I downloaded a bunch of the Daz products a few weeks ago when they were doing a great giveaway with free downloads. I have yet to actually try it because I'm too wrapped up...well, um, wrapping up some projects in Blender. That said, I'm going to give it a shot, but am leery of the ability to export/import into a Trainz-capable program like Blender. Blender seems to have issues with Collada imports (even 2.49b) as does GMax AFAIK.
Why use High Poly - Sketch Up ... instead of learnig GMax & Blender
- Thread starter cascaderailroad
- Start date
That's interesting to know regarding the Colada plug-in. My brother actually built th,e now built-into Trainz mini-mall I uploaded, within Daz C-Studio. We used a photo for the textures and he exported the model as a 3ds object. At the time, I used GMax to run it through the Auran Jet filter to convert the file. The model imported perfectly into TRS2006 at the time and has been moved forward now into the future versions of Trainz.
I have also used Daz to make a few models myself, although they're quite crude. I'm not so much of a modeler due to my lack of practice and lack of time to do anything with things such as this right now.
I figured this was a less costly alternative to 3ds Max and gives people a decent modeler to use as well since GMax is a bit old and Blender and Milkshape can be a bit overwhelming to get a handle on.
When you're done wrapping or should I say unwrapping your model, let me know how you make out using Daz and Blender combined to make an asset.
I have a funny story regarding this last part, which I'll share at another time.
John
DAZ Studio is for posing and animating pre-made content.
Bryce is pretty much a landscape modeler, VERY limited modeling.
Hexagon is basically just a modeler with a bridge to DAZ Studio for making content. Some love it, same hate it, all say it's old and buggy, but capable.*
If your only goal is to build assets for Trainz, don't see much there if you already know your way around Blender. If you have other modeling or artistic interests, the three feebies they put out will do you fine for a long time and work well together. Carrara, if you can find it on a magazine for free or in that book, does what all three of those programs can do in one package. But, again, not much use for it for Trainz only, everything will have to go through Blender for that.
Just a heads up.
Dave........
Forgot to mention. Hexagon has a DAZ Studio bridge to send models back and forth seamlessly. DAZ Studio Pro 4 does have an export option to Blender. Unfortunately, Studio doesn't have a manual yet and I'm still at the learning there's a lot to learning 3D stage so don't have the knowledge to use it.
Bryce is pretty much a landscape modeler, VERY limited modeling.
Hexagon is basically just a modeler with a bridge to DAZ Studio for making content. Some love it, same hate it, all say it's old and buggy, but capable.*
If your only goal is to build assets for Trainz, don't see much there if you already know your way around Blender. If you have other modeling or artistic interests, the three feebies they put out will do you fine for a long time and work well together. Carrara, if you can find it on a magazine for free or in that book, does what all three of those programs can do in one package. But, again, not much use for it for Trainz only, everything will have to go through Blender for that.
Just a heads up.
Dave........
Forgot to mention. Hexagon has a DAZ Studio bridge to send models back and forth seamlessly. DAZ Studio Pro 4 does have an export option to Blender. Unfortunately, Studio doesn't have a manual yet and I'm still at the learning there's a lot to learning 3D stage so don't have the knowledge to use it.
Last edited:
Sketchup to me seem to be a pretty good tool. Its quick, easy to learn and move around in. I am a machinist and for many year have modeled and programmed aircraft parts using software packages costing in exes of $15000. That's my job. Trainz is my hobby… A good modeling program should be easy to learn, easy to us with pull down icon based menus and with fetchers that make the job go fast. I own most of the programs that we have been talking about in this thread and have been reading what has been said. Ya, Gmax, 3dmax, and Blender are good programs if you want to spend a lot of time learning the menus spread all over the place with no icons. But, Sketchup so far is the only program that come close to the very high end modeling programs I use at my work. Now I’m not saying it is the best. It does fall short in the use of texturing the model but ease of use and speed of product completion is very good.
Install the Rudy post, learned the program and 5 days latter I have a bulkhead flatcar for haling 60 x 8 girders and only 3895 polys. Not bad.
