Starcraft 2 Modeling, why is it failing?

[BlinkBoy]

Hello everyone, I would like to introduce myself before discussing this. Back in the days, I used to be the moderator of this forum and worked ever since 2004 in Warcraft 3 modeling. I saw how it started and how it revolutionized back around in 2005 with oinkerwinkle tools which emerged in the wc3campaings forums.

I've been looking lately at how the community has progressed in modding Starcraft 2 and to my amuse i can barely see modding development for Sc2 in what refers to an artistic view of content being developed for the game. Today I look at the different databases of Sc2 modding sites and i can barely see sc2 models or even skins, being the later less likely than the first.

It came to my attention on what could be the problem and as I see things there are many reasons on why we have fallen behind other modding areas.

Problems which I see:

• Things have gotten complex: Starcraft 2 models are WAY more demanding than wc3 models, one model is not enough now. You need to make one for the unit and one or many for deaths. Also, before we only had to worry about 1 map (the diffuse map) now we have to worry about 4 or more: diffuse, normal, specular, emissive, alpha/opacity, heigths, etc.
• The gap between skinning and modeling has come closer: due to having multiple maps, there are maps which require the model itself in order to be changed like the normal map. Sadly, unless you are an extremely good skinner at shading, normal maps are produced by making a higher poly version of the model and have a tool produce them from it (This is not always the case, but is the most common).
• Portraits! bloody portriats!: portraits are tough now. They are modeled through high poly modeling techniques, if you want to make a normal map, then you need to know some sculping. You no longer do talking animations but you must animate the lips for lip-synching so they addapt to whatever they are saying. Even a bigger pain than the model itself.
• M3 dabuu? how i edit them?!: unlike MDX version 800 [Wc3's] Sc2 new version of MDX format [known as m3] has NO text version (MDL in wc3) so doing basic modifications like 80% of the models in wc3 are, is not THAT easy anymore. Not to mention that most tools don't help solve that abstraction.
• Tools where art thou?: to the date there are few tools for editing m3s most just change pathes or allow you to view the model. We don't have a good old set for doing basic editings like geoset merging, animation transfer, particle adding, etc. However, the game is still young so most likely these will come out eventualy.
• Russians, chinese, you there?: there are many amazing modding communities which haven't embraced starcraft 2 yet. Many of this communities produced famous tools we know now like Yobgol's MDL-MDX converter, mdlex, Fadis' MDL Importer, etc.
• Damn y u so big?: model sizes have kinda increased a lot, optimizing is a bigger pain now. Also due to having multiple maps, using in-game textures is a bit more problematic as well.
• So where do I start?: Stacraft 2 modeling not only is not easy but is barely documented. There are few modeling guides to introduce you and there are few which start at the very basics. Therefore, introducing newcommers is harder.
• IK! Yeah sure...: Sc2 supports IK systems that's true, but you won't mostly use them due to the fact that they are processing expensive. Most Sc2 models have FK keys like usualy, the thing is that FK systems are computed fast while IKs are computed relatively slow. You can always bake your IK animations to FK using a tool (example NeoDex's IK Snapper) but you will still have issues fixing them afterwards.
• Start Tools: Even though blizzard said they would release their Star Tools soonish (tm). We will face the same incompatibility problems we had with the Art Tools. They were created for 3dsmax 2008 (as far as I know) sadly most 3dsmax plugins lose compatibility with new versions due to the fact that 3dsmax uses Visual Studio's API for reading them, new versions of 3dsmax use the new version of that API which most of the time isn't backwards compatible.

Just telling this is all my personal view on why are we a bit downyard here. I have mentioned the problems which I see but I would also like to propose some solutions.

Some solutions in my opinion:

• A new text version of M3 models: Wc3 modeling was succesful due to the MDL format, it was easy to read and easy to edit. People grew to understand models better thanks to it. I believe the community should elaborate a text version of m3 and speak with programmers to elaborate a converter. Once this is done, model editions will be more likely to see. I like to call this as in economy a "downwater solution" since this solution is a full engine that pulls people in and helps fixing the current problems.
• Modeling and texturing contests focused in Starcraft 2: contests would encourage people to work more on the game. It would also help them get experience and have an idea of how the game works to start moving into modding it.

Maybe you guys think a bit different but I think we should discuss the problem and find out why most people don't want to model for this game.

