Hello! I'm new to GameGuru, so learning. But not new to 3D or even game content creation. I've been testing bringing in my own models to GameGuru and have noticed something a bit odd.

Currently I am using Blender to test with, creating a basic cube with a material, and exporting out. I am exporting to a folder that has my model (FBX or .X), my .fbe file, and my textures (in this case, a diffuse and a normal). There's also the 64px BMP file for the screenshot.

Exporting from Blender to either FBX or .X works and the object comes into GameGuru. However, there are differences. The same object is a very different size depending on whether it's FBX or .X. The FBX cube seems to come in to GameGuru about 50 times larger than the .X file of the same cube. In my FBX export settings, scale is set to 1.0. So, to get the .X file sized properly, I need to increase it's size in Blender by 50!

So, my first question is, why are they coming into GameGuru at different sizes?

Secondly, the FBX file has strange artifacts. The item is a cube and there is a strange shadow cutting across each face diagonally. The same cube, exported as a .X file does not have this artifact.

Any idea what's going on here? Any help would be appreciated.

FBX is not intended to be used directly in the engine per say, it is suppose to be used with the FBX importer which converts it to DBO, I find that rather pointless having to import FBX only to be converted to another format.

You will need to play around with the scaling a bit to get the right size...not sure on blender FBX scales.The quick fix is to scale it in the FPE file to the size by a factor of 500 then.

Edit this in the FPE file till you get the right size, but ideally you should be exporting the correct size from blender.

Haven't tried using FBX for a while now. I much prefer just putting my media in via File Explorer. But while the models size was always right, the orientation was wrong - like floors standing on edge.

Using the importer with the same model worked fine, but is just too much fluffing around to me, so I just kept using .x.


Yeah always thought that way myself

If you put a .X model in the Entities Folder via File Explorer, the Game Guru will create a .dbo on the fly when you add it to a map, does it not do that also for FBX as well?

Reliquia....

Yes it does, but it keeps the information with regards to scale as well.

The latest edition of GameGuru boasts of improved FBX support. However, if I import the FBX, it's not very good. Size is strange and shading is off. And I have to attach my texture/material to it. If I do it by placing the FBX in a folder with the textures and .fbe file, then it comes at the correct size and with textures applied (diffuse and normal, in this case). However, as pointed out, there is a strange artifact in the rendering of the FBX when imported this way. Frankly, I don't know if the artifact is there when FBX is imported the "normal" way (i.e. from using import within the GameGuru editor) because I have not yet been successful with my initial tests.

I'll have to test some more and report back. X works well and I can use it. But I am concerned about getting a scene into GameGuru that has several objects and more than one texture. Ultimately, I want to build "chunks" (floor pieces with wall and ceiling, corner pieces, etc.) to build my levels with. I don't want to just import a floor tile, a wall tile, a ceiling tile and have to rebuild everything in GameGuru. I would rather have a set of chunks, like "prefabs", to work with, if possible. I've not tested this in .X. Can it handle it?

Thanks.

The problem with FBX is that it's a very tricky file format to implement properly, there's so many different versions and variations of versions that there will always be some that just don't work properly. Heck even Autodesk themselves, the creators of the format can't always get it right, they have an FBX convertor that is designed to convert between the different FBX formats and other formats, and even that has problems with some versions of FBX, considering that it's supposed to be a piece of software dedicated to FBX, and was built by the creators of FBX, that kind of says something about how bad a format it is to be honest, I've never understood how it became practically industry standard.

I agree, Belidos. FBX is rotten. It's just the .x is ... well ... old, outdated, and limited. It's one of the reasons I put in a suggestion for adding glTF as an import file format. It's pretty awesome, supports geometry, materials (including PBR), animation, and a lot more. It quite capable of bring in entire scenes in one fell swoop.

I'd go with ".X" if you can as with GG FBX is doubly error prone as Lee uses a utility (vconv.exe) to convert the FBX to version 6 FBX, then another utility(Fbx2X.exe) to convert the Version 6 FBX to X format. He then converts the .X to .DBO format. So there are multiple places where conversion problems can slip in.

Using .X at least reduces the problems to things Lee can fix directly.

If you have to use FBX I would probably stick to a version 6 file it should hopefully get thru vconv.exe with minimal changes.