Install the Rudy post, learned the program and 5 days latter I have a bulkhead flatcar for haling 60 x 8 girders and only 3895 polys. Not bad.
Last edited:
Hi,
Since the release of 09 we can use highly detailled, high-poly meshes, if we combine them with lod. Admittedly, this requires some skills, but they can be learned! And for learning, don't you start with a heavy 2-10-4 goods steam locomotive, but with something simple like a cottage, or a line keeper's lodge.
Anyone too lazy for that should stay out of content creation. Ineptly made content clogging the computer's computational capabilities is just wasting other people's time and effort and should not be contenanced. If poor quality content becomes a problem, then N3V needs to take steps to banish it, at least from the DLS.
I realize, that utilizing the options offered by Ts 12 tend to make content creation quite demanding. But then, you cannot get good simulations using poorly made content. If I am getting the gist correctly of what users want from an improved trains, then it is realism.
I started with gmax and later switched to blender. I have always been an advocate of making it possible to use different 3D drawing programs. If the standard options of sketchup result in excessive poly meshes, it only demonstrates, that it provides no substitue to the skills needed to create content.
Cheers,
Konni
Since the release of 09 we can use highly detailled, high-poly meshes, if we combine them with lod. Admittedly, this requires some skills, but they can be learned! And for learning, don't you start with a heavy 2-10-4 goods steam locomotive, but with something simple like a cottage, or a line keeper's lodge.
Anyone too lazy for that should stay out of content creation. Ineptly made content clogging the computer's computational capabilities is just wasting other people's time and effort and should not be contenanced. If poor quality content becomes a problem, then N3V needs to take steps to banish it, at least from the DLS.
I realize, that utilizing the options offered by Ts 12 tend to make content creation quite demanding. But then, you cannot get good simulations using poorly made content. If I am getting the gist correctly of what users want from an improved trains, then it is realism.
I started with gmax and later switched to blender. I have always been an advocate of making it possible to use different 3D drawing programs. If the standard options of sketchup result in excessive poly meshes, it only demonstrates, that it provides no substitue to the skills needed to create content.
Cheers,
Konni
Last edited:
Despite the bickering etc this thread is pretty interesting for me. ibtl hehehe
I am want to offer examples of the supreme box that I made in gmax. Yes a box..
or the insanely detailed, flat, single surface billboard that I also made.. ^~ (worked for me).
Neither of these have night mode as they are sooooo fantastic they simply don't need it. o.o
Seriously I did make a ten track overpass/tunnel thingy that was pretty cool, but lost it
If people are going to use large size models could they include that info so it is easily found?
Nice to see kiddies using sketchup in schools. (Probably on crapple MacInsploshes).
They teach 'em rap too don't they? Same *quality result I would imagine ^^ L.m.F.a.O
I'm thinking of using this v tool for further excellence. I'll just have to make an exporter for TRS.
Here is a self portrait example of my work so far..
Kewl hey! 8^)
I'd show more but it's all calculations, theories, bombs 'n stuff like that..
relatively boring really.
Know what I'm sayin? 'cause I don't.
I am want to offer examples of the supreme box that I made in gmax. Yes a box..
or the insanely detailed, flat, single surface billboard that I also made.. ^~ (worked for me).
Neither of these have night mode as they are sooooo fantastic they simply don't need it. o.o
Seriously I did make a ten track overpass/tunnel thingy that was pretty cool, but lost it
If people are going to use large size models could they include that info so it is easily found?
Nice to see kiddies using sketchup in schools. (Probably on crapple MacInsploshes).
They teach 'em rap too don't they? Same *quality result I would imagine ^^ L.m.F.a.O
I'm thinking of using this v tool for further excellence. I'll just have to make an exporter for TRS.
Here is a self portrait example of my work so far..
Kewl hey! 8^)
I'd show more but it's all calculations, theories, bombs 'n stuff like that..
relatively boring really.
Know what I'm sayin? 'cause I don't.