 

[Rui]

BlinkBoy's chronicle

Thanks so much for posting, BlinkBoy, I was afraid you were gone permanently. _{Nobody there actually answered my post}

The points you have mentioned here are troubling indeed. The lack of documentation is a common problem for modding and modeling alike, given the StarCraft II Editor's lack of proper documentation, too.
Even so, for modding, it is a matter of experimenting, and while in modeling it may involve experimentation too, I remain skeptical as to how well our artists will be able to tailor their skills for a modeling activity that, given the points you mentioned here, such as how portraits work, is more difficult than ever. I did theorize that the increasing quality of game graphics would play a factor into this and your post only confirms my suspicions.

 

[BlinkBoy]

Thanks so much for posting, BlinkBoy, I was afraid you were gone permanently.

The points you have mentioned here are troubling indeed. The lack of documentation is a common problem for modding and modeling alike, given the StarCraft II Editor's lack of proper documentation, too.
Even so, for modding, it is a matter of experimenting, and while in modeling it may involve experimentation too, I remain skeptical as to how well our artists will be able to tailor their skills for a modeling activity that, given the points you mentioned here, such as how portraits work, is more difficult than ever. I did theorize that the increasing quality of game graphics would play a factor into this and your post only confirms my suspicions.

I wouldn't say that's much as a problem as in Wc3 we started by editing wc3 models. The problem in hand is that we don't know well what starcraft 2 asks for us in modeling. When modeling for a game it's all about the model format, if it's very restricting then it's hard to work on it.

We need more information in order to keep going. I believe that making simple edits should be the start point but currently that's hard to do without an advance tool such as 3dsmax and 80% of wc3 modelers didn't even use it. So there's nowhere to start.

About portraits the problem is not the quality demands but the access to appeal them. Sc2's lip synching uses a tool which is unknown for us and as little as I've heared it costs about 15k $ and has no student or free of charge edition.

 

[Vizel]

As Rui said, the better the quality the harder the work. Factor in that people tend to be afraid to venture into the unknown, and would rather have a template or tools to help make their job easier, and you have a lack of results.

It's my opinion that there will be exponential increase of models and skins as more methods arise and new tools become available.

EDIT: As I am typing before blink's post above...
That makes sense as well, if there is a lack of information then it would correlate to a lack of production. Sounds to me like Blizzard failed in regards to making the editing process user-friendly, so it's hardly a community issue, and more of a Blizzard issue, right?

 

[BlinkBoy]

As Rui said, the better the quality the harder the work. Factor in that people tend to be afraid to venture into the unknown, and would rather have a template or tools to help make their job easier, and you have a lack of results.

The only templates or resources we could facilitate are made through 3dsmax which as I've said is a hard start for most.

It's my opinion that there will be exponential increase of models and skins as more methods arise and new tools become available.

That's why i propose making a text format, it would encourage both modeling and tool making. Specialy since novice programmers know more about creating tools for text formatys rather than binary formats

EDIT: As I am typing before blink's post above...
That makes sense as well, if there is a lack of information then it would correlate to a lack of production. Sounds to me like Blizzard failed in regards to making the editing process user-friendly, so it's hardly a community issue, and more of a Blizzard issue, right?

In wc3 we didn't have much support from blizzard when it came to art, the best they did was to give indirect support for art tools at their forums which only lasted for about a year.

 

[Grey Nightmare]

There is a way you can use just the one model and have a death anim I believe, but yeah why you need separate death models is beyond me, it's overkill isn't it?

 

[BlinkBoy]

There is a way you can use just the one model and have a death anim I believe, but yeah why you need separate death models is beyond me, it's overkill isn't it?

It's like making portraits for wc3, few make them, it's kinda boring since sometimes you need to do the rigging again.

 

[Vizel]

The only templates or resources we could facilitate are made through 3dsmax which as I've said is a hard start for most.

So we're back to the fact that higher quality demands higher skill, or at least a whole lot of head + wall.

In wc3 we didn't have much support from blizzard when it came to art, the best they did was to give indirect support for art tools at their forums which only lasted for about a year.

Have they even done that with sc2? I've been disgusted with Blizzard ever since the Activision merger or buyout or whatever it was (doesn't matter, don't care).

You mentioned that the tool to make the lip sync work cost about $15k and had no free version. That sounds like a serious mistake in regards to promoting creativity by the users to me. I'm sure the effect is nice (Don't have SC2, so I don't know) but unless blizzard or someone else either comes out with an affordable solution or finds an alternative, it sounds to me like a bust.

