[ErickC]

 superheatedsteam, on 19 January 2022 - 09:05 PM, said:

Just some 'quick and dirty' testing, exporting a loco from Blender to glb and viewing with Win10 3D viewer and 'painting' and applying stickers to the model in Windows 10 3D paint.

How will an open glTF 3D format impact on the future of payware?



glb_test_roughness1.jpg

glb_test2_3dpaint3.jpg

I think that depends on the developer. My attitude has always been "pirates gonna pirate," but I know plenty of others feel differently.

Anyway, I imagine a converter could be developed to convert MSTS .s files into the new format for people whose modelling tools will otherwise not support the new format. It could also be handy for upgrading "legacy" content. It would be nice to be free from the MSTS exporter. I would be able to export a 3D cab without all the tedious editing (":" was not the right character choice for animated parts as the MSTS exporter for Max cannot use this character in part names).

[pwillard]

Quote

BTW, your list of dead tools omitted Sketchup Make (i.e., the free version) in 2018.

Yeah, I realized that later myself... but then I never had a good relationship with Sketchup and never saw it as a good tool for what *I* enjoyed modeling. I was *leery* of Sketchup from the start as I was convinced it would ultimately be a bait-and-switch just like GMAX. I was proven to be correct. I mean... "here, have this free thing..." They never said "forever". If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. (Similar things have happened with Fusion360)

===

Regarding PAYWARE providers and a new shape and texture format... Yeah, I was thinking about it yesterday. They *could* be quite put off by this development but it would be their choice to maintain `status quo` or to embrace the future. The S file *should* not go away. Providers can always keep using the S file... and maybe foray into a new open format should they choose to... with the same restrictions as always... you can repaint but you cannot share the *model mesh* file if you paid for the item.

Pirates who reverse engineer S files would have a slightly easier time with an open format... but pirates are not going to stop being pirates. It's not like someone is *not* going to recognize plagiarised work at this point anyway. Those who do this get ostracized quickly and with vengeance. We've seen many who were caught and how they got treated.

One solution to the whole mess is to create (as was mentioned) new extensions to the S file standard to support these new shape and texture features without breaking old ones. Making GITF an intermediate shape format that gets "officially" converted by ORTS into a traditional "improved" S file for "publication" is a potential option. (Though I do find that to be "not in the spirit of this thread").

I really do find that improved shape and texture support is a much-needed direction for ORTS so it can "stop hanging on to MSTS limitations" as this is one major reason why people desert the MSTS flavors for Dovetail games, Run 8, or Trainz.

[ExRail]

 wacampbell, on 19 January 2022 - 12:00 PM, said:

Don't we need support in TSRE5 also, so we can add the glTF content to our routes and activities?

I imagine this is the way until TSRE5 gets an update ?

Export your model in blender 3 to something 2.7 can open, and export a simpler version to a S file, add that and place it with TSRE5, make a copy of the route, change the content manually in the 3 related files to glTF:

MyShape.S --------------| World/*.w UID( xxxx)
... |-------------------| Myroute.ref
....|-------------------| MyShape.sd
Texture.ace


Or work with a dummy object(1) you change later.(how much alignment and visibility in TSRE5 do the objects need)

I used Total Commander alt+F7 to search the content of the W files, either by S filename or the UID, witch TSRE5 is displaying.

(1) Yesterday I managed to export the default shape in Blender 2.7 to a S file (Thank you very much Mr. Campbell for the instructions in the BlenderToMSTSV35 file), placing that in TSRE5 gives me to possibilities to just change the content to anything i want, by copying eg CAR1.s to myexportedShape.S, Car1.sd to myexportedShape.sd
The 5 untextured boxes are now 5 textured cars. If they or the glTF needs fiddling I would open the relevant w file and change the Position parameters.

[ExRail]

 pwillard, on 19 January 2022 - 03:17 AM, said:

while I applaud any path forward that uses open standards, I mostly support any ideas that get us out of 2000 era texture standards. If this option can support PBR textures, I'm all for it. I'm not saying PBR is something I understand yet or that I'm good at it... but this at least brings us into a modern era with regards to visual capabilities. Anything that works with Blender also gets my support.

