[superheatedsteam]

scottb613, on 07 February 2024 - 03:31 AM, said:

Are those tiny little panel fasteners 3D?

Hi Scott,

I have modelled simplified access door latches and hinges and added all the bolt heads I could find from reference photos. Model currently weighs in at 205k triangles but still requires some body details like horns, brackets, etc and all the plumbing on the frame and pilots still need to be added.

It's not intended as a game asset but the hi poly model can be used to derive low poly models. That being said it works in OR with frame rates in triple digits on my computer.

It needs a lot more work and I'm short on free time but I'm still considering uploading to git for peer review and assistance with reference.

Cheers,

Marek.

[gpz]

SYogurt, on 07 February 2024 - 01:28 PM, said:

If that is the case, and I can find some documentation to figure out how to move forward with parts naming and structure of the model, I'll make the push to utilize this format. The problems with creating a consist or using the rolling stock in any existing editors that don't support it remains a problem, though.

The animations in the gltf models are intentionally disabled, although fully implemented in the patch. The setting is not wired to a settings page check box, but can be enabled by changing the registry directly. This is to prevent modelers to release animated models before we are possibly making braking changes to how the animated parts are to be named.

My opinion is that there are so many animation names exist, that it is probably better to just stick to the existing MSTS names, and use them unaltered in gltf. But it is debatable, the ORMT is working on it.

[SYogurt]

gpz, on 08 February 2024 - 02:46 AM, said:

The animations in the gltf models are intentionally disabled, although fully implemented in the patch. The setting is not wired to a settings page check box, but can be enabled by changing the registry directly. This is to prevent modelers to release animated models before we are possibly making braking changes to how the animated parts are to be named.

My opinion is that there are so many animation names exist, that it is probably better to just stick to the existing MSTS names, and use them unaltered in gltf. But it is debatable, the ORMT is working on it.

Noted, this makes sense. For what its worth, I find the existing MSTS naming structure fairly easy to follow and understand. Perhaps complexity with extremely unique locomotives makes this challenging and thus the time necessary to chat about how it should work.