B3D Pipeline Max LightmapsBaking ?

Community Forums/Developer Stations/B3D Pipeline Max LightmapsBaking ?

Alienforce(Posted 2006) [#1]
Is there any working link/tutorial for lightmap baking for 3ds max that works with the pieline ? .. There was a deadlink refering to one on the onigirl site.


Robert Cummings(Posted 2006) [#2]
Get gile[s] instead, it's compatible with max's lights settings and -nothing- you do in max will be as good.

www.frecle.net/giles

- export your b3d with b3d materials
- export 3dsmax's lights only as ASE

In giles, import both, play with quality settings and render!


IPete2(Posted 2006) [#3]
Alienforce,

One Eyed Jack is bang on here as usual!

I wouldnt go that route if I were you - it tends to create huge amounts of textures - you are going to get better results for realtime using Gile[s].

IPete2.


Alienforce(Posted 2006) [#4]
I allready have Gile[s] :)
I just wanted to compare the results.

Thanks anyway guys.


Jams(Posted 2006) [#5]
"-nothing- you do in max will be as good"

poor choice of words i think..

Giles is a great piece of software, but it doesn't compare to Max's radiosity quality when in the right hands...


Vorderman(Posted 2006) [#6]
Personally I have had no end of problems getting decent (or even usable) results out of Giles, whereas Max is child's play in comparison and produces excellent results.

However, Giles is cheap and Max is insanely expensive, so you get what you pay for I suppose.


IPete2(Posted 2006) [#7]
vorderman,

how do you export from max into b3d with lightmapping in place?


IPete2


Robert Cummings(Posted 2006) [#8]
Giles is a great piece of software, but it doesn't compare to Max's radiosity quality when in the right hands...


Sorry jams, but for realtime, nothing does compare because it is not technically possible for you to do it. If you mean rendering, well of course max will be better.

Otherwise, for a game you will need to get uv mapping *SPOT ON* in max - and this will be nigh on impossible for a game level coming from max.

Then, perhaps you'll try and take full advantage of the b3d materials as well while you're at it? I really feel you haven't made a full level in max yet... no offense.


N(Posted 2006) [#9]
Have to agree with Rob here.


AdrianT(Posted 2006) [#10]
max can be a pain, and Giles is MUCH easier to use, but Max can produce far better results, only with 4x as much effort.


AdrianT(Posted 2006) [#11]
max can be a pain, and Giles is MUCH easier to use, but Max can produce far better results, only with 4x as much effort.


Robert Cummings(Posted 2006) [#12]
Actually, max can't reall cut it for anything but a demo level :) There's no 4x effort or anything about it... you won't be able to sustain a constant texture resolution across multiple meshes. This isn't 4x the effort, it's 400x the effort.

If you're talking about demoboxroom.max then I agree.


Jams(Posted 2006) [#13]
"Sorry jams, but for realtime, nothing does compare because it is not technically possible for you to do it. If you mean rendering, well of course max will be better.

Otherwise, for a game you will need to get uv mapping *SPOT ON* in max - and this will be nigh on impossible for a game level coming from max.

Then, perhaps you'll try and take full advantage of the b3d materials as well while you're at it? I really feel you haven't made a full level in max yet... no offense."

I'm curious, what is it technically possible to do in Giles that it's not technically possible to do in Max? I can assure you that anything Giles can do, Max can do it too. I'm also curious as to why you think it will be impossible to get 'spot on' UV co-ordinates in max?

It is completely possible to take advantage of b3d materials in Max, using the 3dsmax Pipeline, you have access to all of the settings such as alpha, shininess, blend mode and texture flags.

FYI i've made several full levels in max, including high quality lightmaps.... i think you're makeing a judgement based on your own limited skill with Max. (no offence)


AdrianT(Posted 2006) [#14]
the times I played with giles I found it left too much empty space on a texture page, and I ended up editing it all by hand in max anyway.

Giles does do better at autoUV than Max does though, and in my case thats where all the time savings seem to be.

I usualy do a lot of tweaking by hand anyway, often much of a scene doesn't need a constant texture resolution.

