423 réponses à ce sujet

[Carcerian]

Well, d20 modern (The material in question) is a very similar situation to CEP, a lot of older content made by different artists of varying skill and ways of doing things. It was proposed to run content thru CM to optimize for a future PW project.

Modifié par Carcerian, 01 février 2014 - 06:43 .

[Pstemarie]

OldTimeRadio wrote...

This whole discussion is pretty specific to the existing models in CEP.  The only reason I brought CTP Babylon into it was because I was certain the models in it had received a level of technical attention that was as good or better than any model CEP had in it.

This is simply not the case with most models out there, though.  So the same conclusions aren't going to apply. 

Yeah, CTP Babylon was painstakingly gone over with a fine-tooth comb by the CTP Team. Although I wasn't a member of the CTP Team, I hung around with them enough to be in the loop on its design and was one of the playtesters for Babylon.

Sully, is absolutely correct when he says that no model has that many errors to fix. The output from CM3 is solely dependent upon the quality of the model passed through it, the number of components making up the model, and the settings used for the program. Personally, I mainly use CM3 to fix lighting and shadow issues and change tileset heights. This being said, like OTR, CM3 has hit a homerun for me on more than one occaision - most recently when I passed Sigil through it and let CM3 fix the shadow issues. It saved me weeks of work.

Much of the discussion recently has turned to improving CEP content. CM3 is not going to magically make a low-poly, low quality model into something the same quality as the content being released in Project Q or by authors such as Six, LoW, Lord Sullivan, etc. All you'll have after a pass through CM3 is a low-poly, low-quality model that is HOPEFULLY free of glaring errors. If you truly want to fix CEP's older content and upgrade it to "modern" standards, the content needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. 

Modifié par Pstemarie, 01 février 2014 - 07:32 .

[Zarathustra217]

Yeah, naturally running things through CM3 won't magically improve the quality of the content, the idea is just to fix all those basic errors, such as bad pivoting causing shadow issues, unwelded vertexes and improper lighting settings. If you guys read back, I already mentioned having found 7000 of those (presumably some of them are insignificant, but I have noticed a lot that are). I've also found a large amount of other errors like duplicate faces, even duplicate meshes, as well as zero face meshes that prevents models from properly compiling.

I already mentioned though that it of course would need some testing and verification.

As for content overhaul, I also gave an example of that too. If you take your time to visit the wiki, you can also read the fairly narrow definition and terms of overhauls. And the idea is even that all overhauls should be approved by popular vote.

All in all, you should have nothing to worry about.

Modifié par Zarathustra217, 01 février 2014 - 09:31 .

[Proleric]

OldTimeRadio wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote... (13 hours ago)
Unless there's objections, I'm still hoping to do general fixes to the existing CEP by using CM3, but it'll take a bit more time than I had hoped due to various issues that arise. I will probably try to approach it per hak for now.

...I just wanted to go on record as generally objecting very strongly to any decompilation and mass-manipulation of existing CEP content without some really clear reason what, exactly, is going to be achieved by it and what assurances would be provided that errors or needless degradation isn't going to occur as a result of it...

From the context, am I right to assume that your objection only refers to the use of Clean Models?

Clearly, there are many other reasons for "decompilation and mass-manipulation", such as my proposed fix for Mounted Skeletons, which I trust is not a cause for alarm.

Regarding CleanModels, I have no technical opinion, but, knowing how sensitive the issue remains, I'd suggest that the wiki might be a more constructive format for building a consensus of the cognoscenti, as it allows issues to be broken out and resolved one by one.

Having said that, on the bigger picture of change in general, I'd support the principle that every change proposed on the wiki should have a clear objective, with some form of peer review / quality control on the outcome. We all recognise that CEP changes cannot be allowed to break things, so it needs a more formal approach than, say, CCC, in my humble opinion.

