I am currently converting a very large track. The track is a point to point track and drives very well despite not having made any mesh modifications to quadrify or increase poly count. Since the track is a point to point track I don't expect to gain as much from real road implementation as I would for a circuit and since it drives well I do not expect to gain as much from track mesh modifications compared to if there were odd bumps, etc. like with other tracks that I have converted with tighter turns and more dramatic elevation and camber changes like Lienz, for example, where you feel the poly count problem immediately. I am also experiencing headaches getting a straight answer in whether I can use 3dsmax 2011 to import rf1 tracks for conversion. So far I am only convinced that I will be able to export a scratch made track in 3ds max. So what I'd like to do is concentrate on 3dsimed first and swap materials/textures, add mipmaps, etc., etc. to beautify the track. My concern is that I remember reading somewhere how someone had to "start over" because he couldn't use in 3ds max what he had done in 3dsimed and exported for rf2. Is that true? Are you "stuck" with 3dsimed once you start working with it? Or can you start working with 3dsimed but still be able to make surface mesh improvements later if desired/needed? Or does it depend? For example I think the person I referred to above had to split objects because yellow issue caused by track and side objects being connected and/or using same materials, etc. And if that is a scenario that could cause you to have to start over in max because, for example, you couldn't import an already-split/isolated track mesh from rf1 and then export to rf2, then is it a good idea to test for this problem first by re-naming track materials to racesurface_* and/or test for connected side that have to be split and do so before working in 3dsimed, etc. I think you get the idea that I am looking for workflow/sequence considerations, pitfalls associated with using these two tools so that I can avoid rework. In addition to that general question I would also like to know specifically whether it is possible to isolate and import track mesh only in 3ds max like Spaskis does in 3dsimed in his real road implementation video? And possibly more specific is that would the way it would work be to pull t_* objects only into max and export out again like spaskis does in his video and then export to rf2 and copy paste into scn and then back into 3dsimed like the spaskis video? Last question is, if I don't care about rubber build up or weather/wet/dry line then can I still get anything else, like reflections without increasing poly count? Ideally, I could use 3dsimed exclusively for this conversion and be able to fully beautify it without limitation. Is this possible? Many thanks in advance.
When you have 3dsmax installed, I think it is completely silly using 3dsimEd at all anymore, if you are at all serious about converting to track, to rF2 standards I might add, you do a complete import in 3dsmax and go over everything, make that your source, and export to rF2 from there. I've seen some of the videos you posted with 10 meter long polygons in corners, that are just the things which need fixing really, no matter how someone claims how awesome it feels, no road is built like that, period The plugins for max are for only exporting only, I don't see a reason why they would need to import anything When you're going through the trouble of installing learning max, stick with it! It's like having photoshop installed but insisting using ms paint because it is easier and touching up the result in photoshop later It's just all the freedom you gain by using max is something you will never find in a tool like 3dsimEd which if I'm right is just a glorified import/export tool and not really something used to create stuff. In other words, I do not really see how you can make things better. You'll want to fix up meshes, uv's, update and add scenery objects, manage LOD's, etc. Ideally, loose 3dsimEd, it is limited in what you can do with it and so are the results that come out of it (Maybe a bit direct reply, but atleast you have clear answers to your questions, as you asked) edit: Peclair made the same journey as you so far and has had many if not all of the same questions you had. I really suggest reading through his topic because there is quite some information in there which can be useful for a lot of people but nobody may remember it is there up for grabs to begin with Also, unless you want to make very, absolutely sure, that you'll quit within a couple of months to leave all tracks behind in a sorry state only to regret having started modding in the first place, move to a smaller track. Seriously, do something small, or atleast the smallest track you plan on doing, not the one you think people will jerk each other off to the most but really the one were you can mess about and learn the pitfalls and make mistakes. It doesn't take much around here to be completely burned to the ground if certain expectations aren't met, especially lately, so make it as easy on yourself as possible. Taking the smallest track to learn 3dsmax and the workflow to rF2 ensures you cover a lot of ground on your first track this way, building experience for your favorite or most anticipated one Time for another coffee...
A point to point track is affected by rubbering as other standard race tracks, furthermore the real road is not just about the race groove but it's needed to activate the wet/dry line and the marbles/dirty outside the ideal line. All this stuff is working with tire models. The RealRoad is not an option; is needed to make everything working properly, visually and physics side. As for the poly density, as wgeuze said, no matter if you think it feels good; a proper road geometry is needed to correctly apply the grip along the racing line and to get a good noise level per vertices. Not implementing the RR and using a low poly road is a non sense when creating a track for rFactor 2. Those are core features of the product.
I'm using 3DSIMED only to make fast conversion, the RF1 to RF2 video tutorial works straight out of the box. If I want to make constant evolutions of a track and to get more details : 3DSMAX. I felt stuck to 3DSIMED, when importing it to 3DSIMED. The rendering is nice with 3DSIMED, to get same result with 3DSMAX, it takes long time to learn. But I think 3DSMAX is the way to go if you've got the choice and time to learn 3DSMAX! Official ISI tools are available for MAX. 3DSIMED is a very nice starting point thought and can be enough.
