Why don’t you make a tutorial and show people how you did that? That way people have options.

coz there are already such tutorials

There are actually many such tutorials, even if you limit yourself to this site alone. The options are numerous and easy to find. My method is basically BJ’s, no SUR slicer, just export from MS3D and play; OP uses the sur-splicer; and you use this method. It’s what works best for us.

MK

I guess I must have missed them then, my apologies.

CzW and Mirkha and TrueSilver and FF (and anyone else I missed who contributed to this?)-

Very many thanks for this super tutorial, it is very encouraging.

And for making me use my little French language knowledge again after 20 years of last use, it’s a lot better now after 2 days of using online translators!

No, please leave the original French post, it’s good for this community that people can post Tutorials in their own language for clarity in my opinion, and the translated ones can be posted below as in this case. And it did my French knowledge the world of good! German or Spanish next please!

May I suggest links to .pdf files of the tutorials so people can download them easily too?

Clearly our problem with the old ways of making surs is MilkShape then, and possibly some exporter problems too.

There are two things which I do differently:-

1. Break down my ships into at least the quantity of sur parts that I need
2. Name the ship cmp groups sensible names starting with the ship name, such as:

BlackSun_Hull
BlackSun_LWing
BlackSun_RWing
BlackSun_LEng
BlackSun_REng
BlackSun_TopFin
BlackSun_BotFin
and my surs for this would be named:

BlackSun_Hull_lod1
BlackSun_LWing_lod1
BlackSun_RWing_lod1
BlackSun_LEng_lod1
BlackSun_REng_lod1
BlackSun_TopFin_lod1
BlackSun_BotFin_lod1
and my sur-spicer input.ini file will be:-

BlackSun_Hull_lod1.sur root
BlackSun_LWing_lod1.sur BlackSun_LWing_lod1
BlackSun_RWing_lod1.sur BlackSun_RWing_lod1
BlackSun_LEng_lod1.sur BlackSun_LEng_lod1
BlackSun_REng_lod1.sur BlackSun_REng_lod1
BlackSun_TopFin_lod1.sur BlackSun_TopFin_lod1
BlackSun_BotFin_lod1.sur BlackSun_BotFin_lod1
By doing this:-

• a. there is no accidental mixing of parts between two different ships if they appear together (this happens when two different ship models are visible which each have one group with exactly the same internal name as the other - You may end up with groups named Group02 to Groupnn in more than one ship that you make, for example, and bs1_sur01 can mean BlackSun Sur01 or BattleShipOne Sur01 etc, but BlackSun_Hull_lod1 is explicit to one ship).

• b. the sur names (shipgroupname_lod1 etc.) will now be correct and will match the cmp file FIX data, so there is no need to check or change it, and the xxx_cons_fix.dat file made by sur-splicer will not be used (it must still be specified in the ini file though).

• c. there is no need to add extra dummy ship cmp groups (the small spheres) to make the sur part names attach, they will attach to the ship groups correctly.

• d. When exporting the cmp, the number of groups will be the same as the model groups, the quantities will be the number of parts making each group (for example the group BlackSun_LEng may have parts LEngIntake, LEngExhaust and LEngGrills) so this group quantity will be 4.

• e. When exporting the surs, the group count will still be 1 (1 by 1 export) and they cannot have sub-parts.

CzW, Mirkha -
Can you please tell me if doing it this way instead of making the extra spheres will cause any problems?

One more suggestion - the Havok tools for 3DSMAX enable convex hull parts to be created quickly from the ship groups, and these can be used as they are (or you can now put in your hollow bits) as the collision box parts - do you have any bad experience in making surs with these tools?

Many thanks again for this tutorial. The revelation for me is 3DSMAX. I did use it before but must have changed the sur parts in MilkShape somehow, probably by using Face - Smooth All, which changes the orientation of the normals I believe?

Even when avoiding concave parts, the problems I had still caused me a lot of frustration and a lot of wasted time before I got it right (sometimes), but I still have difficulties with some parts from time to time, so I am one who will definitely benefit from this method.

Please ignore whatever negative comments, you have proven that it works.

One general comment on the replies I have seen here - I do dislike it (VERY much!) when people are off-handed with a person who has put so much time and effort into making a new and very useful addition or tutorial such as this one.

The ones who brag “I’ve done such and such xxx times” etc. and are knowledgeable but have never given out their precise method clearly, but only made vague hints and innuendos, are being unkind even though they do not realise this. Their inconclusive posts have caused me many days of wild-goose chases and more time wasting than necessary in the past, and I’m speaking from personal experience.

Opr8R old pal - I do respect your greater knowledge my friend, but you’ve gone back to your old short and sour ways again, please stop it! Be NICE - tell us YOUR foolproof way to make first-time surs 300 times with only MilkShape, sur-splicer (? no sur-splicer?), the cmp exporter (which version?), the sur exporter (which version?) and a piece of string (was it wet?) and a piece of used chewing gum!!! Get a bad Russian woman or something, put a smile on your face (until your frau hits you)!! (Hey - You’re not a Scot too, secretly, are you? I thought you’re a Sachsenach!)

sry but i didnt post a tutorial because I believe that every FL community has those tutorials already and my methods are not much different from those explained on those tutorials (maybe a bit faster… maybe with less steps to do… but generally the same procedure)
I simply believe that there is no need to write new tutorials while there are existing ones… especially now that im in the final phase to release a 2gb FL mod (and there is still much to do)

Its not my intention to talk bad about this method… i just mentioned that there are situations where the other methods might work better.

Good Tutorial Mirkha! This is good for the 3dsMAX users and those more comfortable with its easy to use interface.

For those looking to make SUR’s without use of SUR Splicing (i.e. ships without multiple components), please check this tutorial I posted… http://the-starport.net/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=26&topic=1002.msg7934#msg7934

You can decide which suits your needs.

Would i be possible that this could be submitted into the Tutorial Archives? The tutorial section was made for a reason

http://the-starport.net/index.php?option=com_ja_submit&Itemid=40

It’s getting lost down the list already, had trouble finding it today!

Can any moderator or admin move it or make it sticky for now?

@StarTrader:

It’s getting lost down the list already, had trouble finding it today!

Can any moderator or admin move it or make it sticky for now?

Its sticky for now.

I am having the problem of a large object disappearing when the centre is not in view.

Normally this was cured by using FL Model Tool, but that does not work in this case.

When I made a sur for it, the problem stopped.

I do not want to have a sur for this object.

Does anyone know what is causing this, or how it can be cured?

I dunno ST, but you could try this…

Keep the SUR that you made and use phantom_physics = true on it.

This should keep the functionality that you wish.

CzW, Mirkha…

As far as options go, select “Back To Front”, collision must be “Shrink Wrapped” and scale down set to “1”, mass on 100.

Once all good, click on OK; you will have a file bsl_S06.sur.

Doing this will bridge the gaps and hollows in the sur, as part of the shrink-wrap export. So all sur parts will be made convex automatically by the exporter.

So when you make a shape with a dock cut into it for example, I don’t understand how a ship will pass through as yet. I haven’t made one to check. Any comments please?

Also…

When we change the name of the root part in the cmp, we are replacing the ship root with the 1st sphere. Why exactly?

This will leave us one group short, remember we only made x-1 spheres, because the first is the root - i.e. the ship.

Could it be that this method is working precisely because we have removed the root group?

Thanks.

To cure the disappearing act, simply set the type to one of the stellar object types (planets, moons) and it should clear up the problem.

Right, got it.

Well since you are naming the root group I think it’s not changing anything, is it? As long as the name of the 1st root group (in this case it should still be the ship or station groups) is in the root’s file name then all will be ok.

Can you post up the cmp’s UTF tree so we can see the group names please? That will clarify it.

And a screenshot of the model and its sur in HardCMP will show that it is convex or not, if you can try to angle it so we can see the sur wireframe.

Thanks.

All the best.

Thanks Mirkha. Yep the group rename is clear.

Well it looks like the cavity in the sur is most definitely there!

It’s very strange the exporter would do that in Shrink-Wrap, it’s supposed to bridge the vertices. Or did you export it with shield bubble and then strip off the shield bubble?

Unless it knows about Boolean?? The author of the exporter plugin has not been around to ask him, it would have clarified so many sur questions.