blender

Emor D'ni Lap · **Joined:** Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:15 am **Posts:** 579

jmdoggett wrote:

If you know 3ds max you can get GMAX for free, export the models as OBJ, import them to Milkshape and export them again as 3Ds.... Milkshape is $30... and you might get an older version of 3DS max on Ebay...

JM, I spent a day or two experimenting with Gmax last Fall.
Though I didn't mess around with Milkshape at the time, I did write up my experience here.

In short, it seemed like most of Max's modeling tools were retained in Gmax, but many of the texturing tools and some animation features, and other advanced features had been stripped out.
And yes, some people had found workarounds for many of the above deficiencies (see links in above-linked post).

Gmax seemed like a great way to learn Max-style modeling, but a frustrating way to create URU-ready material.
Which brings up the main issue: would Gmax handle the URU 3DSMax plug-in when it becomes available?
I'm a bit skeptical.....

jmdoggett · **Joined:** Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:33 pm **Posts:** 45

It might work with the plugin, I will try it and let you know.

Gaming4JC · **Joined:** Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:46 am **Posts:** 24

I've been using Blender for some time now, and I would definitely like to see some plugins for URU Live model exporting.
I always dreamed of working on MYST when I was like 10yrs. old playing it lol... good times.

Maybe now my dream can come true, Open Source MYST... simply amazing... ^_^

Concerning gMax, there's quite a bit of information and support at Re-Volt the Wiki:
http://revolt.wikia.com/wiki/Gmax

AdamJohnso · **Posted:** Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:24 pm

isomorphic wrote:

My understanding is that the reason the fan-made Blender plugin hasn't supported the MOUL formats is due to a sort of gentleman's agreement that the uru-hacking community would confine their efforts to the single player uru while Cyan was still trying to make money off the online version. With uru going open source, the situation is changing to where Cyan is encouraging people to hack on the game. There have never been any significant technical barriers to releasing a MOUL compatible Blender plugin, and with the legal barriers falling, you can expect a compatible version of the plugin to be released within days of the MOUL source code being released. You can also expect the Blender plugin to improve significantly with the game source available as a reference for what the plugin should produce.

Actually, that kind of was the situation when MOUL was running. That doesn't mean we didn't have tools to extract data, etc., but rather we were discreet with their use and never released them to the public. Several of them are now public though. It doesn't seem right to hole them up any longer now that MOUL as a paid product is dead.

Nalates · **Posted:** Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:08 pm

If Cyan would just issue the licenses, much of Uru could move ahead, even without the source code. Knowing what can and cannot be done with the Cyan 'content' would clear up lots of other problems and arguments and remove some fan divisions.

Whether one works with Blender, GMAX, TrueSpace or any other 3D modeler is less important. While the source code might clear up a few questions about how Plasma does things and Cyan intended things to work, I think the key coders in the fan base already know most of what is needed. There is a problem with use and distribution of MOUL files (client side of the game) and Cyan content. With a license, fans could be using and distributing the MOUL client and files or a modified version if there is some proprietary part that has to be removed (Oracle?). The MOUL plugins would suddenly be very useful and fan age creation could change from CC/ABM to the newer MOUL engine.

While I can understand the code hold up, I don't understand the licensing hold up.

rarified · **Posted:** Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:06 pm

Nalates wrote:

If Cyan would just issue the licenses, much of Uru could move ahead, even without the source code. Knowing what can and cannot be done with the Cyan 'content' would clear up lots of other problems and arguments and remove some fan divisions. ... While I can understand the code hold up, I don't understand the licensing hold up.

I think you underestimate the import of Cyan Content here, as well as assume that such a license already exists.

I would think that the artistic and gameflow intellectual property would be at least as valuable to Cyan as the programming code. As such, it would take a great deal of consideration as to how to make it usable in ways that were unanticipated when the original work was done. Part of that would be reconciling the new uses with the original rights that Cyan had from the artists it employed. There are probably more parties that need to reach agreement for the content than programming code (which is usually done on a work-for-hire basis).

I don't envy them the task of drawing up such a license, and since that too is presumably being done in "spare time" and will inevitably take longer than any of us would hope.

Nalates · **Posted:** Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:14 am

@rarified, elsewhere Chogon said the hold up was some code and a single programmer. He did not explicitly say that was the ONLY hold up. But, I took it from his post that was the case. So, yes I am making an assumption on the existence of a license. However, my real point is that I do not believe the code and content license releases have to be tied together. For that matter the license and the actual release (making available for download) of content does not have to be tied together either. Cyan may have reasons to do it that way and so choose. But it could help us a lot if they let us have a license sooner rather than later.

Your point that it is a complicated process and that creating a license and anticipating unintended consequences will be complex is well taken. One complication in particular is trying to figure out whether content can appear in SL, THERE, Blue Mars, etc. REFERENCE

blender

Who is online