[Estelindis]

I've said it before, but, in the context of the present discussion, it seems to bear repeating. One must use the right settings if one wants CM3 to fix the kinds of bugs that it can fix. The best settings will vary from one type of model to another. The pdf guide explains it all. What this really means is that people who want to run CEP models through CM3 need to divide the models into groups. I really think that such division would require individual examination of each model. First, one would place the model down in the toolset, have a look at it and see if there are any obvious bugs. Then, take a look at the file size to see if it corresponds to the size one expects for a model of that simplicity or complexity. If it has no visible bugs but the file size is larger than one expects, it might benefit just from having CM3 weld its t-verts, for instance. If bugs are identified, then import the model into 3dsMax or GMax, just to have a look, not necessarily to re-export. Hopefully, that can show more clearly if there are bugs that should be fixed by hand or by CM3.

Anyway, I have purposefully refrained from giving a commitment to help with this kind of work, for the time being. I have enough on my RL plate that, NWN-wise, I only really have time for the elven tileset at the moment. When things get a bit freer, I would like to help with the fixes, but I don't know yet how soon that will be.

[Pstemarie]

Zarathustra217 wrote...

Yeah, naturally running things through CM3 won't magically improve the quality of the content, the idea is just to fix all those basic errors, such as bad pivoting causing shadow issues, unwelded vertexes and improper lighting settings. If you guys read back, I already mentioned having found 7000 of those (presumably some of them are insignificant, but I have noticed a lot that are). I've also found a large amount of other errors like duplicate faces, even duplicate meshes, as well as zero face meshes that prevents models from properly compiling.

You missed the point. Why waste time running ANCIENT low-quality models through a program to fix "basic errors" when what they really need is to be remade and improved so that they do not standout when loaded into a scene with other, much higher quality, models? Its a colossal waste of time. As for improving them - frankly, a lot of what makes the earlier CEP models low-quality by today's standards are the poor quality, low resoultion textures used on them.

Modifié par Pstemarie, 01 février 2014 - 02:17 .

[Zarathustra217]

Pstemarie wrote...

You missed the point. Why waste time running ANCIENT low-quality models through a program to fix "basic errors" when what they really need is to be remade and improved so that they do not standout when loaded into a scene with other, much higher quality, models? Its a colossal waste of time. As for improving them - frankly, a lot of what makes the earlier CEP models low-quality by today's standards are the poor quality, low resoultion textures used on them.

Not all the old CEP stuff are low models, most of the things having issues are otherwise quite fine. Overhauling and fixing errors are two seperate issues.

[Zarathustra217]

Estelindis wrote...

I've said it before, but, in the context of the present discussion, it seems to bear repeating. One must use the right settings if one wants CM3 to fix the kinds of bugs that it can fix. The best settings will vary from one type of model to another. The pdf guide explains it all. What this really means is that people who want to run CEP models through CM3 need to divide the models into groups. I really think that such division would require individual examination of each model. First, one would place the model down in the toolset, have a look at it and see if there are any obvious bugs. Then, take a look at the file size to see if it corresponds to the size one expects for a model of that simplicity or complexity. If it has no visible bugs but the file size is larger than one expects, it might benefit just from having CM3 weld its t-verts, for instance. If bugs are identified, then import the model into 3dsMax or GMax, just to have a look, not necessarily to re-export. Hopefully, that can show more clearly if there are bugs that should be fixed by hand or by CM3.

It depends on the kind of issue you are hoping to get CM3 to fix. What I'm working on is just fixing basic welding, repivoting and lighting settings. I'm sure more issues could be fixed by more in-depth examination, but we are talking about tens of thousands of models here. It's either mass operation or nothing.

Modifié par Zarathustra217, 01 février 2014 - 03:31 .

[TheOneBlackRider]

I'm not sure, if this makes much sense, but I'd like to offer my help.
Point is, that I do have (too ?) manny kettles boiling - besides RL the PW(s) I'm involved in.
I have converted NWN2 placeable models but not with a complete retexture.
Anyways, if there are small (simple, cause I'm still no wiz like any of you out there) jobs, please contact me. I'd see, what I could get done.

