using the single-part method? As I have pointed out several times, the computer does not care about the wings. Hit detection is based on a probability of a hit, so a sphere or a cube will produce very nearly identical results in-game. I would be surprised if you could tell the difference during normal game play.

Bullwinkle wrote:

@Mirkha: Actually, I cannot make a model. I don’t even have the tools. I am dependent on you modelers for test objects.

Are you having trouble making a SUR for a Tie Fighter using the single-part method? As I have pointed out several times, the computer does not care about the wings. Hit detection is based on a probability of a hit, so a sphere or a cube will produce very nearly identical results in-game. I would be surprised if you could tell the difference during normal game play.

ok maybe i can do a model this evening and send you here

no, i haven’t any trouble to do a single part sur
but, i play freeworlds since 4 years now ;), i can say that it has a difference between single part and multi part
really when you see your laser pass between the two wings it’s just … \o/ \o/
and obviously the mod is more difficult with multipart sur

it’s just a choice the dev made for each mod

Gisteron wrote:
if … shapes are not surred correctly depending on their coordinates or angle

Yes, if that turns out to be the case, then it will give me something to investigate.

It is unfortunate that there are issues with other methods. A reliable manual technique would solve most of this discussion.

Mirkha wrote:
i can say that it has a difference between single part and multi part really when you see your laser pass between the two wings

OK, I can picture that. The solution, of course, is a spherical SUR the size of the main hull. That way most hits on wings would score, and shots between wings would miss. There might a a rare shot where you might not hit a wing that you expect to hit but, then again, there is some probability of a hit anyway.

Mirkha wrote:
ok maybe i can do a model this evening and send you here

Good. If you do that, could you try a couple of experiments for me?:

• Make sure that the wings have some thickness (not 2-D).
• Build the main body, then make a SUR for it. Then add the wings. Does the resulting SUR work in-game? That would be very close to what you seek, and could probably be done as a single-part SUR.
• Try the wings 1) connected to the body and 2) disconnected (not touching). Is there a difference in the resulting SURs?

@ST: The bottom line is, the sur builder is a simple tool for newbie modders.

Any serious modder should invest the time to do custom surs by hand rather than put something in a tool and wait for its outcome.
Therefore its perfectly fine if BW doesnt want to spend hours trying to cater to special requests as regards the input model. A model that has parts that are not connected in any way are not a “normal” model, they are a special case.

It is unfortunate that there are issues with other methods. A reliable manual technique would solve most of this discussion.

Thats why Im eagerly anticipating Schmackbolzens attempt to build a obj->sur converter from scratch by using adoxa’s and other’s findings.

Ugh, Are you guys NOT reading what star tracker is saying here?

He has found and reproudced IN A SIMPLE MODEL what casued this tool to fail. And You all simply dismiss it, and call him purpously tricking the tool. UM that HOW someone a problem. First You identifly the problem, Witch star tracker has spent many hours doing. Much thanks by the way. Second You reproduce the problem again ST has done this again. Third You find out why that problem is happining and fix it. THIS IS NOT BEING DONE.

So before you all go and push the hard work of Startracker aside and or ruin the tool, Look at the work that Statracker has done, look at his model and see what the heck the program is doing and fix it.

It is as simple as that, why can you not see it.

edit: Yes I know hte example model is not a REAL model but it ADDRESSES the problems with this tool as it stand currently.

walks away shaking his head in duscus

Bullwinkle wrote:
Good. If you do that, could you try a couple of experiments for me?:

• Make sure that the wings have some thickness (not 2-D).
• Build the main body, then make a SUR for it. Then add the wings. Does the resulting SUR work in-game? That would be very close to what you seek, and could probably be done as a single-part SUR.
• Try the wings 1) connected to the body and 2) disconnected (not touching). Is there a difference in the resulting SURs?

i try, not promise to finish tonight
i’m alone to test so it’s “a little” difficult to test as a ship
and i’m not as good as ST in modelling ;), so it would take more time
but i’m on it

No rush, Mirkha. This is a long-term project.

But I appreciate your efforts.

Guys.

OK, no more trolling -

I will always react strongly to being offended time after time. Nobody likes to be offended, and I also realise I have done that to BW too.

BW: I apologise, my response was out of frustration and being very offended by your offhanded and repeated dismissals.

For the last time, I am not trying to “fool the tool”. What I am trying so hard to do is to give you proof that the problem exists and can be reproduced, so that you can have a starting point to look for the problem.

Note: It did not matter whether the boxes are welded to each other, or overlapping each other or separate. It made absolutely no difference in my first test file.

I separated them to see if there was any difference - and once I had seen that it made no difference (the same boxes still had no surs) I left them like that, concentrating instead on the shapes, making some with obtuse angles and some with acute angles as you can see from the jpg, and you can see the results.

Try to read my previous posts to see the symptoms while I cool off and try to be logical in my next test file.

Some sad news - I just found a couple of hours ago that in a new test model with 13 boxes and two spheres, ONE of the SPHERES did not generate either. I had only made one sphere in my previous test and that had worked.

This problem is also my goal to verify before I present it, like I did with the previous file.

So give me some time and I will bring you more evidence of the problem, and I will show you welded and separated parts too.

In the meantime, those of you who have MilkShape and the .cmp exporter and the sur builder and the sur importer can duplicate my tests yourselves and report back.

W0dk4:

Why do you also say this tool is for beginners?

I understand that you may enjoy doing the occasional model by hand, it does give a lot of satisfaction when it works (finally).

But for the tool I am surprised by your comment and I do not agree with you at all.

I have had to spend those long hours on many models, and redo and redo. I have also had to struggle my way through various “tutorials” that caused more misinformation too. When you take on a project to make several models it’s no longer fun when they fail initially.

If this problem can be identified properly and fixed, it will be the best sur tool at our disposal and will cover so many requirements including large ships, bases, scenery and whatever else modders would like to try.

It’s already great with single-part surs for small ships, although personally I would far prefer to have surs closer to vanilla types, with all groups and HpMount instead of just a single wrapper. But that’s another issue.

And it will be by far better than all other methods. So what’s wrong with that?

It really is so nearly there.