• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • 🏆 Hive's 6th HD Modeling Contest: Mechanical is now open! Design and model a mechanical creature, mechanized animal, a futuristic robotic being, or anything else your imagination can tinker with! 📅 Submissions close on June 30, 2024. Don't miss this opportunity to let your creativity shine! Enter now and show us your mechanical masterpiece! 🔗 Click here to enter!

Any guesses on what 3D model program that Blizzard used for StarCraft II?

Status
Not open for further replies.
They use 3d Studio Max(they confirmed it), the version is unknown. I would say it's a version between 9-2009. version 2010 is out of the list. The reason is because since they use Visual C++ 8.0, they can only compile plugins to one of those. If they compiled the plugins for max 9, then max 2008 would be compatible with them but not max 2009, however, max 2010 won't be because in version 2010 the 3dsmax SDK started using VC++ 9.0 to compile. This is the reason of why Art Tools forward compatibility broke. There's also another compatibility issue concerning 32 bits and 64 bits, they need to make versions for both in order for them to be compatible for each corresponding edition of 3dsmax.

Their 'Art Tools' are called 'Star Tools', that's all I know(wish they would speak more about them).

For cinematics they use mudbox.
 
Level 7
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
200
Thank you BlinkBoy I guess this means 3dsmax5 will be too outdated for starcraft II? Also anyone knows the maximum size of a custom map can be?
 
They use 3d Studio Max(they confirmed it), the version is unknown. I would say it's a version between 9-2009. version 2010 is out of the list. The reason is because since they use Visual C++ 8.0, they can only compile plugins to one of those. If they compiled the plugins for max 9, then max 2008 would be compatible with them but not max 2009, however, max 2010 won't be because in version 2010 the 3dsmax SDK started using VC++ 9.0 to compile. This is the reason of why Art Tools forward compatibility broke. There's also another compatibility issue concerning 32 bits and 64 bits, they need to make versions for both in order for them to be compatible for each corresponding edition of 3dsmax.

Their 'Art Tools' are called 'Star Tools', that's all I know(wish they would speak more about them).

For cinematics they use mudbox.

Does this mean we will be bounded by one or two versions of max again?
 
I don't know 3DS max, but I'd say you should be able to write plugins, right? So technically anyone could write a plugin for any version of the tool... Not sure why it hasn't been done yet for mdx.

Is not easy, not to mention it could be in bane. Few versions of 3dsmax support older or newer plugins. Most likely compatibility breaks every one or two versions of 3dsmax. That's why I focused on writting NeoDex as maxscript, since maxscript does not break compatibility.

also, DON'T double post, Dammit!
 
Level 21
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
3,699
Is not easy, not to mention it could be in bane. Few versions of 3dsmax support older or newer plugins. Most likely compatibility breaks every one or two versions of 3dsmax. That's why I focused on writting NeoDex as maxscript, since maxscript does not break compatibility.
Ok, it's not easy. But it's not as if a new version comes out every week? I can imagine that even if compatibility is broken, you could still use large chunks of the previous code?
I mean, it still isn't a really good reason why one can't just remake a plugin?

also, DON'T double post, Dammit!
I could swear I pressed "edit"...
 
Im putting my bets on Milkshake 3D. We all know that blizzard is usually cheap when it comes to models(Just look at low poly peon :()

...

No, they used max 5, it doesn't matter what modeling program you use, you can make anything with max.

Also, they'll probably use a more recent version of max.

Eleanodor: Max + mudbox it seems.
 
If SC2 supports bump maps (most likely) then you can use mudbox to make those, I think. At least you can in zbrush.

ever since max 7, you can do normal mappings to models. So no need to go into zBrush, Maya or Mudbox for doing that.

Also SC2 models are about 2k polies, and it appears that only portraits use bump maps. Doubt they can render over 1000 units at a time and do parallax mapping to each.
 
ever since max 7, you can do normal mappings to models. So no need to go into zBrush, Maya or Mudbox for doing that.
I like zbrush though :D

Also SC2 models are about 2k polies, and it appears that only portraits use bump maps. Doubt they can render over 1000 units at a time and do parallax mapping to each.
If it renders parallax to portraits then I don't see why the main game wouldn't support it. They probably just didn't make any bump maps for units for the reasons you said.

