What kind of a modeling skills will I need to develop for HL2?

[archcommus]

I'm a pretty seasoned Half-Life mapper, however I never got much into modeling. From the looks of things the new Hammer is very similar to the old one in interface and usage, so I'm sure I'll have no problems with that. However it also seems that HL2 depends much more heavily on static models that HL1 did. So will learning this trade (just enough to make simple static objects) be necessary to make some decent maps in HL2?

 

[IchI]

A lot of skillz.

 

[pNz]

takes skill but its a fast learning process ( was for me anyway). i have some mapping xp. also, and after learning how to model, mapping is much much easier now, and i can make alot more complicated levels now that i know how to model.

 

[Cunbelin]

Modeling is like mapping without any restrictions so it's pretty easy to learn if you have a good grounding in mapping. Grab XSI exp or Gmax, or Maya PLE all of them free programs and are great for learning. XSI exp can export to HL2 and is really ideal for doing pretty much everything except characters, so if you doubt you'll be spending any money that would be your best bet, also the new full version of XSI is $500 for non-students, $175 for students, so it's also probably the cheapest of the available programs.

 

[archcommus]

What about that free one, Milkshape or something?

Anyway I would never model characters or anything like that. Just furnitue and static objects. I'm wondering if that's going to be NECESSARY to learn to make good levels in HL2 (of course it wasn't necessary for HL1), since HL2 seems to have tons of models in it.

 

[Ames]

Milkshape isn't free...

It's harder to create detailed objects in it.

And, yes, it is definitely necessary if you want your map to look good and feel right.

 

[Cunbelin]

yes you do, and get XSI exp it is free and will be more than adequate for anything you would need in HL2. Milkshape is $25 it is not going to be officially supported by Valve. An actually free program is Wings3D, but it as of yet does not have exporters for HL2.

http://www.softimage.com/products/exp/HL2/

They need some personal information but otherwise it is free and exports to HL2.

 

[archcommus]

Cool, thanks.

How does the interface of XSI compare to professional stuff like Maya? Speaking of that, what did Valve use for their stuff? I think it used to be 3ds but I'm not sure if they still use it.

 

[DoctorGordon]

Why not just use Hammer to make objects?

 

[Cunbelin]

XSI is what Valve used, it and the previous version SI|3D have been used throughout the cg industry for years. ILM despite many claims used SI|3D for all of it's animation purposes, though modeling may have been done using Maya. The key to learning XSI is learning the shortcuts.

There are Four issues that spring to mind with using Hammer to make an object: First the clarity is not as good as a 3D program where you can move points with floating point precision. Second working in hammer to build some objects is like working with one hand tied behind your back because of the convex requirement. Third hammer doesn't allow for nearly as good texture control as a 3D program. Finally you can't set normals, or smoothing groups with brushes.

 

[archcommus]

Valve used XSI? Really?

Wow, XSI free must be some REALLY basic stuff then, if it's completely free.

 

[MiMMiC]

XSI is free because Valve teamed up with the creators of it. It's really for educational use and can't be used for any commercial purposes. That's why it's free. 3d Studio Max did the same thing about...1-2 years ago (if not before).

 

[DoctorGordon]

XSI is what Valve used, it and the previous version SI|3D have been used throughout the cg industry for years. ILM despite many claims used SI|3D for all of it's animation purposes, though modeling may have been done using Maya. The key to learning XSI is learning the shortcuts.

There are Four issues that spring to mind with using Hammer to make an object: First the clarity is not as good as a 3D program where you can move points with floating point precision. Second working in hammer to build some objects is like working with one hand tied behind your back because of the convex requirement. Third hammer doesn't allow for nearly as good texture control as a 3D program. Finally you can't set normals, or smoothing groups with brushes.

I think you might be surprized what you can do with Hammer once you know it real well. Convex shapes? No prob.

What is a "normal"? What is a "smoothing group with brushes"?

 

[Cunbelin]

Heh, I'm very well versed at what can and can't be done with brush based systems, and also where the difficulties and strengths of such systems lie. I said convex geometry was fine, the difficulty comes in making concave geometry. While I'll admit I like VHE the best at doing per-vertex work, it still leaves something to be desired when I don't have to worry about such issues as convex and concavity at all in a 3D modeling program. Normals relate to how light hits an object and the impression of facets or smoothness on a given object. Brushes generally look very faceted particularly when dealing with concave objects that require multiple brushes. On the other hand when I do 3D work I have near complete control over these kinds of things.

To be honest it's far easier to work on things in a 3D program designed to make them, then it is to work in a program designed to build levels. Just like I wouldn't want to design levels in a 3D program I don't want to have to design detailed objects in a level editor. If you feel like you can get by without a 3D program more power to you.

