2252 replies to this topic

[Tekadept]

Heffay, on 18 October 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

Tekadept, that video was incredibly useful! I'm going to write a powershell script that will modify that file directly, so you don't have to cut & paste, find and replace like crazy. Should make the whole process take less than a second.

Sweet, I did think of writing something but I'm pretty lazy and i dont have to do it that often definetely be a good help if ya do that though

Heffay, on 18 October 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

I don't like the bone structure that they have, but I guess if I ever want to use their animations, I better get used to it.

Yeh, definitely a big help keeping it the same for the their animations with names etc, If I get time I'll work on a parsing tool to convert the HTR file into something we can use.. Ive only done animations on 2 mechs, but will go over how to get the HTR file out when i get time.

[kuangmk11]

Decided to install the SDK and do some messing around today (bye bye day). Thanks for all the tips in this thread!

Why can't PGI's levels look as good as the demo level?






Its fun running around at human size with all the mechs around. MWO doesn't give you a good idea of how big the mechs really are. I even added in some of the ai guys so I would have something to shoot at. Unfortunately the way I added the mechs in there are no collisions for some reason so the ai shot me through the mechs.... cheaters.

full album here

and a video (first 2/3 came out pretty dark, I turned the sun on at the end:

[Pariah Devalis]

Any one of those would be great desktop backgrounds. It also shows just how damned good the game *could* look, and how many more items PGI level designers might consider to add scale to the maps, though the framerate and gameplay effects are probably the killers. The weather effects are also freakin' incredible, and the (lack of) color filter makes it gorgeous in the sunlight. Is that using DX11 by chance?

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 22 October 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[CrimsonOmega]

Anybody know what scale to put the catapult at in Blender for the right Table Top size?
(x, y, z?). I'd love to use these models for TT but I can't get the scale right.

Cheers

[kuangmk11]

Pariah Devalis, on 22 October 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Any one of those would be great desktop backgrounds. It also shows just how damned good the game *could* look, and how many more items PGI level designers might consider to add scale to the maps, though the framerate and gameplay effects are probably the killers. The weather effects are also freakin' incredible, and the (lack of) color filter makes it gorgeous in the sunlight. Is that using DX11 by chance?

Yes, that is DX11, some of those shots and the video were captured directly in the editor at medium spec and the bigger (1920x1080) ones were captured "in game" at very high. I just started messing with the weather, lightning, fog, and stuff (there's even tornadoes). it looks really great.

[Mighty Spike]

Oh yes,the Phract Pic would be a awesome wallpaper. you have a pic when you look upto the Commando. This would be freakin awesome with a Phract orAtlas but not so close like at the commando. Fantastic pics Kuangmk11.

[Heffay]

kuangmk11, on 22 October 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Decided to install the SDK and do some messing around today (bye bye day). Thanks for all the tips in this thread!

Why can't PGI's levels look as good as the demo level?

Performance reasons. I doubt you are running the minimum specs, but if you were and ran that with 23 other battlemechs moving, casting shadows, shooting...

Yeah... 1 FPS isn't playable.

[Level1Firebolt]

planetswag, on 22 October 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

Anybody know what scale to put the catapult at in Blender for the right Table Top size?
(x, y, z?). I'd love to use these models for TT but I can't get the scale right.

Cheers

There's a way to change units to metric in Blender. Then you can use the ruler function and make sure your model is within TT model dimensions.

From google: http://www.katsbits....erial-units.php

[Adridos]

Pariah Devalis, on 22 October 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Any one of those would be great desktop backgrounds. It also shows just how damned good the game *could* look, and how many more items PGI level designers might consider to add scale to the maps, though the framerate and gameplay effects are probably the killers. The weather effects are also freakin' incredible, and the (lack of) color filter makes it gorgeous in the sunlight. Is that using DX11 by chance?

Yes, CryEngine X runs in DX11 natively.

And as far as level design is concerned, yes, it should really look more like that instead of what we have in-game. Their official explanation is that, for some reason, they are 'scared' of high draw call count (i.e. put too many objects on screen and it's not going to be pretty on the HW). Why is that? I have no idea... I mean, seriously, they have problems running DX11 due to glitches and bugs, they run sub-par textures, their code doesn't handle many objects very well, yet these are all features that are achieved by a push of a button in even the public version of CryEngine.

Whatever's happening, it's not really helping them. The only thin CryEngine has going for it are those visuals and they are missing. Outside of them, you have engine that doesn't work with complex simulations over the net, can't handle high speeds, doesn't get a decent net-code, is heavily taxing on any sort of machine, etc.

[Bishop Steiner]

Adridos, on 23 October 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

Yes, CryEngine X runs in DX11 natively.

And as far as level design is concerned, yes, it should really look more like that instead of what we have in-game. Their official explanation is that, for some reason, they are 'scared' of high draw call count (i.e. put too many objects on screen and it's not going to be pretty on the HW). Why is that? I have no idea... I mean, seriously, they have problems running DX11 due to glitches and bugs, they run sub-par textures, their code doesn't handle many objects very well, yet these are all features that are achieved by a push of a button in even the public version of CryEngine.

