.obj -> .sur converter
-
Well, as I said before it is not a matter of not wanting to finish it, but rather a lot of exams this semester (since I don’t want to study all my life :P). Next exam is on Monday and the last 4 in September. I don’t want to run out of time for learning, so I rather invest the time now than just before the exams (I bet I will run short anyway). That said I only had the last week which you could consider as holidays and even in this week I took some time to learn.
If someone wants to thank me with donating I will think about it, but I don’t want to make it exclusive for only a few people. I plan to make it open source anyway, once I have it in a shape so that one would understand it (which is not the case right now).
-
Oh, hello everyone!
Wow! All of a sudden, several more of you have come out of the woodwork, and seem interested in Schmackbolzen developing the sur converter?!!
It was not the case a very short while ago though, was it?
My comment on restricting the converter was that I offered to pay Schmack a commission to develop it for me and Ezekiel privately, because until today we were the only two people interested, everyone else kept silence.
As there was no response except from us, it is not worth developing for only 2 people, unless I am willing to pay for it and Schmackbolzen accepts.
I am willing. But a commission to complete it specifically for me, not a donation.
And if Schmackbolzen accepts, I will want the rights to it in partnership with him. Why? Because nobody else was interested.
Until today.
Everyone keeps quiet until they see a threat to lose something, don’t you.
So yes, I was rubbing the magic lamp to get someone else to speak. And you have, finally.
Sushi, tactful only when it doesn’t fall on deaf ears. I was tactful last time I asked. And it fell on deaf ears, as I and Ezekiel appeared to be the only ones with any interest.
And I was tactful (kept my temper, didn’t I?) the time before that, when I did extensive testing of surs which kept crashing, despite everyone who commented saying it must be my environment or my testing methods which were at fault, only Adoxa took the trouble to humour me?
Again I was persistent. And indeed we did find a problem. And Adoxa made a solution.
Or as in the Sur Builder fiasco when I really lost my rag, because it was just cranky old ST again, trying to “deliberately break the tool”, not providing solid diagnostic proof of the problems in Sur Builder. And being ignored. Only one other person tried and understood that time.
That tool was shelved despite being so near to great. Nobody else spoke then either.
Nah, I am still smouldering, tact is too subtle here, a sledgehammer is needed. Or a snappy old Croc.
Maybe one day someone will actually think to himself “you know if it wasn’t for Cranky Old ST’s persistence we wouldn’t have a solution for this… or a tutorial for that… OR a fully-working SUR generator/converter/builder/exporter!”.
I live in hope.
No, actually you are right. Yes, you are! I’m only doing things for purely selfish reasons, to boost my own ego and benefit only me. (Oh, and of course my new friend and sidekick Ezekiel).
But now maybe Alucard? Thaddeus? Sushi? And maybe those other Silent Others who let someone else fight their battles alone?
(Oh! No, they aren’t really interested or they would have said so, they can do it another way just as easily and it isn’t worth Schmackbolzen’s time to develop it). So they stay silent.
Sarcasm, sardonic irony and reverse-psychology are second nature to some people, and can be funny or just… annoying… or… unintelligible… or… thought-provoking… or… just a tragic end to a discussion.
Dunno, my vision is getting cloudy as I cry my crocodile tears and wait for Mana from Heaven…
OK here’s a clear request to maybe get some motion:
Schmackbolzen: much more than others, I very much appreciate the work you have already done, but the tool needs to be completed to generate fully-functioning vanilla-type surs.
So, if you decide not to try to complete the converter in the near future (this year), would you please say so clearly here? Thank you my friend.
This might then encourage someone else to try to make another version, since so many silent people out there actually ARE waiting for a fully-functional SUR tool?
This is now my third full year of waiting for one. I’m three years older and still ageing.
Thank you.
-
Either that or people have already voiced their interest, but then understood that Schmack is busy and will do it as soon as time allows and thus that nagging will lead to absolutely nothing.
-
Someone with the drive and ability to make this tool, ST, would have the brains to realise that it would indeed be loved by all.
Why did he create it in the first place if he didn’t realise that?Now, granted, a little vocal support doesn’t go astray, but I don’t think Schmack needs support right this very minute.