XSI is not free, exp is free, exp for HL2 ONLY works for HL2, it will not render out decent sized images, and it won't output for any other program, it's a special deal like the gMax gamepacks.

 

[babywax]

Hammer can edit .mdls? I thought it could only edit BSPs?

One feature of .mdls makes it worth it alone, and that's LODing. BSPs don't LOD, so if you want to put detailed objects in your map, but not have it hinder the performance when you use a lot of them, MDLs are FAR superior.

 

[Cunbelin]

Well brushes* have advantages and models have advantages, in truth though the advantage to BSP editors to my thinking is that they allow modders to create things without putting out for expensive programs. As honestly you can do everything you can in a BSP editor in a modeling application, it generally doesn't swing both ways though.


*please note that BSP's and brushes are two different things, the Halo engine uses BSP's but it doesn't use brushes at all.

 

[archcommus]

A modeling program can't do EVERYTHING Hammer can. Can't do entity work in them!

I always wanted to use a modeling program to make more detailed objects for my HL1 maps, but I didn't because 1) models weren't necessary to make detailed maps for that era, and 2) the original engine couldn't do much with models, like shadows or anything else, and didn't even really have a good entity for static models. It had monster_furniture but that didn't always work very well.

I'm going to download and install XSI EXP for HL2 and start getting used to it, since I know it's something I'm going to need to learn to make good HL2 maps. Does XSI EXP lack anything in terms of actual modeling features, or does it only lack the two things you mentioned (ability to render large scenes and export to any other game)? If the core features are the same that's a really sweet deal.

 

[Cunbelin]

I think it may not have full fur and or cloth support, but everything else is there, it also is version 3.5 not 4, but it's still more than enough.

Technically you could use nulls to place things like entities but it's probably easier to have a separate program to place those sorts of things.

 

[Gray Fox]

http://www.blender3d.com/ totally free, and free tutorials online here and it owns. It shows that other modling programs like 3dsmax, xsi and maya are REALLY OVERPRICED.
XSI exp is good also, only you must have an r monitor that can handle 1200x1200 rex or so, it won't work on anything below that properly.
And XSI softimage for pro's is the most expensive of all 3d programs,
Maya PLE is also wonderfull and totally free. Blizzard uses maya for their movies.

 

[archcommus]

This res thing is REALLY annoying with XSI EXP. My default is res is 1280x960, which is the correct resolution since its 4:3, however it requires that I switch to 1280x1024. Is there no way at all to edit my layout to get around this? If not that may be reason enough to switch to another program.

 

[Ames]

This res thing is REALLY annoying with XSI EXP. My default is res is 1280x960, which is the correct resolution since its 4:3, however it requires that I switch to 1280x1024. Is there no way at all to edit my layout to get around this? If not that may be reason enough to switch to another program.

Scroll down for layouts.

http://www.grahamdclark.com/Studentresources/links/generallinks/downloads.htm

 

[archcommus]

Thanks.

Hmm, which to use? There's so many! I tried a regular 1280x960 one, but things were not rearranged at all to see everything.

What are others doing with this? Using a custom layout? Changing your res? Using a profile with your video drivers?

 

[Ames]

Thanks.

Hmm, which to use? There's so many! I tried a regular 1280x960 one, but things were not rearranged at all to see everything.

What are others doing with this? Using a custom layout? Changing your res? Using a profile with your video drivers?

That's the problem with custom layouts. They are the only solution that I know of..:\

 

[Gray Fox]

Oh about that thing that blizzard uses maya, I should add that they use it mainly for their cg movies.
Simply put hollywood uses a lot of maya.
gamemakers use 3dsmax cause it has the better polygon tools.
But with recent version maya has become better at polygon and 3dsmax has been givin a more dynamic engine. but generally if you plan to model for games with 3dsmax you can't go wrong.

 

[Cunbelin]

Well the problem with blender is it is not officially supported. XSI, Maya and Max are, of those XSI costs $500 for the basic version, Maya costs $2200, and 3DS is $3500. On Eductional versions 3DS and XSI are both around $200, Maya is $500 for educational versions. All three have free versions, gMax outputs to several engines the most modern one is C&C generals, Maya Personal Learning Edition outputs to UT2003 and UT2004, XSI experience outputs to HL2.

If you are new to modeling, bottom line, learn a free program, if you want to be able to output your work and not pay for a program you should use XSI exp.

Once you learn one program learning a new one becomes much easier. I suggest you learn a little about NURBs but focus mostly on learning polygons. If you can understand at least basically how polygons work then there is nothing to learning a new application. From there you just need to learn different modeling techniques, you should develop some purely on your own by doing undirected work where you just sit down and model, temper this with trying a short tutorial on somebody else's techniques.

After you have learned one package I would strongly recommend you take the time to learn the other two. The fact that they have free versions and 30 day trials for all of the packages makes doing this very easy. While I may have a favorite package I admit I have developed workflows in all three programs.

