Hi,
I just downloaded this and seems to be OK and nicely featured. Cant figure out how to texture objects though.
Anyhow, do you guys find this tool useful. It doesn’t have features you can find in professional CAD packages, but seems to have potential.
Is it good for designing large scenes, complex animated objects?
V-man
V-Man: Open your trashbox, throw it into, close the trashbox again. Milkshape is crap.
For things you need in 3D Max half an hour for you need in Milkshape 3 hour… at least 
. And if you one time damaged the UVs of an object you have to delete it and to remake it. Great huh? It’s ment for converting files majorly I think and this modelling feature is in my opinion just a gimmick for people who’re too dumb to use Max, Maya or LightWave. On our last upgrade here in firm our graphicians had to test all popular modelling software, Milkshape including. The testers comment was just still something like “God beware me of this”… says all I think lol ).
Let me say it this way: You can make models with it, but… well, after having one finished you will be the one with the high blood pressure 
. But a nice tool for converting / viewing it’s nevertheless
Michael
It is a lttile unfair to compare a tool that costs 20$ with a proffesional one that costs >1000$.You don’t have to be dumb,not to use MAX or Maya,money can be an issue too.Of course a big firm wouldn’t need to resort to a simple,cheap tool like Milkshape but big firms aren’t the only one developing games,etc,and besides,I don’t think that milkshape is supposed to be a complete CAD package,just a simple tool to make models for halflife,quake,etc.
Having said all this,I must say that I don’t like it too much either.
No, Milkshape is not good for large complex scenes, and even its description says so. Even Milkshape’s author calls it a “low polygon modeler”.
Originally posted by V-man:
Anyhow, do you guys find this tool useful. It doesn’t have features you can find in professional CAD packages, but seems to have potential.
Are we talking about CAD or general 3D packages?
Is it good for designing large scenes
lol, no.
complex animated objects?
rotflol, no
It’s not impossible to create something nice with it, but the amount of available tools and especially the user interface will make you spend a long time on creating your models.
(don’t even ask about doing complex animations, which IS impossible)
But it’s a nice program tough (for creating very simple objects), especially when you don’t have lots of $$$ or €€€
Zen: Every for free program is better than MilkShape. GMax is for free as well. That’s not a question of the price, Milkshape is simply so buggy that it’s unuseable. Even our firm internal editor is better for modelling than that and it was just a two week practice work of a pupil.
Michael
>>>Are we talking about CAD or general 3D packages?
<<<
I assume that general 3D packages have some of the features of CAD packages (mechanical design) when it comes to building static models. For animation, morphing, those 3 or 4 or industry leaders (Lightwave, 3D Max, Maya, SoftImage) seem to have it all.
CSG seems to be primarily the most important thing. In my case, I would like multitexturing and complete control over the UV per vertex.
If I had time and a whole lot of money, I would learn what each had to offer.
V-man
BlackJack:I didn’t say I think milkshape is good,just that it’s unfair to compare it to a proffesional 3d modelling tool.
BTW I thought gmax only allows you to create gamepacks.Can you export to popular formats or write your own exporter as well?If not what other good free tools are available?I’m just curious as I could use one right now.
zen, you have to add a gamepack to it like from Quake. Then you can model with it like with max and export to smd and there for are tons of viewers and sources existing to load the meshes into your own program / to convert them into your own format. Is very simple, can send you a source for Quake III model loader, but should be no big deal to find it via google or so as well.
Michael
[This message has been edited by BlackJack (edited 06-23-2002).]
I actually use milkshape, and it works pretty darn good for me. I use it to make small, simple models (100-500 poly, single textured), and havent had much problem. Comparing milkshape to the other more expensive modellers and then badmouthing it a bit silly, in my opinion. Kinda like comparing a free command line compiler to visual studio enterprise.
Well, tried Milkshape myself, it was a pain. And exactly the same everybody else I know who ever tried it yet said as well, hard for me to understand how you can like it, but well, the ones likes this, the other that, opinion thingy I guess. I’ve Visual Studio Enterprise and 3D Max, well, I also don’t need to pay it, firm does. For sure I wouldn’t buy that too, if I had to pay it myself, but even in that case I would never use Milkshape. In the time when we had to wait for our Max licenses I used GMax for this period, exported as quake models and wrote a converter for them. It’s not as great as the real 3D Max you have to buy and has a lot of missing features, but it’s for free, in difference Milkshape, and you have at least nearly got the modelling comfort of a 1500$ program.
So why wasting 30$ for Milkshape, if you can have something far better for free? Well, I think all in all we could discuss this here for one year now, hehe , so end of the discussion for me. I think he should try both himself and see with which he gets along best with.