Why? He’s busy with exams and won’t be working on the tool in any great amounts in the first place, he said that.
It’s not like you go support a football team in winning the Grand Final/Superbowl/Whatever while they’re at their accountants organising their personal accounts, do you?You seem to have generated a large stink for no apparent reason. Of course people appreciate it, they would have already said so after using it. Or, they’re like me and waiting until they actually use it properly to give heartfelt thanks and support (or maybe it’s just me :P).
Shmack, good luck in your studies and exams, a sur tool aint gonna get your future in order, but they certainly will.
-
@ST: Well, if you are afraid that I might not develop it further I can assure you that should it come to that I will make it open source without cleaning up the code. To much work went into it to just leave it.
Since it’s written in Freepascal using Lazarus and I used many complex algorithms I am not sure if one would understand what I do without comments in the code (they are missing too ;)). In fact I don’t know anyone but Crazy who knows Pascal (Delphi in his case). Usually they all like Java, C#, C++, Python and all that crap. I go with Tim Sweeney here (founder of Epic Games) who said he never could understand how one could write games in C++ and not Pascal. “TS: Yeah, it was a good language. It was more rigorous than C++. When I moved from Pascal to C++ to create Jill of the Jungle, it was a real shock that people would actually be using a programming language that was so bad for large-scale development. To think that operating systems are built in that sort of language was really terrifying.”
So that was my offtopic contribution plus the usual language bashing from my side. But if I opened someones eyes then it was worth it
Thanks everyone for their success wishes!
-
euh, i’m a delphi programmer IRL……Pascal is a good language… I use borland delphi 6 all days^^
I have switched from C/C++ to Pascal, it’ was a bit difficult at the beginning, but now, switching from Pascal to C/C++ is more difficult ^^ Cause, the syntax is not so different, but the programming style is not very similar^^
And i understand Schmackbolzen when he want to clean the code before release the source, because it may be difficult to understand the code without proper comments when you dont know Pascal Language^^
-
Rewind to your first comment on page 1 of the thread ST. If he’d listened to you at the start he would have scrapped the project long ago, because according to you at that time it wouldn’t be used. Now it’s nag, nag, nag, whine, whine, whine, hurry up and finish this tool! Gotta love you aye, you’re full on nuts!
-
StarTrader wrote:
If you decide not to, then I am sorry, and thank you for trying, but I won’t use it very much (if at all), because I can already do this with existing MS tools and 3DSMax tools, and it is a pain now. Your utility will not make anything easier if you make it in the way you say.Indeed…
Either it’s pure irony or ignorance
-
Schmackbolzen: OK, thanks. I have no idea of the benefits or comparison of Pascal, I used it very briefly many years ago so I am aware of its existence, but I was not aware it is still current.
To the negativ-sprechers:
“Voiced your interest”? When, pray?
Not on this thread when I asked.
My first comment: It re-iterates a VERY obvious point - that half-working tools are not useful. Schmack would indeed be wasting his time if he produced another half-working tool. So why should he waste his time? Even bad old “I” would not want him to do that.
“My Specs”: Although I wrote the post, it was Bejaymac who explored the sur to the minutest detail over a very long time, and laid out in several long-since-lost posts what that structure requires to function properly. It’s not my spec and not Bejaymacs either, it is DA and MS’s. He unravelled it and tried very hard and very patiently over a long time to explain it to all of us. I listened to him and eventually I put them into a list because that is what surs need to have to function properly.
As for .obj format as an input? You too will eventually agree that although this makes the utility more flexible, so that you can use it with 3DSMax and other programs, when you need to generate 200+ conversions in sequence, you too will be just a teeny-weeny little bit less happy about it and wish it would work from a .cmp or from within the chosen graphics program as an exporter.
What is the criteria for a sur?
“Surly”, this is obvious? Any vanilla sur.So “surly”, a sur creating tool should make an identical sur to the vanilla one for the same vanilla ship, from whatever input is chosen?