List of FBX versions (and alternate names in brackets):
6.x (FBX 2006, FBX 2009, FBX 2010)
7.1 (FBX 2011)
7.2 (FBX 2012)
7.3 (FBX 2013)
7.4 (FBX 2014, FBX 2015)
7.5 (FBX 2016. FBX 2017, FBX 2018)

Absolutely agree Ratall, one of the many reasons i avoid FBX.

Argent talks about all the advanced formats, but what i would like to see is the ability to import some of the simple basic formats, like OBJ etc. obviously no good for animations, but for bringing in simple objects i think it would cause less issues.

Thumbs up to that one

Dave

Yeah, OBJ is good for simple objects, but is very limited. Doesn't it support only one UV map per OBJ? And material support is not the greatest either. At least with .x we can have multiple models, UVs, and materials.

I would highly recommend that GG adopt glTF 2.0 for 3D importing:

https://www.khronos.org/gltf/

It's (now) supported by about, well, everyone, either natively or via plugin/add-on.

Never heard of it, and not seen it in any if the engines or modelling software I use (I don't count add-ons because most add-ons aren't official so can't really be classed as soported)

That is shocking, actually. It seems that few around here have heard of it, yet it is very widely talked about outside of this circle. MODO, for example, natively supports glTF and glB exporting. Substance Painter and Marmoset Toolbox does, too. There is official support for glTF with both Unity and Unreal, both of which are working to make it native. However, it is currently supported via plugins supplied by Khronos, if I remember correctly. Max, Maya, C4D, Sketchup, and, well, just about everyone is working on adding glTF support in some fashion. Heck ,even Ultimate Unwrap 3D just added glTF export.

It's everywhere and gaining momentum, with good reason. It seems to be fulfilling what Collada (.dae) wanted to become, but never could. You should seriously take some time to read up on what it is and why it's a pretty big deal to the 3D industry.

glTF Momentum Accelerates with New Support from Facebook, Epic, Unity, and Adobe:

https://www.khronos.org/blog/gltf-momentum-new-support-facebook-epic-unity-adobe

I have blender, max, and both substance painter 2 and 218, and ultimate unwrap, can't see it listed in any if their impotrt/export options, hmn that's odd. Are they add-ons on I need to download?

I have Substance Painter 2018 and if you go to File>Export Mesh, it is the last (4th) export option. According to Allegorithmic's blog, it was added back in Painter 2017.3 as a part of Substance Painter (not an add-on):

https://www.allegorithmic.com/blog/new-substance-painter-autosave-gltf-and-felix-exports



If you go to Ultimate Unwrap's website (the page for supported formats) at the following link:

https://www.unwrap3d.com/u3d/formats.aspx

You can see glTF listed 8th down on their list.



For Blender, you need to add it as an add-on (like most things Blender). Even .x had to be added to Blender. You can get it from Khronos GitHub here:

https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF-Blender-Exporter

For 3DS Max and Maya, you can use the BabylonJS plugin to export directly to glTF. The full list of plugins/addons for glTF can be found on Khronos' GitHub here:

https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF#gltf-tools

Hmn that is odd, because i just checked on both 2018 and on 2 (2017) and they are not there in that menu option for me. Maybe there is a setting that has to be turned on for them then, i'll have to check when i get back from work.



The difference is that the .X add-on is an official add-on that comes with blender, Khronos' add-on is a third party hack (from a third party hack :p ). Until it gets added to Blender officially i think i'll leave it. The same with Max. I just don't like third party add-ons for software, those things can contain all sorts of nasty code, and i've been bitten in the past by a hacker masquerading as a "third party dev" so i only download from official trusted companies.

Haven't had a chance to check UU3, but i didn't see it in the export options last night. It is a little worrying that they say they use Kronos, yet can't spell Khronos :p

Note: I'm not against the idea of having it, i support any additional formats, we need as many as possible. I'm just confused as to why if there's so mcuh hype about it i'm not finding it in any of my programs.

No, didn't have to turn it on. It's just ... there. (In the image above, I am not trying to point to .dae, but to the red circle around the glTF portion at the bottom. Sorry about that. )



Uhm, no. The Blender add-on for glTF support was created by Khronos, who created glTF 2.0.

https://github.com/KhronosGroup/glTF-Blender-Exporter

As per the Khronos GitHub page:



So, this is in no wise a third party hack of a third party hack. This is a first party creation made for Blender so you can export glTF files from Blender.

