A Path Beyond A question for possible level creators

[Raap]

Hey guys,

Something crossed my mind this morning which made me create this thread, and that is, where did the talented level creators from the broader W3D community go to?

Since Delta launched I've been the sole person to do the occasional level contribution. In past versions of the game, we had a number of people contributing content, so I'd like to figure out what caused this, and perhaps I can assist in improving things on this front. Is it a problem with the tools? The lack of available knowledge? Or something else? Community created content has always been a big part of past APB releases, and learning why we lost so much of it with Delta is something that might benefit all W3D Hub project teams as a learning point.

So if you're familiar with content creation using W3D tools and related tools, vote in the poll for the items which stop you from contributing.

And if you've never created content before, then tell me why not!

[AZ-Stalker]

I'm actually slowly learning how to make maps for TSR.

[Raap]

Just now, AZ-Stalker said:

I'm actually slowly learning how to make maps for TSR.

Could you mention your experience with this process, particularly the trouble spots? 

[AZ-Stalker]

My personal main issue is that I've never learned how W3D tools operate, since I was never part of the old glory days of W3D and Renegade modding. But after getting set up and provided the updated tools by W3D Hub devs like ChopBam along with helpful advice, information and tutorials from experienced mappers and Moonsense's tutorial section, things are moving along.

But I'm W3D Hub staff/dev, and have access to getting up-to-date software and information that is needed for our latest releases, and am not sure how available these things are to the public. Having easy to download packs and how-to's would be a big plus. And as far as I know we have people working on getting things just like that out there to kick things off.

A big hurdle is going back to old 3DS Max (which people might not have) and tackling both the map model and the level edit thingies, but proxy elements really help out with that, and from what I've seen the projects are only now getting really organized and sorted so systems like that can be easily streamlined through an effective workflow that newcomers can more easily use. I'm kinda testing that out as I'm learning along parallel to the mapping workflow getting some upgrades and documentation. Not sure to what degree it'll all advance, but it's something that's helping me out greatly.

If I didn't have any help and just had to rely on tutorials posted around, it would look way too daunting and complicated for me to give it a chance.

[TeamWolf]

I've gone to start a map or two for APB in the past and wanted to remake one or two old fan maps fairly recently. I just never had the incentive to either get them to a good place or actually start work on an older map, mainly due to how much work goes into it when I have a game to finish myself.

[Raap]

Yeah, the time involved in level design went up 300% from Gamma to Delta (and incomparable from Beta to Delta). Creating completely new levels from scratch and getting them to match the Delta standard is no small task.

However it is a task that can be made more streamlined if we had an up-to-date public asset library. Currently each new map often recreates common assets like rocks and such things from scratch when all that time could be saved if we had an asset library. Asset-ripping is a tedious process as well that more often than not results in you spending as much time doing a clean-up than it would have cost you to create a similar asset from scratch.

The idea of putting all these assets in one large file doesn't quite work since it makes it unmanageable when you want to add new assets, so yes, I think a true asset library would help cut down the development time of levels, and free up time for some new assets to be created per level, which can then be added to such a library. But, logistically, I'm not sure how to include such a "library" into the tools. It'd have to be something that is online, since additions and alterations should be added on a consistent basis - including version control for asset updates.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Raap

[danpaul88]

@Raap We actually discussed something related to this last weekend when @OWA, @TeamWolf, @CCHyper and myself met up in London. When we all started out with W3D modding the bar to entry was low because we were all finding our feet and had a wider community to lean on for feedback and help improving our skills. The required quality of assets was also considerably lower.

Now the barrier to entry for creating assets for the games is incredibly high and there is no realistic "entry point" for newcomers to go into. People aren't going to practice their skills creating things that are never going to have a hope in hell of being used, and they aren't content to practice on low impact stuff like terrain details, props etc but instead want to gun straight for the big, visible things, like every day driver tanks, infantry, etc. This creates a negative feedback cycle where anything they create is passed over due to inferior quality and deters them from continuing to improve their abilities.

 

We really need to figure out what the entry point looks like these days for up and coming modellers, texture artists, level creators, etc. We can't realistically expect Delta level quality assets out the gate, but equally we need to encourage people to create art assets and continue to hone their skills.

Thoughts?