[OldTimeRadio]

Carcerian wrote...
Well, d20 modern (The material in question) is a very similar situation to CEP, a lot of older content made by different artists of varying skill and ways of doing things. It was proposed to run content thru CM to optimize for a future PW project.

Yeah yeah but there's a difference: Both the models in CEP and Babylon were "worked over" (by hand, in Max, or using CM3 or some other tool) in ASCII and then compiled.  Decompiling and then mass-manipulating them is not necessarily going to be a wise or flawless process without some specific fix in mind in the first place. 

Anyway, in any case where you're dealing with a rag-tag corpus of models which have, more or less, existed in ASCII and never been worked over by something like CM3, then that's when a tool like CM3 (or any other mass manipulation process) could potentially give the greatest benefit with the least likely harm done.  And, at least in some capacity, that's what I believe Acaos did when he was cleaning up the models from CEP 2.0 in preparation for CEP 2.1, and then moving forward.

The above is why decompiling models currently in CEP or CTP Babylon and re-using CM3 on them is not necessarily a good idea but why, with something like D20 which (AFAIK) has never been cleaned up, it could be.  Even then, though, CM3 is a tool to assist a competent modeler and isn't a substitute for one.

Proleric1 wrote...
From the context, am I right to assume that your objection only refers to the use of Clean Models?

Clearly, there are many other reasons for "decompilation and mass-manipulation", such as my proposed fix for Mounted Skeletons, which I trust is not a cause for alarm.

Not really specific to CM3.  CM3 is just the easiest one for people to get themselves in trouble with. 

CM3 is kind of like the sorcerer's hat in the Sorcerer's Apprentice.  Mickey snatches the sorcerer's hat at night and uses it to solve very specificific issues which make his life easier.  For the most part it works out well for him- though there are
unintended consequences on occasion.  But the real trouble starts once he gets lazy, falls asleep wearing the wizard's hat and, dreaming he is the wizard he is the apprentice to, waves his hands in ever grander jestures which cause all manner of havoc to occur.

+ =

I want to avoid a situation where people dump models en mass from CEP, run them through CM3 not really understanding what they're doing, and then turn around and dump those on The Amethyst Dragon and say "Here.  I fixed these 500 models for CEP!" and then have the burden on The Amethyst Dragon to figure out what, exactly, happened and make an evaluation about if some benefit was actually achieved.

I've already said quite a bit on the model health of the existing CEP content and unintentionally going down the rabbit hole with CM3 so I'll just kind of link to those instead of going on about it.

When it comes to any modification of prior CEP content, I have no problems with specific plans of limited scope to fix signifigant or glaring errors.  Frankly, I don't think anyone should even mention digging back into the prior CEP content unless they can make a reasonable petition to do so which meets the criteria of the three things I bolded above.  It just seems like a good, common-sense approach given the situation.  One that shifts the balance of the burden more from the Amehtyst Dragon to those desiring to make changes.

Modifié par OldTimeRadio, 01 février 2014 - 05:30 .

[Zarathustra217]

I certainly agree that you need to know what you are doing when using CM3. I'm inclined to say you need to be able to read the model format itself so you can keep check of exactly what it does. For a lot of issues, I find it more useful for giving indications of issues rather than fixing them.

As I've also said though, there are a lot of actual errors in the current CEP - first and foremost in terms improper lighting settings, but I've found a good deal of other stuff so far, like duplicate nodes, improper node naming, etc.

It might be getting a bit far into the specifics, but since using CM3 has become so hotly debated here, I'll allow myself to elaborate a bit by giving an example I'm looking at right now.