In any case, you don't need glTF, but you (as well as anyone else interested in 3D file formats for 3D modeling, games, etc.) should keep an eye on it as it's pretty amazing to use. Having it native in MODO (and via an official Khronos add-on in Blender) is pretty sweet, actually.



You can't be serious. They dropped an "h" on their description and it's "worrying"? Come on ...

As i said, until it's actually in the software i'd rather not touch it, once bitten twice shy as they say, just a personal preference based on past experiences with mods for software, i'm still confused as to why that option isn't showing up for me in substance, maybe there's an update i haven't received or something.



You got it in one there lol i was just being silly on that one.

(btw it was a Khronos add-on that i had issues with, it tried to open up all sorts of ports on my PC and tried sending out data packets, fortunately i have both software and hardware firewalls, i don't know if it was actually Khronos that had done it, or whether the location i got the add-on was a fake and i'd been duped or not, but i've been funny about add-ons since.)

adding gltf support is already on the list: https://forum.game-guru.com/thread/219447

But I find the .x format is not that bad. Ok outdated and old, but still supported and I just use fragmotion/sketchup and never had a problem with the export.

That's awesome to hear! Woohoo!!



Yes, works well enough. But glTF is an entirely other beast. With proper glTF import, an entire scene can be imported, including static models with their materials (PBR included), animated models (and their materials, too, of course), and more in one fell swoop. It's pretty sweet, actually.

When you import a whole scene into game guru, how are you planning on controlling the poly collision on parts that don't need collision at all.

This will bog down game guru hard.
Meshes within your total scene cannot be more the 20,000 polys each or parts will not be rendered.

As collision is entered thru the fpe file and applies to the whole mesh file.

You don't have to import an entire scene if you don't want to. That was an example of how powerful glTF importing can be, not a suggestion for you someone should use it with GG. You can import a single object ... or an entire scene ... or anything in-between. Besides, a "scene" can be anything. I didn't say an entire level (though glTF can handle that, too). The idea here is that .x is old, outdated, and limited compared to glTF. glTF is the better way to go. It also supports PRB right out of the box. But, whatever. Cling to .x like it's 2004. That's cool, too.

Done talking with you.

Actually its very stable for a creator .. Trouble is the word " Import "
Doesn't anyone make there own these days ?
Some of he most impressive models we have on the store ( Harrys Dinosaurs for example ) are .X and I asked him the question not so long ago.


He Replied


So the problem really isnt whats the better format .. Its just you want import other pre made ones ..
Well do what harry does. The .X issue isn't really the problem from what I can see.

@ Pirate Myke



I apologize. My intent was not to upset you. Please accept my apology.

Just stick to .x for simplicitys sake. I do so too. You can compress it to tiny file sizes and its a robust format that translates well. Just because its old does not mean its gotten somehow worse One of the things with GG is that you have to slightly adapt your workflow to it. This used to be the case with all engines but since everything is rather streamlined and standardized now, a lot of artists tend to refuse this notion. However, there is nothing we can do about it.

If you run into a specific import/model creation problem you can hit me up on the discord or here via PM. I've been converting pretty much all kinds of things to be used in TGC products for a good decade now.



-Wolf

@Argent Arts

Welcome to the forums, you have some solid ideas and requests you would like to see in GameGuru, we all would like to see these kind of things, what we have learned over the years is that Lee does read these forums and he takes 90% of what is said on board, what he wont do is get into heated debates and discussions, this would take him away from working on GG, some of us have been around since the dawn of time and we may not know everything but we sure do know a lot, gITF has come a long way since version 1 but it is still in its infancy and yes I do know of it and yes I do use it most of the renders on my website are gITF assets.

I applaud you want to help make GG better but please remember things don't happen overnight but lately have been happening quickly, you either hate or love GG. If an experienced member makes a suggestion to you he is doing so because he has experience not because he likes the sound of his own voice.

PBR is still very new to GameGuru and is being worked on in the background it is better now than it was 3 weeks ago most assets that are PBR have been done by amature artists (no offence intended) whom did not have a clear workflow defined for GG most of us winged it to get some idea of how PBR was progressing/looking yes there were mistakes and there were issues but slowly these are being addressed.


Many of the features you see at the moment have come from this community, they work damn hard because they want to see GG progress into something that others my benefit from.

This is a solid community with a lot of experienced users build on what can be done now you have made your point and it is now listed

You can do that with .X too, your only limit is how much f it GameGuru will render.

From GitHub, about adding glTF to GameGuru: