Mitovo

I do not need an "official statement" from an "official source" to tell me what is real, I can see reality with my own eyes. Of course UT4 failed, because I saw it with my own eyes, I played it a few times myself and the player count was always close to zero, maybe around 5-20 at halfway good times and regarding the community contributions, they almost all sucked, I tested almost all of the community made levels and with a few exceptions none of them even came close to the demo material put out by Epic.

 

As I figured. You can't provide a source, because none exists. You're making up your own facts, as usual.

Color me shocked.

 

You know, I can do and see things for real, I do not need an authority to tell me what reality is because I cannot do and see things for real like other people.

 

The degree of shameless, arrogant self-delusion in this statement is amazing.

Sums you up perfectly, though.

Translated: "I see things, and then invent my own reality of why they are to fit my personal narrative, which I then assert as fact... because I say so".

 

Regarding things supposedly getting easier for artists, I am an artist, I do art for real and I can tell you that things have not changed for a long time before all this fancy new inventions recently. Did you use Unreal Engine? A hell of a beast to learn and use. I used Cry Engine before and it was really easy to use and understand, at least the art part, you could get something done within a few days with no prior experience and since Torque is modeled after Cry Engine it shares a large part of the ease of use. And now you come as a probably non creator and try to tell me how everything is getting better and easier, while in reality everything is getting harder and more complicated. Things only get easier for people using proprietary software and use pre-made content from their fancy libraries of fancy stuff, but for people who do things for real from the start up, things get harder.

 

Oh wow, really? You've used Unreal Engine? No way! I bet you're the only person outside Epic Games who's done that! I can totally see now why you're qualified to overrule Epic's official reason for halting UT4. Obviously you're right, and they're clueless. Clearly.

I will never doubt you again, Din. In my book, your word is as God's from now on.

You used Unreal Engine. Wow. Incredible.

Do you remember the new Unreal Tournament? It was supposed the new big deal and they had amazing looking demos, it was supposed to be open source and build by the community, but recently it was cancelled, because it failed so hard. Why did it fail? Because the users could not reproduce the good quality, you had like a handful of maps that looked as good as the demo created by professional artists from Epic and then you had everything else, that looked so bad, some levels even looked worse than Unreal Tournament from the year 1999.

 

Incorrect.

UT4 didn't "fail so hard". It was put on hold indefinitely when team members working on it were shifted over to Fortnite after that game blew up. 'cause, you know.. Money. This did not happen recently. It happened in 2018.

As for your "version".. Citation Needed. Unless you can link to an official statement citing "poor results from community contributors" as their reason for halting it, this is just you "inventing facts" to fit your narrative. It's fake news.

You know, this thing called "search engines" exist. They make fact checking very quick and easy. So, you should probably stop making stuff up.

Regarding the rest of your hyperbole, okay sure.. whatever you say, Din.

 

Even our Torque3D demos from 2009 or whatever still look better than almost any game that was produced with the engine until now, that is the difference between theory and reality.

 

Highly subjective and not at all surprising, considering the source. I half expected you to say T3D looks better than the UE5 demo.

From a few of the maps I played on, personally, I would strongly disagree with you. But, you know.. opinions.

I just hope you're not referring to the still early in-dev maps for your comparison. It's not exactly a compliment to T3D if you are.

 

If you up the tech it also becomes harder for artists to compete, because you raise the entry barrier.

 

Another silly and poorly thought out argument.

You mean like what's happened with literally every new version of the engine since Unreal Engine 1? Or IdTech? Or any other engine with major numbered releases for that matter?

Yeah, of course that happens. Every new engine introduces new or otherwise increases existing requirements for asset production. You know what else happens? Artists adapt, learn the new skills and rise to the new requirements. New tools are created to assist in the creation process. People make it happen.

