Elvas Tower: MSTS/OR Blender exporter, selective export? - Elvas Tower

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

MSTS/OR Blender exporter, selective export? Is this a feature that others would like? Rate Topic: -----

#11 User is online   wacampbell 

  • Member since Nov. 2003
  • Group: Fan: Traction Nuts
  • Posts: 2,239
  • Joined: 22-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:British Columbia, Canada
  • Country:

Posted 20 March 2021 - 07:50 AM

View Postwacampbell, on 20 March 2021 - 06:23 AM, said:

View PostEldorado.Railroad, on 20 March 2021 - 06:10 AM, said:

Aside from the extra work, that I guess you wish to avoid, any thoughts on this idea?

Its not terrible.


That answer was more glib than I intended. I'll try to provide a better answer. Skipping hidden objects isn't a behavior that I personally like. I often export with objects hidden - the overlapping second and third LOD meshes for example are almost always hidden in my viewport. With this behavior I would have to remember to unhide them before export.

But many exporters work the way you describe. The obvious solution is 'make it an option'. So that means another checkbox on the UI. Documentation. Someone would probably want the setting saved with the file. .. or maybe a global setting. It raises the question if an object is hidden - what happens to its child objects. Are they included or no? Maybe thats another option on the UI. For older versions of Blender, the question of layers comes up. What if an object is on a hidden layer. Do we need to check for that case and not export if its on a hidden layer? To release it as a feature this would all have to be sorted out.

I just like to keep the public release simple - consistent behavior - easy to explain. ... and the extra work thing you mentioned.

#12 User is offline   pwillard 

  • Conductor
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: 03-March 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cumming, Ga
  • Simulator:OpenRails
  • Country:

Posted 20 March 2021 - 08:36 AM

well, adding features is not going to upset me. I see this as normal for any software versus remaining static. Granted... Microsoft is at the other extreme where making changes ends up truly upsetting people... as-in... why do they feel the need to move my tools all over the place with every revision?

I've taken a break for a while due to some burn-out issues... but hope to go back to working 3D stuff in the future and feel like the exporter getting updates with input from people who use it is not such a bad thing. For example, I would love to see a TOGGLE between using ACE and DDS in the SFILE texture reference though I now realize this would require adding GUI code to the exporter similar to "Retain Names". The gITF 2.0 exporter has an option similar to what I'm talking about where under the geometry tag its has an IMAGES pulldown where there is an AUTOMATIC default but you can override the automatic with a JPG selection. Granted, I'm only speaking about the presentation... not the code that drives it.


Quote

I share your frustration about moving old files to 2.8 and beyond. If I open an old file in new Blender, I get the mesh and fortunately also the uv data. But I always have to redo all the materials. Using the materials panel its only one click, but its still a job to do.


Regarding importing old suff into 2.8 and above... This is really no different than pulling a 3DCANVAS export (using Collada export) into Blender. I just accept the extra work as part of the price I pay to get a better 3D TOOL.

Not sure if it matters... I don't even use lighting. I do everything with HDRI. By disabling Scene Lights and Scene World then specifying an HDRI file. downloadable from here https://www.hdri-hub...amples/freehdri

#13 User is offline   Eldorado.Railroad 

  • Foreman Of Engines
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 932
  • Joined: 31-May 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:

Posted 20 March 2021 - 02:16 PM

View Postwacampbell, on 20 March 2021 - 07:50 AM, said:

That answer was more glib than I intended. I'll try to provide a better answer. Skipping hidden objects isn't a behavior that I personally like. I often export with objects hidden - the overlapping second and third LOD meshes for example are almost always hidden in my viewport. With this behavior I would have to remember to unhide them before export.

But many exporters work the way you describe. The obvious solution is 'make it an option'. So that means another checkbox on the UI. Documentation. Someone would probably want the setting saved with the file. .. or maybe a global setting. It raises the question if an object is hidden - what happens to its child objects. Are they included or no? Maybe thats another option on the UI. For older versions of Blender, the question of layers comes up. What if an object is on a hidden layer. Do we need to check for that case and not export if its on a hidden layer? To release it as a feature this would all have to be sorted out.

Wayne,

In exchange for a less glib answer, not that I was "offended", I hope to add a hardly pompous reply! Yes, I had not thought about the ramifications you mentioned, which are numerous. As I understand from what I have read online, 2.8-2.9 has deprecated "layers" (don't excoriate me if I am wrong on this! ). But I can see why you would have used layers for LODs, great idea. I tend to use it for visual simplification only.

What I will try with the scripted solution you have provided is to determine if objects that are nested can be exported by themselves. So if an object is nested in MAIN, will it still export by itself via scripting? That might help. The extra work is placed on the modeller to produce a proper script to do what is needed. I am sure I can do this without much trouble.

If you have a change of mind on the selective export, it would be most welcome. Until then, I will try to find a way.

Many thanks for your efforts,

Steve

#14 User is offline   pwillard 

  • Conductor
  • Group: Status: Contributing Member
  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: 03-March 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cumming, Ga
  • Simulator:OpenRails
  • Country:

Posted 21 March 2021 - 04:04 PM

Maybe an additional export option: Defalt/Automatic = ACE or DDS export in the S file... so we don't have to edit later. Kind of like the GITF 2.0 Geometry Export option works.





  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users