Odd Render in Bulldozer

[Burt 0]

Hello. I was trying to make a tommy gun in O2. I made one 2d side and then copy and pasted it to the other side and moved it apart a bit.

It looked ok in Oxygen(the two parts are connected yet, if you know how to do that please let me know):

But then in Bulldozer it was not filled in or anything:

What am I doing wrong?

[rocket 9]

Its probably the edges, you want to turn the edges so they aren't close together. You want your triangles to be rendered as open as possible, and not all bunched up. Here's an example from 3DS Max of what I mean...

First select the object in max...

1. Select "edges" mode

2. Select "turn"

3. Click on the edges to turn them

I wouldn't recommend modelling directly in O2, I would model in Max or Maya and then export as a 3ds into O2.

[Pathy 0]

You need to reserve certain faces. Select the faces in question and press W.

[soul_assassin 1723]

I wouldn't recommend modelling directly in O2, I would model in Max or Maya and then export as a 3ds into O2.

:P not everyone can afford 3dsmax or Maya u know.

However Pathy is right. The faces that you can't see are there but they are facing the wrong way. Select the faces you dont see and reverse them (W)! simple as that. You would also want to Recalculate normals regularly (I dont remember the hotkey for that)

[rocket 9]

:P not everyone can afford 3dsmax or Maya u know.

Then use Blender, its free, and it exports to 3DS. You can even use GMax as there are scripts out there that let you export 3DS from GMax.

You can also get trial versions of 3DS and Maya.

I think its important that those starting out modding see O2 for what it is, its great for fine tuning and getting your model ready for use in game - but I shudder to think of making a serious model in it.

Using O2 often requires you to have a good working knowledge of 3D rendering as you go, so its not the best place to learn 3D.

[Messiah 2]

Its different horses for different courses. I personally detest the primatives modeling of 3dsmax, and prefer the vertex "dot to dot" method of O2. It just makes much more sense in my mind, and I find it much more intuative. I've never had a proffesional or higly experienced 3D background before learning O2 all those years ago, and I coped just fine, as did many others. Whether or not you would deem them 'serious models' is up to you of course, but they seem to have gotten me pretty far.

I agree there are other tools that make work easier than O2, I've worked with a large number of them since working in my current profession, but in terms of making a good model, thats down to the person sat 1m away from the screen, not the program he/she uses.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I’ve worked in a lot of different 3D tools over the years, Max and all the others have their place and their usefulness.  But I’ve still not found a better tool for accurate low poly modelling than O2PE.

With Max and other complex tools you have all the fancy tools but you will still end up paying a price in poly count and accuracy.  At least with O2’s vertex based modelling you can have very accurate control over placement and count.  Sure O2 has its flaws but its easy to learn and with some patience you can produce some very good very realistic models.

Biggest tip I have, practice.

[rocket 9]

...but in terms of making a good model, thats down to the person sat 1m away from the screen, not the program he/she uses.

True, I think it is possible to make good models by vertex by vertex. However, I have not met a single game artist at my work or other studios we work with that does this method. The artists at my work, too, detest using 3ds Max and hence use Maya for nearly everything. I'm not sure which version of Max you last used, but I certainly wouldn't call it "primative" in terms of 3D modelling. Without all the mathematical modifers, O2 is next to useless for me in creating advanced fuselages. I'm just starting the mesh for the B-1B, and I would say it would be impossible to get the fuselage of that aircraft right in O2.

There is much, much that O2 cannot do - such as rendering to texture, baking ambient occlusion, and the hundreds of advanced modifiers that make your models work.

As Burts just starting out, I think its really good to have instant visual feedback on things like "normals" so that you can rapidly see when somethings wrong. I think the best thing to do, is to go out there and get a "learn 3d book" (I got one that came with a demo copy of a 3d program), or use a trial mode and find tutorials. So to anyone starting out, my two cents opinion would be to get the basics of 3D modelling totally right first - and THEN launch yourself into O2. The same applies to texturing, do texturing tutorials online first. Otherwise you'll find months of frustration.

Learning 3D directly in O2 is not ideal. Probably the best tool to start on to really have maximal control is Maya, as it allows you much more control over normals and the geometry, but then... max has all those modifier stacks!

As we head into ArmA2, all the advanced shaders used on NextGen hardware become increasing important, meaning that there is a real need to bake out textures.

[Messiah 2]

I meant primatives as in the shapes, not primative as in poor, where you mould and sculpt a primative shape into something more complex. Like taking a lump of clay and turning it into a vase.