 

[shamanyouranus]

As far as I'm concerned, Starcraft 2 has the perfect balance of over-complexity and dated technology to attract absolutely no modelers or artists.
If you look at the Warcarft 3 model database, you'll see the lack of quality. This is because of how simple the standards are for Warcraft 3. While there are many talented Warcraft 3 modelers, many haven't worked with other games, and as such have not had to develop the skills necessary to work with higher-complexity games. The majority of modelers, myself included, see the task of working in Starcraft 2 as too daunting to even attempt.
Despit this, there are many very talented modelers out there who have worked with next generation games and modeling technology. For these artists, the problem arises in how outdated Starcraft 2 is. The graphics are very simple and cartoony, while being processor intensive and using little-understood formats. I don't see why any modeler would decide to work with Starcraft 2, as it is so far behind in technology and features, that many would choose to work with more moddable games, or even make their own.
Honestly, I don't see much appeal in modeling for Starcraft 2 as it requires so much more time and skill than Warcraft 3 modeling does and those who possess these skills our can take the time to learn them would be better off applying them to other games.

 

[shamanyouranus]

As far as I'm concerned, Starcraft 2 has the perfect balance of over-complexity and dated technology to attract absolutely no modelers or artists.
If you look at the Warcarft 3 model database, you'll see the lack of quality. This is because of how simple the standards are for Warcraft 3. While there are many talented Warcraft 3 modelers, many haven't worked with other games, and as such have not had to develop the skills necessary to work with higher-complexity games. The majority of modelers, myself included, see the task of working in Starcraft 2 as too daunting to even attempt.
Despit this, there are many very talented modelers out there who have worked with next generation games and modeling technology. For these artists, the problem arises in how outdated Starcraft 2 is. The graphics are very simple and cartoony, while being processor intensive and using little-understood formats. I don't see why any modeler would decide to work with Starcraft 2, as it is so far behind in technology and features, that many would choose to work with more moddable games, or even make their own.
Honestly, I don't see much appeal in modeling for Starcraft 2 as it requires so much more time and skill than Warcraft 3 modeling does and those who possess these skills our can take the time to learn them would be better off applying them to other games.

 

[BlinkBoy]

As far as I'm concerned, Starcraft 2 has the perfect balance of over-complexity and dated technology to attract absolutely no modelers or artists.
If you look at the Warcarft 3 model database, you'll see the lack of quality. This is because of how simple the standards are for Warcraft 3. While there are many talented Warcraft 3 modelers, many haven't worked with other games, and as such have not had to develop the skills necessary to work with higher-complexity games. The majority of modelers, myself included, see the task of working in Starcraft 2 as too daunting to even attempt.
Despit this, there are many very talented modelers out there who have worked with next generation games and modeling technology. For these artists, the problem arises in how outdated Starcraft 2 is. The graphics are very simple and cartoony, while being processor intensive and using little-understood formats. I don't see why any modeler would decide to work with Starcraft 2, as it is so far behind in technology and features, that many would choose to work with more moddable games, or even make their own.
Honestly, I don't see much appeal in modeling for Starcraft 2 as it requires so much more time and skill than Warcraft 3 modeling does and those who possess these skills our can take the time to learn them would be better off applying them to other games.

It's actualy true, but have you ever asked yourself if you truely need to make all that it asks? Let's say you are making a warcraft conversion for Sc2, would you need specular maps or normal maps? Not really since you may want to keep things cartoonish. The thing with sc2 is that you can make the same you do with Wc3 if you had the right tools at hand. I do believe there's more complexity but it doesn't mean it's harder since as technology needs advances so does the tools. Before making a normal map was kinda a pain (it came out by max 7 or 8) but later it became something of a few clicks and that's it.

You just proved what the problem is. It's simple, people see it quite complex, but that's because they don't have something simple from where to start from. Back at 2004 we had the same problems, most people thought modeling was impossible and limited only to skinning. It wasn't until simpler ways as MDL editing and oinker tools came out that the field started being explored. Things that people make now were unthinkable back them, it was just too much work to handle but now is not impossible. It's just a matter of studying the field.

 

[Rispetto]

There is a way you can use just the one model and have a death anim I believe, but yeah why you need separate death models is beyond me, it's overkill isn't it?

If you set the death model to the unit's model in the data editor it will find and play the death animation.

So no.. you don't need to make two models.

But the rest of it is true.. it is a pain to make them now.

 

[Misha]

do we actually have a good way to extract working skeletons with animations from sc2? or make a skeleton that could somehow be animated in the game Oo

would want to ask about geosets too, but can't really formulate a question..

 

[Mechanical Man]

Let me guess... is that 15k software granny 3d perhaps?

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Is someone calling them over Skype/other IMs? I see more of the olds coming back just when I intend to do the opposite. Welcome back, I'm glad there are people to move on to SC2 and show that with more options in the editor comes more difficulty. Some are like expecting magically-ready-map-creator editors. This site is a War3 site and pretty much all the new guys you see are Asians, where War3 is still kicking and alive, don't expect to change that for them, War3 does not require original copy, well Garena is better anyway but still, so that's what declines, moving on to smth newer but the majority shape the community. That's why imo SC2Mapster is the one doing the pretty good job especially once the Art Tools are released.

