Archangel35757

Exactly... the second XSI_CustomPSet does absolutely nothing. Whichever property ("Tangent" OR "Binormal") gets applied first is the one the "COLOR" data in the SI_Shape template represents. I exported out all possibilities of applying these two properties (tangents only, binormals only, tangents & binormals, binormals & tangents) and compared the "COLOR" data. In the "Tangent then Binormals" order-- the "COLOR" data matches the "Tangents Only" data; in the "Binormals then Tangents" order-- the "COLOR" data matches the "Binormals Only" data.

yeah, I'm not a PR guy either... surely someone from jkhub is?

I think that's a good idea... First let me ask @@DT85 this question: What are all of the new features (in regards to mapping/environment/rendering, models, gameplay, etc.) that will be showcased by the DF2 mod? Make an advertisement list... What I recommend is creating a small environment that showcases all mapping/rendering features... and videos that showcase modeling/rendering enhancements... that bring this game up to this decade's standards. Perhaps you could get szico or jedi_mediator to make your small showcase map... what's the coolest room in the DF2 game with the coolest architecture? (Since you need this room for the map anyways...) maybe jedi_mediator would be willing to push the envelope and create it? Then seeing side-by-side images of the original game... in comparison with the overhauled game, just might attract the attention of outside mappers (who love Star Wars) and perhaps agree to build some maps? Shameless advertising? Worth a shot... but you'd have to post it out there somewhere to attract new mappers. Think outside the box... maybe showcase (open call for mappers) on these sites? http://www.quake3world.com/forum/index.php https://www.artstation.com https://www.gamedev.net/forum/6-your-announcements/ https://www.reddit.com/r/leveldesign/ Here's a good site for level design theory: http://level-design.org/?page_id=638

Why? It computes the one not supplied by the cross product of the one given & vertex normal. If that doesn't work for the artist, then just do not use the COLOR hack and let xNormal calculate it all by itself from the mesh and UVs, right?

@@minilogoguy18 - let's take our discussion offline to our private messaging thread... and get back on topic here.

I wish I had the skill to write something from scratch for Softimage... but I don't, it took me a long time just to wrap my mind around the 3ds Max SDK and XSI File Transfer Kit to fix the dotXSI exporters. If you can find me source code for a Softimage/ModTool xsiaddon exporter... maybe the XSI SDK has an example. If you agree to work with me, we can try to write an MD3 exporter. If ModTool has a scripting language you could learn to write an exporting script.

@@DT85 - the formats and tangents/binormals issue is resolved in my mind. I will work on an xNormal exporter plugin, as we discussed, to write out our *.GTB file... which will have the benefit of supporting all mesh formats that xNormal can import. I will also work on creating an MD3 mesh importer for xNormal so that we have a sync'ed workflow for the MD3 format.

It's either tangent or binormals-- not both. If you will look at the dot XSI file in a text editor you will see that it is one set of vectors or the other not both... even though it will erroneously create both xsi_customPset templates. However, the color data represents which ever property you set first.

@@minilogoguy18 - I have spent my evening investigating Softimage's support for Tangents and Binormals... if you read all the sub-links in the one link you sent me, then you know it is an "Either" / "Or" deal-- NOT both. Whichever one you apply first is what is written into the vertexes "COLOR" property... the other parameter is expected to be computed by the cross product of the vertex normal and whichever property (tangent or binormal) you applied first. Does that make sense? I verified this with multiple dotXSI 3.5 exports. Also, Crosswalk 2014 does not support XSI Mod Tool 7.5 (...it only supports back to Softimage 2010). @@DT85, @@Psyk0Sith, @@AshuraDX, @@Almightygir - So after chatting with DT I have a question... for normal map baking, is the low-Poly mesh suppose to have no smoothing groups(i.e., a faceted mesh)? And then you could apply the resulting normal map onto a low-Poly version that does have custom-modified explicit vertex normals? Please someone explain...

@@NAB622 ...any news?

@@Psyk0Sith - send your resulting baked GLM box and maps to @@SomaZ and he can put up a video of it spinning in their test environment.

Just a quick comparison of tools (not an exhaustive list):

@@MGummelt - No worries... family and work come first. Apologies for the carpet bombing of questions.

I doubt Crosswalk 2014 supports XSI ModTool 7.5. Artists who want to bake their maps using FBX are still free to do so. we can write a simple script or app to extract the normal/tangent/binormal data from modern FBX files... and supply that to the renderer.