Also, because UE5 can handle so much more detail in real time, does not mean suddenly all assets are going to become that much more detailed. If an asset designed for UE4 is adequately detailed for something in UE5, there's no reason for them to make it more complex. Difference is, unlike UE4, they won't have to worry about LODs, Normal Maps, etc which would effectively reduce the time to get those assets done and into the engine, not increase it.

Yeah while this is impressive its really only useful for certain set pieces such as whats shown in the video. I don't think this would work too well for something more fast paced. Also if you look closely you can see a lot of pop in on the statues when they are in shadow. If this is basing polygon counts on ray traced lighting which it very well may be, anything in shadow is going to look pretty bad if you don't use conventional methods to model and texture the geometry

 

Focusing on the numbers, while it's what they push as "what it can do", is missing the bigger point made, I think. It's not "what the tech can do in a controlled situation". It's more "what the tech is doing, period" and the implications that has for designers and developers working with it.

Of course it's unlikely that any game is going to have scenes with over a billion triangles in a single frame. Except maybe in scripted cutscenes/cinematics. Even then, it just doesn't sound practical to throw more at the engine/hardware than is necessary. I doubut artists are going to start modeling stuff with 1 million polys, when a fraction of that will do, "because they can".

As an analogy... My video card (2070 Super) hits 200+ FPS on a number of games without vsync. However, my monitor only handles 60 fps sync'd. So, since I always play with vsync on (because screen tear haunts my dreams), anything over 60 FPS is wasted. However, I know I still have that unused horsepower available to hit 60fps in more demanding games where it's needed. Otherwise, while 200+ FPS sounds really impressive, it's not very practical in a typical gaming scenario. At least not for me.

That's how I look at this tech demo, and tech demos in general. Sure you're not going to start seeing games with billions of tris in a single scene, but the technology is there to make it possible, in the right circumstances. The net result is that games are still going to have the potential to look a lot better than the previoust tech, and at a comparable performance.

I mean, look at the

when that was released. No UE4 game, that I'm aware of, ever pushed its graphics as far as what's in that demo, either. Same goes for . But the technology demonstrated in each was/is used in games made with its respective engine. And besides, all else being equal, would you argue that games made with each generation of the tech weren't a notable improvement over previous versions (visually, etc)? I wouldn't, personally.

The real take-away of this video, at least for me, is how it removes several steps from the asset pipeline for artists. Being able to put full detailed models into a scene without having to worry about manually creating LODs, or having to generate normal maps or displacement maps shouldn't be understated. If you've ever gone through the process of baking normal maps, and setting up LODs on even less detailed objects, the process can be pretty tedious and time consuming. So, UE4 providing all that detail and LOD in real time is a big deal.

The radiosity lighting that updates dynamically as the environment changes, and does so realistically, based on surface type, etc, is also a huge improvement that eliminates the need for a lot of the manual lighting placement that was previously required to simulate similar effects.

The flocking system they describe for particles is also really cool. That a bunch of bats flew off out of that cave and realistically avoided the environment and each other, without an animator having to manually set those interactions up, is also a huge deal.

And so on.

In other words, it's not just how cool the tech looks. It's also the benefits it provides to those using it.

Sure, they're pushing these huge numbers in the demo (because people love big numbers). But to me, the real exciting stuff was the technology behind the scenes, and how much it frees up designers/artists/modelers, while improving the quality of the end result.

These are all things that add up to an engine that is going to power some pretty awesome gaming experiences in the years to come.

Personally, I'm really impressed and excited for this.

Of course, mileage may vary :p.

As a quick aside. Back when I first saw 'Advent Children', I wondered if or when we'd ever see real-time graphics tech capable of that level of fidelity. I'd say the answer is very much yes at this point.

Every time I think "how can 3D graphics/engine tech possibly get more realistic?", Epic shows up with an answer...

Increased detail in assets, while reducing the process of creating them... Sure, why not lol.

@Mitovo The problem you're reporting is certainly an interesting one, and whether it's an issue with hardware or art assets it's worth looking into. Torque3D has a nice profiler setup that might help point in the direction of the problem. Perhaps using profilerDump() on the Pacific demo and another demo would allow a side by side comparison. You can see someone else's dump here as an example. Also try playing around with the other metrics (specifically drawcalls) and see what that is showing. Posting the results here or linking to an upload might help some of the resident eggheads spot any issues.

 

Thank you, Caleb. I'll consider those options.

Honestly, if the answer to my question is "We don't know for sure", then that's a perfectly acceptable response to give from the jump. It's quite possible that who ever created the demo, and/or altered it later is long gone and no longer active in this community, or just hasn't been around lately.

Anyway, I'll look into those tools you mentioned, Caleb.

Thanks again.

Did you switch off every graphic setting there is to narrow the issue down? How are we supposed to figure out what your issue is? I can just make guesses. You are actually the arrogant one trying to blame Torque3D or others for an issue that only exists for you, if you have an issue, you have to figure it out, that is the way it goes usually.

So at least we can say it is not the bad port of the demo, you also said the bad performance also exists with the assets copied over to a normal Torque3D, which would lead me to guess it is the assets causing the problem, so go and remove the assets one by one until the performance issue goes away, kind of an obvious procedure or not?

 

Backpedaling and trying to flip the script now, are we?

How are "we" supposed to figure it out, Duion? First of all, who's 'we?' You're the only one in this thread asserting, repeatedly, that it's something with my hardware/software because it runs fine for you and you "can't confirm" the frame drops I'm seeing.

I ask you to give specific details as to what hardware/software it could be, and you resort to "How are we supposed to figure it out"? And "I can just make guesses".

I'm the arrogant one? I'm "blaming Torque3D and others"?

1. I didn't blame Torque3D. I confirmed that, in all other cases, T3D is running just fine for me.

2. You introduced the idea that the P3D demo was screwed up when converted over. The "blaming" was done by you, friend Not me. I was asking what could possibly be the issues unique to that demo causing such a drastic performance drop, whatever they be. You are the one who came in here pretending to have a clue.

You also claim to know exactly what the issues are with the Pacific Demo's design (aka 'blaming others for the performance hits'). Yet, when asked to give examples, you refuse to do that as well, and continue to backpedal instead.

So let's just state the obvious, Duion... You don't know what you're talking about. You didn't when you entered the thread. You don't now. When called to, you can't actually back up anything that you've said - emphatically and repeatedly - in this thread.

If you were a reasonable, well-meaning person, you'd have made your final "suggestions" to begin with. But, because you're Duion, of course you can't do that.

As you do in every other thread, you just came into this thread to crap all over it with your nonsense, without ever addressing or answering the key question - even after you claim to have "exact" knowledge of it.

Pat yourself on the back, Duion.. You've derailed and ruined yet another thread with your BS. I'm sure you'll chalk that up as an accomplishment.

Did you not read what I wrote? I said the Pacific Demo you downloaded is not the real Pacific Demo, someone just took the assets and threw it into the new engine, I instantly see it by how it is done, not much effort was put in to make the visuals, audio and mechanics work like the original demo.

 

Yes. I read what you wrote. Every single word of every single post. And I've responded.

I'll summarize: I said I'd downloaded and tested it multiple ways, with multiple versions. I tested the original GG version after your first mention, but didn't specifically include that detail, because the results didn't change. The only improvement I saw was ~20fps when I copied the full Pacific Demo's assets over T3D 3.10.1, as I stated in another post.

To clarify, so you can move past that argument: Yes. I tested the original GG version. No, the results were not notably different. FPS pikes up to ~60 at points, but nowhere near the 200+ it hits in other demos. More importantly, it drops down into the low 30s in a number of areas.

 

With saying the hardware and software as bottleneck does not mean that your hardware is not good enough, but some kind of setup of hardware and software can create a bottleneck even if the hardware and software normally can run it properly, it just takes a few settings done wrong and your performance goes down the drain.

 

Okay, you keep putting this theory forward in vague terms, but never get specific.

