anthony.liot Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Hi, one of our customers use google sketchup software.The free version of sketchup can export to dae, doing some test with Unigine, it's appear the dae doesn't work with Unigine.When i load the dae exported by sketchup, Unigine found some dummy node but that's all. Thinking was the model of our customers.I do a try just making a simple cube > export dae > load inside unigine : result the dae not work same with simple model. There is some particular details with collada that could be explain that ???I have just free version of sketchup but the pro can export to fbx. Do you thing Fbx format will be better for Unigine ?Thanks Link to comment
werner.poetzelberger Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Hello Anthony, I just can tell about our experience, that the collada format is not very relieable. It is supposed to be a uniform format, but different editors delivered different results. Fbx is for us much more suitable and it doesnot have to have problems exchanging (our needs as basic scene data) between 3D packages. As it is also very good for animations, we quickly jumped back to fbx. (fbx was very unsteady too in early days, but seems to have settled down). As I mentioned, not a technical answer, and I am also curious to know, which format does suit better for Unigine. I am wondering, when and if I need to switch to a fbx file. for now I am happy with Unigine's native format. have to try different Exports from Motionbuilder, Max, Maya, which all work very well with FBX. Best. Werner Link to comment
binstream Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Anthony, please share the model you are trying to load. Link to comment
anthony.liot Posted April 19, 2013 Author Share Posted April 19, 2013 Of course Denis, I don't push the texture but it's not necessary : http://test-player.actisku.com/tests/canape.dae Link to comment
frustum Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 ResourceEditor will be able to load such meshes (a far from optimal geometry with 122 surface). Engine plugin will not be... canape.zip Link to comment
anthony.liot Posted April 19, 2013 Author Share Posted April 19, 2013 Ok, we try with fbx export and except for some trouble with texcoord the result it's much better. Just hoping the 3D model of our customers are better quality ... This couch is not the most optimized 3D model . Link to comment
ulf.schroeter Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 This is a general problem with models not specifically designed for real-time usage by an experienced artist exactly knowing what is required minimal poly count -> normal maps + good level-of-detail variants minimal state changes -> minimal material/surface count -> texture atlasing "Normal" artists tend to focus on achiving the best possible visual results especially for close-ups = too much polys, materials and no LOD's. There are some possibilities for automatic model optimization. Nevertheless, even in this case, the modeller has to know these optimizations and must design with these requirements in his mind from the beginning. Otherwise it will be hard to improve model performance afterwards. Link to comment
ulf.schroeter Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 ResourceEditor will be able to load such meshes (a far from optimal geometry with 122 surface). Engine plugin will not be... Why is there a different behaviour between ResourceEditor and Engine plugin ? Just my personal view, but in general both components should have exactly the same technical capabilities, meaning both should be able to load a format to the fullest possible/useful extend. In case of unoptimized models some user hint on too complex/unoptimized model structure for sure is very helpful to focus user on performance issues, but importers/loaders should not reject/fail on loading. If the user wants to load such a "bad" model, fine, the engine loads it and the user has to pay the "performance price" Link to comment
ulf.schroeter Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 Hello Anthony, I just can tell about our experience, that the collada format is not very relieable.It is supposed to be a uniform format, but different editors delivered different results. Werner, unfortunately true: collada tried to be a 'one-fits-all' format and this lead to a quite over-complex specification and inconsisten implementations (especially by professional modelling tools not having a real interest in supporting open standards...). Keeping this in mind my point of view is that UNIGINE should support SketchUp and Blender collada export implementations as these modelling tools are the most interesting free tools. Users having 'professional' tools like 3DS or Maya can use FBX, which seems to work quite good according to your experiences. Link to comment
werner.poetzelberger Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Hello, just in case you might not know this tool. I really love it. imo the best polygon reducer ever ad worth every single penny. (If you know better ones, tell me pleeease :huh: ) http://www.mootools.com/plugins/us/polygoncruncher/ Best. Werner Link to comment
ulf.schroeter Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 For a quite affordable price for sure a usefull tool for doing some poly reduction. Nevertheless - based on our experiances - automated tools are good for reducing high-polycout models to medium-poly-count, but when it comes to really efficient and still good-looking low-poly models, these tools quickly reach their limit (human modeller still more effective/intelligent :) Link to comment
werner.poetzelberger Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Just have to say: Love that tool! This is a quick test using autodesk 123d, and then polycruncher. Left is 100% right is 10% of polys. cheers werner Link to comment
Recommended Posts