Don't get this the wrong way but how can you tell it is any good without 3d experience? Also, it's not only meshes, updating textures and uv's usually go hand in hand. Adding scenery and stuff, foliage, decorative pieces, etc, new rF2 marshals, etc
Try this very generic rule for the road mesh; Measure the average width of the track, side by side (just the asphalt part) and then subdivide that number for the quantity of polys available for the track section. Example; your track is large (average) 15mt and it's subdivided by 4 polys from side to side. then; 15mt / 4 polys = 3.75mt wide per polygon. Not a good number, in that case. A proper mesh for the Real Road technology would like a number between 1.0 to 2.0 or something similar. Furthermore you need to check the longitudinal resolution; how long is a polygon along the driving direction. There is not a fixed number here as it depends if the mesh is using a linear approach (1:1 quads for the entire road) or a optimized lofting putting more subdivisions where needed (turns). For sure if you have a turn described by 10 meters long polygons (squarish turn) we're not talking about a good mesh for rF2.
Trianglulation is a bit weird, the size of the polygons looks fine though at first glance though. Something more uniform in terms of topology would be nicer (don't mind the sizes though, just 2 seconds in max..):
This is an non-congruent mesh so...no. This is not a good mesh for the road. Furthermore you've just 4 subdivisions for the track section and unless your track is just 6 meter wide the resolution is way too low. Not easy to fix as you don't have a good base tessellation to work with. There is A LOT of manual work to do here to convert the mesh into a quad surface. As the mesh is non-congruent you should delete all the triangulation inside the mesh and then rebuild all cross sections to get back a proper tessellation. For sure this is not something you can do in 3dSimEd.
Thanks tuttle and wgeuze.. i guess.. compared with other official track mesh... that something is wrong. im just a noob testing here and there.. but at least i have something clear... thank again..
Hence the reasons for getting away from conversions and spending the extra time to build in Max. Nothing to stop you from using the imported track as a guide, but you will need to recreate the roads etc. Nothing against the OP but conversions are not doing rF2 any justice. People saying how good AC is graphically yet people still insist on converting old technology into a new game. I may as well pull out IndyCar by Papyrus and say how awesome it looks and feels.
OK guys thanks. Based on your feedback the track and am converting will definitely require mesh work. Additionally, every experienced modder I know agrees that I need to start with something smaller and build my chops before taking on the larger project. So my alternatives as I understand them are... - Obtain permission to convert a smaller track - Convert a smaller track without permission, but keep it private - Build a simple track from scratch of my own design - Build a simple track from existing track like in Freew67 videos - Build a simple track using geo data (I have Mario's tools) of a short but interesting loop around where I live. I'm thinking the third or fourth option is best. What do you guys think? Third option may be more motivating for me than an oval which is all freew67 does i think. Anyway, thoughts? I really want to get started off on the right foot. Funny, because in the back of my mind I believe Preclaire did fairly well with Nords for his first track but then he is possibly burned out too, so the idea of starting small is appealing to me and doesn't hurt either that max has been crashing all day trying to import the large track .
Hmm, I think it's a tough one. For me, speaking from my own experience, track building is just a route to take once you get familiar with 3dsmax and 3d stuff in general. There are so much basics to grasp before a track or something remotely close to that is asking for hassle and demotivation. What I really suggest is trying to crawl before attempting to run, or following freew67s' excellent beginner tutorials, attempting to run along. What I did when I started 3d modelling was literally to pick stuff up from my desk and build those. All that knowledge is transferable to track building and really all you do is learn more and more. There are loads and loads of tutorials on 3dsmax, and I really recommend spending a fair amount of absorbing those to get a broad basic knowledge of the software. Blindly following more advanced tutorials having not the faintest clue about what you are doing and why you are doing it, aren't going to teach you that much, only to follow steps. As soon as you proceed to do something on your own you'll be asking around if people know tutorials to build guardrail section 6a on your track in who-knows-where. I also speak from experience here... as your (base) knowledge becomes greater, at one point something just 'clicks' almost, and you see what with that basic knowledge you can build anything you like. Sure you'll watch the occasional tutorial, learning tricks of the trade, new techniques, but really that's all extra stuff mostly. My choice would be: - Learn how to use 3dsmax, forget about tracks till you have the basics down The downside of that could be that you'll get fed up with it before you've started your first track.. But! When you do get to tracks, it'll make your life so much easier! my two cents
Agree with wgeuze, however the 3rd option of watching videos and learning to build a track will help you when you start a track and give you a little more motivation imho.
Makes sense, guys, and thanks. I've been playing with geo import tool which is cool but I definitely am interested in learning the basics but also see value in simple track videos too especially to learn the convoluted submaterial mumbo jumbo what a headache that is lol. I'm going to keep truck'n and be patient. Thanks again, guys.
