[Borion]

mxrtxn, on 18 April 2019 - 06:09 PM, said:

This is top professional work.

I am curious about qubicle. Are you using the demo or a paid version?

Is it better than magica voxel?

I ask because I am also working on the voxel pack for Shadow Warrior. Any tool that helps speed things up are more than welcomed.

Thanks for you work and dedication

Mxrtxn

Again, thanks for kind words.

I assumed Qubicle price is same via www, and on Steam. Looks like www was not updated for ages, go to Steam guys.

But to answer your questions Mxrtxn, I don't use Demo version. I use basic 20$ version with 20$ Utility DLC bought via Steam. To be frank, there was a time I was REALLY pissed on Qubicle dev. Because you had to buy this damn 20$ 'Utility DLC' on top of basic version, to get things like hierarchy or rotation. F***ng scam.
Since than more features became part of basic version. And I got to admit after using this tool for three years, it was well worth its price.
There are things in Qubicle that you wont find in any other tool available. Like bitmap projection or very flexible & extensive selections system that are second to none of other voxel editors.


Is it better in general than MagicaVoxel? If you ask me, no. It is just different.
A lot depends on personal workflows and features that you care for. MagicaVoxel has many useful features that Qubicle lacks or sucks at,
like objects hierarchy list (think of it as layers panel in Photoshop), very fast extrude tool or very easy to use procedural system.

For me combination of Qubicle & (FREE) Goxel work best. I couldn't find all I need in one tool.

Why Goxel? It has some unique features, nice workflow and is generally better suited for big models than any editors that I have tried.
It has most expressive drawing tools of all, with transparent painting(!) and variable brush sizes. Besides that, hierarchy list, extrusion tool as good as in MagicaVoxel, unique Laser tool, KVX support for import/export, support for MagicaVoxel & Qubicle formats...list goes on.
Also, you can go really crazy with resolution of your models, if you got enough RAM. So it is also great (sudo)sculpting tool.

I think combination of MagiceVoxel & Goxel would work well too.

I hope this helps. If you got any more questions, feel free to PM me.

[LeoD]

I've started maphacking WorldTour ep.5, and checking back with the Voxel Pack shows some model/voxel differences which should be cared about to obtain best experience with maphacked levels.
Pistol ammo voxel: turn right by 90°; heatsensor voxel: turn right by 45°


Steroids voxel: two labels with gaps in between would improve the 3D appearance, compared to the current ring.


Personal taste related, but maybe you can agree: the tripbomb balancing on a rather sharp edge seems a little weird compared to the HRP model solution, even if it may be harder to spot sometimes.

Borion, on 17 April 2019 - 03:21 PM, said:

Rubber Can 1062-1063
[...]
IDEA: second frame would rotate in direction of shooter. That way we would avoid situations, in which player shooting the can would not face bended side of model.

That's more or less what maphacks are made for... And existing maphacks might even interfere with that method (not sure) and make every instance look wrong. So far I haven't always cared about rotationally symmetrical stuff like the can, but going through the official maps again at least would be easily done. (That's on my list anyway, to deal once more with flickering wall-textures in Polymer.)

Voxel proposal: trash can tile1232 CANWITHSOMETHING. Turns up everywhere and should be easy to do.


Concerning animation.con:
This should be done via EDuke32's C[++] code, controlled by DEF statements.
@Hendricks266 : this a feature request.

In general I think that, if possible, the Voxel Pack should not contain CON code, since having an eduke.con might CONflict with mods.

[LeoD]

Borion, on 09 April 2019 - 12:41 PM, said:

Fence(4429) [...]
Unfortunately it doesn't replace fences on the starting roof on E1M1. They are probably masked walls or sth. Anyway, this fence model works fine as typical wall-aligned sprite replacement.

The fence in E1L1 is 0913. 4429 is its weird uncle, not used in official maps AFAIK. Changing the offset and/or rotation might be sufficient for re-use as 0913 (maskwall2).

[Borion]

LeoD, on 24 April 2019 - 11:03 AM, said:

The fence in E1L1 is 0913. 4429 is its weird uncle, not used in official maps AFAIK. Changing the offset and/or rotation might be sufficient for re-use as 0913 (maskwall2).

Ok LeoD, thanks for info!

[Borion]

(0913) Maskwall2
props.def lines:
// Maskwall2 (913)
voxel "voxels/props/0913_maskwall2.kvx" { tile 913 }

KVX: https://mega.nz/#!J3...D7WATZBTvmaxgDg

[brullov]

You're making awesome work, guys. Thank you and keep it up!

[Borion]

LeoD, on 23 April 2019 - 12:22 PM, said:

That's more or less what maphacks are made for... And existing maphacks might even interfere with that method (not sure) and make every instance look wrong. So far I haven't always cared about rotationally symmetrical stuff like the can, but going through the official maps again at least would be easily done. (That's on my list anyway, to deal once more with flickering wall-textures in Polymer.)

I think your concerns Leo were adressed in post #829
https://forums.duke4...post__p__319972
I took time and effort working out this idea, at least read it before playing it down, my fellow Duke fan
IMHO community needs to push things forward, make things flexible and ready for new breed of modders & mappers. Limiting ourselves to solutions just good enough for old maps, won't be good in a long run.
I think Ion Maiden is prime example how much can be done with old tech, if one is open for new ideas & solutions.

LeoD, on 23 April 2019 - 12:22 PM, said:

Voxel proposal: trash can tile1232 CANWITHSOMETHING. Turns up everywhere and should be easy to do.

I took care of that Just need to finish shading and details, I will post it later.

[Fox]

LeoD, on 23 April 2019 - 12:22 PM, said:

I've started maphacking WorldTour ep.5, and checking back with the Voxel Pack shows some model/voxel differences which should be cared about to obtain best experience with maphacked levels.
Pistol ammo voxel: turn right by 90°; heatsensor voxel: turn right by 45°
ammo-voxel.jpg ammo-model.jpg heatsensor-voxel.jpg heatsensor-model.jpg

Voxels should spin like in SW... which is not very difficult to implement via def.

[NightFright]

That's what I am trying to tell everyone here, but it seems many people prefer static voxels like HRP models. With rotating pickups (not talking about props or other static objects you cannot pick up), maphacks are kinda redundant. However, I gotta admit it looks a bit stupid on certain ammo types like RPG ammo boxes, but I still think it's better than having to worry about item alignments or positions. I like to go for a minimalist approach and only have what is absolutely necessary in the pack, i.e. the fewer defs, cons or non-voxel files in general, the better.

[Phredreeke]

The disadvantage of spinning voxels is that they may clip outside of surrounding geometry, something that could be avoided with a carefully positioned static voxel.

Also, if we look at Blood, only the keys, shields and weapon pickups rotate - the ammo and inventory pickups do not.

My personal preference would be for static voxels as they currently exist in the voxel pack, with exception of those dropped from killed enemies or broken objects (alternatively something like what Borion suggested for the trash can, where the item dropped faces the player, although that might not work for future multiplayer)

[LeoD]

Phredreeke, on 26 April 2019 - 05:25 AM, said:

The disadvantage of spinning voxels is that they may clip outside of surrounding geometry, something that could be avoided with a carefully positioned static voxel.

Also, if we look at Blood, only the keys, shields and weapon pickups rotate - the ammo and inventory pickups do not.

My personal preference would be for static voxels as they currently exist in the voxel pack, with exception of those dropped from killed enemies or broken objects (alternatively something like what Borion suggested for the trash can, where the item dropped faces the player, although that might not work for future multiplayer)

The best way IMHO would be that dropped items inherit their direction from their predecessor, either where the enemy was facing at (usually the player), or the prop's or tile0009's angle as defined by maphacks.
@Hendricks266: feature request

[Borion]

Phredreeke, on 26 April 2019 - 05:25 AM, said:

The disadvantage of spinning voxels is that they may clip outside of surrounding geometry, something that could be avoided with a carefully positioned static voxel.

On the other hand sprites also rotate, just accordingly to players position. So their placement mostly should be fine for spinning voxel pick-ups, at least until model depth is not bigger that its width, what do you think guys?

Quote

My personal preference would be for static voxels as they currently exist in the voxel pack, with exception of those dropped from killed enemies or broken objects

IMHO, good idea

Quote

The best way IMHO would be that dropped items inherit their direction from their predecessor

Another good idea, even though I really like rotating pick-ups.

[Borion]

CANWITHSOMETHING (1232)


Pickups.def lines:
// CANWITHSOMETHING (1232)
voxel "voxels/props/1232_canwithsomething.kvx" { tile 1232 }

KVX: https://mega.nz/#!Vq...on9Fqv_aQhmuVmU

Sexshop Sign (937)


Pickups.def lines:
// Sexshop Sign (937)
voxel "voxels/props/0937_sexshopsign.kvx" { tile 937 }

KVX: https://mega.nz/#!Fv...X6JnJtHuQeVxEq4

[Hendricks266]

Borion, you are kicking ass my man.

LeoD, on 23 April 2019 - 12:22 PM, said:

I've started maphacking WorldTour ep.5, and checking back with the Voxel Pack shows some model/voxel differences which should be cared about to obtain best experience with maphacked levels.
Pistol ammo voxel: turn right by 90°; heatsensor voxel: turn right by 45°
ammo-voxel.jpg ammo-model.jpg heatsensor-voxel.jpg heatsensor-model.jpg

Steroids voxel: two labels with gaps in between would improve the 3D appearance, compared to the current ring.
steroids-voxel.jpg steroids-model.jpg

Personal taste related, but maybe you can agree: the tripbomb balancing on a rather sharp edge seems a little weird compared to the HRP model solution, even if it may be harder to spot sometimes.
tripbomb-voxel.jpg tripbomb-model.jpg

Are you sure in all of these cases that it is not the HRP model that is improperly rotated? I recall discussing with you how some HRP models are oriented incorrectly in the model file, causing a need to maphack every single use of them everywhere.

In the case of the Night Vision Goggles, 45 degree voxel rotations are not a simple matter. Perhaps both this and the above model errors would be best resolved by an angoff subtoken in model and voxel definitions.

LeoD, on 23 April 2019 - 12:22 PM, said:

Concerning animation.con:
This should be done via EDuke32's C[++] code, controlled by DEF statements.
@Hendricks266 : this a feature request.

In general I think that, if possible, the Voxel Pack should not contain CON code, since having an eduke.con might CONflict with mods.

Modular loading of CON code is its own issue to tackle. I'm not sure if spinning is something that should have intrinsic support in the exe. It seems like it would be a hardcoded mod feature.

Fox, on 26 April 2019 - 02:43 AM, said:

Voxels should spin like in SW... which is not very difficult to implement via def.

Voxels don't spin in SW. They only spin in Blood, and only some of them.

LeoD, on 26 April 2019 - 05:34 AM, said:

The best way IMHO would be that dropped items inherit their direction from their predecessor, either where the enemy was facing at (usually the player), or the prop's or tile0009's angle as defined by maphacks.
@Hendricks266: feature request

Agreed. This would be consistent with automatically applying pitch to rockets. The issue is how to actually do it. If we change the angle of the sprite itself, that's a game logic change. (Not that it's likely to matter.) The alternatives would be applying an angoff or inventing a totally new field for absolute angle of the model. The former could result in really annoying unexpected behavior in mods, and the latter sounds like a massive headache for no reason.

[LeoD]

Hendricks266, on 26 April 2019 - 10:35 AM, said:

Are you sure in all of these cases that it is not the HRP model that is improperly rotated? I recall discussing with you how some HRP models are oriented incorrectly in the model file, causing a need to maphack every single use of them everywhere

The improperly rotated models I know of are listed in the HRP to-do. Not sure if any of them has a voxel representation yet. Since every item faces north by default anyway, improperly rotated models do not have a higher 'must correct'-ratio.

Hendricks266, on 26 April 2019 - 10:35 AM, said:

In the case of the Night Vision Goggles, 45 degree voxel rotations are not a simple matter. Perhaps both this and the above model errors would be best resolved by an angoff subtoken in model and voxel definitions.

Will try that. (angoff for the voxel would spare editing all the MHKs.)

Hendricks266, on 26 April 2019 - 10:35 AM, said:

Agreed. This would be consistent with automatically applying pitch to rockets. The issue is how to actually do it. If we change the angle of the sprite itself, that's a game logic change. (Not that it's likely to matter.)

That's what I had in mind. Without knowledge of the underlying code, this sounds rather easy to me.

Hendricks266, on 26 April 2019 - 10:35 AM, said:

The alternatives would be applying an angoff

Keep in mind that monsters can be spawned, too. (Could be left out, though.) A Trooper angoffed by 180° would walk backwards an fart projectiles at you...

Borion, on 26 April 2019 - 07:02 AM, said:

Sexshop Sign (937) KVX

I'd prefer a thinner one. When used indoors or oversized, the thing might come across a little weird.

