Question 3d modeling programs

[Hielor]

I second Blender.

Things like Pipcard's example are really basic to do in Blender.
Just select the faces, use an orthogonal camera view that has those faces facing you and "project from view". As simple as that.

And as Pipcard pointed out, it works fine in Wings when you use projection normal

I don't think dealing with the rest of Blender's terrible/arcane UI is worth having one scenario be slightly easier.

 

[Notebook]

Used 3D Max since the DOS days version 3 I think.
Ran out of money about ver 11. It does all I'll ever need, and I don't think Kinetic need my money.

Always enjoyed playing with Max, though like a lot of folk I've never really got the hang of textures and mapping...

some stuff I did that hopefully will see the light of Orbiter:

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/WestcottP2_Max1.jpg

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/WestcottP2_Max3.jpg

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k207/Notebook_04/WestcottP2_Max2.jpg

N

 

[IronRain]

I can help if you with AC3D questions.

Thanks, appreciated!

 

[4throck]

I don't think dealing with the rest of Blender's terrible/arcane UI is worth having one scenario be slightly easier.

It's old school with keyboard shortcuts, but that's actually a good thing. My first computer had no mouse :lol:
You can work faster that way: one hand on the keyboard, another on the mouse.

What's lacking in Blender are normal Windows functionalities like copy/paste or drag a selection between windows/models, or object groups...

 

[Urwumpe]

What's lacking in Blender are normal Windows functionalities like copy/paste or drag a selection between windows/models, or object groups...

Yeah, but not that surprising regarding its DNA... its a multi-platform software.

I think Blender is the best that you can get for free (as in free beer).

Its not cheaply done or limited in capabilities, but it requires some sort of effort from you to get used to it.

Still, I think for Orbiter, all such tools around are not optimal. What would be needed would be something like a CAD tool (Building models of components, accurate dimensions, abstract entities), with the subject of a video game mesh (which means: limited number of polygons and more options regarding textures or shaders)

There is no tool around that does that mixture, the current situation is that technically accurate video game meshes (like you see in good flight simulators) are the result of both artistic skills and lots of manual sub-milimeter accuracy positioning of individual faces to get components placed.

Or you have more CAD like produced meshes by engineering dudes, that often lack the artistic merit to also look good in a video game, despite having multiple millions of triangles.

 

[4throck]

Blender does the basic CAD part reasonably well. You can input dimensions as you please. Not many people use it for that, but it works as a CAD program if you need it to.

Also, the exporter gives you a perfect match between each Blender scene mesh and Orbiter mesh groups and materials.

On my meshes and code, I can use coordinates for animations and rcs placement directly from Blender.

It's really up to the modeler to know what he's doing. :thumbup:

 

[Hielor]

Wings3D also allows for direct numeric inputs.

 

[Donamy]

As does AC3D.

 

[Urwumpe]

It isn't simply just about the numeric inputs - more about component-based design and operators. Just try to use AutoCAD to make a Orbiter Mesh, you might notice what I mean...

 

[N_Molson]

I'd say it depends what you want to do. Using an AK-47 against an ant won't be very efficient and you might hurt yourself badly, but in the opposite a sling won't be enough against an angry bear and you might get eaten.

If you want do things the cheap way, Anim8tor will be enough. It isn't too hard to learn to play with it (though it isn't obvious if you have no 3D experience).

Then there is Blender, which is certainly much more powerful. And still free. But the learning curve is steeper, that might rebuke you.

If you want to go pro, 3DsMax is probably what you want. But it is a payware and licence is extremely expensive (count in thousands of $).

:2cents:

 

[jedidia]

3ds Max is great because the tutorials are really, really, really good. If you have a bit of money for an older version (I think there was already 64-bit version of 9) and enough time to dedicate to a real learning expierience, I'd suggest getting it just for that... the concepts are also applicable in any other modeling software, but you'll be hard-pressed to find such a thourough and structured schooling program as you'll find in 3ds Max...

 

[Notebook]

Had another look, and version 5 is as far as I got. There is gmax:
http://www.turbosquid.com/gmax

I've used it and its a good intro to Max, and free...

N.

 

[llarian]

My choice is Blender. Learning curve can be steep but there are many tutorials to help along the way. While msh exporter is not native, the one developed by one of our Orbiter colleagues works very well.

There are some who consider that a product you don't have to buy is somehow substandard to commercial products, this is not the case with Blender. It is used by many commercial graphics outfits worldwide who assist with continued development of the product. To be sure, some add-ons do have to be purchased. As to the free vs professional argument I might point to history and development of Ubuntu as an example of a superior product that is free, used by commercial outfits, and its development is supported by commercial interests.

 

[francisdrake]

I support Gmax as a free entry to the Max world. It has a large installed base due to its legacy of being bundled with MS Flight Simulator for amateur modellers. Many tutorials are available, with a focus on airplanes and technical things, which fit quite well to modelling spaceships. The msh import/export scripts are venerable, but working flawlessly, using the Direct 3D driver. Examples.

And I have a soft spot for a software designed for Windows 2000, still running