+- Wings 3D Development Forum (https://www.wings3d.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Wings 3D (https://www.wings3d.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Wings 3D (https://www.wings3d.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Resurrecting Wings... (/showthread.php?tid=1544)
RE: Resurrecting Wings... - Unshattera.bl - 08-17-2016
Hello.
I have been 3D modelling and coding for years, and have never heard of Wings, or Erlang until today.
This leads me to two conclusions.
1) I live under a rock.
2) Wings is not in a well-known language, and is not advertised, or the word spread enough.
Blender has too many options for me, and the others are way out of my price range. Sketchup often just doesn't cut it, and isn't commercially licensed either.
1 can't be helped. 2, however can. How is up to you, but I wouldn't mind learning, or trying to, erlang, or helping rewrite it, and develop further. Unfortunately, my primary language is Python, and my secondary is C#.
I do seem to be hearing, however, that C++ is very similar to C#, and Erlang, being an "ancient" language, would probably easy to get the hang of, if it isn't something similar to assembly.
Also, I was redirected here from the Unreal engine forums. From a business standpoint, 99% of the people there use and recommend blender. Those who don't like, or refuse to use blender often are stuck with paying for others, as Wings from what I'm seeing doesn't fit the entire spectrum yet, and or they just haven't heard of it.
Sorry for the rant, I just wanted to voice my opinion while beating a dead horse
RE: Resurrecting Wings... - Extrudeface - 08-18-2016
Well, if it is a nice rock... I can tell you that you are not the type always digging for new graphic production tools, specially free ones, like I am. Nor need to be. I've used Wings professionally for many years.
There are people (specially developers) amazingly more qualified to answer this, I'm only an old artist. But, might my view help you some bit, and take some bits with a pinch of salt, of course. Blender is a tool that does it all in 3D and even beyond(video editor, lip syncing,etc). Is a full 3D package, like it is 3DS Max, or Maya (or these are with a ton of even more expensive plugins).I've used those at jobs, specially Max. It's just free and open source, with a GPL license. Wings is also open source (but different license) and is not a full package. Is a specialized modeler, IMHO focused mostly in subdiv modeling, I mean, excels in modeling the low-mid polygon count cage, that looks great once subdivided. And this obviously still is absolutely key for animation, for games, and for almost anything where you need to have serious control over your mesh, your wires. But Wings is not an animation application. It allows you to model anything, you just need to think on coupling it with some of the many (specialized, as well) tools that have popped out for extreme high polygon count, "sculpting". Like Sculptris, SculptGL, PolyBrush, MeshMixer (and now, actually Blender, too) and some other. (links can be found in the last two pages of this forums Off topic section, or just googling them). I say this as for game art production, which is your interest, these days almost always is required the normal maps (or equivalent) thing, even in a number of indie games. And for that you need to model details in meshes of 1 or 2 millions tris, at least, and then a tool or feature to export a normal map file. I have done tests modeling very detailed models with Wings, and is possible to certain mid-high level and IMO more controllable, but is not a tool to do the tasks that are Sculptris field, for example.You can reach a relative high level, but then export to Sculptris for instance, and detail there. So, one of those tools is the perfect companion for wings. You can uv map for texturing pretty well with the Wings included AutoUV system. And after exporting the 2D UV layouts, just paint over them in any 2D tool (PS, Gimp, Krita, Paint.net) to make the textures. Or that and some 3D paint in Blender. The beauty of just 2D painting the templates is that you can do it fully with it, but usually 3D painting needs always 2D work, too.
If you plan to animate, and like all this conversation, keep it in the free land, you then still certainly are going to be needing Blender. if you need to render ONLY, not animate, there's a lot of free renderers of very high quality and even some direct plugins to them from Wings. (IMO not essential)
One could then conclude: Then why not do the models fully in sculptris or the like? Well, this is a very personal opinion, but IMO you don't have the level of control over your model which you have in Wings3d.
The language of choice is a bit frowned upon around here (and IMO, righteously so, not that I see a sin to ask, lol !), because they coded wings in Erlang because they love the language, indeed. If you want to improve Wings, the best move, (again, IMHO) is to learn Erlang. And learning is good...
. I'm inclined to think learning C++ would be a tad harder, if you get into the deep stuff, than learning Erlang.I have found through the years that the speed and flexibility of modeling that Wings has (you learn it very progressively, but it allows a very easy start(30 mins in my case, dunno if was ten years ago), and easy learning curve: That's one of the keys. Years of modeling, and it NEVER stops getting better as you evolve with it. And am talking even of handling its basic ways, let alone the ton of features developers have gone adding), and the capabilities to make even coffee for you that Blender has, do make a great combo for those of us that are able to see the virtues and advantages of Wings3D modeling system. And I have worked many years making games art at companies, using this tool, indeed. So, IMO is not a random forum opinion, at least in this very specific statement. A boss has a lot of resistance to some buddy that wants to use his modeler, or it was so years ago (not so much now). So, it is sure capable, or I wouldn't have been allowed. These days, as a freelancer, I use both applications a lot, for work more related to marketing and other non-game related graphic works, and they prove me every day how useful they both are. (my work often involves game art too, as well, indie work)
My advice is: Don't think, ever in single-tool way in matters of art production. I'm in every project going like this: I do my model, sometimes I unwrap it in Wings, sometimes I leave it for Blender's UV window. I export as OBJ, import in Blender, and even go back and force until is in a state where only minimal modeling edits are needed. Indeed, I fully know Blender's modeling set and advantages. My only issue is it takes me some good 10 minutes while I keep doing shift D to duplicate in Wings, or hitting d to repeat last command in Blender, to put a fast example. But like all, you can configure stuff, am just lazy, beyond my setup of always in Wings.