If you look in the model file of plc_mf100.mdl in the cep_crp hak, you'll notice that in the trimesh node Object1369 has the following vertexes:

    verts 4
     -1.000000 1.000000
     -1.000000 -1.000000
     1.000000 1.000000
     1.000000 -1.000000

For those familiar with the ascii model format, they'll quickly notice that the vertices are lacking a Z coordinate. The consequence is that while it will actually show in game (the build-in compiler seems more flexible), it'll not compile with the external compiler.

How did I discover this issue? CM3, simply because it's log reported that the model failed to load. And in fact, it's present in all the plc_mf* models (about 80 in total), so it'll be easy to fix them all at once.

Modifié par Zarathustra217, 01 février 2014 - 06:03 .

[OldTimeRadio]

I can only stress the difference between a significant or glaring error and an "technical error", which in this case I use to describe any deviation from standard, whatsoever. 

The Aurora Engine, especially by 1.69 is very forgiving of most kinds of technical errors.  CleanModels is not.

But all that aside, the bottom line, in my mind, is what is the actual burden/impedance/discomfort/non-functionality that players (or whomever) suffer because of a given error?

That's a rhetorical question I'm not specifically asking of you but one which should be considered.  Issues which are associated with a clearly negative burden on CEP consumers are more compelling.

Let me take the example you've provided, plc_mf100.mdl.

May I ask...what 2DA file is that model referenced in?

Modifié par OldTimeRadio, 01 février 2014 - 07:01 .

[Zarathustra217]

Placeables.2da I assume, judging from the prefix?

The error I gave as example above is indeed very diminutive, but it's just a small, fairly random example (it was what I was looking at at the time). The main issue bothering me is mainly improper lighting, but I assume all the other minor inconsistencies also have a performance impact - in some cases, it could even cause instability because while the built-in compiler accepts it, it is likely it could cause unpredictable behaviour.

What I'm doing right is basically just similar to what Pstmarie mentioned Acaos did earlier. I imagine many of the issues I'm discovering might be content from later than when Acaos last reworked it.

All in all though, it might not be what you consider the most important - but why are you sceptical that others do it? (provided they know what they do).

Modifié par Zarathustra217, 01 février 2014 - 07:16 .

[OldTimeRadio]

Zarathustra217 wrote...
Placeables.2da I assume, judging from the prefix?

The question I'm asking you is, is that model actually used by CEP at all?

[Zarathustra217]

OldTimeRadio wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...
Placeables.2da I assume, judging from the prefix?

The question I'm asking you is, is that model actually used by CEP at all?

Apparently, it actually isn't referenced in any 2da, so it's not presently in use - perhaps due to these errors?

It's great that you noticed this, because that's certainly an error we should fix. But what's actually your point? If you want to look at placeables currently referenced that do have issues, just check all the NWN2 imports. Or the broken barrel placeables. Or the duplicate nodes in the slug creature models. Or the... well, I'll provide you a list if you want.

... but what's really the point?

[OldTimeRadio]

Zarathustra217 wrote...
Apparently, it actually isn't referenced in any 2da, so it's not presently in use - perhaps due to these errors?

That's right.  It's apparently not used by CEP at all.  There appear to be 63 super-tiny models just like it in that range which also aren't used, either.

It's great that you noticed this, because that's certainly an error we should fix.

There were no errors, we decompiled some models and ran them through CM3 and now there are errors we should fix?  In models that aren't even used by CEP?  No, just no.

But what's actually your point?

My point is, this is almost the textbook example of why I'm saying people shouldn't be spelunking around CEP with CleanModels.  Because situations like this happen.  Then Amethyst Dragon gets 64 models in his inbox, numbered plc_mf100-plc_mf163 with the note, as I wrote in another message, "Here.  I fixed these 64 models for CEP!" and stick him with the task of figuring what kind of signifgance and benefit those changed models contain. 

For the Nth time, in regards to cracking open existing CEP content and mucking with it:
Develop specific plans of limited scope to fix signifigant or glaring errors which actually already impact CEP users.

This is not some edict.  I'm not even a member of CEP.  This is simply a good idea and should stand on its own merits.