(P.S Since 2004 where I used older acc I was just a member, so in case you wonder who I am, I was TheTerran or earlier 2.45LightYears not anyone you may remember)

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Let me give an example from a modellers perspective, who once tried to switch to SC2 modding:

Back in the days when SC2 first came out, I tried to create a unit model right from scratch as a basis to get a feel for SC2 modeling and write easy to understand tutorials for everyone.

I started with 3ds max 9, as it was the closest I could get to the tools Blizzard was said to have used.

I modelled a "basic human" model, added textures to it (as I am a retard when it comes to actual photoshop work, I went with a WoW import skin placeholder and moved on) and did the UV mapping.
As I had access to motion capture data, the animating was a piece of cake mostly.
In the end my model was done and about to be completed. And this was when the frustration started:

First, I didn't have any tools provided to convert my friggin max model into m3. There was a converter in the early days of SC2, but it didn't work for 3ds max 9. It only seemed to be compatible to 2010.
Second: I had all the animation data, but I didn't have any knowledge about how to actually convert it to SC2 in a clean way without data loss.
I wrote this one tutorial in the early days by loading SC2 model data and figuring out the naming conventions for bones and anims. Yet it wasn't enough.
Third: When I finally found a way to export my max model into m3, it turned out rubbish. The animations were completely screwed, the maps had changed, the textures looked awful.
Fourth: I didn't even know how to properly test my model, as it was not as easy as in wc3, where you simply imported your model, applied it to a unit and then played the anims by triggers. No, everything needed to be extremely confusing and complicated. I simply didn't want to learn about the fucking galaxy editor when all i wanted to do was modeling?!

Modeling for SC2 was fun to the point where I actually had to convert the damn max model into SC2. And it was so frustrating I simply decided I didn't want to bother anymore and went back to my old WC3 project.



So to sum it up, those were the points that prevented me from doing any modeling stuff in SC2 and making it easier for the community by writing user friendly tutorials:
- absolutely NO support from blizzard about any kind of modeling at all; no explanations, no communication with the community, no release of any tools or programs that allow me to do a clean conversion from common model formats the the absolutely retarded format they used
- the fucking way every damn format has to be customized ... why can't I use ordinary map formats? Why do textures have to be an annoying format I need to download a plugin for photoshop and 3ds max AGAIN?
- still no release of Star Tools up to today (please confirm? I stopped SC2 modding long time ago)
- the annoying bnet 2.0 and how it is done has made modding of any kind frustrating as hell anyways, no matter if you got the models or not

Sorry, blizzard, but you screwed up. Modeling is fun, most of the time. It's a form of art. However, art is only fun when the time you spend on the actual ART PROGRESS is less than the time you spend on LOGISTICS.
I don't want to take 2 weeks and a programming degrees to convert my max scene into a damn working model.


PS: This is the tutorial I wrote back then.
It's outdated. I wrote this during sc2 Beta. Still, people seem to use it and this is something that is really weird. Aren't there any better information out there yet? It's been two years since then!
http://www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/.../editing-creating-models-starcraft-ii-166263/

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Ok modeing-wise, it is complex, how can it be easy when you have more advanced techniques? I see the same rant of 'It is too hard, I want it to be like war3, it is too big System Specs, I want it to be like War3, the Editor is too hard I want it to be like War3'...

As far as I'm concerned, Starcraft 2 has the perfect balance of over-complexity and dated technology to attract absolutely no modelers or artists.
For these artists, the problem arises in how outdated Starcraft 2 is. The graphics are very simple and cartoony, while being processor intensive and using little-understood formats. I don't see why any modeler would decide to work with Starcraft 2, as it is so far behind in technology and features, that many would choose to work with more moddable games, or even make their own.
Honestly, I don't see much appeal in modeling for Starcraft 2 as it requires so much more time and skill than Warcraft 3 modeling does and those who possess these skills our can take the time to learn them would be better off applying them to other games.

Firstly I disagree with the graphics being cartoony, are you talking about SC2 or some other game, shamanyouranus? Yes they are not scanned from real world but that's how the games are, most of them. If you want like the cinematics graphics, I think SC2 is a lot into what the newest games has to offer as real less-cartoony graphics.