What hardware/software/settings could prevent a system that runs every other Torque Demo at 200+ FPS, and literally any other modern game at a solid 50-60+ FPS, from running all tested versions of the Pacific Demo, including the original GG version, so much lower?

Specifically what "hardware/software/settings" issues could possibly account for a ~150 FPS difference, only for one specific demo, with every version tested?

You're pushing this theory pretty hard, so I expect you can elaborate and give some specific insight/details. If not, stop putting forward arguments you can't support.

 

But even if it was that bad, I cannot confirm it, I get 50-60 FPS all the time in the bad Pacific Demo, so nothing special there. I also know the assets inside out and yes there are some design flaws in the assets as well as how it was put together, but they should not be that big. You are dealing with a non issue here, because the Pacific Demo is not the real Pacific Demo as I said many times, try the original one and see if the problem is still there.

 

What do you mean "even if it was that bad, I cannot confirm it".... Literally wow. The way such egocentric arrogance just rolls off your fingers is amazing.

Sorry to disappoint, Duion, but my experiences are not subject to your "confirmation". You aren't the all-knowing arbiter of all things T3D.

Now, you've replied several times to this thread, and haven't provided anything beyond "it's fine for me", vague references to "software/hardware/settings" issues without giving any kind of specifics, and "you're testing the wrong version".

Ironically... you claim to know of the issues in the Pacific Demo's design, and dismiss them as "not that big". Yet, you never bother to describe any of those issues, even though that's precisely what I've been asking about since my first post. Par for the course, I suppose.

Now, since I know you're going to reply again, can it be:

1) Specific examples of environment design issues you allude to.

2) Specific examples of the hardware/software/settings issues you claim could be causing problems, which I can actually test and verify one way or the other.

If you could do that, at least one of your posts in this thread would be contributing to the original topic/question.

Hello!

Was browsing this forum section and got to thinking. It seems "Old School 3D" is becoming popular again as a nostalgia-driven style.

I think games like

, based on the Build 2 engine, and " ", based on a branch of the original Quake engine (among others) are filling a niche. They're reminding long-time gamers, and introducing newer gamers to the idea that "bleeding edge graphics and tech" aren't required for a fun game.

What was associated with "obsolete tech" for several years seems to now be considered an actual style/aesthetic; not unlike how 2D pixel-art games did. Such titles can probably be made for significantly less $$$ as well.

That considered, I think TGE and even TGEA could play a solid role here.

Though you can't buy new licenses anymore, I know there are people who own and "never left" TGE, or even TGEA. I'm curious if any of those people read/post here, and if they could share their current projects?

Would love to see what people are creating with either TGE or TGEA.

I did test it by dragging the assets from the direct demo download onto a fresh setup of 3.10.1 and the performance improves by about ~20 FPS in all cases. So that's something, but still well under what I would expect all else considered.

As for it possibly being my hardware as the bottleneck...

- If I was seeing similarly poor results on other T3D demos I could consider that. But that's not the case. I get upwards of 200+ FPS on the other T3D demos.

-If I wasn't getting solid 60+ FPS on games like Witcher 3, Outer Worlds, and any other recent titles, at high or highest settings, I could consider that. But, I get 50-60+ fps in those games, with those settings.

All that considered, my hardware being the bottleneck, specifically and only for the Pacific Demo, is something I'm not even going to entertain here.

So, whatever the version, with all else being equal, it's *something* in the way the Pacific Demo itself is put together. That's what I'm driving at figuring out. What was done differently in the Pacific Demo (which ever version) that makes it perform so much lower than all other T3D demos I can run, as well as newer, more demanding games?

Now, if it comes down to the coding, and the map design (by) itself isn't the culprit, then I can say "okay, so the map/environment itself isn't the problem" and be satisfied with that. However, if there are some "oopsies" in how that map was put together that can so greatly impact performance, then I would like to know what they are, so I can avoid making those mistakes in my own work.

