Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#1 Old 7th May 2009 at 6:15 AM
Default modular mesh assembly tool
I have no idea if this would even be possible in a tool, and it is probably far too ambitious -- but I have always wanted the ability to mix and match parts of pre-made meshes.

For instance, the tool could have Queen Anne legs already pre-made and have certain shapes of love seats already pre-made, along with different furniture arms and trim already pre-made. Then the tool helps combine these pre-made meshes into a finished love seat mesh.

But it could just as easily have combined a choice of ultra modern parts being attached to the same basic love seat shape. Or Early American, Spanish, etc.

It would be a mesh assembly toolkit, for the meshing challenged.

Since meshes will now be only gray parts, with textures added later, the basic modular shape idea is something I have been thinking about.

I realize the tool would have it's limitations, because all parts would have to universally mix and match up in certain ways, but it would still give the meshing challenged a way to create individual pieces of furniture or vases or flower arrangements that they would otherwise never be able to create.

For every King, there is a Queen ...

http://www.modthesims2.com/member.php?u=25203
Advertisement
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#2 Old 7th May 2009 at 9:23 AM
You can pretty much do that already though, with the meshes already available in the game. Rip the legs off one chair and put them on another, for instance. But you still have to fill in the gaps and scale things yourself, and I don't think any tool would be able to do that.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#3 Old 7th May 2009 at 12:08 PM
A person who can already do meshing can do what you are talking about. But not a meshing-challenged person, like me. It isn't that I'm not willing to learn. My brain isn't wired right for it. I honestly tried, and I fail repeatedly. So I regretfully gave up on it. I still have the strong desire to create, though. I'm sure lots of people are in that same place.

What I'm talking about would have to be a database of mix and match parts that had already been designed to fit together, and the tool would be the assembler. The person using the tool wouldn't know how to mesh. That's why the tool would be so valuable to the masses.

People who did know how to mesh would make the parts to certain specifications, and the database of parts would just keep growing. Eventually, it could become a very rich creation environment for everyone.

For every King, there is a Queen ...

http://www.modthesims2.com/member.php?u=25203
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#4 Old 7th May 2009 at 12:15 PM
Thing is, there's more to a mesh than just the parts. There's also UV maps to deal with, which are a pretty big issue. I agree that such a tool would be useful, but I think it's an unrealistic desire. Sims 2 is likely much simpler than Sims 3 in terms of how meshes work - it's going to become that much more complicated, not less. Which, in my mind, is actually a good thing. While it will be a higher learning curve, it will likely up the general quality of items available to the community, so that only the folks who are persistent and talented enough to tough their way through the learning curve will actually succeed in making something useful. There'll probably still be crap... but -less- crap.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#5 Old 7th May 2009 at 12:33 PM
Far too ambitious an idea then. I figured it might be. Oh well, can't hurt to ask.

I'm looking forward to seeing what some of the most talented can create. I've seen some marvelous things on MTS2, and those who have perfected their skills in the last few years with Sims 2 -- if they are willing and able to learn the new things needed for Sims 3 -- can probably reach new heights of perfection.

I think you are right about less poorly made items. And yes, that is a good thing.

For every King, there is a Queen ...

http://www.modthesims2.com/member.php?u=25203
Instructor
#6 Old 7th May 2009 at 6:44 PM
amjoie, what meshing tools have you tried? It may be that you just need to use a program that better fits the way you process information.
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#7 Old 7th May 2009 at 9:27 PM
I've tried two different ones. The problem is that I cannot "turn things around" in my mind when they are 3D. I don't have a visual memory. Unless I can physically manipulate something in front of me, touching it with my hands, I cannot figure out what goes where.

And my eyes keep seeing wireframe as a 2D instead of a 3D. I have problems with depth perception. (I can't parallel park because I don't know where the car ends and other things begin.)

Even doing recolors, I never know how something will wrap until I see it. Then I tweak little by little until I get it right. It takes an excruciatingly long time, but I'm motivated. (Those little color squares showing how thing wrap don't help me. For some reason I just get more confused. But I can eventually get it right, through trial and error, with the actual texture.)

I really am deficient. LOL That's what I meant by meshing-challenged.

For every King, there is a Queen ...

http://www.modthesims2.com/member.php?u=25203
Fat Obstreperous Jerk
#8 Old 8th May 2009 at 9:19 AM
My problem is a complete lack of artistic ability, and that 3D meshy programs seem designed for those who are artistic, and not for people like, say, me. I can't figure out how to position a point in a 3D space using only a 2D mouse. If I could input the coordinates manually, that would help, but I have no idea what values to input to create anything that makes sense. Even if all these hurdles were to be bypassed by pointing out the right program and values, none of this gives me the ability to comprehend art. To me, a "table" is a flat rectangular surface stacked on top of 1 or 3+ pole-like objects or other supports. This is an entirely valid table, but somewhere along the line, it has become completely abstract and devoid of any aesthetics. The aesthetics of a table cannot be quantified, so I am unable to actually comprehend it. So if I were to mesh a table, it would come out as something that is mathematically and physically a valid table, but bears no resemblance to any actual table you've probably seen, and exists only in computer-space as an abstract representation of the concept of "table". In order for me to create a computerized table that actually looks like a real table, and not a mathematical model of a table, you would have to provide me with virtual materials from which to virtually saw up into an actual table. Even then, it would be an ugly table, because while I understand how to create a table in real life, I am devoid of any aesthetic understanding. I comprehend concepts that can be defined, like "symmetric", but not things that simply defy quantifiable definition, like "pretty".

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.
Alchemist
#9 Old 12th May 2009 at 9:01 PM
I am similarly challenged, in spite of the fact that I have always been able to visualize an object turned in another direction. I also have trouble getting the dots in the right spot.

I can't explain a lot of programs because I don't use them much. However, it is easy to move things in MilkShape using numbers. When you have something selected, and then click on "Move", at the bottom of the panel are boxes for X (L,R) Y (U,D) and Z (In, Out). You can put some numbers in there and choose "Relative", "Absolute" and a few others from a drop down box. When you click on the "move" (lower case) button by these boxes, things move, be it a sphere or just a vertex that you have selected.

So careful science with the tools has helped me make up for some of my artistic deficit. The time spent learning where the knobs I want are at has been well spent.

If you like to say what you think, be sure you know which to do first.
Fat Obstreperous Jerk
#10 Old 12th May 2009 at 11:58 PM
That sounds much better, but still doesn't give me much of a framework to work from. For some reason nothing actually includes a reference of what numbers to actually USE. Also, non-blocky art is incomprehensible to me.

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those I had to kill because they pissed me off.
Alchemist
#11 Old 13th May 2009 at 7:44 PM
There are better programs, but at substantially higher prices. And most of what they do best are things that are of little use for low-poly modelling, although you can make great movies and TV commercials.

I don't know whether you are really interested or just putting on a hair shirt. This is not the venue for simple lessons, but you know where to find me if you want something greater than generic instructions.

<* Wes *>

If you like to say what you think, be sure you know which to do first.
Back to top