Also did it come to your mind partially it could be so, to make the game more playable when you play it as RTS? Good morning, how was the sleep? The game is primarily made to be an RTS, THEN mapmaking. So I think in order for the eye to spot things more when too many of them move, things are in more contrast and thus the graphics aren't a movie. because it is a very intensive game and things happen much faster than some Empire Earth, Age of Empires or their latest equivalents.

Also you want even better graphics and some others cry about lower Specs eeehh eeeeh eee wow?

• it is too hard to model, I want it to be like War3 - you've got new mechanics, new graphics, new skins, more quality portraits and models than some TRIANGLE PRISM HEAD villager. You are making something for a more advanced game? How can it be easier? Answer: Cannot be as easy as War3, get over it

• it is too hard to use the editor, I want it to be like War3 - you can do times more things than in the War3 editor, it allows you to view as a Table if you're used to that, it shows some descriptions of which trigger does what. The system is far from complete but with more advanced things comes difficulty. Answer: Cannot be as easy as War3, get over it

• it is too System Specs Heavy - you've got to be kidding here, Rispetto, you've got new mechanics, new graphics, new skins, more quality portraits and models than some TRIANGLE PRISM HEAD villager. It's a fucking new game? Uwhat do you expect? To run the game on 128MB Video, 512 RAM?? They did amazing job to allow the game to work on such low graphics, if THAT's not enough for you... then use the Wooden PC to make camp fire in the forest. Even few year old PCs/laptops like mine can at least run it on Medium Settings without lag (since High or Ultra, latter lags liek hell) which is not bad at all, yet alone you can buy much better and still not too expensive today. If you're kids, well SC2 is for 18+ community is mostly like so, grow up, earn money and enjoy. Blizzard did so much to allow it to work on lower PCs, still complaining?

My Conclusion: It is harder for sure, everything, the lack of content here besides the art tools is mostly psychological unwillingness to do, scared of anything that's not War3 and not just lack of technologies, tools and things like that.

Prove me wrong? I'm not talking about Models, that is hard indeed, let's talk about why this place lacks SC2 interest, it is not just the modeling, it is as I mentioned and add this: Mostly Asian kids are the newbies and as such overall Asia and South America are full of guys who prefer to stay at a game they can play Garena rather than buy a new game and they do not have a new PC to do anything new, also War3 I can bet 70% here of all new comers don't have it original, so that;s why, and the majority of Asians like War3, SC2 is not popular there, that's why the lack of interest, contests and whatsoever

The modeling is not an excuse for the lack of interest, nor the graphics... lol 1st time I see complaints about them..HotS even further advances the look. Yes all sites lack modeling, it is painful, but look around you what others do for SC2. Now some will say - but this has been War3 place, ok then suppress SC2 ?

I don't care as I've mentioned, I am a gamer, so what happens here has no bearing to me, consider this an advice.

 

[Rui]

Zwiebelchen, I feel ya. Thanks for posting. In case you don't know, though, Blizzard has scheduled the release of their art tools for Heart of the Swarm, the upcoming expansion.

My computers never had too advanced graphic cards, so I'm already quite happy about SC2's.
Eimtor, the complaint here is not that it's more difficult, at least mine has never (recently, at least^^) been that. It's that it's difficult plus there's a serious lack of proper documentation.
I took a look at the SC2 Trigger Editor a few weeks ago and I don't remember finding it overly complex. Much to my surprise, I believe that anyone that has had previous experience triggering in WarCraft III will feel more or less comfortable with it. On the other hand, why are the help tips sometimes so unhelpful and sometimes even inexistent on the Data Editor? It's only more justifiable given how it can replace the Trigger Editor on so many things where Wc3's Object Editor found it impossible. Yet, the SC2 Trigger Editor has more or less decent help tips while its Data Editor does not. Paradox much.

 

[skrab]

I was not interested in SC2 modeling because of lack of proper tools and tutorials (video or at least a proper picture/word). Also the m3 export plugin was last updated in mid 2011.

So let's experiment. Starting with ordinary doodad.
How are they made in 3D MAX?
How does the texture work?
How animations work?
How to export properly?
How to import in the editor?...
So we can gather all that knowledge in one tutorial so everyone can learn from it.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Zwiebelchen, I feel ya. Thanks for posting. In case you don't know, though, Blizzard has scheduled the release of their art tools for Heart of the Swarm, the upcoming expansion.