Last edited:
Bob, it's great, but if it's 120k polys, it just won't work.
We all saw your first post and I don't think anyone would argue that your loco is gorgeous, and will look even better in-game, under proper lighting. If anything, you've demonstrated the quality of work attainable by Sketchup. But the argument seems to have settled on software inefficiencies and the skills of 3DWH designers.
We all saw your first post and I don't think anyone would argue that your loco is gorgeous, and will look even better in-game, under proper lighting. If anything, you've demonstrated the quality of work attainable by Sketchup. But the argument seems to have settled on software inefficiencies and the skills of 3DWH designers.
johnwhelan
Well-known member
The difficulty is the lods, animation and attachment points I can't see how you'd do them in Sketchup. The one loco I looked at from sketchup was 120,000 polys, or roughly a factor of 10-15 times what I'd expect from 3DS, Blender, or GMAX.
By the way you can export it then there is an adapter somewhere that converts scenery objects into rolling stock so that would get it rolling along the track.
Cheerio John
johnwhelan
Well-known member
Look at my post here, Bob.
http://forums.auran.com/trainz/show...r-TS12&p=970575&highlight=tutorial#post970575
There is a "gotcha" over which I tore my hair out - when you define a texture, you have to set the mapping system to "UV" from "Generated." It's one of those things tutorials don't mention or, if they do (even the Trainz ones), they mention in passing. It's also one of those things that, I'm sure, has gotten many to quit modelling, at least in Blender.
Well as you all might know i started building the Sydney Harbour Bridge using Sketchup a while ago and if i do say myself it's coming alone really well but for the poly count which is around 150,000 not complete and i still have most of the webbing in the arch to complete,
but since this thread went up i have spent the last day and a half learning how to use Blender 2.6 although it is slow going i am learning how to make a tunnel from one of the tutorials at the very bottom of the blender.org page
it does seem to be much simplier if you have the tutorial open on one page and blender 2.6 on another to copy what is being done in the tutorial and pause the tutorial if needed and replay until you get it right ,
i am copying how to build the French tunnel using the tutorial which is also showing me where everything is in blender
so i do believe that persistance will pay off
steve
but since this thread went up i have spent the last day and a half learning how to use Blender 2.6 although it is slow going i am learning how to make a tunnel from one of the tutorials at the very bottom of the blender.org page
it does seem to be much simplier if you have the tutorial open on one page and blender 2.6 on another to copy what is being done in the tutorial and pause the tutorial if needed and replay until you get it right ,
i am copying how to build the French tunnel using the tutorial which is also showing me where everything is in blender
so i do believe that persistance will pay off
steve
Hi,
Reading through this thread reinforces my impression, that it does not really matter what software you are using. The high-poly problem runs down to very simple questions like these:
How many sides does a cylinder need to have to get the smooth surfacees of a pipe or a boiler cladding? Clearly a pipe needs much less than a boiler, and an electric line even less. Any kind of software will turn out extremely high poly meshes, if the content creator allows the use of 32 sided cylinders for building of what is to become a 1-inch diameter pipe simply because 32 is the default setting.
As long as the content creator can control this by the software he is using, its all right. Knowing how many sides you actually need has to be learned by trial and error. Draw a mesh, fit it it with a simple texture e.g. by a m.notex material export it into trains, place it on a map and look at it, first in surveyor and later in driver too. If you find, that the surface is not smooth enough, redo it!
How many vertex points do you really need to draw the the smooth curves of e.g. a cab window? Clearly, the less the better, but on the other hand if they are too few, there will be no smooth curve. Again, the size and radii of the curve are decisive. As long the content creator remains in control of this, the software is all right.
Which faces are really visible? And here you might want to keep in mind, that trainz perspectives are much more restricted than perspectives on a 3D-drawing screen, where you can rotate your object at will. Again, knowing what you might need and what can be deleted is a matter of hard thinking, honed by (hopefully not too bitter) experience, obtained by placing your object on a trainz map. It is a good procedure to draw a master file first, which contains all faces and then to copy this for further processing like removal of not needed faces, mapping and texturing. If you find out, you overdid it with removing faces, you can go back to the master-file.