Anyone else familiar with the design or other possible aspects of the Pacific Demo that might be at issue here?

I first downloaded and tested the Pacific Demo from section 2 of the Downloads page. Performance was as I described, as low as the 20s in FPS with hiccuping while turning the camera.

I then tested Pacific Demo by downloading the Art/Level Package from section 3 of the same downloads page, and extracted it over a new install of 10.3.1.

I run it on max settings @ 2560x1440 (though resolution changes make negligible difference)

Ryzen 2600

NVidia 2070 Super

32 Gigs RAM

Samsung SSD

Not sure what other games are out there that would be a good apples-to-apples comparison with T3D... but I run Witcher 3 on High/Ultra settings and get 50-60 FPS consistently. I dare say Witcher 3 at those settings is far more demanding than the Pacific Demo.

It's worth noting, too, that other demos for T3D run just fine, and I get well over 100, even 200 FPS. This is why my question was "is there something with the way Pacific is designed", and not about the engine itself. I already know the engine can hit up to 200+ fps. Pacific's performance is very much the exception, not the rule. Would like to reference it for "what to avoid" as well as "what to do".

Hello everyone,

So, been poking at T3D again and wanted to take a look at Pacific demo again, as I remember it featuring a lot of T3D's features to reference.

I noticed something kinda surprising, though.. my frame rate was LOW. Like, really low.

I'm on a 2070 Super, which is getting easily well over 200+ FPS on other games, and even in the other T3D demos. But i'm hitting as low as the 20s in the Pacific demo. This is on DX9. For some reason if I try it in DX11 (by copying the assets into a current T3D setup), GEForce Experience won't show the FPS overlay. So, I don't know if there's any difference in DX11.

So, I"m kinda curious what would cause such a huge difference in performance? Is it an optimization thing? Too much going on? Not good enough occlusion, etc?

Thanks :)

Are you insane or so?

 

And there it is.

This is why a CoC is necessary. Because people like you can't have a civil, respectful conversation without attacking others. This is a perfect example.

I asked a sincere, good faith question. I did not attack you. I did not insult you. And that's what you open your reply with. Wonderful.

Discussion's over.

I didn't make the CoC specifically for you, and the timing was unfortunately coincidental with your insinuations about other communities(Also, you complain about it not being applied when insulting people, but the first instance in which I applied it had you drawing similarities of another community joining up with ours in discord as being akin to an infection, which most people would find insulting)

 

Why you try to appeal to people that never used Torque and never contributed to it? If the target group you try to appeal to does not exist here, there is nothing you can gain.

 

 

That's a weird question.

The only way you grow a community is by welcoming and appealing to new people. And anyway, every person who uses or contributes to T3D started as a non-user/non-contributor. Yourself included.

Are you against seeing this community grow and thrive? Would you prefer it remain insular and mostly static?

That's a sincere question, because I really can't fathom why one would want to discourage attracting new users and contributors to a project they seem to love so much.

You can try Wings 3D.....but does not have animation tools.

....also 3D Crafter previously 3D Canvas and K-3D are interesting pieces of software.

 

I gave Wings3D a go. It's a neat program, but it has some weird quirks that make it annoying to work with for me. Seen others do cool stuff with it.

I gave Hexagon3D another try. It's a solid modeler with some nice tools, but has a lot of stability problems. Will crash on you randomly while doing normal operations.

I've decided just to stick with Blender. Diving into 2.8 and getting used to the new setup.

I probably have to remind you once again that this CoC was created, because Jeff accused me of saying something negative, which I did not say. So the main reason we are in this situation is, because I was falsely accused of something and nobody cares to be nice to me, even though I did not behave bad in that situation, which makes everything already very hypocritical, since the main reason we have this CoC did not even exist.

It all becomes even more hypocritical as those rules are basically never applied in cases of real bad behavior like insulting people, but are almost always used as a reason to censor people, which it is all about.