My computers never had too advanced graphic cards, so I'm already quite happy about SC2's.
Eimtor, the complaint here is not that it's more difficult, at least mine has never (recently, at least^^) been that. It's that it's difficult plus there's a serious lack of proper documentation.
I took a look at the SC2 Trigger Editor a few weeks ago and I don't remember finding it overly complex. Much to my surprise, I believe that anyone that has had previous experience triggering in WarCraft III will feel more or less comfortable with it. On the other hand, why are the help tips sometimes so unhelpful and sometimes even inexistent on the Data Editor? It's only more justifiable given how it can replace the Trigger Editor on so many things where Wc3's Object Editor found it impossible. Yet, the SC2 Trigger Editor has more or less decent help tips while its Data Editor does not. Paradox much.

I don't remember Blizzard having such tutorials for War3 that anyone used, wasn't it all learnt from members' tutorials? How is it different? When people do even war3 modeling for the first time, it all starts from reading these tutorials

Also how can it not be harder for a newer game with more things than war3? People need to move on, it wasn't a problem from the even simpler Campaign editor of SC1 to War3 and yet the difficulty feeling must have been the same. Again I don't mean modeling. I myself went through Blender to export smth to M3, ended up installing some trial of 3Ds Max Design 2011 to export - it's awful to model even go through extreme to export smth, plus add Normal Texture, Specular and make using Gimp plugin which I learnt MYSELF from the internet, but tl:dr that's not the reason why this places lacks SC2 it is because the majority are from Asia (or ok other places that stay with old PCs) and that's what is played there, all that is not Korea, also they haven't got tired of war3 like some of us. Plus I've seen most of the community of SC2 is sort of above 18, here just kids :<

You'd have to kick lots of war3 mapmakers out of this place if you want this Old Hiveworkshop Order to change xD

 

[Rui]

Things were easier in WarCraft III. I remember finding stuff much more intuitively than in StarCraft II. Then again, I did actually have a patience back then.

 

[Statharas]

Bitch, please, i have the most custom models in the resource section, and from my experience that was rather easy. What must be done is someone making an actual modeling tool rather than making random tools. Seriously, i am using Student version of max.

And like i said, it's easy. I was making a Troll marine with an export from WoW, but due to several reasons i am unable to upload it... I have to redo it and envelope stuff.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The art tools are getting released soon. This sort of rant would have been great last year but it is just too close to them now.

 

[BlinkBoy]

The art tools are getting released soon. This sort of rant would have been great last year but it is just too close to them now.

that won't change much. Start Tools, just like Art Tools, will be exclusive to some. Wc3 modeling was successful due to communty tools for editing the mdl files and tutorials on doing that manualy.

That's why I say that we should produce a text version of such format based on mdl's syntax but using sc2's m3 specification.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The intigration of the art tools is apparently far better than those for WarCraft III. It includes editor linking meaning that changes you make to a model can be imported directly into the editor and used inside a StarCraft II map. This allows one to easily test a model in game and correct any problems it may have such as animations.

As far as I am aware no such tools existed for WarCraft III. Yes model simulators did exist but I know from firsthand experience that they did not have accurate visual reproduction and would often show a model as being fine when in WarCraft III it was broken or looked different.

 

[Pyritie]

That's why I say that we should produce a text version of such format based on mdl's syntax but using sc2's m3 specification.

Where's the specification then?

I'm working with my own model formats for my own game and have also studied parsing and stuff at uni (my dissertation was actually on a data structure for symmetric meshes), so I could help with this.

But first we need the full model specification! After that we can start figuring out requirements, extendibility, what people wished the MDL format had but didn't, etc.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Let us not forget that StarCraft II supports auxiliary animation files. These probably have a totally different structure from the actual models.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

The art tools are getting released soon. This sort of rant would have been great last year but it is just too close to them now.

I know I should be happy about that, but there are two things that come to my mind:

Why all the delay?
Why did the community have to wait two damn years to get tools that were promised to be there right when the game was released? I simply feel disappointed and left alone here. Blizzard knows what the appeal of SC2 was right from the start: moddability with a mighty editor. This is what kept WC3 alive for almost 10 years now. Why didn't they just release Star Tools right from the start? The software was there. Blizzard themselves used them, this was stated when Star Tools was announced during the beta phase of SC2.

Already to late now?
There. I said it. I feel its to late now, to 'revive' the modding community, especially the modeling community. I had the intention to add and create lots of custom made fantasy models for those that didn't like the sci-fi setting of sc2 in their custom maps. And I know at least 3 more modelers who wanted to do the same. They all gave up and went on to other games, due to the lack of support. Sorry, but blizzard missed the train here. You need to support your customers from the first day on, keep them motivated ... and not start after two years. I feel like the modding community has already passed the 'peak' and is beginning to shrink.

 

[AIagremm]

I'll state my opinion: Blizzard won't do sh*t.