Any faults in my line of thinking ?

PBR is nothing new, people (I) was doing PBR in 3DS for Dos 6.2 and was using normal, specular, bump and displacement maps when rendering an image.
Computer games has had PBR using separate texture files for each map for a long time Doom 3/2004 ?, so Open Rail could have used that method to achieve PBR like results, but there would be no link to the 3D construction program unless the exporters was following along and could output a ORTS_S file with the texture maps file names and settings and open rails supporting that, and what standard.

The way PBR is mention in relation to glTF makes me hope that it's going to be almost WYSIWYG when it comes to texture mapping.

[wacampbell]

> The way PBR is mention in relation to glTF makes me hope that it's going to be almost WYSIWYG when it comes to texture mapping.

I am curious about that. How does Blender's glTF exporter convert shaders to glTF materials. It seems like it would be easy to inadvertently make a shader in Blender that is too complicated to export.
ie if the Blender shader uses features such as uv map scaling or procedural textures that are unavailable in the glTF standard, or the target hardware, what does the exporter do?

[pwillard]

 wacampbell, on 20 January 2022 - 08:01 AM, said:

> The way PBR is mention in relation to glTF makes me hope that it's going to be almost WYSIWYG when it comes to texture mapping.

I am curious about that. How does Blender's glTF exporter convert shaders to glTF materials. It seems like it would be easy to inadvertently make a shader in Blender that is too complicated to export.
ie if the Blender shader uses features such as uv map scaling or procedural textures that are unavailable in the glTF standard, or the target hardware, what does the exporter do?

Believe me, I've been thinking about this too and so far I have not been 100% impressed with the giTF sample I played with. It did seem to understand *some* PBR type materials though since the shading editor managed to have some of the "expected" material handling. However, the Imported sample model shown in ORTS did not appear to have the same texture lighting effects. This causes me to have some reservations.

I have not checked... but I have a feeling gITF is not really 100% PBR compliant. (maybe it is... not sure)

[gpz]

There are yet some issues with the shader, I am going to fix that, take this screenshot and PR as a tech demo for now. Just I was working on this since Christmas, and I just wanted to communicate and see what you guys think about it, not to loose my enthusiasm. As I am going through the Khronos test models, I can see that at least there is an issue with the metallic-roughness part. I have just fixed an other bug with the normal map. And I haven"t yet started to implement the (fake) envitonment map.

[pwillard]

 gpz, on 20 January 2022 - 09:18 AM, said:

There are yet some issues with the shader, I am going to fix that, take this screenshot and PR as a tech demo for now. Just I was working on this since Christmas, and I just wanted to communicate and see what you guys think about it, not to loose my enthusiasm. As I am going through the Khronos test models, I can see that at least there is an issue with the metallic-roughness part. I have just fixed an other bug with the normal map. And I haven"t yet started to implement the (fake) envitonment map.

Got it. I suppose you can tell that I'm pretty chuffed about this development.

[ExRail]

 wacampbell, on 20 January 2022 - 08:01 AM, said:

> The way PBR is mention in relation to glTF makes me hope that it's going to be almost WYSIWYG when it comes to texture mapping.

I am curious about that. How does Blender's glTF exporter convert shaders to glTF materials. It seems like it would be easy to inadvertently make a shader in Blender that is too complicated to export.
ie if the Blender shader uses features such as uv map scaling or procedural textures that are unavailable in the glTF standard, or the target hardware, what does the exporter do?

The WYSIWYG I was thinking of was more simple and rough like 0 25 50 75 100 bump mapping in blender gives you the same amount of bump in Open Rails.

I search for Blender glTF exporter, don't know if it has what your asking for:
https://docs.blender...cene_gltf2.html

[Genma Saotome]

 ExRail, on 20 January 2022 - 11:59 AM, said:

The WYSIWYG I was thinking of was more simple and rough like 0 25 50 75 100 bump mapping in blender gives you the same amount of bump in Open Rails.

I am under the impression that the only bump mapping in OR is zero, nada, and zip. Is that incorrect?