Our ReVolt Pub

Posted: **27 Dec 2012, 21:57**

i use last Ubuntu 12.10 32bit on my last 64bit laptop
and blender 2.64 32bit too

EDIT : Blender 2.64 and NOT 2.65

Posted: **28 Dec 2012, 03:23**

urnemanden @ Dec 27 2012, 11:04 AM wrote:I have tested your add-on with the latest version of Blender (2.65a), but when installing I get the following traceback:
Code: Select all
&#91;...&#93;
ImportError&#58; bad magic number in 'io_revolt.common'&#58; b'l&#092;x0c&#092;r&#092;n'

I guess this is because the Python version has changed from Blender 2.64 to 2.65. I will try to release an updated version ASAP. That should fix the issue.

Posted: **30 Dec 2012, 23:30**

Hello ji,

My twin brother needs help. Look HERE, in the lower region.

Posted: **31 Dec 2012, 05:24**

RV_Passion @ Dec 30 2012, 07:00 PM wrote:My twin brother needs help. Look HERE, in the lower region.

Hmm, I guess he has modified the scale of the model in Object mode (while so far it should only be done in Edit mode to work properly), and the Object scale is not taken into account when exporting PRM.
This has change in my latest code (currently unreleased) though. Until I release the next version, I suggest he just applies the scale to the data (in Object mode, [Ctrl+A] then "Scale'" in the pop-up menu), that should fix the issue.

Posted: **06 Jan 2013, 23:39**

Here's a new release for Blender 2.65.

This version introduce several fixes, as well as a new WIP feature: While working on a car creation I faced the problem to be able to get a suitable inertia matrix... I could likely stick with a matrix taken from a stock car but well, I'm rather the kind of guy who like to figure out how things should work, to be able to write my own stuff then.

So I've added some code that compute an inertia matrix based on the body mass (set in the parameters.txt) and the spheres used for collision in the HUL file.
This is not 100% accurate since the spheres tend to overlap, but I think it should give a pretty descent estimation of the mass repartition anyway, and that's what matters the most.

I did only a few tests on existing stock cars. I used to find inertia values quite lower, but I'm not sure the value used for the stock cars are actually that consistent in fact. For example the UFO, which has a circular shape, should have similar inertia values for the X and the Z axes, but the stock values are respectively 700 and 350 - while the plugin gives 540 for both - so...

If some advanced car makers want to try this feature and test the result in game (which I have not done yet), I would be pleased.

And just as a note, I think the Re-Volt code may be a little broken about inertia matrix, mostly when the CoM is not close to the body center. I have no idea if it can be noticed though... If this is actually wrong, this should be fixed in next v1.2.

Posted: **08 Jan 2013, 20:10**

@Jigebren:
I admire your knack and desire for letting tools compute things for car-making. I’m actually doing the same, using spreadsheets. And your tools are very valuable, I’m using them too. But external tools should not replace in-game mechanics.

For example the UFO, which has a circular shape, should have similar inertia values for the X and the Z axes, but the stock values are respectively 700 and 350 - while the plugin gives 540 for both - so...

But different Inertia values are hand-picked, used for making the vehicle have different pitch/turn/roll resistance on different axes. For example, the UFO is nodding slower than it is rolling (which is the case for most vehicles that I have seen anyway). All the car makers who have any regard for the Inertia values, also hand-pick them according to intended effect (see MOH’s Nomster, for example, and all cars with real-life parameters (I’m not the only one doing those, you know)).

And just as a note, I think the Re-Volt code may be a little broken about inertia matrix, mostly when the CoM is not close to the body center. I have no idea if it can be noticed though... If this is actually wrong, this should be fixed in next v1.2.

Jigebren, don’t you dare. Changing the Inertia calculations _will_ change the way most vehicles handle – not just rolling or nodding, but also turning behaviour is affected by Inertia. It would break the handling of all cars that have at least somewhat precisely tuned curve behaviour. Even slight changes in Inertia affect that balance. Also, many cars have vertically shifted CoM – it would also break every one of those.
And more in that key: adding things is one matter, changing them is something totally else. The philosophy of V1.2 should have been from the start: add, don’t replace. Add new AI, keep old AI. Add new track-making opportunities (bmn, bmo), don’t replace how the game handles the mistakes and wilful quirks of trackmakers. Add new route-finding, don’t touch the collision code. Etc.
You are now proposing an Inertia calculation change that will cause numerous compatibility issues with custom cars. I’m sad that Huki has chosen the route of replacement from the start with V1.2, and it has caused numerous compatibility issues with custom tracks, as VaiDux and Phantom can tell you. Let’s change that course, shall we? Perhaps talk to Huki too, you have more influence on him than I do.