It really depends on what he wants to achieve though? If he has no interest in continuing 3D past Armed Assault and its engine, O2 does the job. Obviously as you said, at this stage he's staring out, so I can agree that if he's not yet found a style or a method that suits him, that learning some of the more expanded programs could be useful (again, if he was interested in expanding his 3d portfolio)

There are certainly a lot of things lacking in O2, and I do find myself wish X or Y function was included, but in certain ways I think these functions can also be detrimental to your abilities. I like to think I'm a little better for knowing how to do things manually, should the functions not be present, or not do things as I wish.

There is, however, nothing 'wrong' with O2. You can get from start to finish with an addon using nothing but O2 (well, ignoring things like notepad for configs, and photoshop for textures of course)

[MehMan 0]

I used to think that the vertex placement method was the best, but that was years back when I was unable to comprehend 3ds max and used Milkshape. Then I got a video tutorial of how to make a gun and I saw that you place verts just as easily and I switched to max and the process just became faster, cleaner and easier.

[rocket 9]

I meant primatives as in the shapes

I think you might have 3DS Max confused with something else. It not only has over a hundred different shapes you can place, including spheres, cylinders, planes, etc... but also through the use of nurbs you can make extremely complex (or very simple) curved surfaces.

3DS Max and Maya also support individual vertex placement the same as O2, and creating faces from that. Indeed thats how I started, until someone taught me the amazing "Shift + move" method of extruding edges.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I meant primatives as in the shapes

I think you might have 3DS Max confused with something else.  It not only has over a hundred different shapes you can place, including spheres, cylinders, planes, etc...

Those "shapes" are know as primatives!

[rocket 9]

Those "shapes" are know as primatives!

Yeah, but I got the impression he was saying the available ones were substandard to placing by vertex, which you can do anyway in maya and 3ds max. I was trying to be clever when I posted the tounge-in-cheek use of "primative" in quote marks. Alas, it didn't really work

My point, I suppose, is that I was recommending Burt learn the basics of 3D in a very userfriendly package. I don't think O2 was really designed as a "beginners" package for 3D work.

[Messiah 2]

nope, I just meant primatives in their context as shapes. No reflection whatsoever on their usefulness or standard.

but anyway, I agree O2 is far from being beginner friendly, but I mainly wanted to quell these opinions that you can't use O2 from start to finish for an addon (not that you were saying this, but more so that its clear to those reading)

I wouldn't exactly call 3dsmax userfriendly though, or at least the mountains of buttons and options/functions put me off initially

Sketchup is probably one of the easiest to jump into, but I've yet to find it useful past conceptial modeling (I work as an Architect, so its useful for us is in constructing basic city scapes and concept volumes very quickly, but we then use Rhino or CAD 3D for anything more specific)

[rocket 9]

nope, I just meant primatives in their context as shapes. No reflection whatsoever on their usefulness or standard.

but anyway, I agree O2 is far from being beginner friendly, but I mainly wanted to quell these opinions that you can't use O2 from start to finish for an addon (not that you were saying this, but more so that its clear to those reading)

I wouldn't exactly call 3dsmax userfriendly though, or at least the mountains of buttons and options/functions put me off initially

Sketchup is probably one of the easiest to jump into, but I've yet to find it useful past conceptial modeling (I work as an Architect, so its useful for us is in constructing basic city scapes and concept volumes very quickly, but we then use Rhino or CAD 3D for anything more specific)

My bad! I guess I'm too defensive about 3DS Max, given I work with a bunch of artists who hate it (but secretly use it to do some of their rendering to textures... hehe).

Yes, you're right. Sketchup would be a GREAT place to start. And with 3DS Max/Maya as RKSL pointed out, theres a big danger in massive polycounts.

I'm still in awe of those who managed to make addons directly in O2, it appears to me to require great attention to detail. Having said that, I find its easier to make my shadow and geometry LODs in O2 because its quicker and simpler than creating in Max and exporting.

Like probably many people, I get alot of PMs and messages from people wanting to start. But like everyone else, my way of starting was struggling through things. If I'd learned the 3D Modelling basics at the start, I'm sure I would have found things much easier!

[Synide 0]

But I’ve still not found a better tool for accurate low poly modelling than O2PE.

As I keep telling ya Rock... become a luxologist... you won't regret it... LuxSig08.mp4 67Mb

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

But I’ve still not found a better tool for accurate low poly modelling than O2PE.

As I keep telling ya Rock... become a luxologist... you won't regret it... LuxSig08.mp4 67Mb

Maybe once i finish this project I'll actually get the time to try!

[Burt 0]

You need to reserve certain faces. Select the faces in question and press W.

Thanks Pathy that worked perfectly.

Way to stay on-topic everyone else

[Messiah 2]

Way to stay on-topic everyone else  

pathy had answered, so no need to (and anyway, it was for your benefit)

[Burt 0]

Haha I know, no problem