.obj -> .sur converter

Revised bugs information.
1. “Automatic” coordinates calculated correctly for single chunk “Static” and “Moveable” parts, and incorrectly for multichunk “Static” and “Moveable” parts.
2. Different coordinates required for chained parts. First .sur part, used as part of ship, should have coordinates, relative of a parental group. Secondary .sur part, used as debris, should have absolute coordinates (concerning the centre of model).
3. If parts are located in one or two planes, all works correctly. If parts are located in three planes, it is possible to fly by through sur. Is that problem, which I described earlier. One more example of incorrectly worked sur, you can fly out of dock through a wall.

In addition, I ask about adding ini-files support, with settings for sur chunks, it would be very convenient.
Possible, the author publish source code of the converter, for independent modifications by the interested persons?

Have you tried to follow this series of tutorials?
http://the-starport.net/freelancer/forum/viewtopic.php?post_id=54168#forumpost54168

Yes.
This two little and very simple examples:
surtest.cmp/sur, contain four cubes, located in two planes, and worked fine.
surtest2.cmp/sur, contain eight cubes, located in three planes, and worked bagged, sometimes you can walk through cubes.
What here wrong?

All your files are fine. Theoretically there shouldn’t be a problem. I guess either it’s a converter or Freelancer problem as Schmackbolzen said.

I yet not completely have understand problems of the centres, while I can show one example.
I see strange automatic calculation of the centre for crosshair, it not the centre of mass, not the centre of symmetry, and not the centre of coordinates.
Possible, this place of crossing of parts, or so has coincided.

I have a problem with the automatic center calculation.
Missiles / torpedoes / mines, guided by converter calculated center, and if it is too far from the geometric center of model / part, the explosion does not cause damage to ship, due to the fact that the geometric center misses the explossion radius of the munition.
I would not want to increase explosion radius, as it would be too damaging smaller ships, and I have to manually enter the coordinates of the centers.

That’s why you can set a manual center in his converter. You are right there and that is intended.
You can’t solve this automatic center calculation for all cases. If you have a ring, the center of mass will be inside the ring, and there is no geometry at all.

It seemed to me that the median is used as well for the calculation of the center of each part?
Because of this, I point out manually center for all parts that would avoid the problem of explosion and problems with moving parts.
It would be very convenient to have ini-files, describing the properties of parts for the converter (type, coordinates, parental part), for easy modifying .sur later.

Please tell me, how to properly search “Opposite” triangle in convex hull mesh?
Now i’m looking for the intersection from barycenter, in the direction of the inverted normal, and it seems to work.
I have found differences in the choice of opposite triangle, in different exporters.
1. Vanilla exporter, work approximately as my, but sometimes it hits in the neighboring triangle.
2. msSURExporter v1.2 seems looks for a triangle, with the maximally oppositely normal, without position check.
3. May be i’m most to draw a line, from the barycenter, through the center of the mesh, and find the intersection with this, i‘m doubt it.

I’m writing a command line converter in C++, which using more model fixes, and .ini files for best usability.
Now supports - import from .cmp/.3db/.mat/.ms3d, export to .cmp/.3db/.mat.
Also, i’m need for fully correct .sur files, i’m working now for this.
I would like a good understanding, for what is needed and how they must be made the opposite triangles, for create correct code.

Jolly_Roger wrote:
I’m writing a command line converter in C++, which using more model fixes, and .ini files for best usability.
Now supports - import from .cmp/.3db/.mat/.ms3d, export to .cmp/.3db/.mat.
Also, i’m need for fully correct .sur files, i’m working now for this.
I would like a good understanding, for what is needed and how they must be made the opposite triangles, for create correct code.

It’s better than ms3d-s cmp exporters ?

Perhaps one day the FL community will get out of the stone age and stop using the trash heap that is MS3D. I mean, there’s already a 3ds Max exporter that works much better.

I like the stone age… its free… and it does pretty much everything you need if you use the correct plugin versions.

Certainly the stone carvings are not that easy to be done… but well… there are plenty of free and compatible tools that are easy to use.

FriendlyFire wrote:
Perhaps one day the FL community will get out of the stone age and stop using the trash heap that is MS3D. I mean, there’s already a 3ds Max exporter that works much better.

Getting away from what you call stoneage is very expensive, isn’t it? MS3D and all related plugins are really trash, but least people have either enough money, a company or whatever license for 3dsMax. And it also excludes users of programs like Blender.

Would it be a neutral converter as Schmackbolzens obj-sur-converter is, then everyone could do it with whatever program they want. That, in my opinion, would be the best solution for every modder.

I absolutely agree that an importer would be better than a plugin (though we’d need a richer format than OBJ to have all relationships and data, FBX being the most likely candidate), but until then 3ds is still better.

MS3D wasn’t free for the longest time and that didn’t stop anyone (and no, people did not buy it). On top of that, 3ds Max is free for students, all you need is a student email address.

FriendlyFire wrote:
On top of that, 3ds Max is free for students, all you need is a student email address.

Not everyone is student and fewer are student for lifetime.

I have already the Max plugin. But why not see how this one works ?

FriendlyFire wrote:
FBX being the most likely candidate), but until then 3ds is still better.

Why not blender .blend. 100% free, open source and you can do everything that you can do with 3ds.