Posted: **08 Jan 2013, 21:29**

CW wrote:But different Inertia values are hand-picked, used for making the vehicle have different pitch/turn/roll resistance on different axes. All the car makers who have any regard for the Inertia values, also hand-pick them according to intended effect.

For some car authors, like myself, it can also be difficult to gauge intertia for a particular car, seeing as the goal for my own car's parameters is semi realism. Inertia helps massively towards the overall handling and structure of the car. A few examples of this are the Ford C Class RV/Motor Madhouse by me and CW and a few of my own recent releases like the Hummer H2 and BMW M6. They feel drastically different because of the intertia values, something you can effectively build the parameters off of if they're high enough to have the level of dictation required. Not to forget, stacking all the different values you can fiddle with in the parameters to create a truly realistic (semi-realistic in my case) feeling for the car.

CW wrote:Jigebren, don’t you dare. Changing the Inertia calculations _will_ change the way most vehicles handle – not just rolling or nodding, but also turning behaviour is affected by Inertia. It would break the handling of all cars that have at least somewhat precisely tuned curve behaviour. Even slight changes in Inertia affect that balance. Also, many cars have vertically shifted CoM – it would also break every one of those. You are now proposing an Inertia calculation change that will cause numerous compatibility issues with custom cars.

I fully agree with this 100%. Alot of the car makers today may not use Inertia (or many of the other things in the parameters, only because they don't understand what they actually do, which is actually a huge shame in my opinion), but for the few that do, it's usually a vital value for us. Changing it would completely screw over the work we've already done and would compound us with slightly more grief because we would have to fiddle around to find new values, even if only they are subtle changes. Some of us find enough challenge in making interesting or fun parameters for our cars, please don't make it harder than it already is.

Posted: **10 Jan 2013, 03:27**

>> But external tools should not replace in-game mechanics.
Well, I don't really see what is replacing what here?

BTW let's forget the broken Re-Volt code (and anything related to v1.2), I should not have mentioned it here as it has nothing to do with the Inertia Matrix computation added to this plugin, it's just that I discovered this issue in the source code when trying to learn more about how the inertia matrix is used in Re-Volt...

Now, about the inertia matrix, of course you can choose to hand-pick the values, but for most car makers - even me which I consider quite perfectionist already - automatically computed values should likely be perfectly well suited.

Moreover is your goal is realism, given the fact that the inertia matrix is just about physics, and physics means rules, then you can't do what you want either. For example, you may increase an inertia parameters up to a value that can't even physically exist with an object of that given mass and size... Now you're free not to follow the theory, but in that case it's not realism, it's surrealism.

Posted: **11 Jan 2013, 21:33**

>> But external tools should not replace in-game mechanics.
Well, I don't really see what is replacing what here?

I mean – it’s okay to calculate things with an external tool, but don’t change the game to calculate things according to the tool.

Now, about the inertia matrix, of course you can choose to hand-pick the values, but for most car makers - even me which I consider quite perfectionist already - automatically computed values should likely be perfectly well suited.

Yes, calculation is a good starting point, I’m calculating a starting point with a spreadsheet too. But I mean –near/around that calculated starting point, values are sometimes hand-picked for specific effect.

Moreover is your goal is realism, given the fact that the inertia matrix is just about physics, and physics means rules, then you can't do what you want either. For example, you may increase an inertia parameters up to a value that can't even physically exist with an object of that given mass and size... Now you're free not to follow the theory, but in that case it's not realism, it's surrealism.