Whatever's happening, it's not really helping them. The only thin CryEngine has going for it are those visuals and they are missing. Outside of them, you have engine that doesn't work with complex simulations over the net, can't handle high speeds, doesn't get a decent net-code, is heavily taxing on any sort of machine, etc.

i ain't a coder, but I would have to assume, more detail, polygons, etc, more graphic load? Since half the community cannot run this thing reliably in low, I would think even more graphic load to be...not good? I mean, yeah, bad engine for this game, and maybe the devs are approaching it wrong in their attempts to get more out of it, all I know is while I run the game fine, it's the only thing I run that forces me to use extra cooling on my desktop.

[Adridos]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 October 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

i ain't a coder, but I would have to assume, more detail, polygons, etc, more graphic load? Since half the community cannot run this thing reliably in low, I would think even more graphic load to be...not good? I mean, yeah, bad engine for this game, and maybe the devs are approaching it wrong in their attempts to get more out of it, all I know is while I run the game fine, it's the only thing I run that forces me to use extra cooling on my desktop.

I don't have any space-machine, either.

However, there are some nonsense philosophies they are employing. For instance, the forced film grain effect and unchangeable FOV (I mean, have you ever met a competent person that hasn't changed that thing already?), or the lower standard for maximum textures.

For instance, the lower standard of textures doesn't make sense for the following reasons:

1. It's not an effect that creates any kind of gap between those who can run it and those who can't (which is the only reason you'd ever want to lower the maximum details).

2. When creating textures, you create them in native resolution and only down-scale it for the lower settings. There is zero reason not to leave the native textures in the game.

3. Texture quality is a setting that is affected by 2 parts of hardware... memory and graphic's card texel fill rate. Any machine capable of launching MW:O definitely does have a big enough texel fill rate and as far as memory is concerned, we're looking at the same deal (1GB mem for card and 4GB RAM is totally enough... we're talking sub-standard in today's day and age).

4. It adds more work to the developers (removing those native textures from the build that is shared with people) and makes the game look ugly no matter how perfect your camera work is. Even in promotional shots, they're resorting to textures that are... well, you've seen those promotional pictures and sure enough could make a really easy comparison with any game released today not running on a toaster.

As far as higher fidelity goes, yes, it does add more load on the hardware. However, it only does so on hardware that enables it, I really don't think half the playerbase is running on notebooks from work. and the simply rule of basic fidelity applies (that is, the game only has the right to run worse than the one that came before it if it looks considerable better... same hardware should provide the same kind of graphical fidelity, unless we're talking about special edge-cases [games that employ massive number of simulations, like Kerbal Space Program, where the lower graphical fidelity is completely justified, or Planetside 2, where the scale of the game lends itself to higher requirements and lower overall fidelity than, let's say, BF4] and if it's not, we're talking about bad optimisation and coding in general).

[Bishop Steiner]

Adridos, on 23 October 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

I don't have any space-machine, either.

However, there are some nonsense philosophies they are employing. For instance, the forced film grain effect and unchangeable FOV (I mean, have you ever met a competent person that hasn't changed that thing already?), or the lower standard for maximum textures.

For instance, the lower standard of textures doesn't make sense for the following reasons:

1. It's not an effect that creates any kind of gap between those who can run it and those who can't (which is the only reason you'd ever want to lower the maximum details).

2. When creating textures, you create them in native resolution and only down-scale it for the lower settings. There is zero reason not to leave the native textures in the game.

3. Texture quality is a setting that is affected by 2 parts of hardware... memory and graphic's card texel fill rate. Any machine capable of launching MW:O definitely does have a big enough texel fill rate and as far as memory is concerned, we're looking at the same deal (1GB mem for card and 4GB RAM is totally enough... we're talking sub-standard in today's day and age).

4. It adds more work to the developers (removing those native textures from the build that is shared with people) and makes the game look ugly no matter how perfect your camera work is. Even in promotional shots, they're resorting to textures that are... well, you've seen those promotional pictures and sure enough could make a really easy comparison with any game released today not running on a toaster.

As far as higher fidelity goes, yes, it does add more load on the hardware. However, it only does so on hardware that enables it, I really don't think half the playerbase is running on notebooks from work. and the simply rule of basic fidelity applies (that is, the game only has the right to run worse than the one that came before it if it looks considerable better... same hardware should provide the same kind of graphical fidelity, unless we're talking about special edge-cases [games that employ massive number of simulations, like Kerbal Space Program, where the lower graphical fidelity is completely justified, or Planetside 2, where the scale of the game lends itself to higher requirements and lower overall fidelity than, let's say, BF4] and if it's not, we're talking about bad optimisation and coding in general).

native FOV in this game is just....BAD. I feel like my face is plastered to the windscreen, and you got ZERO peripheral view. If the Dev's actually run the game in native FoV (which I highly doubt) it might explain why so many of them suck at this game, lol.