It depends a lot on what is your planned activity in the game making with Unreal, Unity or whatever the engine. I'm not clear on if are you a coder or an artist. If you are a programmer needing some meshes be done fast and easy, you are in the right track. If are an artist, all the above applies. You are going to need a hybrid tools setup. I'd say...No matter what. Is not the majority, but there are artists in indie projects in the edge of what is actually a triple A commercial game and for those Blender alone, if we carry things to an extreme of specs of modern games, wouldn't cut it either. They would need PBR based texturing tools like Allegorithmic Substance painter and/or Designer, or Quixel tool suite. Both cheap, but hardly avoidable for the today's gen, being strict. Luckily, an indie is free to do whatever, and even more, not every engine/target player's computer allows every freaking feature. Lots of casual games don't even use normal maps. Strategy game characters are still low pol in many cases.
For making art for games, and leaving aside a bit out of the new PBR trend (which needs a whole set of new skills, as usual), you would probably still need Wings3D (optionally. Or whatever your fav modeler, or all in Blender), Blender, AwesomeBump (or similar, for normal maps and etc, you can do some of this in Blender: I, again, prefer a specialized tool), surely certain special exporters for blender (collada, fbx, at least, the 2 included by default), and often some engine specific editors to make the content integrated in-game, work with engine's scripting system, etc.
Making art for a game -meaning the whole spectrum that is needed to cover all the art needed- has become a daunting, complex bazillion of tasks. At least if want to reach AAA quality or just have the effects and capabilities today's cards can pull. Wings is only a modeler, and basically a low - mid polygon count modeler. But imho, the best at that. In my very personal view, also compared to commercial modelers, in that specific area/step.
But indie games can only be made by a few individuals which can't often be paid. Any of the AAA stuff needs an army of skilled masters (friends of mine are in company of a hundred or much more colleagues, in the same studio). So, IMO, tools like Wings are still a jewel for indie or casual games development. But the Wings vs Blender is a flawed comparison, to start with. I prefer modeling with Wings, by far, and no other tool than Blender can, in the free land, do the other tasks I need for game art production or other fields' complex tasks. I need both. If wings wouldn't exist I'd model in Blender. And I have even done animation and commercial work in an elder tool called Anim8or, in free versions of Truespace, Organica, Amorphium and etc. All can be used. There are MANY more free modelers. I just think these two applications are the best in their areas... (in the free land. Commercial tools are deeper in many aspects (more features), but imo, in certain workflows, not better, some are actually worse and/or slower.)
For the field you are in, I'd make my mind with the multi-tools way of thinking, also in art matters. Even if you feel now at home with Wings (which is great) and mount entire levels with Wings, model all the game characters, items, objects, and etc, because is easier and very enjoyable. Just consider you're gonna need helper tools on the way.
PD: Wings is very well known for people that have been modeling for long... And it got deep diffusion in specific communities, and still has today. It hasn't got the huge army of users (am happy for that, btw, I love Blender, as well) that Blender counts on, neither the large number of developers, neither the funding. Just its quality and flexibility as a modeler, its ease of use, and it reached deeply to many places, despite those facts. I demonstrated to a small studio's bosses (well did so again years later, too, in several places) that I was faster modeling with it than all the other artists using Max, and I don't consider myself specially better than them(like always, each individual has strong and weak points. It was a faster modeling tool.). So the tool stayed in the studio (all the times). But yep, there's no "movies made with Wings3d", neither the powerful users based diffusion that Blender has, companies around making money with learning material, books authors, or the advertising capability of commercial tools (and even Blender!), or simply the huge user base installed which Max and Maya counts on since...always. And yet still... it's a jewel. The majority doesn't always know what is best... :p. They often know what other people say that is best, even not checking themselves, and it's a vicious chain. Even saying best is an error, here. IMO seems to be different mindsets for modeling. Some seem to be more prepared to get the grips of point based modeling, others with box/subdiv modeling, others feel at home sculpting, and so on. People should be more eager to actually try every tool till finding the right one for them. But giving a serious try to each.
My very brief, easy to read wall-of-text-ish 2c
RE: Resurrecting Wings... - oort - 08-18-2016
Unshattera,
Many of the updates/additions to Wings3D have been done by people with no previous knowledge of Programming. I imagine you could learn Erlang very quickly. Those who have used other programming languages have come to like Erlang.
It may be that people involved with Unreal do not use Wings3D because there is no export option for that format (Ase). I assume that is the format still used. It is possible to export to .ase with Blender. I am assuming that is still true as well... If you were to start coding, creating a plugin for .ase export would be a great start...