[Raap]

@danpaul88 What we got with APB Delta right now is actually a bit of a mixture in terms of quality. Terrain and vehicles are pretty much running at W3D maximum capacity, where as all infantry models, naval units, and a portion of the infantry weaponry dates back to over a decade ago. What happened here is that the "low barrier" assets such as terrain were more easily updated by Pushwall and Chopbam (and a few other contributors, afaik), and with the bulk of that work now completed you are left with only the more challenging assets such as infantry models.

With this approach, you'll end up running a never-ending cycle. Let's assume 5 years from now this project is still running, and that by then W3D has advanced further and thus allowing for more detail, ideally what we have then is that the present-day artists have decided to take on the more challenging tasks, opening the door for new contributors to work on other, low-barrier improvements again. But for this to function, you need a never-ending development chain, along with people interested in working on things.

But here is W3D's key problem when it comes to maintaining a level barrier of entry: Normally, assets created today would be easier to create 3 years from now, due to development tool improvements. But because we're stuck in the past on this front, the "veteran" artists keep raising the bar, while no "catch up" via easier to replicate styles is created. There is no real solution to this problem outside of having more programmers work on the engine and tools, something which would also solve a lot of other issues such as the lack of appeal to utilize W3D for a free game platform due to the slow development pace - but I'm well aware of how difficult this subject is.

Even if you went for a stylized design a decade ago, you'd still be running into this very same problem. To name a very well known stylized game; World of Warcraft, notice how even a "cartoonish" game can start to look outdated when you compare the 2004 version to the present day version - you'd have a hard time recognizing it as the same game.

There is essentially no magic bullet solution, save perhaps for somehow conjuring up additional programmers to keep things moving and maintaining accessibility. I mean, good luck convincing a non-W3D artist to use 3DS Max 8 (and similarly, good luck convincing a newcomer to "obtain" 3DS Max 8), but if we had ways around this, we could solve both the accessibility issues as well as the outdated tool dependencies.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Raap

[AZ-Stalker]

41 minutes ago, Raap said:

I mean, good luck convincing a non-W3D artist to use 3DS Max 8 (and similarly, good luck convincing a newcomer to "obtain" 3DS Max 8), but if we had ways around this, we could solve both the accessibility issues as well as the outdated tool dependencies.

I think I heard about someone from our development community working on import-export tool updates that allow for newer or other modelling software file conversion to things we'd usually export from 3DS Max 8. I can't remember where I heard or saw talk about this, but that could be the ultimate fix to making W3D development way easier to get into.

[Raap]

Just now, AZ-Stalker said:

I think I heard about someone from our development community working on import-export tool updates that allow for newer or other modelling software file conversion to things we'd usually export from 3DS Max 8. I can't remember where I heard or saw talk about this, but that could be the ultimate fix to making W3D development way easier to get into.

Yes I am aware of this being worked on. Such things would help a lot because it shifts the entry barrier away from 3DS Max 8 exclusively to whatever people are comfortable with using.

As for how that would work, I have no idea. 3DS Max 8 covers a lot more than W3D export settings, it does WWskin animating and W3D materials as well.

[ChAoS]

For me it's a combination of having less time do to adulthood. I have a 9-5 with travel it's more of a 8-6 and an 18th month old. I know how to use the tools and while I've never created content to delta standards I do understand how it's done. And the second for me is simply not having the tools work properly (3ds max) on windows 10, this kills any motivation I still have. I don't have an easy way to switch back to windows 7 just for one program.

[Raap]

2 hours ago, ChAoS said:

For me it's a combination of having less time do to adulthood. I have a 9-5 with travel it's more of a 8-6 and an 18th month old. I know how to use the tools and while I've never created content to delta standards I do understand how it's done. And the second for me is simply not having the tools work properly (3ds max) on windows 10, this kills any motivation I still have. I don't have an easy way to switch back to windows 7 just for one program.

3DS Max 8 doesn't play nice with Windows 10, while I solved a number of problems with it, it still continues to be a bitch. But this is just part of that big W3D development problem.

I suppose this topic is essentially confirming once again what was probably obvious. But hey, making it didn't hurt anyone.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Raap

[NoSpoons]

Although I would like to start making levels my main issue is having the time to learn the tools and subsequently create the content

However I don't have windows 10 and i do have 3ds max so that's at least something

Edited May 12, 2017 by NoSpoons

[Raptor29aa]

As a Newbie I must say terrain creation is not that hard (and there are a billion of tutorials for it). I finished a basic terrain model in one month... hour every weekend.

I hit a wall getting it into Commando Level Editor (I didn't know about max ploy count, one important detail left out of most tutorials) LE is a whole different kind of animal.

I hit a second wall getting it into renegade/playable... (testing what I created gave me fuel and energy to create more... it was awesome to walk in a world just created and see what needs to be re-sculpted.)

Then my old computer showed its 12 year old age... rest in pieces.

I could rebuild the map from the height map I created. But things have gotten busy. So I might pick it up later.

I hope my exp. could give you guys some valuable feedback

P.S.

I do have some old assets on an old CD... most of which you guys probably have... although one thing which might be of interest is a file labelled modular project

Edited May 17, 2017 by Raptor29aa
more to add

[Raap]

Creating terrain can be considered simple, if it is a simple terrain. Terrain can also be complicated, if you are creating a complicated level. There is different kinds of complications as well, for example creating the iceberg naval landing spots on Hostile Waters requires a lot of knowledge on W3D collision logic, where as the walls on Siege requires a lot of UVW texturing knowledge as well as good use of texture-creating tools (I use GIMP).

If your terrain goes off the beaten path and into unknown territory then you're opening up several possible cans of worms all the time and you're constantly revising your creations, and what this all comes down to is knowledge + experience = less time used. But, you got to start somewhere, so starting with a "simple" creation is fine... My advice however is not really to keep it simple, but to keep it small. The larger your terrain, the more work is required to fill up the space.

Anyhow, if anyone decides to give it another shot, I'm available for advice.

 

Edit: There is no real polygon limit. W3D is mostly picky about something called "draw calls", which refers to individual meshes. The trick is to create a level while keeping that number below 1000 approximately, but this includes trees and LE-generated assets. The best way to count your draw calls is to perform a vertex solve, the number displayed there is the number of unique meshes being solved. If that exceeds 1000 or so, then you have a lot of optimizing to do.

Additionally I have asked Pushwall to forward a question of mine in regards to elements within an object or draw call. You can create meshes in two ways; connected as a single element, or not. Some engines prefer the former, but I'm still awaiting an answer regarding to what W3D prefers. Anyhow, this is not something very relevant to any fresh starter, but mainly just to me as I create tons of new assets per project. (To advanced users, this is my question: http://i.imgur.com/O2wSBkf.png )

Edited May 17, 2017 by Raap

[ChopBam]

I usually make cuts and weld the vertices in simpler or larger meshes, making for singular elements. Makes for better lighting and doesn't add much complication to the geometry. In smaller, complex objects like vehicles it's probably better to let a few, small, floating elements overlap into the vehicle body slightly.

[Raap]

My concern lies with rendering performance. We always speak of draw calls but never how to gain maximum optimization out of a single mesh. I'd wager it's probably best to connect elements where possible even if it meant adding unseen polygons to make said connection, but that's my assumption based on other game engines.

[ChopBam]

This game doesn't work like other game engines, and adding polygons to connect a bunch of not-touching barrels, for example, would cause collision problems among other things. Sounds like a total mess. Just keep the singular-object-but-multiple-element meshes separate as elements.

[Raap]

8 minutes ago, ChopBam said:

This game doesn't work like other game engines, and adding polygons to connect a bunch of not-touching barrels, for example, would cause collision problems among other things. Sounds like a total mess. Just keep the singular-object-but-multiple-element meshes separate as elements.

I've so far only done it where elements visibly connect (example: a pile of meshes stacked on top of each other that then got merged into one mesh), making sure certain areas properly connect to form a single element. I wasn't quite thinking of going so far as to make "hidden bridges" between every element, unless of course that was proven to be an actual increase in performance. 

Only Saberhawk would have an answer to this question though.

Anyhow, this just goes to show that working on asset creation has layers upon layers of challenges, which are simple to me now, but starting out fresh with no knowledge and limited documentation has to be a real problem, and certainly a large barrier to entry.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Raap

[CMDBob]

In the APB SDK, there's an RTF file called Perfdocs.rtf that has a bit more explanation on drawcalls in Renegade. I'll quote the text here:

Quote

First up, some terminology: A W3D file can contain multiple meshes, aggregates, and proxies. When I say mesh, I'm referring to a mesh object inside of a W3D file and not the file itself. Skinned meshes are meshes that have a WWSkin modifier applied. A draw call (or batch) is a unit of measurement which we’ll be using in this tutorial.  On most hardware, the Renegade engine is limited by overall CPU power and not the video card in use, so we’ll be trying to reduce how much the engine has to do each frame.