[DirePhoenix]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 October 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

native FOV in this game is just....BAD. I feel like my face is plastered to the windscreen, and you got ZERO peripheral view. If the Dev's actually run the game in native FoV (which I highly doubt) it might explain why so many of them suck at this game, lol.

I think the standard FoV is probably more suitable for the old non-widescreen 4:3 monitors... which I don't think most gamers even have nowadays. (also might explain the size/proportions of the UI1.0-UI1.5 mechlab/interface).

[Heffay]

I suspect we'll get more graphical adjustments (including FoV) after UI 2.0 comes out. There isn't a lot of benefit to adding tons of features to the 1.5 client, since it's just a placeholder right now. It may not come out until after CW, but... priorities. The game is good looking enough right now to live with the existing settings, but I sure wouldn't mind taxing my system to the limit.

[Aiden Whitefield]

I've been trying to get the MWO assets into both Blender and CE3 for several days now, and I've had nothing but trouble with both. I've followed the Blender tutorial, but its out-of-date when it comes to the section about applying the textures- the texture tools and interface have been changed since then, and I can't figure out how to apply the textures properly with the new ones.

With CE3, I can't get the model textures to display correctly due to the use of the custom mech shader that MWO uses. I can extract and copy the shader over into the SDK directory, but I can't seem to get it to hook into the SDK's list of shaders so it does what it's supposed to.

I've tried just copying and pasting the game files into the proper SDK directories, but that only results in really long loading times (15 to 30 minutes, often) and a blank gray 3D view-port (instead of the normal black-to-white gradient) once it finally loads up- as well as nothing loading when I try to open or generate a project file.

I'm at a loss here... How did you all manage to get it to work? Is there something obvious that I'm not doing, or what?

Edited by Aiden Whitefield, 26 October 2013 - 07:42 PM.

[kuangmk11]

in cryengine you can use the 'ilum' shader.

In blender
1. Make sure you are in "cycles render" (top middle toolbar)
2. Select materials edit
3. Under surface click "use nodes"
4. click the dot next to color and select "image texture". Open texture.
5. make sure shading is turned on so you can see the texture.

5.

[Aiden Whitefield]

kuangmk11, on 26 October 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

in cryengine you can use the 'ilum' shader.

In blender
1. Make sure you are in "cycles render" (top middle toolbar)
2. Select materials edit
3. Under surface click "use nodes"
4. click the dot next to color and select "image texture". Open texture.
5. make sure shading is turned on so you can see the texture.

Thanks. I actually found out that my biggest problem was not using the Cycles renderer, which has a whole different set of texture options than the internal one.

In other news, I've managed to successfully reassemble a Shadow Hawk in the CE3 SDK. Took some heavy modification of the CDF file to point to the new file locations, but it worked exactly like it was supposed to. The next step is bringing over the animation files and test them in the character editor to see if they work.

[Heffay]

Aiden Whitefield, on 26 October 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

I've been trying to get the MWO assets into both Blender and CE3 for several days now, and I've had nothing but trouble with both. I've followed the Blender tutorial, but its out-of-date when it comes to the section about applying the textures- the texture tools and interface have been changed since then, and I can't figure out how to apply the textures properly with the new ones.

I'll update the OP, but basically this is what I use to apply the textures through Cycles.

Be sure to have the materials node editor selected and not the compositor one.

You didn't specify the exact issues you were having; if you provide more details I may be able to give more specific advice.

Edited by Heffay, 27 October 2013 - 05:41 AM.

[Heffay]

Heffay, on 18 October 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

Tekadept, that video was incredibly useful! I'm going to write a powershell script that will modify that file directly, so you don't have to cut & paste, find and replace like crazy. Should make the whole process take less than a second.

I don't like the bone structure that they have, but I guess if I ever want to use their animations, I better get used to it.

https://dl.dropboxus...importer-v1.ps1

This is version 1 of the mech importer. It will take the .cdf file and output the comma delimited information that the video showed being done with notepad+.

Working on version 2 right now, that will write out the complete string needed for Blender to directly import everything.

[Aiden Whitefield]

Heffay, on 27 October 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

You didn't specify the exact issues you were having; if you provide more details I may be able to give more specific advice.

Well, now, the only problem I'm having with applying the textures is with the cockpit window textures. I extract the mech_scale.cgf model from the game files, convert it to an .obj file using Noesis (remembering to add the "-flipuv" command) and import that into Blender. The UV flip does what it's supposed to for the 'Mech's body textures, but the cockpit window textures come out wrong: they're out of place or upside-down, I can't quite tell which. I've tried flipping the textures around in Photoshop and re-applying them, but that doesn't solve the problem. It seems like the 'Mech body needs its UVs flipped, but the cockpit window doesn't, and in Noesis, there's no way to convert the two separately with different parameters.

Here's a screenshot of what it looks like when I try to apply the textures to the cockpit window.