Part of the Khronos Group
OpenGL.org

The Industry's Foundation for High Performance Graphics

from games to virtual reality, mobile phones to supercomputers

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

  1. #1
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    211

    MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

    Hi again,
    does anyone use this gameformats for his models in his 3D-scenery ?
    Can anyone explain me to load MD3files - i think this is the best fileformat for models (object`?) in a 3D-world - but im not able to find any description !!!!
    Does anyone know any solution ??
    Or is the MD2 format "enough", i mean technically featured ??? Sometime ago, i read that the maximum number of polygons in the MD3 format is the same as in the MD2 format specification - BUT: the modellers use more polygons, caus they believe they can use more - is this true ??
    Or should i use HalfLife-Models, or UnrealTournament-Models ?!?!?!?!?!?
    Please help....


    DJS
    DJSnow

  2. #2

    Re: MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

    first of all, neither md2 or md3 files are halflife models...md3 is quake 3. second of all, either way you look at it, quake 3 is a hell lot better that ut, so i'd go with md3.

  3. #3
    Guest

    Re: MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

    Umm...

    I'd say that .max or .ma files would be the
    ideal container formats if you want richness
    of the model (3DSMax and Maya native files,
    respectively).

    One rung down is .3ds; still fairly rich and
    with a number of different shading parameters
    and animation methods for your model. You can
    add special chunks for skeletal animation,
    or just use some specially named material.

    .md2 and .md3 are tuned specifically for the
    engines they were developed for (Quake 2 and
    3, respectively) although I hear .md3 has
    slightly more extensible support than .md2
    and could support skeletal animation even if
    Quake 3 doesn't use it. Of course, something
    that's not used is not tested, so it's not
    REALLY implemented...

    Looking at my .md2 file parser, it can deal
    with pretty much any number of triangles per
    mesh, although the more serious limitations
    are the 65536 maximum vertexes, and the
    quantization of vertex coordinates to 8 bits
    of resolution, and the even coarser
    quantization of normals from a predetermined
    look-up table. Oh, and the texture s/t
    coordinates seem quantized to whole pixel
    offsets, too, which might be construed as a
    limitation.

    Now, if you're worried about expressive
    power, design your own format and write an
    exporter or converter from the format from
    wherever you'll be getting your models. Or
    just load your modeller's output directly.
    Or, worst case, just do a web search for
    .md2 and .md3 file formats versus .3ds or
    others, and judge for yourself.

  4. #4
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    211

    Re: MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

    Yes, im thinking of writing my own format - but i have no idea, how to do the texture-managing for each surface so easy, so that the user can map it with comfort ! Ok, i must say, i have never used a Q2/3 Editting-tool, like QRadiant, for skinning - i know nothing about these tools and how they works - BUT: it cannot be possible that you must skin each single face with a part of your texture by selecting the needed surface !!! this must be a lie !! so i need a way to calculate the texture on objects or on objectparts. I have a model on my harddisk that is a airplane (military) - the complete texture for the whole plane is saved in one file. Worked the Designer as followed subsribed(?): he build the model, takes a lot of textures, select for each face, the texture he want - the program writes a file which puts all texture-parts together !!! is this the way ???
    This cannot be !!!
    There must be a way to calculate the texture automatically !!! or not ??

    DJS
    DJSnow

  5. #5
    Guest

    Re: MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

    How the texture coordinates get into the
    model files is a tools issue, not a display
    issue. There are several stand-alone tools
    and plug-ins which intend to make this
    process easier; either by letting you "paint"
    on the model directly, or by using some
    heuristic to try and spread the triangles of
    the mesh somewhat evenly over the texture.
    3DSMax only has the simplest coordinate
    mechanisms available internally: spheric,
    cylindric, box, plane etc. Anything fancier
    requires something extra.

    The problem is that with many "automatic"
    approaches is that they may either get fairly
    low texture utilization (lots of unused parts
    of the texture file) or they will stretch
    some triangles so that, say, a very wide but
    short strip of pixels map to a "normal-
    shaped" triangle, leading to display
    artifacts. There's no substituting a real
    human brain (yet).

    What, you thought 3D modeling was easy?
    There's a reason good modelers are in demand
    you know :-)

  6. #6
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    211

    Re: MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

    You said something about "direct model paint" can i imagine this as, like "face skinning": I HAVE TO SELECT EVER FACE. NEXT STEP IS TO SELECT THE ARE OUT OF THE TEXTURE, YOU WANT TO MAP. NEXT STEP IS, TO ROTATE AND STRETCH THE SELECTED TEXTURE AREA TO A FITTING SIZRE ??? AAARRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!

    IF I BUILD UP MY TOOL FOR CREATING 3DENVIRONMENTS WITH THIS SKINNING "WAY" - EVERY USER WOULD KILL ME !!!! or not ?

    mmmh...then a modeler must need for every model more than 2 weeks !!!!
    or am i wrong ?


    DJS
    DJSnow

  7. #7
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    211

    Re: MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

    OKOK,
    as you have read in the other discussion, im running about the 3DS-loader-problem on the message board, both discussion are going out on the same problem.
    I think i should do symbiosis of both:
    For terrain and large objects, i going to use 3DS-data, this data must be skinned in my tool called "MEDIACreator" by hand. For smaller objects, animations and humans im going to use MD2/MD3, caus texture-coordinate data is allready included: so the user hasnt to play around with small textures on tiny surfaces, which are so small, that he cant see on the screen... :-)
    My tool will put this data together in an own, engine internal format. which is optimized for my engine...

    I think this is the best way !

    DJS





    [This message has been edited by DJSnow (edited 12-14-2000).]
    DJSnow

  8. #8
    Junior Member Regular Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    211

    Re: MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

    Wait...
    you said something about your MD2 parser - do you have a MD3 parser, too ?
    or some information about the MD3 format ?
    ive hvae found nothing !

    DJS
    DJSnow

  9. #9
    Senior Member OpenGL Guru zed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    S41.16.25 E173.16.21
    Posts
    2,407

    Re: MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

    if ure having probs with the md2 dont even think about the md3 format.
    about the making 2d texture that maps onto the 3d mesh i agree AAAAARRRRRGGG its the most time consuming and boring thing. its someit i dont understand why cant 3dmax or someit else do this 4 u. of course it wont be perfect but it will be 90% good now its like make a mopdel in 30min + then spend 3 hours getting the mapping coords from it !!!

  10. #10
    Guest

    Re: MD2 vs. MD3 vs. HL-LIFEModels vs. UT-Models...

    3DSMax (and other tools) _do_ do some
    texture coordinate setup for you. It's the
    UVWMap modifier, right there on the modifier
    page. The problem is, it's not very good.
    There may be plug-ins which do it better, but
    you'll probably still need hand-tuning in
    some program which allows you to re-map
    texture coordinates.

    A good modeler can do a typical humanoid in
    about three days. (that's three days of
    eight hour work) So "two weeks" sounds
    excessive -- if you know what you're doing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •