I agree with Darimc...

As others have said, I think improved control over entity positioning would go a long ways versus a dedicated (and likely limited) structure editor. I think these points would cover most use cases:
1. Improve entity positioning tools (snapping, pivot points, etc.).
2. Ensure AI can properly navigate structures built from entities.
3. Reintroduce a way to clip the tops of enclosed entity structures for better interior editing.
4. Introduce a concept similar to prefabs in FPSC where a selection of entities can be grouped together and positioned as a single unit, as well as having the ability to save the group to the entity library for easy reuse.

That's it! I think if the above points were addressed, most people would be perfectly happy with structure editing in GGM.

I think this would works as well with out side things as well like making a cemetery or a fenced in area that has numerous cutscenes.

I do miss the old FPS Days of editing after you placed something it made the process smoother...

I think going the way of FPSC segment editing and being able to snap the saved segments together to make your own buildings or levels is best way to go. I am hoping this the direction people are going to go for as it make the most sense for game making to me. That way people can share or sell segments and parts on the store. I would use the Segment Auto Welder and FPSC myself but I no longer have access to Segment Auto Welder. It is no longer available for download.

When I mentioned FPSC Segments I did not mean I think we should have that in Game Guru Max.

All I'm saying is an improved Entity Edit mode for placement of entities (wall pieces) would solve all the problems for me honestly. No new structure editor or any of that jazz. But that's me. The way placement of pieces in FPSC Segment were easy because you could draw the pieces. You cannot do that in Game Guru Classic's entity edit mode, only in the EBE. I would like that in the Entity Edit Mode.

We waited years for a 'Construction Kit' which never materialised. Then, eventually, the EBE was created and it was hailed as a great achievement. Not being a great modeller, I waited for the EBE before starting a project.

I cannot fathom why you would scrap the structure editor. To do so would be insanity.

I want to fight tooth and nail that we can get indoor scenes done properly and it looks like fighting a lost cause again, really disappointing. Lee mentioned in the video fpscreator was indoor and now max and GG classic is outdoor, fps games aren't just outdoor.

Sure this isn't a big issue for me as I basically make indoor assets period, however there are others that can't that also want to create indoor scenes essentially telling your market, tough luck use external models to do it.

Name one website with game ready assets that is like the cold war DLC for example that would work out of the box. Not only won't you find the assets like that, as these websites provide content for rendering purposes generally and those that offer game ready assets are a mixture of texture and entities to create your levels with for engines like unity and unreal which has it's own primitive creations system which neither max or classic has.

The costs involved is insane easily a 100 or more for a simple asset kit, segments are easy simple, FASTTTTTTT and able to do things in half the time you would with EBE and you can mix level building assets with segments much easier then you could with ebe, and you can do far, far, far more then just 90 degree angles. You are targeting young kids explain exactly where the oodles of cash is coming from for them to buy assets kits like that.

So while this is in no way a problem for me, I am fighting for the guys that can't do it.

I think if we do have it. We should make it so we can take any objects, highlight them all once placed and make them a structure.

Then we could make a structure from any objects we get from the store and combine them to make our own. Copy and place the new combined object all over the make as one object

OR we should just remove this and work on other things.

If there is going to be no structure editor then that might push me to get a refund. I, primarily, want to make a horror game (anyone remember "he is coming..."? ) The levels will mostly take place indoors and I would like to shape the structures to how I want them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOcjHIH8upc&ab_channel=MadLadDesigns
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTnIIOyjBxU&ab_channel=MadLadDesigns
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TQOIukr47I&ab_channel=MadLadDesigns

Okay so here I okay.

People wanting the EBE, considering it to be the best thing since slice bread. Lets explain a couple things why the segment editor is awesome and a 1000 times better then any thing the EBE can do.


The default segments contains
4 outside corners
4 inside corner
4 outside walls
4 inside walls
A ceiling and a floor piece.


To each mesh you can assign a different texture, sound fall sound, ect. This allows to have different texture on the outside wall compared to the inside walls. Additionally you get special CSG segments parts that cuts a hole in the walls and automatically as part of the CSG process adds a door or window or just a plain old hole. There is also curved parts and diagonal parts which allow breaking up square rooms ect.

Due to paint rooms much like you would grass or a terrain texture you can literally create a room with windows, a door, pillars, curves ect in less then 5 minutes.



Additionally half height segments can be added, 50 units and 25 units, with all of these meshes not interfering with one another as they are different segments types, on other words they don't paint over one another.

Additional segments include
Ramps of 25, 50 and a 100 units
Stairs of 25, 50, and a 100 units.
Walls of 25, 50 and a 100 units

Additionally once you have a specific shape or mesh in your segments library it simply requires using the segment editor import the mesh and assign your own unique texture to it.

Segments also make use of entity parts like trim for the walls if you want to make a tall building you can do exactly that without issue, add ledges, outside metal stair cases windows ect, this all done in a fraction of the time.

When you run the game the mesh is converted into a single mesh, with exception of the windows and doors for example you would have one draw call. Additionally only what you can see is rendered keeping the polygon count pretty low, especially if you are inside a building with lots of floors ect.

EBE isn't even remotely able to construct some thing as complex, as easy, or fast as segments can.

The additional benefit of segments are because each segment is rendered as a single mesh, you don't have to use the stock meshes you can create a corridor with multiple mesh layers and textures and export for example the cold war corridor, with ramps, lights, railings, doors, ect as a single entity as well as create multiple variations of that corridor with different colored lights and textures and is a simple matter of placing the segments in your level and repainting it as many times as you would like or the engine will allow. This allows for extremely quick and easy level design and with variations with endless possibilities.

The internal team are grossly underestimating just how powerful and easy segments are, they are fixed on what the default meshes look like and that the it can only create block rooms, which isn't even remotely true, you can do so much more then what ebe could ever hope to achieve.It isn't like EBE can do any better with regards to block rooms.They clearly lack the ability to think outside the box, not what it is, but rather what it can become and can do if people are given the opportunity to experiment and design there own shapes and meshes.

Have a look at the previous page I posted some videos of segments created, it absolutely obliterates EBE and this was done 6-9 years ago. While the default segments may seem basic, it is far from it and has even greater potential then EBE ever had and will even if you were to further develop EBE as you would still end up making a segment editor any ways.

The ground work is already there for the segments, as ebe is a separate grid and mesh editor module is isn't some thing that is going drastically clash with max as the ground work is already there and we have the base code for segments, it would need serious updating to make it compatible with max, but it will kick ebe in the teeth without breaking a sweat and construct an entire level while doing so.There is really no reason to hold onto ebe, it is entirely useless, people using ebe either haven't used segments before or forgotten how easy, simple and great they were to use.

I still have the segment editor, it was pretty good never had any problems with it. If anyone wants a copy I can send it to them, if its allowed.

In the last broadcast i made the following suggestion in response to the discussion about continuing the EBE:



and Lee's response was:



So here are my suggestions and issues:

To start with, I'd like to say i am not for removing the EBE entirely, and i'm not against updating it, however in it's current form it is extremely basic, and while it does what the it says on the tin, it's just not enough by itself to warrant more than occasional usage (in my opinion), and to bring it up to mine and the expectation of others would be quite a task, what i actually meant was relegate it to basic users who don't model or have models to use, not sure why i said to make it for internal structures, live chat makes me all muddled, i feel i have to type too fast to get it in in time lol.

Even with the current entity placement, it is far easier and more flexible to import your own entities and place them by hand, at least it was in classic, but in Max there's some work that needs to be done to model importing to make the current placement smoother and more intuitive, and in both classic and make there are simply options that are really needed to make placement of entities far smoother and less fiddly.

Firstly, and a priority in my opinion is how models are imported into the engine, primarily the scale of objects and the environment. In Classic it was simple, 1 unit was 1 inch, if you created a model that was 100x100x100 inches and imported it into Classic, when you placed it in grid snapping mode it snapped perfectly on all sides, the scale was set and known and snapping entities could be made easily, as many of you know from my Isometric RPG Kits on the Game Creator Store.

However this is not entirely the case in Max, this still works perfectly when the model that you import is in .X format, the default scale for .X still seems to be 1 geometry inch is 1 engine inch, however with the other formats this is not the case, they all seem to import into the engine at slightly different default scales, a 100x100x100 inch FBX model will sometimes be approximately x40 smaller than the same model in .X format (at least this is the case with an FBX exported from Blender), there are different settings in Blender for exporting FBX scales, however I've gone through all of those settings in every combination possible and not one of those settings transfers into Max at the same scale as a .X model.

Now we do have the scale slider on the model itself, and the scale slider for grid snapping, and using these you can get FBX models to snap on a grid, but it would be nice to be able to create a set of snapping meshes that just work on import, which we can do in .X but not in other formats. What i would like to see is the import scaling reviewed and some kind of unified scale applied so that no matter what format you import, it will be the same scale.

Secondly, to improve the usability of the snapping tools we need some additional tools, grid snapping and surface snapping are good, but are very basic, with grid snapping you are confined to creating within the bounds of the grid square, and unless you want a lot of fiddling about, models you want to snap need to have the same origin point in the same location and all be the same size, so for example wall pieces all need to be multiples of 100 units in length, you could not have a half length wall and expect other pieces to snap to it, which limits the scope of snapping projects, and again with the surface snapping it is simply too imprecise, once you bring an entity to the location you want it you have a lot of fiddling and sliding about to get it to line up properly.

What i am proposing is a system much like they have in Unity, where you can hold the V key down then hover over a vertex on one object, and holding the left mouse button down, drag that object to a vertex on another object and the two objects will snap together at those vertices. Likewise I'd like to see variations of this that include edge and face snapping in a similar style, this would allow us to snap items together that are not tied to the size of the grid or the location of their origin point, and allow for easier snapping at angles other than 90 degrees.

Next, I would also like to see other options for the pivot point, currently the pivot point is the origin point of an entity, while this is great in some cases, in other cases it's a pain for positioning and rotating an object into place. What i would like to suggest is a button to switch between the local object pivot point and a geometry based median point in the centre of the geometry.

Lastly, we need a way to group objects together and manipulate them as a combined object, i know we can drag select multiple objects and manipulate them, but again that relies on you being able to drag the cursor over all the objects and select them all without accidentally selecting other objects, or individually control+click each object. I would like to see a system implemented similar to prefabs in Unity where you can create an empty object where you can link objects and manipulate them all in one go by manipulating the empty object, but can also select each individual object and manipulate it linked to the empty object.

I feel that if these items are corrected/added, we will have a lot better user experience when it comes to placing objects and building our scenes, it will be a lot easier to line things up, and for those who model, or can get models externally, it would reduce the need for reliance on such tools as structure editors and such.

However, i do stress though, that we do need to keep some kind of structure editor in a basic (but not as basic form as it currently is) form for those who do not model or do not have access to models, for example the tools used in the old FPSC would provide much more flexibility than the current EBE implementation for those who want to just throw something together in the editor.

Does anybody else in the community have any ideas on the subject of placement and manipulation in the editor? If so let us see your ideas.

Something else i would like to see along the lines of my post above, it would be awesome if we could have a "focus" hot key, where if we selected an entity and pressed that key the camera would move and zoom to the entity and enter a mode where you can orbit around the selected object, its amazing how much easier you can manipulate an entity simply by being able to orbit around the entity you are manipulating.

Following on from you post above Belidos, I'd like to see you be able to right click an entity in the library and it will take you to that entity. If you have multiples of that entity then each right click will take you to the next one. This would help immensely in finding those entities that you've somehow lost on the map.

Yup, i agree, the thing is, whether we need a structure editor or not is more dependant on how good the implementation of placement and manipulation of objects is, the harder it is to accurately manipulate entities in the world, the more we need things like a structure editor to compensate, with some improvements to the way we place and manipulate objects most of the need for a structure editor (at least for experience users) is negated.

I was looking at T-bones comments and realised entity parts he refers to work just as well without a Structure Editor at all in fact without realising it i have been actually using his method .. The pic below shows the first models i ever made which snap together and are stackable to construct a warehouse. ( yes i could also create them with curved corners ) plus the fact Max allows you to browse and change the textures so i can see that basic provided modules \ shapes he refers to work just as well. Users could also create packs that could be be sold on the store just like segments would be. As long as they are made the correct size Max does everything else for you.
The only thing missing is the clip mode to manipulate adding steps, ramps etc in the lower level below the roofline.

@synchromesh

The problem with that is draw calls, You can't use this method at all for a city street scene it is near impossible to be able to recreate the city scene from the s2 engine, which runs butter smooth extremely well detailed , with cars, trees, and various other things.
This the method really limits how many entities you will be able to use and performance degrades almost right off the bat.

So you mostly end up with repetitive, single mesh buildings with a lot less detail.So while this is the easiest method and essentially TGC doesn't have to do any thing.

It isn't the correct way of doing things either as it was born out of lack of proper support from TGC.
Neither gameguru nor max has an effective way with dealing with rendering multilayered entities like this as a single grouped mesh entity to drastically save on draw calls.

Segment system was a highly tuned beast that allowed reasonably large levels to be constructed without much hassle, you would end up running out of memory before being able to make a serious dent in FPS to a state were things are completely unpayable.

So while this is a solution which we all have been using, it really isn't the best method performance wise, as you take a nasty fps hit at some point and you haven't even added much.

I consider S2 engine to be the main competition as it does some things in a similar method but ultimately different and it is still leaps and bounds better suited to outdoor scenes and does it better with horsepower to spare then max and classic could ever do.

That says quite a lot, snapping, widgets ect, et al, isnt going to help at all if we can't even render a half decent street scene.The rendering engine isn't even remotely optimized for a street scene or the zombie town scene from S2. Which is highly detailed and looks like a scene from a decent AAA game.

If the structure editor gets removed, I will cancel my work on the cellar demo.
I will not continue from scratch again.
I dont have the time to deal with changes made with basic design choices of GG max.

Anyway, working on the cellar demo has been nothing but a failure so far just because of the constant crashes that don't even let me save my progress made in the software.

Why dont ask about EBE months ago ?
False advertising, lack of communication and transparency.. Many users are getting tired of the way things are handled around here...

And now please don't tell me I should "refund" - that's not the topic.
It's the repeating history of endless unfinished or problematic products.

Without Preben we still would not have a decent gameguru classic build to work with - just keep that in mind.

Where has all this come from ?
They only asked opinions and feedback .. Lets hope they do not ask our opinion on anything else then.

I have to ask you willing to threaten the work on some thing that has to potential to benefit the entire community just for the sake of not willing to progress to some thing better.It isn't like it will start from scratch either, textures for the walls, floors, ceiling ect is already there.
Going to be honest I don't like the idea of threatening to fit your own needs over and above that of the community.

Additionally it isn't like a major change like this is going to happen overnight, it will take a while a couple of months at least, should there be any changes be made.Work you have done would have long have been completed before we get to see any changes.

Lee already mentioned that this is a input thread to state your case for some thing different or improvements ect, as a whole the ebe is pretty useless for the most, too time consuming and too little results.

Definitely understand your frustration just don't agree with it. Definitely need to relax a bit we are a long way off settling on any thing concrete.

Yea I agree, it's just... I dont know. I should take a step back - I get too invested in these things.




Let me just say this: There are more gameguru discord servers than just one. These servers have been created for special purposes and more freedom of speech. And the overall mood has been pretty bad for quite a while now.



yea It's not quite related to that particular thread, thats true. Just had to get it off my chest. I just give an insight of the actual mood of a majority of people, thats all. Of course this will not help or anything - I am just tired of people not saying their opinion for whatever reasons.

Anyway good luck with the development, I will definitely step back and not get invested as much as I used to. It's not my duty to reveal what the community members actually think - problem is I get bombarded with it every day. But they keep telling their opinions on private servers and not in the public forums, that's what gets me angry I guess.

Whats the point of those discords then if they are secret and unheard.

To be a place where we feel comfortable expressing our opinions away from the overbearing gaze of shill moderators and TGC staff.

AE

Intentional bad mouthing, swear ect, ect, ect isn't freedom of speech, it is a place where keyboard warriors can flex their muscles. You clearly don't understand the meaning of freedom of speech. TGC, mods or staff has NEVER, EVER censored any post containing criticism of their software.

What they have censored is any thing against the forum rules, intentional trolling, threats, insults, towards members or staff, disrespecting staff and swearing, as this is a site with minors on them they are obligated by law to protect minors. They have been lenient in may regards especially swearing for first time offenders ect.

If you can't in a respectful manner, provide criticism doesn't mean necessarily constructive with a 4 page essay on here, what makes you think any where else people are going to provide criticism in a polite or constructive manner. This site in no way shuns criticism, if you aren't happy with some thing or think some thing can be done better lee has mentioned over and over and over his door is open, he can't make any promises, but he is willing to listen.

Both lee and rick even synchromesh will attest that some years back I was quite feisty and fought hard on certain things and still provide criticism but in a constructive manner, far more chill and relaxed. If there is some thing that is broken, can be improved ect, I am quite willing to fire off a email, get feedback and they have been more then willing to listen and some times take action.

TGC is in no way unapproachable and they do listen, but it is how you go about presenting your case.

Look I am fighting quite hard here for segments to be reintroduced as I feel they have focused too much and long enough on outdoor scenes. EBE was essentially a stop gap, which never got further attention, and the reason for this thread is to gauge what should be done with the EBE as it isn't particularly great or bad, just extremely limited in use.

I even agree on your opinion about segmets!

Lee has asked me to do the cellar demo. I have invested time to improve it and try to figure out how the new material editor works in gg max.
A month later I have to read that he wants feedback on the EBE ( wich is the main thing the cellar demo consists of) and that it *may* change.

Don't you get what I mean? Like... make those requests to people when the engine is done - I have many other aspects that need my attention and I feel a bit like my time was wasted.



Well that's good for you! Apparently they dont listen to everyone - wich is also fine.

All I wanted to say is: People are unhappy with the constant changes - finish your engine, but dont do requests and then make the work of others obsolete. Thats not a nice move.


By the way I have yet to see you on any of the discord servers. We are not a group of 12 year olds who need to "flex their muscles".
We discuss things in a proper way without getting shut by a mod, thats all.
In fact your statement is quite insulting to be honest and I am no longer willing to take part in such a conversation.
We are all grown people with Jobs and responsibilities.



I wasnt talking about censoring or anything... It's actually very simple.
One Dude has an opinion and has the right to share it in a respectful manner. But very soon after, a mod will come in and try to change his opinion even if that opinion is very relatable and true. That has happened quite some times - Quite a few people will agree with me.

Anyway I hope you get your segments. Ive seen "arguements" of you with other people bevore so it may be better to just leave it.

Have a wonderful evening.

It's sounds a little arrogant to say the structure editor is unnecessary from a high chair of knowledge about 3D modelling. Without the EBE I would had given up with GameGuru in 2018, with the entire brunt of my project being the EBE (and using the EBE for exteriors). I'm extremely busy with other things and I don't have the time to learn 3D modelling, it's what makes me use GameGuru, removal of it would make me leave the engine completely I think.

Ease of use is one of the only selling points for GameGuru and to start to tear down on that just because of the implementation of a mediocre (to the likes of unreal engine but, granted far better than current) graphics engine with some fancy grass isn't enough to reframe your target demographic.

"TGC, mods or staff has NEVER, EVER censored any post containing criticism of their software."

Hmmm... I have to mull that one over just a moment. I must be experiencing
debilitating depression or dementia. How do you define 'censorship'?
Things seem to have been better recently than in the past, but censorship,
or maybe "gatekeeping" on these forums has been an event I have observed
around these parts... not just once. Let's just look a few comments above...

There's a place for censorship, less for "gatekeeping" (belittling/ devaluing the
comment) in certain circumstances. Censorship to any degree kinda gets under
my skin, unless there's an obvious troll or bad- mouth that needs soap!
I've seen where people have edited their rants (even if legitimate concerns)
because it wouldn't amount to any positive acknowledgment or feedback-
but probably instead some spontaneous sounding push-back.

Anyhow, I try to censor myself, and let's hope we can be level-headed.
Should I post this comment?? Hmmm... well maybe not. Maybe- who cares?!

+1!

Those saying [paraphrasing] "you should learn modelling, it's easy. If you can't be bothered learning to model then why bother making a game?"

You could easily say :

"If you don't like the way GGMax is going, then why not code your own engine? Coding is easy if you stick with it."

"Why buy / download music / sound effects when you can create your own? Plenty of free music programs. No use complaining there's no good music when you can easily make your own".

Just because you're good at something doesn't mean others have to be.

All i asked was " Where has all this come from ? " as in your sudden outburst.
Everything else is your doing and you can see how it has all escalated. No one stops any criticism here and i have not stopped yours.
However i would say this is now way off topic. Thats not trying to change your mind. Thats my job.
Please stay on topic.

It isn't about being 12 but rather acting like one.

What makes here any less proper. Additionally mods and forum staff are here to keep law and order, they aren't obligated to take your side or the side of TGC, they can and will share their own opinions if they so desire, however if their opinions do not align with your own in no way reflects the opinion of TGC and will often just stay neutral best they can.

They are obligated to monitor threads and will interject in threads that have spiraled out of control to reign it back in or lock the thread entirely.They are in no way biased, they don't get special information about the software and they are treated exactly the same as any other member here and they know exactly as much about the development as the rest of the members.

mods and forum staff have been equally critical of the software on many occasions. So I would personally like to see examples of staff or mods shutting down members of the forum for being critical and provide feedback or criticism of the software as it is a misstep on their part and in such a event should have been reported.

I have no reason to partake in discussions out side of the forum, the forum is perfectly fine as I have nothing to hide and if it can't be discussed and argued here where else would the appropriate place be to have such a discussion. I speak my mind freely and has gotten me in trouble many times. If you can't say it on here, then it isn't appropriate to be discussed any where else, really simple.

Your freedom of speech here is in no way impeded, you are freely able to say you hate the gameguru classic terrain system or you hate that character animation or that asset ect, but dont expect a warm response when asked why you hate it and how would you improve and ignore it, after all there has to be a reason why you hate the terrain system, you can't hate some thing for no apparent reason.I hate gameguru for not supporting better indoor scenes, however I am going to make the best of it and try and find a work around to the problem, if I can't find a work around perhaps gameguru isn't suited to the particular project I have in mind, I should perhaps look at a alternative software solution or approach the project I have in mind differently.

Gameguru was never intended to be do all solution and I understand that, it doesn't mean I can't say I hate gameguru for not having better indoor support and freely share the opinion that gameguru should have better indoor support.I haven't been stopped by a mod or forum staff for saying that, and they won't I have done it politely without having to fling verbal abuse at anyone or raged.

Gameguru forums is made up of many people from all different walks of life with their own ideals, goals and opinions, experience and inexperience and occasionally people are going to bump heads, it is just a fact of life.Freedom of speech is a liberty not a right, meaning you can say what ever you want inline with constitution or legislation which ever the country provides, short of discrimination or impeding some one else's freedoms.One of those is the child protection act, they are obligated to protect minors, from harmful content and are quite strict in that regards. However nothing you would want to say about TGC and their software would warrant a off site discussion, if you can't say here, where is the place where you can say it. ?

Yes it took many years and countless hours to learn and don't expect any one else do the same.However I am speaking from exprience having used every version of fpscreator to x10, reloaded, gameguru and now max.

Comparatively to the segment editor and segments, EBE is limited in its scope, less flexible and for the most part useless for everyday usage, this is from personal experience having used all of the TGC versions and not from a modeling perspective, it is entirely possible you aren't aware or used segments at all or previous versions like fpscreator or x10. So very possible that you accept that EBE is the norm.

Veterans from fpscreator will tell you exactly the same thing I have comparatively ebe isn't particularly great, segments was not only easier to use, it was faster and far more flexible and with CSG functions a real treat.Not a lot of assets are being released for use with ebe other then the extremely small library of doors and such, which makes the overall use pretty limited.Which may suit your immediate needs but is in no way a daily solution to every thing, which makes it less useful.

Yes I can create my own buildings and indoor assets, but that does stop me from sharing experience on the subject and attempt to get some thing which I know is better for the community as a whole.I am not advocating that we remove ebe and not replace it with some thing else.
Segments is a lot like ebe, but instead of blocks you paint meshes, that paint a room much like ebe, just quicker and better, with more freedom.


I would have to strongly disagree here.Game guru is build on the use of entities exclusively and while it provides an extensive library of stock assets, those assets can take you only so far before you consider, buying assets from the store or dlcs.at some point you may have a great idea for a project and can't find the asset that you need from either the store or stock library you either make do with what you have or you tackle the task of learning to model, it is some thing that you will eventually need to decide on when you get to that bridge as you build your skills and experience.

For some it is enough to use what is available for others that want more I would definitely encourage them to try their hand at modeling there is quite a lot of satisfaction to be had in creating some thing you can call your own, with blood, sweat and tears, if you don't succeed it isn't the end of the world, you could always request models or wait till some thing is made that you like. But I would definitely encourage people to give it a go and build more skills after all you are doing it because you love it.

@wizard of Id
Firstly im not in disagreement that the segment system was fast, fluid and brilliant back then but was it not built into the fpsc engine core whereas this would be an implemented addon like the Structure editor therefore not as slick or optimised as it was in fpsc ?
Its a serious question out of my knowledge range for sure.

Personally I think your all as bad as each other ,give it a rest guys and get back on topic , enough said

Dave

Well it is still entities like fpe files, still fundamentally meshes like entities which is no different the major difference was how it was being handled and rendered differently, segments in a level was broken down in chunks with the help of port culling it would for example render the room you were in at that point and nothing beyond that unless you added a window ect.

EBE and the painting system it uses with the grid system is loosely based on that system, you may remember reloaded before the recode was pretty much dark basic at one point, with new additions and such. Implementing the segment system isnt like reinventing the wheel, albeit would require a recode for visual studio, the DNA of EBE has already the groundwork for implementing segments so doubtful it would require much recoding of the rendering engine parts needed for segments.

Segments was created with a top down view, so there will need to be some new code to deal with camera editing in the editor, simple modification of the AI collision code for ebe, new icons and such, folders ect, the segment editor it self.

Make no mistake it isn't a small undertaking by any means and will take weeks to get done properly, but you already have the EBE ground work to build on so in no way impossible to integrate that system back, you have the ground work to build on.

Looks like I'll have to put a video together and provide the meshes to the community to show we already have some-what of a FPSC Segment system already in GG and just not commonly known about (and its not the EBE).

All I was trying to point out... was it needs a few very small improvements to be the same as what we had years ago. I'm not talking about building any new system or tools or even developing the EBE further. I think i can only explain this by video as I dont think most of you havey gotten the point of what I'm trying to address. You already have all the tools they are just not that apparent.

Here is an example of 1 floor of my map made using this lesser known system we already have in GG that is not the EBE.
Its made in top down, but the great advantage of GG over FPSC is when i need to get into the details to add items and enemies i can go free flight mode (which i was requesting heavily and we finally got it. We used to be locked to top down mode).

(this is NOT made with the EBE but with the entity grid system GG Classic already has built in)

In Editor:

In Game:


Yes you can add curves, angles and even go beyond and start snapping at completely different angles aligned.

Please dont gut the structure editor, it should be acceptable even if its a basic tool. Some games are designed with it in mind, such as the example above.

Sorry I have to repeat myself, but Cobb that is NOT the structure editor (EBE). Its Entity Edit Mode. Which im trying to stress is extremely powerful when you use Grid Mode 1 100x100x100 units and Grid mode 2, which snaps to any surface including angles and complex geometry.

I think you entirely missunderstand No issue. The problem with using entities to create indoor levels using entities parts like above whether using sections or smaller parts is you add draw calls. To make it clear draw calls are the devil, the less you have of them the faster you overall game is going to run.

This as an example uses exactly that method
https://www.tgcstore.net/product/29475



If you were to use every part of this pack will add 71 draw calls, every duplicate you add, will add a draw call with the exception of the texture which already has been cached in the memory. Using segments, for example this can reduced drastically as it can be combined by gameguru into a single or mesh chunks and be rendered in chunks. Which is what fpscreator essentially did and added the bonus of of port culling, only rendering what is visible, drastically increasing performance even more.

Using the entity method every thing gets rendered regardless of it being visible or not, which reduces overall performance, ebe is no different each ebe grid you add, adds draw calls, however the grid space isn't nearly large enough to take advantage of reduced draw calls.

Here is another example of that, including caves corridors, ramps, steps ect.




This is what I am currently working on

So yes you can create unique and interesting indoor environments by means of entities and the grid system including curves, straights, tjunctions, cross junctions ect, and can be done using the grid system. However it's doesn't need to follow the 100x100x100 requirements.

You can use a building mesh of 500 x 400 x 200 and it will still work perfectly fine with the grid system or the snap system or you can have it at odd numbers as well, as long as the exported coordinates matches up with the grid system and the next entity to be placed follows those coordinates you can then either toggle between snapping and gridmode.

So I am well aware of entity snap and grid mode for creating entities for indoor use, I am the author of the Cold war DLC as well as the death valley combat, my entire store is practically made up of indoor assets that make use of grid snapping entities.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/996910/GameGuru__Cold_War_Pack/

Using this method isn't new to me, and have been using the grid mode method since fpscreator way back in 2005, to create interesting assets, designs and shape the stock segments didn't have, and like I said, this method has it is own set of problems, especially with regards to draw calls, which is a frame rate killer.We can definitely do better than this.Also well aware there is some sort of segments exporter entity tool as well, which is no longer available.

As mentioned previously in this thread these assets for indoor environments was born out of necessity as gameguru really doesn't support indoor environments all that well, sure you can hide the terrain, water ect to increase performance, but the system doesn't address reducing draw calls.

Using the segment system with example the cold war pack that has several layers of entities to construct just a single section and export that as a single entity to use within in gameguru which will allow the engine to group and render that entire section as a single mesh thus reducing draw calls, increase performance which allows every one to win at the end of the day.

You can literally hammer out a level with segments in 5 or 10 minutes a fraction of the time using any other method.
Segments essentially has a leg up in draw calls, assembly time, looks and ease of use, then either EBE or entity mode.

Well not really such an issue since the draw call optimiser was added. This effectively does what you’re suggesting won’t happen, that is it will merge the ‘segments’ that are positioned near to each other at run time with the express aim of reducing draw calls and increasing performance.

I think structure editor should be retained - it’s useful for many and can also be used as a kind of block out tool for levels though the ability to add primitives would be even better.

I guess it all comes down to the target user - who is the main type of user and what do they need? I suspect it may be that the structure editor and the FPSC segment approach could both prove to be useful for those wanting to rapidly create game play environments. Those features do play more into the newer user space but there’s no harm in that?

Allowing prefabs to be created in editor is a god send too though - not just for buildings but any construct requiring separate models to be brought together - even characters holding lights or having different equipment attached - that can then be manipulated and saved as one entity once complete. GGC started with something like this, perhaps it could be finished off in GGM (made easier to use and allow saving)

Cheers.

Congratulations to the great artists of this community !

Personally as a hobbyist having very little experience with GG ancestors, I am testing the available settings in GG Max through many trials and errors.

In my humble opinion - perhaps that I am wrong - the EBE Structure is necessary to create waypoint paths going inside buildings.

In this video uploaded on Movavi Cloud (time limited : 30 days - 88 MBytes - 46 seconds - link : http://cloud.movavi.com/show/oS8QxJz3MULDH6wKAqvjhlyYXFZCdEgO ), you could see a GG Max "beta 3" experimental project where a 3D model was imported and combined with a EBE paving.

I created that 3D model "Holiday Home" with the free version of pCon.planner ( https://pcon-planner.com/en/ ).
Then it was exported in FBX format to MetaSequoia 4 Pro where the UV mapping was created for each material converted in PBR with ShaderMap Pro. Finally that UV mapped version (not perfect, I must admit it) was exported again in FBX 2020 format with textures applied in glTF format inside MetaSequoia).

Those settings are included in each FPE file of that model split into several parts :
forcesimpleobstacle = 3
collisionmode = 1

However, even with these settings, I noticed that the avatar didn't want to follow the waypoint path inside the building.
That's why I decided to place that imported structure on a EBE base and I was glad to see that the result is successful.

Well tbh i liked and used the EBE (mostly for indoor areas), segments i haven't used but looks very good, only real issue i had with the ebe was that i was quite time consuming (for the technical bits) and didn't have any curves etc in which to make the structures look better. My choice would be to definitely keep it but make it better even maybe blend it with the segments type system so you get a choice of both maybe or a mixture. Just a thought, but i really think that some version of it should be in Max just a better version.

Personally and from experience in other engines, if I'm working on interiors, I would remove all the exterior faces of the meshes.

I think if the EBE works for people there is no harm in keeping it and improving upon that. I still will maintain that working with static objects is the standard way in industry. I got some time to play around Max recently and it worked really well with both snapping. Though some features were removed like Page Up and Down to get to the 100 units up and down, unfortunately. However in Max you can numerically assign a new floor height and work from there with snapping. So I'm pretty okay with how things are right now. I may give a nudge to a couple refining requests for the snap methods , but other than that there is nothing more I need for building structures (exterior or interior).

If the EBE stays, I would recommend they allow for a way to snap the EBE to the grid as an option so that it could seamlessly be integrated with entity parts. Just a suggestion.

Yeah for sure. Modules/ pre-fabs -- whatever you want to call them
would be handy and a very interesting experiment to work with.

We may be getting Copy- and- Paste in MAX, but I haven't seen any of
the users demonstrate that on any video... Lee just once. Don't know the
extent of it's features?
Putting a few things together, and hitting a "make module" button which
saves it to a file would be pretty nice and slick- AAA.

Yes you can do that already in Max.
At the moment its Lasso multiple objects then Ctrl+C to copy them and Ctrl+V to paste them

Page Up/Down still works.
When you place the model, you have to select it again click the 'extract' icon, select 'ExtractedY' then you can use Page Up/Down.
Tis finicky and needs fine tuning....

It would be nice to have the ability to use folders in the entity panel. Create folder, drag entities into it - done - select folder to move the whole bunch at will.

OldFlak....

Lee mentioned in latest video if we could get composite entity support and the awnser was no, no plans for some thing like.A bit frustrating suggestion ideas that would actually help development for users as well as increase performance and getting shot down lol.Oh well tried at least......still have some fight left, if else fails, we could always drop to the floor and throw a tantrum.

I would just like to add, I agree with T-Bone that working with static objects is the industry standard. But I also think if the EBE had a few adjustments it could be really cool.

1. Support PBR textures

2. Allow creating straight walls at 45 degree angles and roofs at 45 degree slants. (Without having to create an entire new structure.)

3. Allow for a "rounded" wall segment.

4. (This one is a little weird to explain and not that big of a deal.)
The scale of everything feels very off with the EBE and I'd say it subconsciously leads to people being turned off by it. When I came from FPSC to GG and used the EBE for the first time I made a little hallway and immediately this becomes apparent by the height of the default floor to the next floor up. Then the distance between 2 walls in the hallway feels off as well. Like it is to far apart, making the floor seem rather wide and add that in with the ceiling being to low gives it an uneasy nauseating feeling. I use the EBE alot, for simple things like rooms and hallways and I can almost never use the default wall grid to make a hallway, same with floors and ceilings.
And then the default "stairs." I have never seen any staircase that looks like that. And if you try to make your own staircase out of bigger parts than the 1x1x1 cube, it still feels weird, like there should be a size inbetween the smallest cube and 2 cubes. I hope this makes sense as I'm not really sure how to describe when I say it feels like the "scale" is off.

Anyway, with just these small additions I think it would go a really long way. Not that I don't think it should be improved upon even more, but as someone who uses the EBE I am hurting for slanted walls/ramps and rounded walls/corners.

As mentioned already industry standard isn't the problem, gameguru is the problem, as it simply can't handle it. Engines like unreal and unity were designed from the ground up to support such use of assets. Gameguru was NOT designed like that, and is far less optimized to fully take use of assets in this way.

Attempting even half the detail with result in gameguru losing the will to live.



This is the S2HD engine city scene and zombie town scene, you would be hard pressed to get similar results with assets like this.Not referring to the graphics, full screen effects and shaders that is a matter all on it's own. Just the use of the assets is likely to bring gameguru to it's knees.It isn't that gameguru is bad it is jus, it was never intended to be used in such away.It is an outdoor engine after all.Most of the attention was directed at things like foliage, terrain, grass ect as it does a pretty great job at it, and the results speak for them self, in many regards does a much better job then S2HD in that department to a certain extent.

But clustered assets like you would find in a city scene or indoor scene, it actually performs pretty poorly when any amount of detail is attempted other then the most basic of shapes and designs.

It isn't a problem with industry standard just a simple matter of gameguru was never intended to be used in such away on a large scale.Now you could argue that gameguru allows it, so it must be okay, it allows it because of normal entity placement and users taking their own initiative/skills and advantage of that fact to do so.

The end result is sparsely populated, lower detailed levels to counter any draw calls performance issues.You can optimize the engine all you want, but if you don't address the physical constraints associated with using assets in this manner whether industry standard or not, it is pretty pointless having various, widgets, snapping and editing functionality without the core issue being addressed.

Hello
I made this simple level in Game Guru Classic I think the editor does pretty good but it could use some improvements like round structures, more choices in how big you can make columns, round columns would be a nice touch too. Also I noticed that when I make a large level the seems between blocks sometimes show and flicker not sure if this is just Game Guru limitations or just a factor of using blocks. Also I think the grid could be more precise some times with entities the snap just doesn't work very well . Take a look at this video I made maybe this will help with improving the builder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnpe70BdlH0

If the segment editor is better than the EBE then fine. Replace the EBE with such a feature. Just please don't leave us non-modellers out in the cold.

Lee’s already said it staying

Dave

I think what you need to remember here is segments come default with exactly what you would find with ebe walls, floors and ceilings and stuff like stairs and windows, platforms ect.

From the stock library you won't have to do any modeling, however if you want to create far more advance shapes and designs you would have to rely on the community assets, pretty much like it is now with entities, have a stock library, if you want more, use the store or buy dlc's for additional content.

Pretty much like EBE with general shapes, just far more quicker and more flexible, and appeals to none modelers and modelers alike giving the best of both worlds.

So please don't get confused it isn't like you will need to design own shapes and stuff it will be there by default.