Yes, but _within_ those rules I can do quite a lot. For example, I have used my own Inertia calculation formula with three different base coefficients, to get the Hot Wheels effect, the stock RC effect and the real-life (RL) effect for cars. All three feel very different and have different Inertia ranges, but all are within realistic physics. And the Unibikes and Toy Copters have very non-standard X Inertia (the first value), just to get a (semi-?)realistic nodding effect.
Ummm... besides, size should not have an effect on point-mass inertia

. The fact that it does in Re-Volt, is odd (but again, I wouldn’t want to change it, fearing changes in handling of some vehicles).

Posted: **11 Jan 2013, 23:36**

Citywalker @ Jan 11 2013, 05:03 PM wrote:but don’t change the game to calculate things according to the tool.

I was sure that was what you assumed...

But I say it again to make it clear, the fix is not intended to make the game support the tool. I just checked the RV source to know on which basis the inertia matrix has to be computed for my tool, I saw they use the parallel axis theorem, and I saw they likely improperly apply it, making the result biased as soon as the theorem actually has to be applied. Using the theorem under these conditions just make no sense, that why I talked about fixing it.

Ummm... besides, size should not have an effect on point-mass inertia

Yep, but a car is not a point-mass, even for Re-Volt physics, otherwise using an inertia matrix would not be very usefull. "A point mass does not have a moment of inertia around its own axis" [Wikipedia]
So size does matter...

Posted: **09 Feb 2013, 16:10**

Hey Jig

The newest build doesn't seem to fix issues with Blender 2.65.
My console says this when I try enabling the addon:

Code: Select all

Traceback &#40;most recent call last&#41;&#58;
  File "/Applications/Blender/blender.app/Contents/MacOS/2.65/scripts/modules/addon_utils.py", line 264, in enable
    mod = __import__&#40;module_name&#41;
  File "/Applications/Blender/blender.app/Contents/MacOS/2.65/scripts/addons/io_revolt/__init__.py", line 31, in <module>
    from . import common
ImportError&#58; bad magic number in 'io_revolt.common'&#58; b'l&#092;x0c&#092;r&#092;n'
Traceback &#40;most recent call last&#41;&#58;
  File "/Applications/Blender/blender.app/Contents/MacOS/2.65/scripts/modules/addon_utils.py", line 264, in enable
    mod = __import__&#40;module_name&#41;
  File "/Applications/Blender/blender.app/Contents/MacOS/2.65/scripts/addons/io_revolt/__init__.py", line 31, in <module>
    from . import common
ImportError&#58; bad magic number in 'io_revolt.common'&#58; b'l&#092;x0c&#092;r&#092;n'
Traceback &#40;most recent call last&#41;&#58;
  File "/Applications/Blender/blender.app/Contents/MacOS/2.65/scripts/modules/addon_utils.py", line 264, in enable
    mod = __import__&#40;module_name&#41;
  File "/Applications/Blender/blender.app/Contents/MacOS/2.65/scripts/addons/io_revolt/__init__.py", line 31, in <module>
    from . import common
ImportError&#58; bad magic number in 'io_revolt.common'&#58; b'l&#092;x0c&#092;r&#092;n'
Traceback &#40;most recent call last&#41;&#58;
  File "/Applications/Blender/blender.app/Contents/MacOS/2.65/scripts/modules/addon_utils.py", line 264, in enable
    mod = __import__&#40;module_name&#41;
  File "/Applications/Blender/blender.app/Contents/MacOS/2.65/scripts/addons/io_revolt/__init__.py", line 31, in <module>
    from . import common
ImportError&#58; bad magic number in 'io_revolt.common'&#58; b'l&#092;x0c&#092;r&#092;n'
Traceback &#40;most recent call last&#41;&#58;
  File "/Applications/Blender/blender.app/Contents/MacOS/2.65/scripts/modules/addon_utils.py", line 264, in enable
    mod = __import__&#40;module_name&#41;
  File "/Applications/Blender/blender.app/Contents/MacOS/2.65/scripts/addons/io_revolt/__init__.py", line 31, in <module>
    from . import common
ImportError&#58; bad magic number in 'io_revolt.common'&#58; b'l&#092;x0c&#092;r&#092;n'

Posted: **12 Feb 2013, 03:23**

@MarvTheM
Hmm, maybe Blender for Mac is not compiled with the same Python version than the Windows release (as I'm currently using a slightly hacky way to release the plugin, the Python version has to match).