[Hendricks266]

LeoD, on 26 April 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

Will try that. (angoff for the voxel would spare editing all the MHKs.)

I do not believe the token I mentioned is currently implemented.

LeoD, on 26 April 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

Keep in mind that monsters can be spawned, too. (Could be left out, though.) A Trooper angoffed by 180° would walk backwards an fart projectiles at you...

That's the kind of thing I meant in terms of "really annoying unexpected behavior" .

[LeoD]

Hendricks266, on 26 April 2019 - 11:42 AM, said:

I do not believe the token I mentioned is currently implemented.

Oops.

[Borion]

Hendricks266, on 26 April 2019 - 10:35 AM, said:

Borion, you are kicking ass my man.

LeoD, on 26 April 2019 - 11:41 AM, said:

I'd prefer a thinner one. When used indoors or oversized, the thing might come across a little weird.

You are probably right, Leo. Now it is 8 voxel thick. I'll make it 6, ok? I would prefer to not make it less than that, because than it will be too shallow. I assume it suppose to be some kind of lightbox.

[Kyanos]

Borion, on 26 April 2019 - 01:02 PM, said:

I assume it suppose to be some kind of lightbox.

What it's supposed to be and what a mapper makes it into can be very different sometimes. It's sort of a slippery slope, but I do believe there is a maphack token to make any given sprite not become a model/voxel.

[ReaperMan]

I personally avoided doing the signage or things like it due to mappers using them for random things... and if its used in someway other then intended it breaks custom maps.

[Mark]

I'm only guessing because of how few old maps I play, but if its a choice between turning off voxels for that small handful of maps that they glitch in OR not having a voxel at all just to avoid any glitches, I'll take the first choice.

[Phredreeke]

Can you undef voxels?

[Danukem]

ReaperMan, on 26 April 2019 - 04:04 PM, said:

I personally avoided doing the signage or things like it due to mappers using them for random things... and if its used in someway other then intended it breaks custom maps.

Even used as intended, giving thickness to them is going to cause problems. Most of the signs can legitimately be used as paper posters, for example.

[Hendricks266]

I would say keep the depth minimal. Maybe 2px deep?

[LeoD]

Phredreeke, on 26 April 2019 - 04:21 PM, said:

Can you undef voxels?

Yes, the notmd ("do not use model") maphack directive implies "do not use voxel".

Trooper Dan, on 26 April 2019 - 04:28 PM, said:

Even used as intended, giving thickness to them is going to cause problems. Most of the signs can legitimately be used as paper posters, for example.

Hendricks266, on 26 April 2019 - 05:02 PM, said:

I would say keep the depth minimal. Maybe 2px deep?

Seems acceptable for this item.

[Phredreeke]

LeoD, on 26 April 2019 - 05:16 PM, said:

Yes, the notmd ("do not use model") maphack directive implies "do not use voxel".

Then one workaround for custom maps could be adding a def file of the same name undefining the sign voxels.

[Micky C]

Borion, on 26 April 2019 - 07:02 AM, said:

CANWITHSOMETHING (1232)


Sexshop Sign (937)

Is the can perfectly circular? It’s hard to tell from the angle. For the bin, the vertical stripes are a result of a triangular zigzag groove pattern, so there should be some depth to it if there isn’t already.

On the topic of signs, as a mapper, my vote is to not have them as voxels. In the case of things like pickup items and other decorative items, there are distinct volumes being represented as 2D images, which would benefit from being reinstated as volumes, and are treated as volumes by mappers.

The signs however are already almost 2D images, and from a visual perspective do not receive as much benefit from the voxel treatment.
Mappers place signs and posters expecting them to be flat, and as others have said, it’s much more likely that giving these tiles volume will cause issues than other tiles done so far.
Finally, mappers tend to place signs and posters as wall-aligned, meaning that they do have a sort of volume in the sense that they are viewed differently when seen at different angles as their rotation is fixed. This is natural. On the other hand, items like the lamp that are clearly a volume, and clearly should look different when viewed at different angles, look out of place when they don’t due to being view-aligned.

Of course, the voxel project, like all game modifications, is a passion project and I support the artists doing whatever tiles they want to do. Besides, people are free to use or not use any voxels the pack that they want in their own personal installation. It’s good to get detailed mappers perspectives in the open though.

