Messages

Missing trees may mean the track is from a game that uses instancing.
...meaning the game is placing the trees, etc during loading(or on-the-fly - I don't know the details of how it works).
But they aren't actually part of the model - they're external references.
...so you'd have to replant them.

The Grid and Dirt series work like that and there's bound to be others too.  Any game using Speedtree(moving 3d trees) is probably the same.

Of course if these KN files are models then yeah - go for it - convert and combine. 

...but they might just be configuration files for instancing(place this tree model here - rotate by so much - scale so many percent, blah, blah).

[Immediately after]

Procedure I use is:

Open in 3dsimed.
Tools>Texture Map Conversion - TGA - Aim it at a new folder.
Immediately after doing the texture conversion:
Export> Save as 3DS
Also:
File Menu>Plugin Export - OBJ

...because  the .3ds format has a poly limit.
...and 3dsimed won't mention when it hits it - it just writes out the first 65½ thousand polys then stops.
...so I use OBJ for bigger tracks.

Another option to get round the poly limit is to use Export> Save as 3DS Objects
...which writes you out individual files for all the objects.
Doing it that way is cool in Lightwave because it can batch load objects into individiual layers.   I presume MAX can do something similar.


In MAX the thing you want to set is:
Customise>Configure User Paths
Then click the External Files tab
...and add your project folder to the list.

It could be that they are using the same model in some games.

Kinda hard to tell because by rights one laser-scanned model should be pretty much identical to another.    You'd really have to see the mesh.
...and even if the meshes were different - they may be built from a common pointcloud.

Looking at that comparison video the differences are the skinning and the games running different DOF settings.
...and the trees/fences/clutter, which everyone has their own idea on how to do best.  Usually that kind of stuff is pretty standard across all the tracks in a game(sometimes to the point of sacrificing realism).

P.S - I don't play car games so the version we're running in GPB is the only one I know.  Never having ridden nordy in real life I've no idea how realistic the kerbs are.
...but what you're saying about kerbs sounds much the same as folk were talking about on the Donny thread.  Could be the differenes come about through either personal preference or limitaions in a games tyre model capability.

Y'all do realise that NORD_LS in the track database is a laser-scanned Nordschleife?
Folk that are doubting it'll work could just have a spin and see for themselves.   

Soften your suspension, ca' canny over the couple of nearly-jumps and brake early enough for the nasty hairpin and the track seems perfectly fine to me.  It's not too bumpy, too long or any of the other horror stories I'm reading here.   

Best track in the game in my opinion. 

Id be more concerned how the bikes handle the track though because the physics still dont cope with any hills. 

It's been getting better over the last couple of Betas though I reckon.

The worst corner for crabbing is the right hander at the end of the walled section(just a few corners after the hellish mid-course hairpin).
It started working ok in B13 and I think got a little better in B14 as well.

The Karussell got better in B14 too.  B12 it was best avoided, B13 it was usable but you have to take it easy as it can lowside you or tankslap you off.  In B14 I used the banked section every lap and don't think I lost it once there.
Some bikes handle it better than others.

Of course the nose-heavy B14 problem causes all sorts of grief at various other places(like nearly everywhere else ), but although I gave up on it and went back to 13 I did notice improvements in the uphill/downhill/cambered bits.

I got in to about the same place once.  A little investigatory dig into their Olivers Mount folder.   

Was years ago and I deleted the folder but yeah, if memory serves - the .lmp files were archives.
Don't think I got into them but if you open one in a hex editor you can see the filnames inside. 
The image extensions were a relatively common PS2 format. 
...but the model extensions were a format I'd never seen before, and couldn't find anything about on the net.

I remember installing SoftImage to see what formats it supported(I think SI was Jester's main modeling program) but no joy.

Sorry it's just vague memories.  Good luck.   

The part of me that's been obsessed with nordy since the mod came out says "Yeah - bring it on". 

...but any time it's been up as a server I've had a lonely time on it.  The only other folk who've joined have just watched for a lap or two then left.

Looking at this I'd rank the one we have 2nd, with the iRacing one having the edge for it's skinning.
...but there's so little in it model-wise it's hard to imagine much difference in gameplay.
https://www.gtplanet.net/four-laser-scanned-nurburgring-nordschleife-replicas-on-test.

On the fence with this one. 

Know what you mean about the conversion time adding to the frustration.  Trying to sort the flickering signs at Knockhill had me yelling at the computer.

Conversion time for Okutama is about 12 hours.   
(2½ million polys, nearly 200 skins with shaders for each(was only about 4 hours before the shaders went on))

...so I added a shade source to the little test area that I made last week and have been trying things on it instead.  It already had some numbers painted on the tracks to remind me which skin was where..
...and only takes a couple of minutes to take from Lightwave to GPB.



But nothing.  Can't get the numbers to catch a shadow from either the shadow source or the bike.

[SHAD]

Tried it with the layer named SHAD
Tried SHAD_CLINES i.e. using the prefix as an actual prefix - clines just being a random layer name.
Tried SHAD_DECAL
Tried SHAD_DECAL_CLINES
Tried TRKSKIDS

Tried all of the above through both FBX2EDF and the MAX exporter.
None of them are working for me.

Done a test - no joy.
The animation only uses the norm&spec from the main image.

None of which has anything to do with open modding being good for developers.   

Talk about getting sidetracked.....

If it's a straight variety vs quality choice I'll take variety.  There are plenty of half-finished, buggy or antique tracks in GPB that I've had a gas playing nonetheless.   

Modern games take more work to mod for and there are a wider variety of jobs for the modder to learn. 
For instance, even at it's simpilest making shaders is tricky.  Even once I'd got used to CrazyBump and was happy with what I was seeing in it, the shaders don't always look the same in GPB, so as well as learning CB you have to learn how GPB will display things.

[For the curious - the variation comes about mainly at low settings.  A 10% master bump setting in CB may make a white line look great but in GPB it'll still look flat.  Cranking the master up to 20% may make it look over the top in CB but just right in GPB.]

It's a trivialty but still something you have to get used to - which takes time and practice.

Software houses will often have teams where a modeller will hand off to a skinner who may or may not be the same person who does the shaders, some other dude might plant the trees and someone else does the cameras...
...whereas the modding scene has more generalists than specialists. 

I've done the mod team thing before and it's great for both productivity and quality.
...but by teaming up you lose independence.  "Tonight I better get that whatsit done that whatsisname is waiting on." rather than "Tonight I think I'll faff about making a big-wibbly-wobbly-bananaman.".
...so creativity takes a hit, and because you're not always working on a project that you personaly want to be working on you might find yourself keeping up standards because of peer pressure rather than passion for the project.
...which was sometimes a bit too much like a real job for my liking.

Jeez, look at all that drivel.  Sorry for rambling.

In short - I'm glad GPB is a modder platform and that no-one's tried to stop me releasing anything because it hasn't met their standards.
...or simply because they're not finished.  Neither of the tracks I've done have had puddles, 3D grass, properly worki8ng pitlanes......   

If I don't like a mod I just don't play it.
...and if I have to play it(as part of a series) it rarely bothers me.  I just get on with it and look forward to the next round.
Come to think of it - even if the next round might be the same(like when the Moto2 frames were breaking) I'm still pretty tolerant. 

...wheras I don't even go to the other end of the scale.  The closer Star Citizen gets to completion the less likely it seems I'll spend much time playing it.
I'll no doubt buy the single player campaign but the multi-player.?   
...initial purchase, buying ships for real money, insurance policies...
Yeah, right!  Perhaps you'd like me to turn around and bend over while you process my credit card detail?.   

Just in case it's not clear - I'm not asking for it to be added, for all I know GPB may already support what I'd like to do.   

...but if not it'd be a shame to waste hours setting up the scene only to find it didn't work in-game. 
Thinking of using procedural surfaces animated in LightWave to a loop then baking out a series of images.
...then making norm/spec maps for each image.


...so I'm simply asking:

Does GPB support using an individual normal and specular shader for each frame of an animation?

+1 on the question.

Would open up the options for water a fair bit. 

Thank you that Manu!   

That's looking the part.   
Looks like a tricky track too.