Michael
LordKronos:Visual Studio uses command line compilers as well with a nice GUI on top so that you can just pree F5(or mhatever) instead of actually having to go through the pain of typing make.And saying that gcc(for example) compared to visual studio is like milkshape compared to max is pretty far-fetched.The whole linux kernel is compiled using a free command line compiler.Hmmm,I don’t see how all this has anything to do with the topic though.
Originally posted by zen:
And saying that gcc(for example) compared to visual studio is like milkshape compared to max is pretty far-fetched.
Not at all far fetched. A command line compiler is, well…its a command line compiler. Visual Studio is a command line compiler, an integrated debugger that supports remote debugging and edit & continue debugging, a context sensitive GUI editor with code completion and auto formatting, a class browser, and so much more. One program costs so much more than the other but provides so much more functionality.
While I’m not highly familiar with all the expensive modelling packages, I know enough that comparing them to Milkshape is the same type of comparison. The expensive packages have more advanced animation and texturing abilities. They support more complex objects
(cones, torus, high order surfaces, etc). They support particle systems, have built in scripting languages, inverse kinematics, etc, etc, etc. Again, one costs so much more than the other, but provides so much more functionality.
Doesnt sound like such a far fetched comparison to me.
I think LordKronos is correct here, it’s not at all far fetched. What he used was an analogy to explain how silly it is comparing milkshape with 3ds max, maya, lightwave, etc.
I have Milkshape and it’s perfectly ok for what it was made for; low poly models. I have used it to make tons of models, from weapons to people to things i can’t even identitfy, and it worked very well. What I like about it is that it doesnt have all of those fancy features like these other programs all over the place which makes the program easier to use. With some programs, it has so many buttons, controls and what have you all over the place that it’s blinding. Now, I know how to use Maya and Max and they own, but for a real quick low poly model, for me milkshape is the way to go. The animation in milkshape has always been a bit tricky for me though. Setting the UV coords isn’t too bad, i’ve had good and bad luck, depending on how wierd my model was.
But I guess liking or disliking Milkshape is a personal opinion. Some here has said how they can’t believe that some people actually like it. Well I can’t believe that some people hate it so much. This proves that it’s just a personal opinion.
As for the original question, V-man, there is a website somewhere, I think there is a link to it on the milkshape page, that has video tutorials. They have one on texturing which I know has helped me on this situation. Check those out if you havn’t already.
-SirKnight
Originally posted by SirKnight:
What I like about it is that it doesnt have all of those fancy features like these other programs all over the place which makes the program easier to use. With some programs, it has so many buttons, controls and what have you all over the place that it’s blinding. Now, I know how to use Maya and Max and they own, but for a real quick low poly model, for me milkshape is the way to go.
Really?
I can create a ‘real quick low poly model’ way faster using 3DS MAX than using Milkshape?
Okay, I’m not playing fair… I’m using 3DS MAX almost every day
But still…
Heh, well I hardly ever use max anymore so i’m quite rusty on it. I guess also I have used milkshape a whole lot more than any other editor so I kinda know my way around it. Not that there is much to know about a program THAT simplistic.
-SirKnight
Ok,I was just saying that both milkshape and MAX are 3d modellers,with the one having many more features and beeing better coded than the other.A command line compiler on the other hand can’t be compared to a whole package like Visual Studio.Its like comparing OpenGL to DirectX instead of Direct3D and saying of course DirectX is better ,it has sound input,etc.Anyway it was wrong to bring up this matter but I just hate it when lots of different tools get crammed into one resulting in overcomplicated/bloated software when you can combine different tools to get what you need.
MilkShape’s advantages:
VERY inexpensive, Easy to learn and use, Does low poly modeling VERY well.
Disadvantages:
Lacks many tools of high dollar modelers, Can be bugy (depending on the release), Not great with HIGH poly models (but isnt bad with them either)
Max Advantages:
Every plug in known to man, GREAT for HIGH poly models
Disadvantages:
VERY VERY HIGH price tag, Very cumuersome to learn, TOO many tools that arent needed for every day game modeling.
There are good and bad things of both. I personaly use MilkShape. and its not because of the price either. I have both software packages, and I simply find Milkshape to be more usefull in my work.
Also its a good point that you cant compair OpenGL with DirectX. If you are going to make compairesins, you must do it one of 2 ways. Either OpenGL vs D3D, or DirectX vs OpenGL, OpenAL, OpenML, devIL, Glut. That is a much better compairison, or maybe just OpenGL and SDL. The second is probly a better compairesin with DirectX simply because SDL dosnt use a call back system for input like GLUT does.