[Jimmy]

The more options the better in my opinion. Because while it could "break" maps that were not made with voxel signage in mind, conversely new maps could be made with the voxel signage actually in mind. Also I really like spinning voxels for anything that can be picked up by the player. It's a valuable visual cue.

[ReaperMan]

Well, seeing the mixed reception I say just make the signs. Borion already worked on em anyway, so it would be a waste not to use them and they look nice. If we could get someone to code up something to switch on and off various aspects of the pack that would be nice and probably fix the custom map issue. Oh and we could make an option for spinning pickups.

[Borion]

First of all, I’m surprised that this sign caused such passionate discussion. I think it is very good that on this occasion many differences in our expectations towards this project became VERY clear (at least from my perspective).

Micky C, on 27 April 2019 - 06:30 AM, said:

Is the can perfectly circular? It’s hard to tell from the angle. For the bin, the vertical stripes are a result of a triangular zigzag groove pattern, so there should be some depth to it if there isn’t already.

It is conscious decision, Mickey. Groove is too shallow to be represented by form, It would look like cake mold. Please take a look at similar USA 80’s trash bins. The reason they are accented so much on 2D sprite, are dictated by illustrative purposes.

The other reason for avoiding grooves, is low “depth resolution” of this object. Grooves in this particular case would heavily distort object and take away its much needed regularity (industrial made object). Trust me on that. I made couple of rough variations of this trash-can, this is optimal variant.

Micky C, on 27 April 2019 - 06:30 AM, said:

On the topic of signs, as a mapper, my vote is to not have them as voxels. In the case of things like pickup items and other decorative items, there are distinct volumes being represented as 2D images, which would benefit from being reinstated as volumes, and are treated as volumes by mappers.

Completely agreed. I just decided that this sign is something special, because damage in its corner suggests certain depth to it & it works on my imagination.

I would like to share part of my process. When I think about converting certain sprite to voxels, I try to always have three things in mind:
1. Does it fit original intentions of level & sprite designers of DN3D?
2. Does it bring anything more to our experience with this object, besides just making it “fat”/extruded sprite? In case of sign, this deep damage stimulates (my) imagination.
3. Does it create some aesthetic & structural possibilities to future mappers?

For stated reason, I test all stuff on original maps from DN3D and also my test areas. I stretch/scale/combine with other voxel models to see how they differ from flat versions and if they generally add something to experience. I’m very passionate about this voxel endeavour. I will post soon some screenshots to support my words with something of a substance.

Photonic, on 26 April 2019 - 01:18 PM, said:

What it's supposed to be and what a mapper makes it into can be very different sometimes. It's sort of a slippery slope, but I do believe there is a maphack token to make any given sprite not become a model/voxel.

Yes, as a very humble mapper myself I’m aware that sprites are often used in many crazy…ahem!…creative ways And as you said, there are technical ways of stopping “end of a world” from happening.

Hendricks266, on 26 April 2019 - 05:02 PM, said:

I would say keep the depth minimal. Maybe 2px deep?

It is some way to solve this particular case, probably best for mappers insisting on doing things safe way. But IMO it also defeats the purpose, Hendricks But that is just one voice among many, many others of this community.

Mark, on 26 April 2019 - 04:11 PM, said:

I'm only guessing because of how few old maps I play, but if its a choice between turning off voxels for that small handful of maps that they glitch in OR not having a voxel at all just to avoid any glitches, I'll take the first choice.

Jimmy 100MPH, on 27 April 2019 - 12:22 PM, said:

The more options the better in my opinion. Because while it could "break" maps that were not made with voxel signage in mind, conversely new maps could be made with the voxel signage actually in mind.

THIS!


I was thinking about all of this for better part of today, and I came to this conclusion. I would like to propose splitting this pack into two categories (just on technical level!!!). First one would be - lets say - CORE. So only 100% safe stuff, like pick-ups, small non-wall aligned objects, lamps …etc.
Other part of pack - lets say ENHANCED - would be easy to turn off. Everything that may be risky, but creates some new looks/possibilities would be in this part of voxel pack. That way people that are afraid that their precious 20 years old maps stop working can sleep well, and those of us that want “new candies” can get them. I propose this, because I think situations like this are unavoidable in the future. Today we talk about simple sexshop sign. I can imagine bloodshed that will happen when we will get to even simpliest of enemies...

Cheers fellows!