That might bring others to Wings3D.I played with Unreal a long time ago. I even posted instructions for going from Wings3D to Unreal on my old website... Wings3D to Unreal
oort
RE: Resurrecting Wings... - Extrudeface - 08-18-2016
I believe these days, even UE4 (fbx 2014 only), static meshes (well, fbx supports skeleton animation, too) are imported there by FBX format, but i could be wrong...
Blender exports FBX, but there has been recently a somewhat active discussion about the idea of not supporting it anymore, for being a closed format, and mostly, for being a bit of a nightmare for coders (I believe part of it due to its ever changing nature and many versions. and as is not open, all is harder. )
Wings had FBX exporter for a while...anyway,there are many paths around it, there's a few utilities, converters, where you can import an OBJ and export a FBX, if is just a static mesh.
Blender devs might feel better in continuing the support of collada, but this is only what I suppose, this last bit.
A pity, as FBX is used largely by many game engines, a very dominant standard.
RE: Resurrecting Wings... - oort - 08-18-2016
I think that FBX was dropped from Wings3D because of it being a closed format.
Wings3D does support Collada export.
Here is a program by Autodesk for converting to .fbx... FBX Converter
oort
RE: Resurrecting Wings... - Plervertex - 08-23-2016
Ill add my two cents:
First: Erlang is fine, but there is an opportunity here for the experienced coders to show others how to use it. Why not make introductory courses to Erlang a page on this website? Why not make some Youtube videos showing how users can work on tools for Wings3d?
Second: Wings3d is a box modeler. In order to grow box modeling user base, there needs to be more emphasis on learning box modeling techniques. I mean Wings3D makes box modeling easy so Wings3D should be promoting box modeling.
Third: We need complete tools. The UV mapping functions are ok, but we could improve those to make it easier/better. Same thing could be said about sculpting tools. And we could better integrate the renderers into Wings3D.
Wings3D has an opportunity to bring back box modeling, but they have to be more extroverted.
RE: Resurrecting Wings... - Extrudeface - 08-23-2016
Box modeling...Yep, I use the term, too. Thinking of what it meant when it first was used, that term... I'd prefer to define its style as Mirai-like, (or at least, subdivision modeling sounds better to me) which IMO goes beyond what the usual box modeling in 3ds Max used to allow...(typically extruding boxes, little bit more...)
I don't see much of a point though in improving the sculpting tools... Performance wise it can't compete with Sculptris or Zbrush... or the many others specialized in that. Is not thought for that task. I think it is best if keeps evolving (even if very slowly, or even not at all) in its area/field. Today am not sure studios are going with one or another specific way to "start" the modeling stage. Today is probably the less time consuming step. IMHO is all about the package used by the studio or artist, you end up modeling in the technique where that package is stronger. (subdivs, nurbs, point modeling, etc) . I suspect a lot of people today just go directly zbrush or similar, then use some special tool for creating the low pol topology (like topgun, blender's snap system, 3d coat etc.). And they have to deal so much with shaders and special effects that often just model in the tool with better connection to the pipeline, even if they don't love the tool for modeling. For independent users, hobbyists, all that does not apply. Maybe the Erlang promotion on the site is not a bad idea, dunno.
Integrate a renderer....Dunno, I don't see the need. Again, that'd be changing the concept towards a multiple task/general package, which it is not, and I don't see the human resources around able (in matters of time available) to achieve such giant set of tasks. Also, is so super easy to export to renderers (not only Blender) that I don't see such need in concentrating the coding effort in that...
If anything, in performance, that'd be quite practical, as models, even low /mid versions every day are asked to be higher... Not a big issue, but IMO would be practical.
Other than that, a path of little changes as much, is more than fine...I'm indeed stuck with 1.5.4... (in my system is the one working best)
RE: Resurrecting Wings... - oort - 08-24-2016
Might not be a bad idea to mention that box modeling techniques can be used in sub-division modeling somewhere on the Wings3D website. There are lots of tutorials on the web for box modeling. I don't know enough to know how box modeling and sub-division modeling are different???
The best way to get more people using Wings3D is for the people who use it to post in other forums. Spread the news. Maybe that will also bring people to contribute to writing code.
oort
RE: Resurrecting Wings... - Plervertex - 08-24-2016
Let me clarify "integrated". I mean make sure when someone downloads Wings3d make sure they have a renderer also, so the user can see what their hard work looks like all prettied up. And since the render would be included in the download, Wings3D should publicize the renderer. Just state explicitly the strength of the renderer.
My reasoning is that many people who are new Wings3D will actually complete a model and then find out that is the limit till they ask someone more experienced with 3D or Google. Then their friends will tell them to just try Blender instead. Hence this thread that Wings3D is dying. Wings3D doesn't have to be as sophisticated as a full 3D package, but it could be as user friendly for showing off work as it is creating the model. I think even hobbyist would appreciate that .
RE: Resurrecting Wings... - oort - 08-24-2016
Maybe listing the Rendering Software supported (Kerkythea, Pov-Ray, YafaRay) on the website would help. The rendering software cannot be bundled with Wings3D since they are under separate license. At least I think that is true.
oort