We know that a sur containing less than this will not work fully.
e.g.: concave shapes = non-detection and/or crashes.
e.g.: no HpIDs = crashes.
e.g.: no Hardpoint geometry = no hits on mounted weapons, as a couple of people reported a while ago.
We already have several SUR creation utilities which are LESS than productive because they don’t produce completely working, reliable surs.
So - No, I don’t want another less than complete tool. And behind your masks of criticism, nor do you. I was being clear and honest.
Yes I know I am badgering Schmack for a timeline, because I have been waiting for this tool for a very long time. Several others took on this task and then gave up without finishing it. But of course you have already forgotten?
Me? This is my third time around. So I would like to know how long is this piece of string.
Secretly, so do you, but you prefer to ride on the backs of others such as me, while biting our necks. That is despicable.
Show me how completing this utility to the extent of producing identical surs to vanilla will not benefit all of you?
So my cajoling will also not benefit you, right?
But right now it’s just ST-bashing time to some of you.
This is OK for a while, I don’t care too much most of the time, I am reasonably thick skinned.
But don’t go too far, children.
-
w0dk4 wrote:
StarTrader wrote:
If you decide not to, then I am sorry, and thank you for trying, but I won’t use it very much (if at all), because I can already do this with existing MS tools and 3DSMax tools, and it is a pain now. Your utility will not make anything easier if you make it in the way you say.Indeed…
Either it’s pure irony or ignorance
Only time will tell.
-
Relax ST, I’m taking the piss and you knows it you old Croc! Carry on!
-
W0dk4:
I so like people who intentionally misquote to prove a null-point! (But I couldn’t eat a whole one).
May I enlighten everyone and put in the entire context of your intentional misquotation:
For me the ONLY criteria is that the generated sur file for any standard vanilla FL ship, say for example the Stiletto (bw_fighter), MUST be exactly the same as the original vanilla sur file, with all the same components. And it has to work, of course.
If you decide not to, then I am sorry, and thank you for trying, but I won’t use it very much (if at all), because I can already do this with existing MS tools and 3DSMax tools, and it is a pain now. Your utility will not make anything easier if you make it in the way you say.
-
Well, if I understand you correctly, the only thing which is missing for you to have it completed is the multipart stuff. This in fact is easily added, but I first have to make some code cleanup to allow multiple parts. Also I don’t like to release a new version with known errors so I most likely will fix the most of them before actually adding multipart support.
Also as far as I can tell nobody seemed to have understood the format as I do, since there is no tool which could create a bit section that worked. The collision speedup speaks for itself. But we shouldn’t forget that there are still parts which are not fully reversed (e.g. the ref. vert. stuff, the numbers in the vanilla .sur files don’t make sense for now). Also Adoxa + LS helped a lot with reversing most of the file structure.
There is no guarantee that we ever will be able to make identical .sur files. The fact that so far no one could create a working bit section before I started makes it highly unlikely that we ever will be able to reverse all of it. If we are lucky an approximation is enough and it will work for the most of the custom files (concerning the bit section this seems to be the case here).
Also keep in mind that all of the vanilla .sur files seem to be generated by hand and this is what you also should do. Read up the basics of physic engines and you will understand why. They all need convex shapes and don’t work with polygons. The reason that conversion works is the trick I adapted from the vanilla .sur files for single polygons but it is more computationally intensive as a result.
Also this is the reason that I didn’t write a .cmp converter. If you just convert them to .obj and then to .sur, fine you can do that, but this is not what you should do. The original geometry is usually not meant to be a collision mesh. Also I don’t want to write x exporters for different programs, hence I choose the .obj format (for which the reader actually is modified from my 3d engine so I didn’t have to start from scratch).
Most of the points I already explained. For me the new feature of the converter was, that you actually could convert any geometry (well it turned out that some does not work) which no tool could do up to that point. The rest was just usually bugfixing plus adding new features afterwards (that is what you are waiting for). Also I only wrote it, because I was annoyed that no one could create a real working .sur tool. I guess they all just gave up because of lack of motivation or they didn’t have enough knowledge for it.