I also like max because I can do a much faster thumbnail preview of key areas of a scene, adjust the lightimg, bounce and what have you and quickly tweak the scene lighting in a very short time, only having to do actual lightmap renders later on after I have the lighting pretty much how I want it.

Rendering small 160x120 portions of a scene is a lot better than rendering an entire scene to see the results of a tweak, having to wait any length of time puts you off of making minor adjustments since the rendering is a lengthy process.

Things might be different if I wasn't using bakersfield which simplifies the process of lightmapping and setup in max quite a bit.

the things I like about giles are the fast setup and simple steps required to get results. Which are more than enough for most people at the price.


N(Posted 2006) [#15]
I can assure you that anything Giles can do, Max can do it too.


You're just arguing semantics here. The point is that while you can use Max, gile[s] is much more cost-effective and in the long run will save time and deliver as good results.

Most people here (can not and) do not intend to create the next game of the year, so frankly, it might not be in their best interest to spend a vast amount of time working on lightmaps in Max when they could very quickly and effectively run them through gile[s] and get good results.


Vorderman(Posted 2006) [#16]
how do you export from max into b3d with lightmapping in place?


Dunno, I use Max at work every day, but not for lightmapping, just modelling and texturing.

I've manually lightmapped my SRX garage because Giles was making such a mess of it.


Alienforce(Posted 2006) [#17]
Assign it to, preffered slot & channel2. And you done. :)
Works perfect, so far.


Naughty Alien(Posted 2006) [#18]
Gile[s] is great piece of software, but, please..we can share same scene for test lightening with Giles and 3DSMAX for real time purpose and see results...and for lightmapping, you can use 2nd texture channel, but my suggestion is, do that within B3D pipeline becouse sometimes, if you not using B3D's material slots , exported results can be weird in your exported B3D file..


Jams(Posted 2006) [#19]
"You're just arguing semantics here. The point is that while you can use Max, gile[s] is much more cost-effective and in the long run will save time and deliver as good results."

Thanks for your contribution Noel, but you've missed the point of the argument - nobody is disputing that Giles is more cost effective and makes alot of tasks easier. My post was in response to the person who said "nothing does compare because it is not technically possible for you to do it.". I am the first to admit that simple things can sometimes be a pain to do in Max, but you can do them and possibly with better results...


N(Posted 2006) [#20]
I am the first to admit that simple things can sometimes be a pain to do in Max, but you can do them and possibly with better results...


Which is arguing semantics. You should know what he means by now. If not then you may want to just discontinue your argument entirely -- after all, do you think you're capable of changing anyone's opinion?


Robert Cummings(Posted 2006) [#21]
Okay, next time you want to do an entire, say, 20-50k poly level for a game in max with lightmapping, be my guest.

Have fun laying out each and every object in the level: have fun making sure the texel detail is enough for your uvmaps and so on and so on... Lets not forget keeping texture sizes "sane" so that paging the lightmap textures doesn't cause the card to choke... yes 512x512 for big areas and smaller for smaller areas...

I suspect for a decent sized level, you'll just give up. This probably why almost all commercial games have dedicated tools for lightmapping. I've written plugins for max, including radiosity for vertex colours and so on...


FYI i've made several full levels in max, including high quality lightmaps.... i think you're makeing a judgement based on your own limited skill with Max. (no offence)

None taken, I've only been using it on a near daily basis since version 1 and so I must surely be talking out of my arse.

I don't dispute the fact that you can get great results, but frankly:

* Gile[s]'s uvmap routine is better than max's auto uv mapping

* uv mapping by hand is 'impossible' due to time constraints and skill. You can do it but it would take you weeks for really big levels.

I think this is why you will find that developers tend to have a tool for lightmapping. Finally, I suspect some people haven't even tried the lightmap wizard in giles, nor properly taken the time to use it.


BlackJumper(Posted 2006) [#22]
max can be a pain, and Giles is MUCH easier to use, but Max can produce far better results


"...the chalice from the palace holds the potion with the poison, but the vessel with the pestle is the brew that is true !"

"What about the flagon with the dragon ?"


AdrianT(Posted 2006) [#23]
it doesn't take that long at all with a 30k level. Not since they added the seam visualisation. you can do a quick auto Unwrap and then drag and weld parts that you want to fit together.