 

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

In my experience, CoC's are never a problem, and are even welcome by those who naturally stay within their guidelines.

 

NEVER a problem? Did nobody notice the huge scandal when a CoC for Linux was introduced which resulted in Linus Torvalds leaving the project and several other Linux contributors threatening to revoke the licenses for their contributions, which could have resulted in the destruction of the Linux project in total and in the destruction of 90% or whatever of computing infrastructure, since most computers run some kind of Linux.

So just recently a useless CoC almost destroyed most of the computing world, but you don't see a problem in that, if everyone just pretends to be nice to each other.

 

1. Perhaps you have to pretend to be nice to others. I don't have that problem. I suspect most people don't have that problem. At minimum, folks can be civil with one another, or just not communicate at all when even civility isn't possible.

2. The Linux situation was a very different deal, with entirely different circumstances and implications. You're conflating two very different things. I suspect you knew that when you wrote it. And anyway, the sky didn't fall. A new CoC didn't bring the Linux world crashing down. Your example kinda defeats itself. Hypotheticals and "what-ifs" don't make compelling arguments.

It's weird that you're even acting like a COC is some bizarre or unprecedented thing. The vast majority of message forums and online communities require you to accept a CoC before you can even sign up. Some require you to click "I Accept" every time you log in. Some keep it pinned at the top of their forums for easy reference when issues arise. Believe it or not, those communities do just fine. It's unusual for a forum *not* have a CoC than *to* have one. These forums, 'til now, have been the exception, not the rule.

Your histrionics and doom-saying are completely unfounded and, really, kinda silly.

So, yes. I 100% stand behind my statement that in my experience, CoC's aren't a problem for people who naturally stay within them without needing to be reminded. They're only a problem for those who can't, or don't want to. For most everyone on these forums, nothing is going to change. They'll continue posting as they always have.

Excellent CoC, Jeff. Pretty much covers all the bases.

In my experience, CoC's are never a problem, and are even welcome by those who naturally stay within their guidelines. They're always a "problem" for those who don't. It's always the latter group who protest having them. Funny how it always holds true, even here. "Those who scream loudest..."

A good example of how a community can be badly affected by negative people and behavior is the official GameMakerStudio community. Every time I've looked there myself, I've seen frequent abrasive attitudes and behavior. I've seen people recommend to stay away from their official forums for the same reason. It's not a good reputation to have, especially when you're "home base" for a product. With the potential T3D has to grow and expand as a viable 3D Game Engine and draw in a larger community, it's wise to get ahead of such eventualities. Makes Moderators' jobs a lot easier, too. The CoC does the heavy lifting and lays out the rules. The Mods just have to apply it as necessary.

If you want a healthy, open community that anyone can join and contribute to, a CoC is an important thing to have.

It is still in beta, I'm just following it, did not use it myself yet, otherwise I can only recommend you to stick with Blender, it is the best tool, sure it is complex and hard to learn, but in the long run you will get the best results, I use it even for level design. Regarding paid software I have no experience, I don't even think they are better, but they often come with libraries of pre-build stuff, that may help you speed up development.

From experience I can say it took me 2 weeks to learn how to model a human character, unwrap it, texture it, rig it, animate it, create LOD, collision, set it up for the engine, create scripts and make it work flawlessly in the final game, I had prior experience in Blender, but not in character modeling, rigging, animating etc. Just to give you a rough time frame you can be expected to get the things done you want, it is a rough learning curve at first, but once you are done everything is much easier, so I can recommend just deal with it, use Blender and do it the old fashion way. You can use a model from Makehuman, Dust3D, a pre-made one or whatever as a base, so you don't have to create everything from scratch.

 

Yeah looks like I'll just be sticking to Blender. I've used it for a while now, since the pre-Open Source days. But I've never used it beyond a purely hobby level. Still, I've become used to it, am comfortable with many of the hotkeys, etc. Other lower-cost or free options out there are really pretty clunky.