@@minilogoguy18 - This community has everything it needs to support dotXSI indefinitely. I don't see any Maya users here... and if there are, I have the resources to update the Maya dotXSI exporters-- there's no demand presently. Secondly, older FBX exporters for older versions of 3ds Max and XSI Mod Tool 6.x DO NOT have an FBX export option to output tangents and binormals. Does XSI ModTool 7.5 support exporting FBX tangents and binormals? If not then XSI Mod Tool would no longer be a viable modding tool for an FBX pipeline. Finally, (from my Google searches) there were bugs in older versions of the FBX exporters when computing tangents and binormals: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fbx-forum/tangents-amp-binormals-issues-fbx-2013-2-3dsmax-and-maya-exports/td-p/4257978 ...which seems to have had all known issues fixed by FBX SDK 2014.2; but this is a fairly new SDK and only supports back to 2012 versions of 3dsMax, Maya, etc. So there is no real justification to add FBX to Carcass. Santiago has agreed to add dotXSI 3.0/3.5/5.0/6.0 support back into the next release of xNormal. Until then we can use xNormal 3.17.16. OBJ is an even older format (...and is the format @@AshuraDX used for his clone trooper because he said he had issues trying to use FBX in Substance Designer and gave up on it)... I don't hear you wanting to ban OBJ.

Good to know! Forget FBX then... Based on some quick googling... the feature to export tangents & binormals in an FBX file (added around SDK 2010.2/2011???) had issues in early versions when this was added. And was still broken in SDK 2012/2013 versions. Seems to have been finally fixed in FBX SDK 2014.2??? Anyways... the old Crosswalk FBX exporter for XSI ModTool 6.x does not have a feature to export out tangents and binormals... neither do older 3dsMax FBX exporters (that I could see). If XSIModTool 7.x doesn't have a feature to export tangents and binormals then this whole FBX discussion is moot.

While FBX is the current intermediate file format... it doesn't bring anything new to this game that you cannot already do today with XSI. @@AshuraDX used OBJ for his clone and yet the dotXSI/GLM result looks great.

@@Almightygir - while it is true that Softimage is dead. That's not really an issue for this community since this game can be modded using the free XSI Mod Tool 6.x/7.x (which we have from various sites). @@DT85 - but it has to be the low-poly file used for the baking... as I understand it-- so either dotXSI or FBX, and not the GLM file which is not used for baking. I think with my last posted suggestion both FBX and dotXSI formats for baking should be fine.

@@DT85 - Did you overlook what I wrote? "...We haven't come up with the *.GBT format yet... it could be made to look exactly like the FBX tangent/binormal data in an ascii FBX file. In which case you could construct the *.GBT by copy/pasting the data out of the FBX. Therefore you wouldn't need to update FBX2GLM." ...and Carcass could write it out the same way (matching the extracted FBX format) from reading the dotXSI data.

I'm not understanding you... why prevent people from using an FBX lo-poly file for the bake? Just need to run it thru an updated FBX2GLM to get the *.GBT file. Then you still use the GLM/GLA from Carcass... you still have a sync'ed workflow. And you have a sync'ed workflow for dotXSI/xNormal-->Carcass(updated) We haven't come up with the *.GBT format yet... it could be made to look exactly like the FBX tangent/binormal data in an ascii FBX file. In which case you could construct the *.GBT by copy/pasting the data out of the FBX. Therefore you wouldn't need to update FBX2GLM.

@@UniqueOne - FBX is not a game-engine friendly format as I understand it... We have a path forward... and like @@Almightygir explained many pages earlier-- it is important to have a sync'ed workflow. This will apply to MD3 models as well.

@@UniqueOne - go back and start reading from page 10. we have a path forward... we just need a few details.

@@UniqueOne - wow... I thought I wrote long posts. I can't answer everything you asked... but yes, we are talking about a supplemental file format called *.GTB (Ghoul2 Tangents Binormals) that the renderer would read in conjunction with a standard GLM file.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But first we need to hear back from Santiago or Grant from xNormal to know if they even used that tangent data written in the "COLOR" property of a dotXSI file when baking maps with a low-Poly dotXSI file. They might not have known about it since it's obscure and written as vertex "COLOR" data (remember earlier when @@Almightygir said, "...You absolutely should NOT store tangents or binormals in vertex colors as those are often capped at half precision.") ...but luckily dotXSI stores them as float values-- however, instead they more likely computed it themselves using the triangle's face normal and the vertex's (s,t) UV data. So we have to know exactly what they did and do likewise. Is xNormal the only "mikktspace" baking tool that supports the dotXSI format? Also, we will still need to update FBX2GLM so that it copies the FBX tangent data out to a *.GTB file for those artists who want to bake maps with an FBX low-Poly mesh-- to maintain a sync'ed workflow, right?

@@minilogoguy18 - he was not saying to abandon Carcass... even if that tool is updated to compute a *.GTB file based on the dotXSI file (normals, UVs, tangents, whatever-- I've asked the xNormal developers some questions regarding their dotXSI mesh importer and how xNormal used it)... as @@Almightygir stated, it's having a sync'ed workflow that is important. So if Carcass computes a *.GTB file for the Rend2 renderer it means the normal maps, etc. need to be baked with that low-poly dotXSI file. And for folks who used FBX for their baking... they would have to run their FBX thru @@Xycaleth's updated FBX2GLM tool to get a *.GTB file. What's wrong with that? It's a minor change to two tools (...plus an additional change for the Blender exporter). That is a lot simpler, and less intrusive, than modifying the GLM format in my opinion.