If you want to look at placeables currently referenced that do have issues, just check all the NWN2 imports. Or the broken barrel placeables. Or the duplicate nodes in the slug creature models. Or the... well, I'll provide you a list if you want.... but what's really the point?

The point is people want to help CEP and that's great.  If one is unreasonably compelled to modify existing CEP content instead of making new content, have a real good reason for doing it.  Something which has an actual impact on CEP and whose fix improves CEP perceptably if not obviously.

Because it would be easy to probably fill a hak with 100 megs of recompiled reworked models from CEP whose changes were barely perceptable to people who actually use it.

The broken barrel placeables?  Duplicate nodes in the slugs, etc.?  Are those actually used?  Do players suffer because of (whatever) error?  If that's the case, those sound like great fixes, potentially.

Modifié par OldTimeRadio, 01 février 2014 - 08:57 .

[Zarathustra217]

That's not a textbook example of anything but the lack of overview of what's actually in the CEP. That's the terms of the project being abandoned by those working on it priorly. But in this process we actually managed to reveal some hidden content that would otherwise be unnoticed.

And sure, we could limit ourselves to those things we've directly noticed - but it would take a long time before people went through the tens of thousand models the CEP contains. And some things might not even be directly perceptible to the end user - such as duplicate models, improper node naming, etc.

People even mentioned that Acaos systematically went through all the CEP content earlier - was that a mistake too?

Modifié par Zarathustra217, 01 février 2014 - 09:31 .

[Shadooow]

Well, anyway I just wanted to say AD that I like the direction you are going. While its still CEP2 which is imo solution that will soon reach its limits (and reached many limits already), the fixes and changes you are planning with an ongoing support of a new content might actually convince me to use it as a whole with just my own top hak. I think you are on a good path, hopefully you will finish it.

I didnt read last pages, so link me to the old post if this has been answered, but do you plan to do something with the copied baseitems with different ac type (I guess not since it would break compatibility), and nonfunctional weapon visual effects that are there?

[The Amethyst Dragon]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

...do you plan to do something with the copied baseitems with different ac type (I guess not since it would break compatibility), and nonfunctional weapon visual effects that are there?

I do not plan on doing anything with the copied baseitems with the different AC types.

I think that the non-functional weapon visual effects can be removed.  There's no way to make them function just with haks, and they have  confused some people over the years since those were added. NWNCX allows additional weapon visual effects to work in-game, but I don't think we should add something to the CEP that relies on an external program modification to work.

[Zarathustra217]

TheOneBlackRider wrote...

I'm not sure, if this makes much sense, but I'd like to offer my help.
Point is, that I do have (too ?) manny kettles boiling - besides RL the PW(s) I'm involved in.
I have converted NWN2 placeable models but not with a complete retexture.
Anyways, if there are small (simple, cause I'm still no wiz like any of you out there) jobs, please contact me. I'd see, what I could get done.

That sounds great! For now, I'd really just encourage you to go to nwncep.wikia.com and get an idea of what's going on there.

[Shadooow]

The Amethyst Dragon wrote...

ShaDoOoW wrote...

...do you plan to do something with the copied baseitems with different ac type (I guess not since it would break compatibility), and nonfunctional weapon visual effects that are there?

I do not plan on doing anything with the copied baseitems with the different AC types.

Well its not something I would not use CEP2 for, I can ignore those baseitems, even when I dont like it caused huge mess in the baseitems list when creating new item in game. But Im curious, do peoples really use this frequently? I mean, its not a bad idea but to me it seems to be quite redundant and rather a choice for those who dont know how to change a AC type on a baseitem.

The reason I dont like them is that they are broken in general.

Extra Cloaks - shows only single basic cloak model which is colorless (gray) and cannot be colored with dyes (I havent actually really tried every possibilities of coloring, so if its possible with some modification let me know), they are also using a legacy icons, which is however not bad idea, only if a new cloak could be assigned to the old icon which doesnt seems to be...