Am I mistaken that the locomotive shown by BobCass has 120,000 polys? I agree with John Weelan, that if you observe these points the poly count for the mesh as shown should go down to 12,000 to 15,000 polys. This would leave polys enough to build the covers for the washing holes , which I am sure could be found at the sides of the belpaire type boiler.
That brings me to another point, textures. Blender for instance, helps you building diffuse maps, either by "spraying" paint directly on the mesh, or by mapping faces to a free spot on your texture file followed by painting this spot directly. Blender also has the capability to draw shadow maps, black and white diffuse maps, which show lighted and shaded portions of your mesh. If you combine this with the diffuse map, you are getting a much improved diffuse map. The nice thing about this is, you do not have to be a talented painter to do this.
Nowadays trainz trainz supports normal maps for all kinds of assets, which have meshes. Normal maps are very useful for creating details like rivet heads, ballast, gravel, tiles!!! etc. Blender provides the capability to bake mesh details to normal maps. The capability of normal maps to produce additional details should not be overestimated, but the rivet heads, which were certainly found at the smoke box in the Locomotive shown by BobCass can be convincingly shown by normal maps without adding a single poly. This will, however, work only if you are kowing what you are about and a beginner may need several attempts before succeeding.
Now even a 120,000 poly mesh, may be all right, if it is balanced by lod. Remember, that even with a highly detailled, hig-poly mesh, the number of visible details declines exponentially with the distance between the mesh and the camera. Lod involves having several similar meshes of the same object, which differ in the amount of polys only.
No matter how many polys your high poly mesh has, the low poly mesh for a locomotive body should not have more than 200 to 500 polys. In most instances it may be advisable to have one or two intermediate poly meshes (If I remember correctly, trainz allows up to 9 lod-levels). Depending on the distance between the asset and the camera, the number and sizes of assets shown in a camera view and available computational power trainz switches between the different meshes.
The art of generating a set of lod meshes is to build and texture them in a way that the switches between lod-levels remain more or less unnoticable. I risk being considered a bore by insisting again, that knowing how to reduce polys without sacrificing visible details is a matter of practical experience.
If you are interested in using blender, I would like to recommend the three excellent tutorials written by Paul Hobbs.
Cheers,
Konni
Reading through this thread reinforces my impression, that it does not really matter what software you are using. The high-poly problem runs down to very simple questions like these:
How many sides does a cylinder need to have to get the smooth surfacees of a pipe or a boiler cladding? Clearly a pipe needs much less than a boiler, and an electric line even less. Any kind of software will turn out extremely high poly meshes, if the content creator allows the use of 32 sided cylinders for building of what is to become a 1-inch diameter pipe simply because 32 is the default setting.
As long as the content creator can control this by the software he is using, its all right. Knowing how many sides you actually need has to be learned by trial and error. Draw a mesh, fit it it with a simple texture e.g. by a m.notex material export it into trains, place it on a map and look at it, first in surveyor and later in driver too. If you find, that the surface is not smooth enough, redo it!
How many vertex points do you really need to draw the the smooth curves of e.g. a cab window? Clearly, the less the better, but on the other hand if they are too few, there will be no smooth curve. Again, the size and radii of the curve are decisive. As long the content creator remains in control of this, the software is all right.
Which faces are really visible? And here you might want to keep in mind, that trainz perspectives are much more restricted than perspectives on a 3D-drawing screen, where you can rotate your object at will. Again, knowing what you might need and what can be deleted is a matter of hard thinking, honed by (hopefully not too bitter) experience, obtained by placing your object on a trainz map. It is a good procedure to draw a master file first, which contains all faces and then to copy this for further processing like removal of not needed faces, mapping and texturing. If you find out, you overdid it with removing faces, you can go back to the master-file.
Am I mistaken that the locomotive shown by BobCass has 120,000 polys? I agree with John Weelan, that if you observe these points the poly count for the mesh as shown should go down to 12,000 to 15,000 polys. This would leave polys enough to build the covers for the washing holes , which I am sure could be found at the sides of the belpaire type boiler.
That brings me to another point, textures. Blender for instance, helps you building diffuse maps, either by "spraying" paint directly on the mesh, or by mapping faces to a free spot on your texture file followed by painting this spot directly. Blender also has the capability to draw shadow maps, black and white diffuse maps, which show lighted and shaded portions of your mesh. If you combine this with the diffuse map, you are getting a much improved diffuse map. The nice thing about this is, you do not have to be a talented painter to do this.
Nowadays trainz trainz supports normal maps for all kinds of assets, which have meshes. Normal maps are very useful for creating details like rivet heads, ballast, gravel, tiles!!! etc. Blender provides the capability to bake mesh details to normal maps. The capability of normal maps to produce additional details should not be overestimated, but the rivet heads, which were certainly found at the smoke box in the Locomotive shown by BobCass can be convincingly shown by normal maps without adding a single poly. This will, however, work only if you are kowing what you are about and a beginner may need several attempts before succeeding.
Now even a 120,000 poly mesh, may be all right, if it is balanced by lod. Remember, that even with a highly detailled, hig-poly mesh, the number of visible details declines exponentially with the distance between the mesh and the camera. Lod involves having several similar meshes of the same object, which differ in the amount of polys only.
No matter how many polys your high poly mesh has, the low poly mesh for a locomotive body should not have more than 200 to 500 polys. In most instances it may be advisable to have one or two intermediate poly meshes (If I remember correctly, trainz allows up to 9 lod-levels). Depending on the distance between the asset and the camera, the number and sizes of assets shown in a camera view and available computational power trainz switches between the different meshes.
The art of generating a set of lod meshes is to build and texture them in a way that the switches between lod-levels remain more or less unnoticable. I risk being considered a bore by insisting again, that knowing how to reduce polys without sacrificing visible details is a matter of practical experience.
If you are interested in using blender, I would like to recommend the three excellent tutorials written by Paul Hobbs.
Cheers,
Konni
Last edited:
Not a bore but perhaps preaching to the choir. Everything you said is spot on. Unfortunately those that don't care how many polys they include will continue to do so by fluffing off the issue. It's not what you use it's how you use it.
johnwhelan
Well-known member
Not quite Sketch up is in a class of its own. When you take two beams at right angles most software makes them each 6 sides each for a total of 12 sides or 24 polys, Sketchup creates a center cube and four legs for a total of 5 * 6 or 30 sides, ie 60 polys. If you dig back through the posts on sketchup you'll see the analysis. Where ever two bits meet the poly count starts to climb. So for a simple house six sides its fine but the more complex it is the worse it gets.
Cheerio John
amigacooke
Well-known member
No. That was just a "for instance" I posed.
BLACKWATCH
Mechanical Engineer
Why are you lot of boring beggers ( swop u for e ) still on about this ?
The fact seem to be that 'Sketchup' is too easy for the Gmax, Blender group, so they 'Poo Poo' it as a way
for the braincell challenged creators to make stuff & that it's to "Poly heavy" to be of any use.
The answer to all this bickering & "my gang is better than your gang" has already been given a view as to
how to help each other & make users of Sketchup a valued section of Trainz creators.
All you have to do is give the alternative a bit of consideration & read the bloody post ......................
http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?87764-Would-This-Be-Useful-To-Anyone
The fact seem to be that 'Sketchup' is too easy for the Gmax, Blender group, so they 'Poo Poo' it as a way
for the braincell challenged creators to make stuff & that it's to "Poly heavy" to be of any use.
The answer to all this bickering & "my gang is better than your gang" has already been given a view as to
how to help each other & make users of Sketchup a valued section of Trainz creators.
All you have to do is give the alternative a bit of consideration & read the bloody post ......................
http://forums.auran.com/trainz/showthread.php?87764-Would-This-Be-Useful-To-Anyone
Similar threads
