Modeling advice

[Cuchulainn]

Hi Folks.

I'm modeling my first ship for BC, while I'm not new to modeling it's my first starship and I'm a complete newb at modding ST:BC. So of course I have a question. ;-)

I noticed the wiki says  

Quality meshes for BC should be fully unified/welded for optimal damaging in-game, as well as to minimize other graphical anomalies.

However all the ship models I've looked at both vanilla and from modders are broken up into many NiTriShapes. So am I mis-understanding what's meant by "unified/welded" or is this maybe a new preference? I'd love some input from someone who's modeled for ST:BC.

Thanks,

Cuchulainn.

[Vladko1]

Maybe this means the model to be perfect acurate. To have not polygons inside the mesh.

[Adonis]

However all the ship models I've looked at both vanilla and from modders are broken up into many NiTriShapes. So am I mis-understanding what's meant by "unified/welded" or is this maybe a new preference? I'd love some input from someone who's modeled for ST:BC.

The NiTRiShapes are the nif file hierarchy for handling individual textures on the mesh (if I remember correctly), has nothing to do with what was written there.

A unified, seamless mesh means that the model should be made as a single object with a single element. Elements are separate objects inside objects. So basically, if you make a ship by throwing together a bunch of manipulated objects to get the shape you want, you have broken that rule. That rule exists because of BC's way of handling damage, and there's another reason that I and the other of the best here will tell you: it's a signature of a good modeler. Anyone can throw a ship together by using a bunch of modified objects.

[limey BSc.]

The NiTRiShapes are the nif file hierarchy for handling individual textures on the mesh (if I remember correctly), has nothing to do with what was written there.

Close, but not quite. The nif format can't handle mulltiple materials applied to one object. So if an object has many material ID's and materials assigned to it, the exporter will break them up into completely seperate groups, much like id you selected the faces in Max and clicked Detach. So, strictly speaking, a mesh can only be completely unified if there is only 1 material applied.

There is, however, another consideration to take into account here. To make a unified mesh requires more polys than having a few seperate objects. For example, if you have a cylinder sticking into a larger cylinder (with with 20 sides in this example), then to have an ununified mesh leaves a tricount of 140, whereas a full unified mesh has a tricount of 160. That's almost a 15% increase. I know that's a stupidly simplistic example, but it does scale up. Don't get me wrong, I think a mesh should be as unified as possible, but I think there are times when its more effecient not to, so a balance needs to be found.

[Adonis]

The NiTRiShapes are the nif file hierarchy for handling individual textures on the mesh (if I remember correctly), has nothing to do with what was written there.

Close, but not quite. The nif format can't handle mulltiple materials applied to one object. So if an object has many material ID's and materials assigned to it, the exporter will break them up into completely seperate groups, much like id you selected the faces in Max and clicked Detach. So, strictly speaking, a mesh can only be completely unified if there is only 1 material applied.

Nope, you're wrong, any of my ported meshes is proof of that. it doesn't detach them into multiples, there's something in 3DSMax called a "Multi/Sub Object" material. It's basically lots of material sub-slots in a single material slot in the material editor. That's what the exporter does, otherwise, my mapping techniques would be in vain.

There is, however, another consideration to take into account here. To make a unified mesh requires more polys than having a few seperate objects. For example, if you have a cylinder sticking into a larger cylinder (with with 20 sides in this example), then to have an ununified mesh leaves a tricount of 140, whereas a full unified mesh has a tricount of 160. That's almost a 15% increase. I know that's a stupidly simplistic example, but it does scale up. Don't get me wrong, I think a mesh should be as unified as possible, but I think there are times when its more effecient not to, so a balance needs to be found.

That's where the concept of mesh optimizing comes into play. I just got an almost 20000 poly mesh down to 14990 without any loss in detail as an example.

[limey BSc.]

Nope, you're wrong, any of my ported meshes is proof of that. it doesn't detach them into multiples, there's something in 3DSMax called a "Multi/Sub Object" material. It's basically lots of material sub-slots in a single material slot in the material editor. That's what the exporter does, otherwise, my mapping techniques would be in vain.

I'm not talking about in Max, I know about multi/sub materials (I use them quite often). I'm talking about the nif itself. That can't support multiple materials, so splits them into seperate objects. Import a nif made with multiple materials back into Max, and you'll see that its split into several groups.

That's where the concept of mesh optimizing comes into play. I just got an almost 20000 poly mesh down to 14990 without any loss in detail as an example.

I don't see where optimisation comes into this. What I'm talking about is the additional polys needed to bridge the gap between 2 objects as opposed to just capping one off and having the other intersect with it.

[Adonis]

I'm not talking about in Max, I know about multi/sub materials (I use them quite often). I'm talking about the nif itself. That can't support multiple materials, so splits them into seperate objects. Import a nif made with multiple materials back into Max, and you'll see that its split into several groups.

The Multi/Sub Material is wha the exporter "detaches" it into. Besides, imported meshes are rarely 100% state of the ported one.

I don't see where optimisation comes into this. What I'm talking about is the additional polys needed to bridge the gap between 2 objects as opposed to just capping one off and having the other intersect with it.

Oh, it does, because you can always shave off polies to compensate without the need to sacrifice looks, if you know what you're doing that is.

[limey BSc.]

The Multi/Sub Material is wha the exporter "detaches" it into. Besides, imported meshes are rarely 100% state of the ported one.