There is no standard package that everyone uses, Raven software uses SI|3d, valve uses XSI, id uses Maya and Lightwave, Bungie uses 3DS and Maya, Pixar uses an in house program as does Dreamworks, effects houses often customize their choice of program so much it isn't recognizable. There is no standard I suggest you learn all 3 and decided which one you like the best, then buy the full commercial version of that program, and you can always use it and you can even use it in a development house that uses another program as generally you can get at least models back and forth between packages without issues.

 

[Cunbelin]

Heh if that other post wasn't long enough I thought I'd add, of the three packages, I'd rate XSI as the best polygon modeler followed by 3DS, maya comes in last as it has an incredible amount of bugs, and a very difficult to customize interface. I've heard that Lightwave is supposed to be a really great modeler, but alas I'm not willing to put out the kind of money needed to find out if I like modeling in it. anyway that's my personal opinion.

 

[archcommus]

Well, I don't think personally that I really need to learn how to use every big modeling program out there. I don't intend on becoming a pro at it, or doing it as a career. But I do realize that it is necessary to learn to make good maps for HL2, and since I am a devout fan and will want to map for years to come, it is something I want to get into and comfortable with. For now, XSI alone will be fine.

Here are my only choices for dealing with this resolution issue:

1) Change it every time (very crappy, the screen size changes each time and must be adjusted manually via monitor controls)

2) Use the ATI CCC to make a profile for the program (also crappy, as the CCC uses about 50 MB of memory at all times, I'd rather use the default control panel)

3) Choose a new layout, would be an excellent option if things were arranged in such a way that everything could be seen, even if it sacraficed some viewport space. However, of the two layouts I tried from that link above, both of them only served to allow me to at least open the program. Once I was in, everything at the bottom was still hidden.

What to do?

 

[Cunbelin]

Yeah XSI has a stupid bug that only works correctly when the task bar at the bottom is set to auto pop up, it's my default setting anyway so I often forget about it. Is you video card really not capable of displaying the full resolution ? Or do you have a lower resolution monitor ?

 

[archcommus]

Wait, you're saying the taskbar needs to be set to auto pop-up to see everything in XSI no matter what resolution you're in? I thought that was just because I was using a smaller resolution than they want.

No, my video card and monitor are capable of displaying almost any resolution up to 1920x1440 (19" flat Philips 109B CRT and 9800 Pro). However, 1280x1024 is an INCORRECT resolution. For a proper display, only resolutions that are 4:3 should be used, which 1280x960 is. 1280x1024 is 5:4. Thus, I use the former. I don't want to use the latter all the time, just for this software, nor do I want to switch it every time I want to open it. I'm sure I'm not alone in this thinking.

So is my only solution to use a custom 1280x960 layout and then auto hide my taskbar to see everything?

 

[archcommus]

Oh, and....how can I stop it from making that AudioStorage folder in my C:\ root folder every time I open the software?

 

[Cunbelin]

hmm you are going to have to find a more experience XSI user for that one. If you don't get an answer here, try the XSI forums.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Oh, and....how can I stop it from making that AudioStorage folder in my C:\ root folder every time I open the software?

Ah so thats where that damn thing came from :s annoying stuff

 

[archcommus]

Definitely.

I'll post it over in their forums.

 

[archcommus]

UPDATE

Okay so I've been using and learning XSI for a few days now. I have not been liking it much. The interface isn't very well organized IMHO and it's ridiculous that I have to minimize my taskbar AND use a custom layout and I STILL can't see everything at the bottom of the screen. Also crazy that I can't save my own layout, what a pointless feature to strip! Anyway, I was just dealing with those things and decided to stick with this program. However today, I ran Norton SystemWorks 2004's One Button Checkup, and it found FOUR THOUSAND registry errors. I fixed them all, and then did a defrag, and now XSI no longer works. It opens okay, but when I go to open or save a scene, it says "Failed to save sequence before system failure." I haven't tried reinstalling the program yet, but even if I did, I BET the 4000 registry errors would come back, and then if I fixed them I BET XSI would get the same error again.

Ugh, what a pain. I can try reinstalling it, and if that works, I just have to never run One Button Checkup ever again? Silly.

I'm considering just dropping this and switching to Maya PLE. But would I be at a disadvantage then? I don't want to make the switch if I would be.

 

[thereisaspoon]

you would be at a disadvantage with ple, if u plan to use it for hl2. I dont think valve will release a plugin for it. I dont see why people dont use 1280 x 1024, my monitor has no problems with it, and there are no ratio problems (circles look symetrical to me).

And if u havent used any other programs, xsi has the most organized and efficient interface. Bad news if u plan to use something else, problem is, most noobs dont know how to use it.