It's not the end of the world for me to use Blender. Just was looking for something a bit leaner to work with.

Try his: https://dust3d.org/

 

Interesting looking tool.

It's like some hybrid of metaball and polygonal modeling. Looks like it needs a bit more refinement, though. The models come out a little rough looking.

Thanks for the suggestion, though. I hadn't seen that before.

Hello,

So, I've been a Blender user for a while. Pretty comfortable with it, can create stuff fairly fast. Thing is, to me, it's turning into something of "everything and the kitchen sink", as they keep throwing more and more fancy tech into it. I need a screwdriver and a hammer, and Blender is giving me the entire 500 piece tool kit.

I'm looking for something leaner and more purpose-designed.Milkshape 3D is a lot closer to what I'm looking for, but it's outdated, is no longer updated, and a bit clunky and limited in its functionality. Also, it doesn't work with quads or ngons. Working with tris is kinda annoying to me, even if that's what everything reduces down to anyway.

Specifically, I'm looking for:

Good polygon modeling tools

Quad/Ngon support (or at least Quads)

Solid UV/Texture-mapping

Animation tools

A solid, intuitive Material system - preferably not node-based (I hate node-based systems)

Import/export support.for the more common formats (Collada, OBJ, etc)

Don't need a lot of extra whizbangs and doohickeys. Just something that I can model, texture, animate (if applicable) and export into T3D with.

Would love if someone branched off the current Blender, stripped out all the extra stuff and just made it a solid polygonal modeler with the above features. I don't expect that to happen, though.

If I need to do any kind of sculpting, I can do that in something like sculptris.

I'm fine with purchased software, but not in the $100s or $1000s.

I've tried Anim8or, AC3D and some other free or low-cost options that just don't quite cut it. Looked at Silo which is reasonably priced, but I'm not a fan of its interface, either. Perhaps there's some I'm not aware of.

Anyone know of any other possible options that fit my criteria? I'm okay if it goes a bit beyond what I listed, just not too much.

Any suggestions or ideas are appreciated!

@Duion

Wow, you are on the snide lately. :roll:

 

"Lately"?

:p

Yes anything works, the only limit is your imagination.

I already do it that way, partly, I have general art assets to be re-used under the art/ folder and models that are level specific under levels/mylevel/*.

However if you want to do it always that way you may run into problems since you are likely going to re-use specific assets from some levels in other levels, therefore the art/ folder setup by default.

 

I thought about that (models being used in multiple locations) and for that, I've considered having a sort of "global" or "shared" folder; this way extra HD space isn't used up with redundant assets. Would be something to be worked out and planned in advance, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it done in other games.

Hi all,

Quick question...

Is it necessary to keep the "built-in" folder structure in T3D when it comes to level/map setup?

For example, I see there's an "art" folder, and a "core" folder, each of which seem to contain assets used in maps, etc.

However, is it feasible to, say, store each level/map with its own discrete folder structure under the "levels" folder?

So you might have (just as an example, not a literal setup/suggestion):

levels

>level 1

-->geometry

-->textures

-->terrain

-->scripts

>level 2

-->geometry

-->textures

-->terrain

-->scripts

etc... Would that work? I'm just not a fan of the default setup, where assets are split into different locations.

Thanks

So, sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I figured it would be better in context, as it's related to the same subject.

As of now, what are the plans with the terrain blending method? I know there were some changes that were tried out, but I don't know what's happened since then. So, will the terrain material blending go back to how it was pre-3.10? Will it continue as it is now?

Just wondering if I should go back to a previous version, or forge ahead with 3.10 and forward.

Thanks!

Gave it a go on Ubuntu Mate 16.04 (Xenial).

It won't start at all. The .sh is set to executable, so it should work fine... but nothing happens.

 

Hey guys,

From now on I will add Linux executables.

Anyone that use Linux can give me a hand and test this release?

https://github.com/John3/Torque3D_Unofficial/releases/tag/v1.23

Thank you!