-
I don’t recall whether you have added command-line support, Schmack, but that would alleviate any speed concerns as a simple batch script would make the conversion a one-step process no matter the number of files required
-
I guess it would be even easier to just include batch processing in the program itself, the code for walking through all the subdirectories do I have lying around anyway. Noted for the next version
-
StarTrader wrote:
Blah blah blahST, your perceived entitlement to these resources is getting ridiculous. I’d hardly call what you do “cajoling”; it’s borderline harassment.
This tool works very well and, in its current form, a staple of the FW:ToW mod. Yes it doesn’t do “everything” but with some concessions, it does more than anyone else has done previously.
Just be patient and stop being a prick. Schmack will get to it when he can.
And please stop with the “children” garbage. It’s getting rather tedious. It’s also ironic, as it’s you who is acting like one.
-
Sushi you surprise me. I thought you were more mature.
Entitlement? Utter Rubbish, where do you see that claim from me?
My previous question was over a month ago and there was no news since.
As only one other person expressed any interest I assumed that only he and I were interested and that therefore Schmack would probably not be interested in developing a new version for only 2 people.
I wouldn’t be, that is for sure.
You may have observed that I have kept a very low profile in the rest of the forum for some time too.
So I think I was not out of order in asking for news on this remaining subject which is of interest to me.
Fine, so you have used the existing utility for your own mod.
Good for you.
So since you think you don’t need an improved version then the current one is fine for you. Right?
So you’re out of this discussion since your needs are satisfied, right?
Well I did all of mine manually, over the past 4 years, and twice and even three and four times over. A good satisfying result for me, but a heck of a lot of long nights, cursing and failures before I managed to get a good set, and not for all ships. My tough luck. I’m not complaining, I took it upon myself to write a complete mod alone and I did it and released it. I am happy that I managed it, not bragging. But i was convinced that my surs were still causing my random intermittent crashes.
And then suddenly, LS comes up with his Sur Builder. Wow! Ecstacy! So I waited and encouraged him by doing an awful lot of testing and producing conclusive test results - alone again, and in vain. Sad that it too was dropped, could it be because of lack of expression of interest from others, methinks?
And then after more months, Schmack very kindly agreed to produce a better tool, and has done so as a first version. This is great.
And Schmack has included the missing HpID table so surs no longer cause those random intermittent crashes.
Yes, Schmack’s tool is now producing good 1-part surs. But it doesn’t yet do multipart and does not place Hp hit detection shapes into the sur.
This is causing no hit detection on mounted weapons, right? Despite the weapons having their own sur files.
No problem? OK, for you.
And Schmack has informed us that there are other unkown areas too. This is not surprising or else others would have also found the method. In my opinion too, he and his advisers have done extremely well in unravelling the darned thing to this degree.
All this is fine, I didn’t get any bad reaction from Schmack, only from you and a couple of others.
Odd that.
Don’t like my sarcasm in this and my earlier posts?
It’s because of my disappointment that nobody else actually stated that they are interested in Schmack developing the tool, and then suddenly you all are, but jump on me for pursuing it - for you too!
I suggest you give up antagonising me, and let Schmack reply in his own way, and we can then all see what he is prepared to do, and when he thinks he can manage it.
How is this harassing him? I’ve not pressurised him, I have just asked him and I am asking only to know for myself.
You and others will also benefit from any development that Schmack makes, so you should be pleased that someone has expressed an interest to keep this going if Schmack is willing and able to do so.
If he isn’t able to do so within the next few months, then I just need to know so I don’t continue to hang around outside this particular door.
-
StarTrader wrote:
Yes, Schmack’s tool is now producing good 1-part surs. But it doesn’t yet do multipart and does not place Hp hit detection shapes into the sur.
This is causing no hit detection on mounted weapons, right? Despite the weapons having their own sur files.
Yes. And if you actually read the thread you would see that we came to that conclusion several times now - and Schmackbolzen has repeatedly said that he will add these two things when he has time.
Now, what’s your problem? Seriously?
I and everybody else are also waiting for the fixes, but we dont take the pretentious attitude and say that others dont give a damn.You know, you could simply have asked for an update from Schmackbolzen but that would have been too less of a drama, right?
Congratulations - mission accomplished in that regard.