That way you can fit a lot more in your texture page if you join that parts that can be joined and still have lightmap correctly. Particularly useful for long fairly thin objects that waste a lot of empty UV space if they are all sepperated by 2 pixels of padding.

I havent used Giles in a while, not sure if it lets you adjust your UV's and scale them manualy etc. But when I used it, it would leave huge empty spaces with certain large odd shaped geometry.

If you are going to use max for lighting, Bakersfield is far better than the default tools for streamlining the process, and doesn't have the UV channel 3 reset bug.

It may look a little daunting at first, but it really isn't, and it saves all your scene node setup data wit hyour files, so its easy to come back to and re render later without having to resort your meshes.

http://www.chuggnut.com/scripts/bakersfield/bakersfield.htm

One of the nicest things in Giles, at least I think so, is that it is material based, so you don't have to mess around with combining objects to have them share a texture page.

Giles is cheap enough that it's almost worth it as a quick unwrap tool. And for a lot of things, particularly time critical it's probably going to be a life saver.

Can take a day to set up efficient UV's for a large level by hand, and often another to get the lighting how you want it. So something like Giles would make for a nice quick pass, and may be enough for all your needs.

If you use pipeline for everything else though, the custom pipeline material probably isn't going to pass between the two apps very well. And neither is it compatible with the lightmapping in max. If your using fairly complex materials, you need 2 sets of materials, standard max ones for the max renderer, and your pipeline brush materials for rendering the final result in blitz3d.

That alone can be quite time consuming :(


IPete2(Posted 2006) [#24]
Here what Gile[s] can do for a game level, built in Max - Pipeline used to extract to B3d, Gile[s] used to light it.





These were done for a Radiation simulation I did for National Nuclear Corporation.

Sean Naden was my Modeller (of Rise of the Robots and WRC1 and WRC2 fame), he was gobsmacked when I showed hime these results and then the realtime implementation of the level.

IPete2.


Alienforce(Posted 2006) [#25]
Looks really great! I guess you had to do a lot of tweeking get the final result.


Robert Cummings(Posted 2006) [#26]
I havent used Giles in a while, not sure if it lets you adjust your UV's and scale them manualy etc. But when I used it, it would leave huge empty spaces with certain large odd shaped geometry.
I haven't ever experienced this. Have you tried lightmap wizard at all?


AdrianT(Posted 2006) [#27]
Thats pretty good, but the shadows do look pretty monochromatic and lack some colour.

The tricky part with Max is the set up, which can take a lot longer than is nice because the set up time is pretty long.

One Eyed Jack, it tended to do it with large hollowed out circular shapes in. I'm not actually meaning to diss Giles. I think its a fantastic tool, but it's still possible to make better looking lightmaps in other apps if you put in the effort.

Whether you need to produce better or not is arguable and may not be worth the effort with a simple engine like B3D where too realistic just makes the dynamic objects stand out as looking out of place.


IPete2(Posted 2006) [#28]
Evak,

'lacks some colour'? What do you mean by this? monochromatic? - yeah because there are just a old few lightbulbs in the scene - no external light - it is a dis-used radiation facility - there are no coloured lights here, just bare bulbs - from the 1950's...

Perhaps I don't understand something - if so please explain as I am keen to learn how to make a scene look better in terms of lightmapping.

As for how long it took to lightmap - not too long, I placed some lights - tried some different settings and rendered it. I went through the process a few times to get to this result.

I know Max could make a much more realistic radiosity look etc but getting those baked textures into B3d is a complete nightmare, and wouldn't there be too many individual textures to load into B3d?

How would you have done this in Max and exported into B3d.

IPete2.


jhocking(Posted 2006) [#29]
Don't pay attention to the naysayers. The lightmapping in that scene kicks ass.


Jams(Posted 2006) [#30]
"I know Max could make a much more realistic radiosity look etc but getting those baked textures into B3d is a complete nightmare"

it *is* more long-winded than Giles, but i wouldn't say it was a complete nightmare! All you gotta do is render out your lightmaps, and then re-apply them to your object before you export to .b3d

About the monochromatic shadows - maybe Evak was refering to colour bleeding? I'm not sure it would make much difference to that particular scene, but the effect can add a lot of realism. AFAIK Giles does feature colour bleeding?


IPete2(Posted 2006) [#31]
@Joe - thanks dude - I was beginning to doubt it from what those chaps were syaing...lol

I just cant see re applying lightmaps once I've rendered it is not going to be a pain in the ass. It'll take 4 times as long, make the scene many times more texture heavy than it needs to be (baking textures in Max itself creates dozens of extra large textures afaik), and maybe I'll improve the overall scene for perfectionists by 5%.

Hmm my budgets don't stretch to the sublime.

IPete2.


Robert Cummings(Posted 2006) [#32]
I do max for a living, and have used gile[s] for a couple of years. Seems like the nay sayers don't know how to use it.


AdrianT(Posted 2006) [#33]
sheesh, I never said it was bad, quite the opposite infact, lol. Not sure why people are getting so wound up.

The way I see it, its a good tool, use either one or both. There are some benefits to just using giles as the starting point to getting your UV's started, that alone will save you a fair ammount of time. Particularly at the price.


Bob3d(Posted 2006) [#34]
heh...a word of defense for Evak. In the means he hardly can be considered a naysayer ;)

He meant some color in the shadows. I am an oil painter. A very realistic one, so I know pretty well what he refers to. No shadow is plain grey. In real life, a lot of them have subtle pale blueish tones. In certain areas, and very subtle and feathered. But it depends on the lighting othe rlight sources, color of near objects...That is...radiosity. Yup, Giles does radiosity, and looking just at the primitives example, looks like is pretty able to do that, just is surely some setting. I have Giles since long, but have not used strongly, but enough, imho.

Is a good tool, and can achieve great results. Imho, not at the level of Finarl Render or Vray, or a well used Mental Ray, but of a very high quality, anyway. I yet to see a render of the quality of th every top of those renderers. But that is too ask way way too much to a what is already a fantastic and very realistic easy to use lightmapper.And that i have not seen em, can be just as typical Giles user is not interested in reach that point and hours.An engine like Blitz3d, seems to burn a bit the shades, and stuff like that. So not so much point, and also, as one usually aims to a shareware game.

Lightmapping issues are mostly uv mapping. The rendering is like all kind of rendering, almost: lighting, materials, etc.

Max(haven't tried this in max 7 or 8) does not have what I could call an easy and fast automatic uv mapper and packer for levels. I'd prefer something better. Like many maxers do. But it did the work fo rme in a very large and complex pair of levels long ago.

There are better uv mapping generators/packers. Even free ones, like the famous open source fsrad. It has so much other problems that is not usuable for comercial products, imho. Yet a great point to start for a coder.

I'd love is Max would have a better uvmapping and packing tool for a level. Actually the key is usually..keep detail areas bigger, etc. It does not force you to do big or small areas. You can configure it as u want, and actually , there's some editing needed after, like enlarging detail areas (ie, windows, etc) in the uvmaps. I see it uber powerful, like most in max. But i have tested other lightmappers (fsrad) where the uv mapping in second channel (usually 3 in Max, but u can configure that) is..what should be...fast, great, and no need of post edit: you can concentrate then just in lighting and the scene, as should be. Fsrad even does chunks it in small tgas, that get automatically applied. The fact is little to no people knows even how to do this or handle. Same happens with the much well known Max lightmapping and also with Giles. No that I am a freaking master of any, but I know what can be done. And can anyone decided could do wonder with the 3. Just fsrad wont treat well curved surfaces, so for me is of no use.

The preview system is great in Giles.
It solves many problems you can do the same or better in Max with deep Max knowledge.That's one of the reasons why (besides Max price) Giles in indy world is a winner.

But I know what Evak was referring to(color on shadows). He's extremely good at level editing.

I'd add my two other cents (I see points to improve in all my graphic work, even when considered finished by my bosses...I just shut up them, hehe ) : A bit of dirt, a very subtle layer in like 15%...on the wood boxes...they're too clean and new for the purpose.

But...I would not touch the scene. Is a pain once lightmapped. Is great to go. :)