.obj -> .sur converter
-
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. -
From memory I use the most away faced normal I can find. I can look it up if you need it. Which brings me to my next question: Why do you want to know this?
-
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.
-
cata123 wrote:
Why not blender .blend. 100% free, open source and you can do everything that you can do with 3ds.Don’t forget that except Blender most other software can’t handle .blender files. Obj, FBX and Collada are very common and every good modeling software can handle it.
-
Im too old for becoming student again… all the alcohol… all the parties
-
Actually, you dont need to be a student, or have a student email. You can gain access to a educational licensed version by specifying your a ‘mentor’…any email address will do.
However milkshape has some definite benefits over 3ds max, most importantly its size (25mb vs 6-8gb) 3ds is fine if your planning on doing tons of model creation, but if you just need to convert model formats then its serious overkill -
Personally I’d not recommend to do any sort of conversion with milkshape due to how limited feature support is there, namely vertex color and transparency, multiple uv maps. Even basic stuff like vertex normals aren’t well supported across formats and has a tendency of screwing up your stuff. If someone wants to make a good importing/exporting tool they’re better off converting between collada and FL formats. Collada has all the necessary features for FL models and is fairly extensible even within its validation schema.
-
From what I got you would like to have settings for each file. I can write that so that e.g. mass convert takes this into account. If there is demand? I don’t know how many still use this tool.
-
I write a complete solution, without any clicks, with automatic binding of all vertex, parts, hardpoints offsets in .cmp and .sur files.
I need the ability to quickly correct any problems, and make new features without waiting for the another developer.
The only complexity moments for me were - bits-section and convex hull.
I would be grateful for the help by source code, primarily msSURExporter V1.3. -
The feature with reading certain parts from cmp files was planned, but I never started it since not many people seemed to need it. Using the model itself was deliberately not done, since you need special collision models.
If enough people ask I would be willing to extend this tool further, but so far this seemed not to be the case.
I think you underestimate what it takes to write correct sur files, but we will see.