For years now they have been growing further and further from the fanbase. I highly doubt that if they are asked they will attempt to make it easier for us. Blizzard is falling, because they no longer have the respect for modders as they used to have. Diablo 3 not being allowed to be modificated is a prime example of that.

And at this point there's really no use to try to get SCII modding rolling. The initial hype when it could has began has passed, people lost interest and faith in it.

So for me Blizzard, the real Blizzard, not that pile of crap called Activision Blizzard, is dead. And I can only enjoy it's masterpieces and mourn it's death.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Why all the delay?

Although some of the software was there, it was unusable to normal people. It might have been hardcoded to only work with the master repository or might have lacked integration with non-internal builds.

Already to late now?

Not their fault you are impatient. WarCraft III took much longer to get art tools and the ones Blizzard gave mostly did not work. Most of the tools people use to make models for WarCraft III are third party and came years after the expansion was released.

I do agree that it was not worth trying until they give us tools. However you should keep an open mind and try again once they have.

Diablo 3 not being allowed to be modificated is a prime example of that.

Neither did Diablo II. All mods were not multiplayer compatible (unless you used some third party service which Blizzard condone) and were done by damaging the game data files.

And at this point there's really no use to try to get SCII modding rolling. The initial hype when it could has began has passed, people lost interest and faith in it.

There are a lot of popular PvP maps that get thousands of hours play a day. The problem is that the choice is stifled because of Ghost Sessions that are any map not on the top 3 pages.

This is also getting patched with the addition of a list to see all sessions waiting for players.

So for me Blizzard, the real Blizzard, not that pile of crap called Activision Blizzard, is dead. And I can only enjoy it's masterpieces and mourn it's death.

Look at JASS for an example of how "good" they were back then. Galaxy may be more limited but it does not leak and executes faster.

 

[AIagremm]

Well, Galaxy is indeed impressive I must say. From the perspective of making maps SCII is certainly much better.

 

[Statharas]

What we need, i someone constructing a Sc2 Model editor. That supports complex tools, like Extrude and stuff.

 

[Pyritie]

Let us not forget that StarCraft II supports auxiliary animation files. These probably have a totally different structure from the actual models.

Those must have a file format too.

 

[Statharas]

Those must have a file format too.

m3a.

 

[BlinkBoy]

Well external animation files are more of a plus since you could reanimate already existing models without having to edit them or change. Unless, ofcourse, you change the original rigging.

 

[Pyritie]

m3a.

Okay, but if we wanted to make a text format we'll need a specification for them. Where are they?

 

[Statharas]

We have to hex them out so we understand their structure. There are extractors out there, but we have to find out how the models work and document them.

 

[Rui]

I've been boosting your rep a lot for this, I am glad everyone's settling down and trying to find solutions, thanks for the attention you spent on this!

 

[Dr Super Good]

I advise waiting for the art tools. That way you could create dummy models that are easy to understand.

 

[Statharas]

DSG, we can already do that, in fact, that's what i am doing right now.

Hey, Rui, should we actually get a thread for this?

I can also dump many simple models for testing purposes.

Also, quoting GN

There is a way you can use just the one model and have a death anim I believe, but yeah why you need separate death models is beyond me, it's overkill isn't it?

Separate models actually give you lots of options, for example, you could create a custom death for many units, like an explosion so that you can avoid putting it in each model.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The separate models is to reduce coupling complex death animations from the model itself making them lighter weight. It is pointless having details such as textures and animations loaded for when a model dies if the model might not die for a long time.

 

[Statharas]

And that.

 

[BlinkBoy]

It also allows you to expand a model by adding extra death animations. Same with m3a files.

 

[Tau Empire]

What I realize when doing the switch from WC3 to SC2 map making is that their are 5 problems.

1. Modeling, this topic is self explanatory in itself...

2. I knew the Galaxy Editor would be more advanced but it's simply TO advanced for me... I mean I have to worry about Actors and stuff now.

3. Trigger definitions don't mean the same thing in SC2... Even if it's described the same, it's some how different... I'm not sure how.

4. Lack of tools, we had WC3 Manager, MDLvis and other tools for modeling and textures, but here the only one that can model is 3DSMAX... which costs over 1000$ which not everyone can shell out....

5. Lack of a proper Hero system... ok this sounds stupid but in almost every map in WC3 there's a hero and we got so used to it that it's like every map needs a hero now... however Starcraft 2 doesn't have a hero system in place... we have to build one from scratch (which if I remember took me an hour to build one.)

Bonus #6. The limit on how many maps we can make..... now it's a bonus because this doesn't effect everyone, since some will do like 1 map and keep updating from there but others will always try to make new maps with new ideas....