Can you tell me the Python version you're running. Open Blender, go to "Help\System Info", open a "Text Editor" window in Blender and open the file "system-info.txt". The Python version can be found at the top of this document.

Code: Select all

...
Python&#58;
============================================

version&#58; 3.3.0 &#40;default, Nov 26 2012, 17&#58;23&#58;29&#41; &#91;MSC v.1500 32 bit &#40;Intel&#41;&#93;
paths&#58;
...

Posted: **13 Feb 2013, 01:07**

Sure:

Code: Select all

Python&#58;
============================================

version&#58; 3.3.0 &#40;default, Nov 18 2012, 18&#58;00&#58;38&#41; 
&#91;GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple Clang 4.1 &#40;&#40;tags/Apple/clang-421.11.66&#41;&#41;&#93;
paths&#58;

Posted: **23 Feb 2013, 21:28**

some blender 2.65 bugs

1) If I try to import a FIN :

Code: Select all

Traceback &#40;most recent call last&#41;&#58;
 &nbsp;File "C&#58;&#092;Program Files &#40;x86&#41;&#092;Blender Foundation&#092;Blender&#092;2.65&#092;scripts&#092;addons&#092;io_revolt&#092;__init__.py", line 267, in execute
 &nbsp; &nbsp;io_fin.rv_import&#40;self.filepath, scn, scn.revolt.dump_mode&#41;
 &nbsp;File "io_fin.py", line 240, in rv_import
 &nbsp;File "io_fin.py", line 193, in read
 &nbsp;File "io_fin.py", line 193, in <listcomp>
 &nbsp;File "io_fin.py", line 87, in read
 &nbsp;File "io_all.py", line 185, in __init__
TypeError&#58; object.__init__&#40;&#41; takes no parameters

location&#58; <unknown location>&#58;-1

but If I import a car "parameters.txt" then after a FIN it works

2) blender 64bit can't import anything : do nothing after "Revolt Import" button
blender 32bit on the same computer work perfectly

And a Blender 2.66 is now on download (don't know if last plugin can work with)

Posted: **26 Feb 2013, 23:31**

@SebR
For now I can only confirm the bug. In fact I think I can simply remove the faulty code as I believe it's not used anymore currently, but the issue could come from a bug in Blender. I'll see whether I have to report this or not, since I could have to use this code again.

And I have not checked Blender 2.66 yet...

Posted: **04 Apr 2013, 02:03**

Hello RV-Pub members.

I am RV_Pure, twinbrother from RV_Passion and I try to build my own custom cars with blender. If I have questions, please help.

Posted: **08 Apr 2013, 19:53**

First question.

How can I make an own custom hull file for my cars on blender?

Posted: **08 Apr 2013, 22:11**

If I remember correctly, Jigebren didn’t write that calculation into Blender yet. Blender can show hull, but not calculate it. Use PRM2HUL tool, also made by Jigebren and available at his website.

Posted: **14 Apr 2013, 14:59**

RV_Pure @ Apr 8 2013, 03:23 PM wrote:How can I make an own custom hull file for my cars on blender?

As CW said, the easiest way is to try prm2hul. When your PRM shape is finished, you run it through this tool and it should give a descent HUL file as a result.

Citywalker @ Apr 8 2013, 05:41 PM wrote:... Blender can show hull, but not calculate it.

In fact, it can not only show HUL but also edit it... And create HUL from scratch as well (but not in an automated way as with prm2hul).
In the "Re-Volt Panel / Helpers", there's 2 buttons "HUL CHull" and "HUL Sphere" to mark the objects that has to be exported in the HUL file.

The method I suggest is to use prm2hul then tweak the HUL with the Blender plugin, by moving / adding / deleting spheres, and simplifying the Convex Hull if needed to make it more consistent, or adding another one (the Panga car has two CHull for example).

Posted: **23 Apr 2013, 02:48**

I make first experiments with prm2.hul and have first results.

But If I import my .hul file to blender the convexhull is not visible, although the convexhull is on the right list with all colspheres. I'm doing something wrong?

Second question. Why are all wheels in a wrong Position?

