Unconventional Modelling Software

[AHadley]

GTK Radiant?

GTK Radiant is a Q3 map-making program, one that I used to use in my Q3 days and know the controls of. Since I am so utterly awful working in any conventional modelling programs, is there any way I can get either a modelling program that works in the same way (Brush-drawing, download it and draw stuff if you don't know what that means) or some way I can convert sets of brushes into .xsi and .msh models?

[mrtwosheds]

Never used it, don't know.
The original program used to make bz2 models is no longer available.
Just about everybody uses different programs and techniques to create bz2 models...

If gtk radiant can export .3ds or .obj or some versions of .x then you can probably use it to make models and then convert them to .xsi
This will probably not be as simple as you would hope it would be.
here are some links to useful tools

http://www.4shared.com/file/78263679/8afd6c9f/3de_155kg.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/78263526/65733b12/LithUnwrap.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/78264129/6f12b6e6/X2XSI.html

[AHadley]

Useful as I expect or not, I am more skilled in GTK at the moment than I will ever be in gmax, so I'll give the converters a try.

Thanks, twosheds.

[mrtwosheds]

3d exploration can convert a variety of formats.
The xsi version it converts to is NOT the one bz2 uses.
I use it to convert .3ds or .obj to its .x format.
This I then convert to .xsi with x2xsi, it will probably still need a little notepad tweaking after this before it will open in threed.
Lithunwrap is a UV mapping program, it can also make objects in .3ds and .obj (and other formats) I use this to make my models! It is not an over complex program.

It is possible that I am taking a complex route to get to my end result, It took a while to figure out how to do it.

[OvermindDL1]

For note, brushes are not actually models but rather a way of partitioning things.  Apps like Q3 and earlier used it because if was very efficient.  On modern hardware brushes are now very inefficient.  BZ2 does not use brushes, and most likely anything made using brushes will be inefficient (due to the huge amount of subdivided and booleaned geometry), but most likely could still be made to work if it could be converted to a conventional polygon model format.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[Nielk1]

Source Engine uses brushes I think.

[AHadley]

Yeah, it uses BSP map files, which are brush-based... but if BZ2 won't let me use them, I may have to find a really easy modeller package. Oh well, worth a try.

[TheJamsh]

I used a CAD program called Pro Desktop 8 which i learnt in school (and quite well)

Made a basic ship in it and Warfreak then imported it into max and had hundreds of thousands of polygons (and we are talking what... 30 faces maximum in ProD). The 'optimization' tool came in handy.

Woulkdnt be able to make anything decent in it though.

[AHadley]

I've always found ProDesktop (I used to have 2000i) a little clunky and blocky for me... but then, I can't model for *Service Trucks* Fake swears not intended to annoy Steeveeo, that's an added bonus

[mrtwosheds]

Wouldn't be able to make anything decent in it though.

Don't know that program either, but I can tell you that you do not need a particularly modern program, complexity is not what makes a good model for bz2, models need to be simple, and stuff has to be done bz2's way.
I use that lithunwrap...its doesn't even claim to be a modeling program, just a UV mapping tool, I like it because its simple and its quite good at UV mapping, which is important when making the sort of low poly models bz2 likes.
It has a handful of primitive shapes and a minimal amount of tools to manipulate them with, and wastes no cpu cycles making the interface look all pretty.
A modern program will be packed full of stuff you can't and don't need to use and be very good at making models with 10,000 polys or more, which is entirely useless for bz2. You have to think about the poly count all the time when making bz2 models, a few extra here or there make allot of difference when they are built in large groups with all the base at the same time.
The programs do not make the models good, you do.

[Warfreak]

If you ARE using a newer program, helps to know how to make a model from scratch, that way you get exactly what you want. (by this i mean you must be able to create verts and position them as needed and create faces from those. Its exact and provides as a great way to watch the poly count.)

[OvermindDL1]

Actually Source does use bushes for map creation due to its Quake origins, however the map compiler converts it to this weird bsp/octree thing.  Octree are generally the standard nowadays since they are more efficiency for how modern video cards render things, and of course there are a few specialized types for specific scenes as well.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[TheJamsh]

Is lithunwrap free?

Pro Desktop is CAD modelling software. I imported a simple cube with some chamfered edges into 3DS max from Pro D (using IGES format i think...) and it came out around 6000 polys. easy to rid yourself off with the 'optimize' tool but still...

[VSMIT]

Yes, Lithunwrap is free.  But if you have 3DS Max or Blender, you don't really need to use it.

VSMIT.

[TheJamsh]

im going to have to contribute to models at some stage. cant expect or rely on two guys to make everything especially when they are loaded up with tasks as it is.