Now onto the topic itself, I agree with you Blinkboy, it's pretty hard to do modeling for Starcraft 2, since we have to be careful with shading, with textures, with poly counts etc... The Extra animation file (.m3a) is only needed in special cases like say heavy story driven maps or cinematics... but other than that I do not see the point in having one. We really need some cheaper tools to model for Starcraft 2... I don't mind spending a couple of $$$ for a program but 2000$ is way to much for anyone and it's kinda bias.

 

[Dr Super Good]

2. I knew the Galaxy Editor would be more advanced but it's simply TO advanced for me... I mean I have to worry about Actors and stuff now.

You can do most of the things required to make a good map by looking at the campaign data and learning from that.

3. Trigger definitions don't mean the same thing in SC2... Even if it's described the same, it's some how different... I'm not sure how.

Even GUI can make amazing systems very easily in StarCraft II. Trigger mechanics is almost identical to the user as it was in WarCraft III except now you have access to locals (which GUI in WarCraft III did not give you).

4. Lack of tools, we had WC3 Manager, MDLvis and other tools for modeling and textures, but here the only one that can model is 3DSMAX... which costs over 1000$ which not everyone can shell out....

It is free if you are a student and there are always other ways.

5. Lack of a proper Hero system... ok this sounds stupid but in almost every map in WC3 there's a hero and we got so used to it that it's like every map needs a hero now... however Starcraft 2 doesn't have a hero system in place... we have to build one from scratch (which if I remember took me an hour to build one.)

You can customize what they give you to make many kinds of heroes. In WarCraft III you were limited to only 1.

Bonus #6. The limit on how many maps we can make..... now it's a bonus because this doesn't effect everyone, since some will do like 1 map and keep updating from there but others will always try to make new maps with new ideas....

Only really a problem for campaigns or map spammers. Hopefully the expansions will resolve this with functionality to request or even buy extra map space.

only needed in special cases like say heavy story driven maps or cinematics

The civilian units love to use them. That way the same animations could be used on many base models.

We really need some cheaper tools to model for Starcraft 2... I don't mind spending a couple of $$$ for a program but 2000$ is way to much for anyone and it's kinda bias.

You sure the old version that StarCraft II will use costs that much? Also it is free if you are a student.

 

[Tau Empire]

Really now? Well I'm not sure if they would count a student in Computer Science but if it's like Microsoft Dreamspark and Student discounted Kinect for Windows, than sure I'll check out if I can get it for free. Thanks for that DSG.

 

[BlinkBoy]

Well let's avoid talking of mapping here, could we?

Anyways, YES 3DSMAX student's license is free so that's not the problem. The problem is that for most it's complex and few modelers here actualy use it.

Btw, you can also make Sc2 models with blender: www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources...-an-animated-coin-model-for-starcraft/?post=1

 

[Statharas]

The main problem is the complexity of the models that's required, not enough documentation for user made programs, and generally not enough interest because everything is hard. We should solve the first two, starting from the second and moving on to the first.

 

[Walle]

I succesfully made some models that had working animations and worked in SC2 but it was pretty tough and I still can't do all that complicated stuff like particle emitters and such. It would indeed be great with a tool like War3 model editor for SC2.

3DS max really isn't that hard to learn/use. It's just that we need better plugins or programs like War3 model editor that can do stuff like particle emitters and stuff like that.

To all the modellers who are having trouble with the different texture maps Crazybump is a great program that is good for generating nice normal maps without having to make a high poly version of your model (though the result is probably best if you do). Also good for specular maps (you might want to edit them to your liking in photoshop though to get best results)
Download it here: http://www.crazybump.com/ try the 30 days trial.

EDIT: sc2 normal maps are a little different if i remember correctly.
EDIT: if your trial runs out there are "other" ways to get the program

 

[BlinkBoy]

I succesfully made some models that had working animations and worked in SC2 but it was pretty tough and I still can't do all that complicated stuff like particle emitters and such. It would indeed be great with a tool like War3 model editor for SC2.

3DS max really isn't that hard to learn/use. It's just that we need better plugins or programs like War3 model editor that can do stuff like particle emitters and stuff like that.

To all the modellers who are having trouble with the different texture maps Crazybump is a great program that is good for generating nice normal maps without having to make a high poly version of your model (though the result is probably best if you do). Also good for specular maps (you might want to edit them to your liking in photoshop though to get best results)
Download it here: http://www.crazybump.com/ try the 30 days trial.

EDIT: sc2 normal maps are a little different if i remember correctly.

Thanks man, I'm really tired of making a high poly version always. Sometimes it's easy, other times it's painful. Gonna give it a try.