No. Look at the 2 attached images. The first is from a mesh that uses a Multi/Sub Material and the second is from one that doesn't. The only difference is the first has 2 more NiNodes between the Scene Root and the actual mesh. And a NiNode is only used for grouping, nothing else (I'm talking about in a generic Nif structure, I know BC needs those first 3 NiNodes, 2 blanks and a scene root, to work).

Oh, it does, because you can always shave off polies to compensate without the need to sacrifice looks, if you know what you're doing that is.

Shaving off polys elsewhere is irrelevant. There shouldn't be any polys anywhere that you're able to shave off without compromising on looks in the mesh anyway. Even after removing them, you still end up with more polys if you have an unified mesh than if you didn't.

[Cuchulainn]

Hey thanks for taking the time to respond guys.

I did know the NIF format doesn't support multiple materials per object, that's why I was a little confused. I was wondering what was meant by graphic anomalies and damage problems if the mesh wasn't completely welded. Would it be safe to assume it's talking about overlapping faces?

I was also a little surprised to see multiple NiTriShapes within a NIF with the same material applied and so wondered if there was some other reason for separating them specific to BC. My typical workflow with NIFs for other game engines is to build and UVMap as a single object, then collapse the stack and detach the groups that I need to apply a different material to, is that a reasonable approach to follow for the BC engine?

Again thank you to everyone who takes the time to answer my newbish questions. 

Cuchulainn.

[limey BSc.]

I was also a little surprised to see multiple NiTriShapes within a NIF with the same material applied and so wondered if there was some other reason for separating them specific to BC. My typical workflow with NIFs for other game engines is to build and UVMap as a single object, then collapse the stack and detach the groups that I need to apply a different material to, is that a reasonable approach to follow for the BC engine?

I don't think theres any real reason why there would be multiple objects with the same material applied. As for your workflow, as has been said, you can use a Multi/Sub Material (assuming your 3D Modelling application of choice supports multiple materials) and the exporter will split them up into seperate groups for you.

Again thank you to everyone who takes the time to answer my newbish questions. 

Cuchulainn.

Happy to help

[Raven Night]

I would like to chime in a bit.

Though I cannot speak for Nifs, I can speak to how I make models, and what I have done in the past.

Generally I try to create a model as one complete object...think of it as a bubble. Bubbles have one outside surface, so does a unified model. That means you have to combine two objects together at the points they join together/overlap each other if you want to unify them. You can either use the boolean tool (tough to use) or just do it by hand. Both methods can be tough, there may be better ways that others can indicate.

Note, however, that sometimes for the sake of ease with respect to creating other versions of the same model I may have two or three different objects in a joined model...say if I have two different nacelles for the same ship. Makes creating a refit easier, and those models do run in BC without any problems as far as I know.

Also, I create ID groups, groups of polys labeled with an id that I apply a texture to. So I may have three separate textures applied to one model, but assigned to different poly groups. This allows someone to separate up the mesh based on the textures that are assigned, and makes modification much easier. This also allows for the sort of thing like my Klingon house symbol changes allowed on the E-7, so someone can customize the model to their liking.

[Vladko1]

Raven Night, now I see why the textures has many particles on them and the texture mapping of the ship is so complecated.

[DJ Curtis]

Actually, once you get familiar with it, mapping is pretty simple.  Once you learn the tools, its not even tedious.

[Cuchulainn]

That means you have to combine two objects together at the points they join together/overlap each other if you want to unify them.

I gotcha, I never considered that it just meant when combining your basic shapes to weld the seams. Makes a whole lot of sense and I do of course do that.  I was obviously overthinking the statement and worried there was something special needed for BC's damage system. Thanks for the other advice/info aswell, there's always more to learn.

As for your workflow, as has been said, you can use a Multi/Sub Material (assuming your 3D Modelling application of choice supports multiple materials) and the exporter will split them up into seperate groups for you.

That's handy I never considered that the exporter would be smart enough to do that for me. While in a perfect world my geometry would be finished before I UVMap, in the real world it could be really usefull to have a rough draft of my textures applied while it's still a single object and easier to tweak.

Actually, once you get familiar with it, mapping is pretty simple.  Once you learn the tools, its not even tedious.

Not tedius? Guess I still have some learning to do. 

Cuchulainn.

[limey BSc.]

Once you learn the tools, its not even tedious.

You don't find it tedious? Weird. I still do It's the part of the process I hate the most, yet the one I seem to spend most of my time doing

[Adonis]

Once you learn the tools, its not even tedious.

You don't find it tedious? Weird. I still do It's the part of the process I hate the most, yet the one I seem to spend most of my time doing

Seconded.

With mapping you can start by trying to map basic shapes with a generic texture using UV Map, just so you get the basics down and then move on the unwrap (if you're using 3DSMax that is).

[Furyofaseraph]

lol, unwrapping: the buzzkill of any 3D project.

Actually, I've come up with a pretty solid system that doesn't make it as bad as it used to be.

[Raven Night]

I use a rather complicated system to texture....probably archaic and foolish, but it seems to work.

I call it the "steampunk" method of texturing. Ive used unwrap in the past and had my eyeballs fall out of my head from all the poly spaghetti. It was better to just select polys, choose spots and organize as I go.

[Furyofaseraph]

What I do is a planar projection over the entire model, then rotate the UVW view to VW, scale it so its not stretched in any direction, then just grab clusters and arrange - relax when needed.

[Cuchulainn]

I tend to use mostly planar maps, then clean up by hand with the checkermap applied until it's proportionate. If relevant I'll scale the whole section and weld it to it's neighbour. Still playing around with Pelt for less regular shapes, but I've never really got the hang of it.

Cuchulainn.