Extra shields - chapter itself, they cannot be equipped with medium character and larger at all, only a halfling/gnome (and they can equip tower shield 2 which they shouldnt be), in toolset they are completely broken (hugge ammount of the part based combinations shows nothing or a bag), they doesnt grant their usual AC bonus when equipped and mainly, they doesnt fit the character. When compared with the standard version, character wears these shields way too low and off the body, it looks horribly. I really wonder if the CEP2 original team actually tried this ingame before they pushed it into final release.

Extra helmets - doesnt work, why its there? Its completely broken see meaglyn's baseitem thread.

I think that the non-functional weapon visual effects can be removed.  There's no way to make them function just with haks, and they have  confused some people over the years since those were added. NWNCX allows additional weapon visual effects to work in-game, but I don't think we should add something to the CEP that relies on an external program modification to work.

Great because I think its therefore not compatible with these new VFXes that actually works, you as the author of that package I have in mind surely know what I mean. Now, if they actually worked at least with NWNCX I wouldnt be against, but unfortunately NWNCX is still not a standard and its still developed in a, for a client, quite bad way causing several experienced programmers to each have their own NWNCX and plugins instead of one standardized nwnx that would replaced the nwmain.exe, well thats offtopic anyway.

[Lazarus Magni]

The Amethyst Dragon wrote...

Lazarus Magni wrote...

I personally would love to see more Monsters, skyboxes, placeables, and tilesets added specifically.

Yes, but are there specific ones from the new or old Vault you would like to suggest?

So that when the time comes, we can ask the creators for permission to include their work.  Got to get suggestions and direct links to the entries for those suggestions, since I don't have time to sift through the last 3 or so years worth of content that's been released since the last CEP 2.4 update.

I will have to do some digging, but unfortunately my time is very limited currently. Off the top of my head a few things come to mind:
http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Tileset
Specifically the CPT, but there are others listed there as well.
http://nwn.wikia.com...Tileset_Project
http://nwvault.ign.c....Detail&id=6992

A lot of the other ones look quite good too.

Is there a forum for discussing this project, and for people to post thoughts/ideas/suggestions ect...? Or just this thread?

[The Amethyst Dragon]

Lazarus Magni wrote...

I will have to do some digging, but unfortunately my time is very limited currently. Off the top of my head a few things come to mind:
http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/Tileset
Specifically the CPT, but there are others listed there as well.
http://nwn.wikia.com...Tileset_Project
http://nwvault.ign.c....Detail&id=6992

A lot of the other ones look quite good too.

Is there a forum for discussing this project, and for people to post thoughts/ideas/suggestions ect...? Or just this thread?

CEP Forum is a good place for posting thoughts/ideas/suggestions.

RE: CTP: From the Vault link you posted, it shows that much of the CTP content has been released for anyone to use for any purpose.  It's a hundred mb addition to the download (and CEP is already 750-800 mb with 7z), so it's something that would really have to be discussed amongst the community.

[WebShaman]

TAD, I am all for this and you have my support.

You could call it CEP revisited.

I personally would like to see Chung's idea brought to fruition, from way back when : an automatic tlk/2da organizer that can put things together automatically (Dragon's Age has such a thing, btw the CharGen).

If one was to create that as well, then a merge of other Community Resources (like Q, PRc, etc) would not really be an issue IMHO.

Although combining Q and CEP would really be a "Holy Grail" for NWN IMHO.

[Proleric]

WebShaman wrote...

...I personally would like to see Chung's idea brought to fruition, from way back when : an automatic tlk/2da organizer that can put things together automatically (Dragon's Age has such a thing...

+1 for that!

This worked well on Dragon Age, because we had a public wiki where anyone could reserve 2DA lines to avoid conflicts when the files merged.

For NWN, the biggest obstacle is the limited 0-255 range for body parts. I guess the 2DA merge tool would have to respect priorities, on the same principal as a top hak.