Terrain, for example, has a specular (or whatever that "shininess" map is called) map. I think it has a bump map too but idk.
 
I like zbrush though :D


If it renders parallax to portraits then I don't see why the main game wouldn't support it. They probably just didn't make any bump maps for units for the reasons you said.

Terrain, for example, has a specular (or whatever that "shininess" map is called) map. I think it has a bump map too but idk.

hmm, not sure on terrain. Haven't seen it in-deph, but it's possible that the game itself supports the bump maps. Maybe, edges and some buildings use them, but units are unlike to use them.
 
Level 3
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
25
Actually Parallax Mapping can be extremely useful if you are going to make a project that is not meant as a typical RTS but more so a RPG or Shooter. If you plan to have any close up views or heavy focus on doodads and terrain parallax mapping mainly bumps is useful. I know with all doodads I plan to do I will use parallax mapping for them.

This also depends on your project. I would be surprised if Blizzard did not offer parallax modeling onto models just for the fact they showed a 3rd person use of the engine. I cannot see a 3rd/fps project using models with just 2,000 polygon counts and no use of parallax mapping.

It also safe to say how they are advertise Bnet 2.0 and Mapping at Blizzcon they want the premium maps themselves to become standalone mod's. So, I expect to see map sizes be different between normal and premium maps.

What I would be more interested in is if actually map size constraints will continue to limit the mapper use of custom sound, music, and models. If they still limit mappers in this sense than offering premium maps seems to be more of a way to make profit off good maps than growing projects and teams to really modify and use the engine and not just edit. To me watching Blizzcon it seemed as if blizzard wanted the sc2 engine to be used like the source engine for half life 2 and create new and interesting mods for the sc2 community not just edits of the resources.
 
Level 3
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
25
Blinkboy we recieve no facts because we are such a small percentage of the community. Most Modelers will make maps that are not the typical size for Bnet most modelers will lean more to mods and premuim maps. This is why it so frustrating is so frustrating when blizzard uses the term premuim maps at blizzcon and gives no facts about models. The most time consuming part for premuim maps would be the models and sounds but gave no facts. Yes, coding can be difficult but since you know the base that it C and can do everything the wc3 engine can do and showed visual examples at blizzcon you have some idea how to approach it but none relating for modeling.

If I would of gotten the chance to ask a question to that panel at blizzcon I would of asked how will your art tools differ from the ones of wc3? Will they be made in maxscript so the community is not forced into certain verisons of the program? What is the typical model size and mapping used ect ect. Question like those are never asked or directed towards blizzard though.
 
Level 11
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
920
you guys know what pisses me? that they haven't made a FAQ Batch for the modelers :(.

Becouse they think of profit and not the community. They told people to get their team to make mods for the SC2. They already told that, I read it somewhere. But they didnt tell details what map or mod makers needs to know, coz they didnt even think of that.

They put inside wc3 leveling system coz prople will buy more SC2 coz of editor. I dont like it. SC2 looks great and world editor will ruin it. I think WE is more fitting into Wc3 universe...
 
Level 25
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
4,651
Becouse they think of profit and not the community. They told people to get their team to make mods for the SC2. They already told that, I read it somewhere. But they didnt tell details what map or mod makers needs to know, coz they didnt even think of that.

They put inside wc3 leveling system coz prople will buy more SC2 coz of editor. I dont like it. SC2 looks great and world editor will ruin it. I think WE is more fitting into Wc3 universe...

lol. One of the reasons SC1 was popular was also custom games ^^
 
Level 11
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
920
Well I'm sorry, didnt play lots of custom games on SC2 :D. Played SC2 only, and that blood hunters map, or something like that :D. I just hope that WE wont kill normal SC2 game and maps with mods...

Anyway, sc2 marine looks like 800 poly char, and that dragon thing looks like a lot more. About 1.5k or 2k.
 
Level 25
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
4,651
Well I'm sorry, didnt play lots of custom games on SC2 :D. Played SC2 only, and that blood hunters map, or something like that :D. I just hope that WE wont kill normal SC2 game and maps with mods...

Anyway, sc2 marine looks like 800 poly char, and that dragon thing looks like a lot more. About 1.5k or 2k.

If ya don't remember, there is an option to play Melee Games on Wc3, I'm pretty sure that will stick to SC2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top