( this is a WIP-car for the game)

Posted: **23 Apr 2013, 22:16**

RV_Pure @ Apr 22 2013, 10:18 PM wrote:But If I import my .hul file to blender the convexhull is not visible

A download link to the broken file would help (or through email if you don't want to share it for now).

Anyway what came to my mind:
- The Col Spheres are on layer 10 and the Convex Hull on layer 11. Ensure these layers are visible in Blender (normally, they should automatically be after importing HUL).
- In the right list click on the ConvexHull.0 to select it, then move your mouse cursor to the 3D window and press the . (dot char) key on your numpad to ensure the zoom and pan are correct to see this object.
- Last, set the bottom window to be "Python Console" instead of "Timeline". In the right list click on the ConvexHull.0 to select it. Then in the Python Console paste the following command line an press Enter to see the result (should be something else that 0).

Code: Select all

len&#40;bpy.context.object.data.vertices&#41;

Why are all wheels in a wrong Position?

Don't you mean wrong orientation? The front axis in Blender has to be the Y axis (the green one), the right axis being the X (red) one (and Z the up one).
Check that before exporting your wheels.

Posted: **16 May 2013, 00:49**

How can I import a original Re-Volt car on blender?

I mean the complete 3d model with carbody, wheels, axles, suspensions, and the textures from the original car.

Posted: **16 May 2013, 03:29**

RV_Pure @ May 15 2013, 08:19 PM wrote: How can I import a original Re-Volt car on blender?

Import the parameters.txt file.

Posted: **16 May 2013, 05:05**

Is there some way to remove/reset/clear the vertex shading in a selected group of faces?

Posted: **16 May 2013, 12:11**

Cat @ May 16 2013, 12:35 AM wrote: Is there some way to remove/reset/clear the vertex shading in a selected group of faces?

Select the faces in Edit mode. Switch to Vertex Paint mode. Ensure the "Face selection masking for painting" option is enabled (the option just at the right of the Shade Mode selector). Ensure you've selected the white color in the left panel. Press Shift+K to apply this color to the selected faces.

Posted: **19 May 2013, 21:58**

Killer Wheels wish to start a custom track tutorial with 3dsMax and Blender.
I'll do Blender part...

I know that no public release is planned yet... but can i add last one for download ? (the tutorial is not already writen so we have time to think abou it)

Posted: **22 May 2013, 14:32**

This tutorial idea sounds good and I'm glad Blender will be covered as well. I know this plugin is not public yet, but I shamelessly think it's now the most powerful way to create or edit content for Re-Volt, better than using 3ds Max / Zmodeler / rvglue / etc.

Don't put a download link on your own though, when I'm ready for it I'll make it freely available on my website, as my other tools. But just let me know how your tutorial is progressing, when it's going to take shape it'll likely motivate me to think about making it finally public. The tutorial would not be lost anyway, most interested people have already signed in to the beta tester list.

BTW I couldn't afford to volunteer for the whole tutorial because involving in too much projects at the same time is not a good idea, but don't hesitate to ask for details. I'll be glad to help you as much as I can.

Posted: **23 May 2013, 00:08**

tutorial progressing : here and here

Posted: **07 Jun 2013, 00:02**

This happens to almost any track I export with Blender.
Do you have an idea what's wrong?

Posted: **07 Jun 2013, 00:22**

crazy !

Are Normal of each face going the same way ?

Is it the same with double-sided face ?

do you using blender 2.65 or 2.66 ? (jig's plugin was made for 2.65, 2.66's realease not already shared)

I realy wish this track to test myself ... (check your PM please)

Posted: **07 Jun 2013, 01:36**

I'm using 2.64.
Double sided faces don't fix the issue. It happens to all the unplanar faces.

Posted: **07 Jun 2013, 01:37**

Without any file to test myself it's quite impossible to answer...

Well, you can use the TVTIME cheat in Re-Volt to move the camera below the ground and check if you see the missing faces from here (which mean they are just badly oriented).
You can also try to reimport the .W file in Blender and check if there's a face at each hole (which is not rendered for a yet-to-find reason), or if it's actually a hole.

EDIT:
>> It happens to all the unplanar faces.
Hmm, most faces in your screenshot don't look unplanar...

Posted: **07 Jun 2013, 01:54**

I disabled "TRANSLUCENT" proipertie and all faces look fine ...
In original W file there are 2 group of faces (I removed 1 for tests but it's not related to the issue we are talking about)

@Jig : i PM you original and modified W file

Posted: **07 Jun 2013, 04:37**

Thanks SebR.

@MarvTheM
In your world file you have set all polies on the ground to be semi-transparent, which represents more than 8000 faces...

But the number of semi-transparent faces Re-Volt can handle is limited (around 1400 if I'm not mistaken), so I think most faces are rejected by re-volt because there's too many of them.

Since most of your polygons are completely opaque, remove the TRANSLUCENT property and set it only when it's actually needed. That should fix your issue.

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 02:08**

Oops... Thank you very much. The face properties are a bit weird. Sometimes they are applied, sometimes they aren't...

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 05:57**

The face properties management in my plugin is internally using the Blender materials, so it should normally be as consistent as the regular material behavior in Blender.
That is to say for example that if you extrude or subdivide a face, all the created face(s) will use the same face properties than the original face...

I have not noticed any flaw so far, as long as you properly use the Face Selection Mode ([Ctrl+Tab] then [3]) and noticed that there's a panel to edit only the active face, and a batch editing panel to edit all the selected faces. But if still you notice anything weird don't hesitate to report it.

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 16:05**

MarvTheM @ Jun 6 2013, 09:06 PM wrote: I'm using 2.64.

If Marv use the last plugin [2013/01/06] with old Blender can it breack the face properties management ?

Posted: **08 Jun 2013, 17:08**

sebr @ Jun 8 2013, 11:35 AM wrote: If Marv use the last plugin [2013/01/06] with old Blender can it breack the face properties management ?

Likely not, unless a bug in Blender had actually been fixed since then. The main issue you can face using the plugin with a version of Blender it was not designed for is that it won't load at all, because the Python API version is not the same. The behavior of the Blender API could also have changed as well but usually they'll also change the name of the API call (on purpose) so that you have to update your code to take the modification into account.

Posted: **19 Jun 2013, 16:48**

Hi guys, this is my first login in this forum... However i have a problem to export collisions. So, i have created a track but i have a problem to export your NCP. When i export this, i get 2 messages :

1) The list will be truncated
2) Warning: 25084 is exceeding the maximun number of NCP

Please Help me !!!

Thanks...

Posted: **20 Jun 2013, 03:11**

@MirkoGT97

1) First of all, welcome on ORP.

2) Second, I'm glad to see my plugin is such a success that even people I don't know are using it...

Anyway you may or may not know that this plugin is still a closed-beta, and though I distribute it for free I have not given anyone the permission to redistribute it on his own. Since I don't remember having sent it to you, someone - which I guess is Burner94, isn't he? - has obviously felt free to redistribute it to you, and he shouldn't have... It's not such a big deal, it's just that it is THE deal when I'm releasing my stuff... I guess I'll have to clearly mention that point in the next release.

3) Third, according to the error message you reported, you're not using the last release of my plugin (which is for Blender 2.65). If you were the error message would have been:

Code: Select all

WARNING&#58; this NCP file is using too much collision polygons for the original Re-Volt &#40;16384&#41; and will only be supported by v1.2

which is a bit more explicit: The original Re-Volt allows up to 16384 collision polygons in the NCP file. v1.2 has increased this limit to 65536. The track you're trying to export is currently using 25084 polygons, which means it can't be used with original Re-Volt (and since the list is truncated it can't be used in v1.2 either, you'll have to update to the next version of the plugin before).

As a conclusion, it's unlikely that you actually need all these collision polygons. In most cases it's possible to optimize the layout to greatly reduce the number of polygons, compared to the world (.W) file. Just import a stock track NCP to see what I mean.

I give you the rough method anyway:
For example, 2 adjacent & coplanar faces using the same material can be merged into one bigger face. You set the material to "NONE" for the 2 original face so that they won't be included in the NCP file. Conversely, you set the "Invisible" property to the NCP bigger face, so that it won't be included in the W file.
This trick allows to design the NCP and the W file at the same time, using the same meshes. Some polygons can be made common to both files while some can be included only in NCP, or only in W file.

And last, to receive the plugin - and remain up to date - PM me your email as stated in the first post of this topic.

Posted: **20 Jun 2013, 04:38**

Thanks for welcome Jigebren !!

Yes, Burner94 gave me your plugin in...

However i have another problem... i'm Italian and i have more difficult to understood your advice... And the translator not help me much...

Please can you make a tutorial using images ?

P.S. I sent you a message written my e-mail address to receive a new version of the plug-in. Can you write a reply for tell me if you have received the message ?

Thanks and I'm sorry for the inconvenience

Posted: **20 Jun 2013, 17:09**

MirkoGT97, I got your PM.

And no, I don't have time to create a tutorial with images, but maybe this translation can be more understandable:

edited Italian Google trans. wrote:Ad esempio, due facce adiacenti e complanare con lo stesso materiale possono essere fusi in un unico faccia più grande. Si imposta il materiale su "NONE" per il 2 volto originale in modo che non saranno inclusi nel NCP file. Allo stesso tempo, si imposta la proprietà "invisibile" per il NCP faccia più grande, in modo che non sarà incluso nel W file.
Questo trucco permette di progettare il NCP e il file W utilizzando le stesse maglie. Alcuni poligoni possono essere inclusi in entrambi i file, mentre alcuni possono essere inclusi solo in NCP file, o solo in W file.

I'm sorry though I haven't the slightest knowledge of the Italian language...

Posted: **21 Jun 2013, 01:30**

Thanks Jigebren !!!

Posted: **03 Jul 2013, 18:10**

just give us the link

Posted: **03 Jul 2013, 18:15**

jigebren @ Mar 10 2011, 03:40 PM wrote:
NOTE:
This plugin is not (yet) available for public download.

Currently I'm only sending it to a few Beta Testers, to get feedback, etc. But if you actually want to try it, you can PM me your email address and I'll add you to the mailing list (which is stored on my own computer and not shared with anyone or any company).

Jigrebren.

@veugar : no public download yet ...

Posted: **03 Jul 2013, 19:21**

1)i have outlok express 2004,how to open my hotmail???

2)my hotmail is:kimo.el@hotmail.com

Posted: **08 Jul 2013, 21:30**

I recently try to load a TAZ file and get this :

Code: Select all

location&#58; <unknown location>&#58;-1

TypeError&#58; object.__init__&#40;&#41; takes no parameters
  File "io_all.py", line 185, in__init__
  File "io_taz.py", line 63, in read
  File "io_taz.py", line 127, in <listcomp>
  File "io_taz.py", line 127, read
  File "io_taz.py", line 158, in rv_import
    io_taz.rv_import&#40;self.filepath, scn, scn.revolt.dump_mode&#41;
  File "/home/sebr/Blender/2.65/scripts/addons/io_revolt/__init__.py", line 289, in execute
Traceback &#40;most recent call last&#41;&#58;

so i try to imprt all revolt files and only FIN doesn't work too (but you already know it)

Blender 2.65 32bit from Linux or windows do the same

Posted: **09 Jul 2013, 06:28**

@Sebr
This is just the same Blender bug that affected FIN code as well.

Since you're actively using the plugin I've emailed you my current version which has fixed this issue already quite some time ago, so that you don't face it again. Let me know if it works now.

Posted: **09 Jul 2013, 18:12**

After a quick test i can say YES !
thx

i only have a look at FIN and TAZ, i'll check others fils when needed

EDIT : Was starting to say that the car shadow was broken with this last plug-in ...
But in fact it's only broken with Blender 2.65, with Blender 2.68 it works not so bad but ...
we need to add a new step : editing the shadow.bmp on image editor and invert colors ...

Posted: **17 Oct 2013, 13:35**

So, did you email that fixed version only to sebr? Because I currently would like to work with trackzones in blender as well but can't load the file because of that bug.

Also do you think it would be possible to add .fob, .fan and/or .lit import support for the plugin? Only a visual support (for now) so one can see where things are positioned in the map.
If you don't want to link to the Re-Volt objects/models then it would be sufficient to use placeholders for objects/nodes/lights.

Our ReVolt Pub

Blender 2.7 Import-export Plugin