Now for some basic optimizations: We’ll handle rigid meshes first.  If you modeled it and it isn't alpha-blended or skinned, it's a rigid mesh. In general, each rigid mesh produces a draw call. If you use multiple materials in a mesh, each material will produce a draw call. Each additional pass in a material will produce an additional draw call. If you’ve been completely oblivious to rendering performance and want to optimize existing meshes, the simplest thing you can do is to merge meshes that use the same material but don’t actually need to be separate objects for rigging purposes (like wheels). It’s always faster to render an object with 4000 polygons than 4 objects with 1000 polygons. You should strive to keep objects using a single material; this means a barrel or crate should be using a single material and not a different one for each side. These optimizations are most effective when done on meshes that are used often (like props.)

Skinned meshes act roughly the same like rigid meshes; they must be deformed and uploaded to the video card every frame however. If you decide to skin an object, you should use as few polygons as needed to make it look good. Skinned meshes additionally do not have support for collision detection and cannot have decals applied to them, nor can they use precomputed lighting (ie “Compute Vertex Solve”.)

I think that'll help with your question about draw calls and seperate/connected objects, Raap.

In terms of making things for W3D, I find the hardest stuff (for me) tends to be the actual "getting it into the engine" and "LevelEdit". The rigging takes time, especially as it has to be done in Max 8 which is flaky at the best of times, and LevelEdit can be super temperamental (not to mention having one of the menus completely non-functional in any Windows OS past 7), as well as some of the documentation and tutorials being a touch lacking, especially for some of the more complicated things. I'm glad we've got the Discord, as it's handy to pop onto it and ask some questions about aspects of W3D, though. (A specific mapping/modding/whatever channel could be handy on it, though, so questions don't clutter up the other channels where they're not quite applicable.)

[Raap]

33 minutes ago, CMDBob said:

In the APB SDK, there's an RTF file called Perfdocs.rtf that has a bit more explanation on drawcalls in Renegade. I'll quote the text here:

I think that'll help with your question about draw calls and seperate/connected objects, Raap.

In terms of making things for W3D, I find the hardest stuff (for me) tends to be the actual "getting it into the engine" and "LevelEdit". The rigging takes time, especially as it has to be done in Max 8 which is flaky at the best of times, and LevelEdit can be super temperamental (not to mention having one of the menus completely non-functional in any Windows OS past 7), as well as some of the documentation and tutorials being a touch lacking, especially for some of the more complicated things. I'm glad we've got the Discord, as it's handy to pop onto it and ask some questions about aspects of W3D, though. (A specific mapping/modding/whatever channel could be handy on it, though, so questions don't clutter up the other channels where they're not quite applicable.)

Nope, doesn't answer my question. A mesh can be created from any number of ELEMENTS. The question unanswered is whether or not W3D prefers meshes to be a single connected element, versus more than one. Or perhaps it doesn't care. I've know about the rest for a very long time - although thanks for reminding me on WWskin meshes being incompatible with vertex solve, this has relevance to me as I was going to experiment with a way to batch-animate ground cover foliage within a single animated W3D file using WWskin to emulate wind movement in a universal pattern. Scratch that then!

As for LE, I have no issues with it on Win10 - Are you using the latest version? Pushwall continuously has to feed me a new file to keep up with his work environment, as compatibility issues are a regular occurrence. These updated tools are not publicly available, which doesn't help this very topic much.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Raap

[CMDBob]

 

2 minutes ago, Raap said:

Nope, doesn't answer my question. A mesh can be created from any number of ELEMENTS. The question unanswered is whether or not W3D prefers meshes to be a single connected element, versus more than one.

Ahh, slightly misunderstood the question. My fault. I believe it doesn't matter either way, as the Exporter only exports at the individual object level, so it'd only export one item (and use only one draw call, unless there's more materials or what have you). I imagine the 3 element version would be ever so slightly faster to render, due to it having less vertices, but it'd be imperceptible.