Updated 3ds Max Tools Posted - NEW 1.2 BETA

virtuali · Post by **virtuali** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:14 pm

Quote:
Quote from Mat_P on September 27, 2011, 13:44

I can export a 60k triangles mesh but no go with anything beyond 100k or so.

It's possible it depends on the number of materials used and the number of texture vertices, and it seems that editable Polys consume more memory than editable Mesh so, the crash happens earlier with polys.

Mat_P · Post by **Mat_P** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:21 pm

I always work in e-poli.

Mat_P · Post by **Mat_P** » Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:17 pm

Any word from the officials when/if it's gonna get fixed, by chance?

Post by **Adam Breed** » Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:56 am

Mat_P/virtuali,

We have a ticket open and are going to investigate further. No estimated time on when it will be fixed, but I will update this thread when we have more information.

Mat_P · Post by **Mat_P** » Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:00 am

Thanks much for the update, Adam!

ethanw · Post by **ethanw** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:35 am

Any update as to the Export Tools update...I am looking for 3ds Max 2012 but the x64 bit version as that is the only version in our office?

Thanks

Ethan

Post by **Adam Breed** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:28 pm

No updates yet, but it is being investigated.

George-Flytampa · Post by **George-Flytampa** » Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:31 pm

Hate to bring this up again.

Any progress with the Max2012 plugin?

We get massive memory leaks currently; leading to crashing.

Max2012 is highly desirable because of the enormous performance increase when working on big scenes.

Thanks for doing any work at all on this, we all appreciate it.

lkalam · Post by **lkalam** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:32 am

George,

this was answered in the other thread that Umberto posted. Unfortunately, it's not viewed as priority at the moment... not sure why.

virtuali · Post by **virtuali** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:20 am

I too don't understand why this is not viewed as an high priority item. How this sim can be labeled as a tool for professionals, when something as basic as the main SDK exporter doesn't work reliably ?

How can you advertise it's possible to create all sort of content with 3DS Max, when 3DS Max 2008, which is the last version were the FSX plugin works (and that one really works...), can't be purchased anymore ?. Note that, by "creating content", I don't mean a couple of boxes and a sphere, just to check if the exporter appear to work.

Right now, I'm keeping my developer subscription only because it's very cheap but,if this doesn't get solved, I might consider quitting from it, and of course going public about why FSDT abandoned the P3D platform, since we'll have to explain to our customers who might have bought P3D thinking it was a better supported platform than the aging FSX, that it really isn't.

If FlyTampa and FS Labs would like to join me in this action, perhaps we might obtain a better result.

I'm sorry if I sounded a bit harsh but, you have to understand that, in order to get third party support for the sim, the topmost priority should be having a reliable SDK before anything else.

Post by **Beau Hollis** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:59 am

We're sorry for inconvenience. We put forth the effort to upgrade all the legacy Microsoft tools to the latest versions of Max. We did not expect that differences in how the newer max API's manage memory would conflict with the recursive nature of the existing tools. As I stated in the other thread, we tried a few quick fix solutions but determined that the tools would need to be heavily refactored to resolve the issue. Core application bugs that affect a large number of users are going to take priority over a tools bug that effects a very small subset of developers. Remember that this issue really only effects models larger than 60k, which only make sense in some very specific use cases. We really would like to support all possible use cases with the Prepar3D platform, but sometimes we have to prioritize.

Thanks

Beau

virtuali · Post by **virtuali** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:46 pm

Quote:
Quote from bhollis on February 29, 2012, 10:59We put forth the effort to upgrade all the legacy Microsoft tools to the latest versions of Max. We did not expect that differences in how the newer max API's manage memory would conflict with the recursive nature of the existing tools.

I understand that but why the Max 2008 version of the P3D exporter (which is exactly the same as the Max 9 version), exhibits exactly the same problem ? It's not that crashes are specific to the newest Max versions, we made a test fairly easy to replicate:

- Loaded a model with about 65K polygons in Max 2008, made one export, worked. Selected the whole model, selected "Convert to Poly" (just to give Max something to do), exported again, crashed while exporting, with Max entirely locked up and no other choice than terminate it from the Task Manger.

- Switched to the FSX version of the plugin, same model, works every time, regardless of what we do in between.

Without even mentioning that, even when the P3D version works, the FSX version is *way* faster.

Quote:
Core application bugs that affect a large number of users are going to take priority over a tools bug that effects a very small subset of developers.

It effects every developer, and it's the developers that attracts users.

Quote:
Remember that this issue really only effects models larger than 60k, which only make sense in some very specific use cases

60K polygons might seem like a reasonable limit back in 2006, when FSX was originally released. Current systems can handle *many* objects of such complexity very easily, provided they are well optimized in other ways (few materials, few drawcalls, etc), having the exporters limited to that, doesn't give much hope for the future of the platform *especially* in the professional market, when the solution provider could probably control the hardware requirements himself .

clmartin0721 · Post by **clmartin0721** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:13 pm

Developers attract "prosumer" users. In LM's defense, this is a commercial app, and the advanced sceneries are NOT REQUIRED for things like FAA cerification of BATD and AATD units, as well as other certified / training uses. Commercial training developers view this app as a toolset, and expect to put some time in for mods. I personally am more interested in things that effect the use of this tool as a training platform, rather than a Uber-VFR sim.

Having said this, I certainly love the availability of quality add-ins, but if you look at the situation today, there are a lot of commercial training developers producing products with this platform, and I doubt a single one of them chose this tool because of the availability of third-party apps.

Developers DO NOT attract professional users..........the suitability of the tool for the mission does.

Craig

jimcooper1 · Post by **jimcooper1** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:56 pm

I have to agree with Craig. High Poly models are not essential , just nice to have if they don't impact too much on frame rates. Most of the action takes place in the air and inside the aircraft. Once the wheels have hit the tarmac the training session usually ends with the shut-down proceedures and the view out of the window is usually irrelevant. A brief look at a building from a thousand feet as a recognisable landmark is all that's required so a simple Poly with a half-decent texture is enough to confirm you are where you 're supposed to be. As for the aircraft most professional sims don't bother with a VC either, they use a combination of Hardware and 2D panels. Most pilots know what their aircraft looks like inside and out so photo-realistiic models have no additional training value. Unfortunately high-count poly models fall into the desirable rather than essential category and consequently are a lower priority.

George-Flytampa · Post by **George-Flytampa** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:51 pm

LM doesn't owe me anything as I'm not a customer, I've never even tried P3D as of yet. I'd certainly like to support them in the future. My colleage has tested some potential P3D installers recently too.

Jim & Craig, I hope your options are not that of LM? The P3D gallery on this very site uses high detail Flytampa & Orbx airports to help sell it to potential customers. Someone at P3D obviously thought high detail airports were pretty important. I'm happy for you guys use those screenshots. I don't want to cause a fuss over some little pictures.

I was just curious to see if the plugin would ever be fixed. Sorry to bring it up.