IWTE - World editing(Added tutorial)

[leo.civil.uefs]

Hi guys.
Milskshape is strange in my new notebook.
The models only shows vertexes in the 3d view, no faces.
Seems very simple to fix.
I dont know how. Anyone



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[makanyane]

I'm using IWTE to make a strat building model for a campaign map, but the game crashes just at the end of the loading screen. I believe the issue is with the texture. Everytime I go to specials > Read Strat Cas, and then Chg Strat Cas Textures, there is no texture file path. After looking at strat building models from M2 in IWTE and going to Chg Strat Cas Textures, they seem to have clearly defined paths for their texture, so I copied this for my new model. However, every time I reread my CAS the texture path is empty again even after imputing the file path and using Write Strat CAS, and the game still crashes. How exactly can you change the textures for a CAS? Is this feature bugged?

Eothese is correct you can edit the texture path with a hex editor. You may be giving yourself problems if you don't have a texture assigned at all in milkshape - for the strat buildings you can have more than one texture. You should have a material (in milkshape) for each group that uses a different texture.

If you don't assign textures in milkshape you can read the ms3d and use 'Chg Strat Cas Textures' before making the .cas file. If you try to make a .cas without any textures assigned then the tool won't re-read the result. But no the rest of it isn't bugged..... works for me.

I have yet another problem with walls/doors, I have two deployable objects which my infantry can move onto. They can access the first from ground, then access the second, then back to the first, but they cannot leave the first back to ground...

I'm pretty sure from studying an existing stone fort that only one path is needed and they are always two way...
I've tried adding another pair of doors and path in reverse but with the same result, my infantry cannot leave the first object...

yes that should work - is there anything odd visible when they go from ground to first? I'm wondering if your ground door height is perhaps wrong and they can jump up/down to it but not the other way around...? Otherwise perhaps it needs a 'side' setting in the 'set edge types' bit for the block - though that seems less likely. If it's not the door height could you pm me the files?

@leo - right click in the blue window area and try one of the other settings like 'textured' or 'flat shaded', though I'm using 1.8.2 not 1.8.4

[Eothese]

I have two of these setup's in place now, one with a ground level door for access and one with the other type. Just checking the difference between the terrain level and the deployable surface of the first object, it is as little as 0.004, at least to my eyes. All the edge types are set as you would imagine them to be correct.

I guess I'll pm you the files, unless there is anything else you can think off?

[makanyane]

only other thing I can think of is

They can access the first from ground, then access the second, then back to the first, but they cannot leave the first back to ground...

normally within existing buildings and things I've done, you'd also have an access to ground from the far end of the first and also from the second, e.g. by having a tower with link/ladders between the first and second that has a ground access - maybe having the second one without its own ground access creates a 'one-way' type problem

anyway feel free to send the files, it would be interesting to experiment with

[Eothese]

Will do then, I shall pack them up and upload them asap.

[leo.civil.uefs]

@leo - right click in the blue window area and try one of the other settings like 'textured' or 'flat shaded', though I'm using 1.8.2 not 1.8.4

Of course I did that, first thing I tryied. It does not fix it.

Anyway I found the solution, just disabled vertex processing in my driver's video options, in windows.

Thanks anyway.

[wilddog]

@Leo - Can't remember if I used to have an issue with that also... Don't think I ever really used it and went to 1.8.5 instead.

[Eothese]

I have yet another problem with walls/doors, I have two deployable objects which my infantry can move onto. They can access the first from ground, then access the second, then back to the first, but they cannot leave the first back to ground...

I'm pretty sure from studying an existing stone fort that only one path is needed and they are always two way...
I've tried adding another pair of doors and path in reverse but with the same result, my infantry cannot leave the first object...

Ok got some where with this with a head start from makanyane, am posting here for anyone who gets the same problem in the future and who is bright enough to use the search function.

When creating a deployment block and adding the doors for access, two doors need to be added and a link path created between them. The door on the deployment block side should be a deployment block door, it's height will be auto selected to match that of the deployment block. The door on the ground side should be a ground level door, its height needs to be inputted manually to match that of the terrain where it is located. (This can be determined from the terrain in milkshape, or the IWTE)

There must be a minimum height difference between the two door points, with the groung level door being the lower.
As yet the minimum is undetermined, but 2.3m works. (1.0 probably will as well, but cannot fully confirm atm.)

#makanyane
Blocking pathfinding under the deplyment block makes no difference either way. Also I could not replicate what you did without making a difference in height between the link points, altering the terrain seemed to make no difference until I did so. In the instance where you had it working there was a height difference of 0.38 (aprox) in the link points, which I could not make work.

I only got a result with a level deployment block/terrain situation when I raised the change point within the link by 1.0 This was after another 30 or so attempts, so in the end I raised the whole structure and placed a ramp at the end to make it easier to live with, both for working with and aesthetically. Am now intending to try and use two sets of doors, side by side, for each of these ramps, which should stop the appearance of bunching as they use the 'doors'.

Thanks for the help, I hope I've given you something usefull back.

[leo.civil.uefs]

Hi guys.

I still face the same old problems with AI. It makes ne confused because some of my settlements works like magic for the AI, e.g dunharrow wich has no gates or walls, its actually a cliff with a single way to attack, the zigzag path, but the AI know exactly how to act on it! they send all trops to climb the cliff no one is left back.

While places like esgaroth had to be rearranged to work well. King Kong said me he had to change esgaroth layout in order to have the AI properly working on it. I dont know what he did but he said it works now.

Now Im having the same problem with a new settlement, AI sends some tike 90% of his troops and invade it but some like 2 or 3 units still try to circle the settlement like they do in vanilla, looking for a alternative way. It has 3 frontal gates wich the AI seems to be using ok but the other units who try to circle it are looking for some passage that does not exist and fatally getting stuck.

I know no one here knows excatly what to do but any hint will be welcome.

[Eothese]

Ask KK exactly what he did to fix the other place. But maybe block some places with pathfinding to stop the AI going were you dont want them to.

I'm having a problem with my WIP, the firing platform that I got working is now broken and I didn't touch it, I only removed the earlier broken ones and added new ones in their place.

Some of these wont accept a delpoyment block even though they are all using the same model, which has simply been mirrored left-right in milkshape. Getting a touch frustrated, especially with the long processor time when trying to add deployment blocks which fail...

Might give it a break for a few weeks and see if I have the resolve to come back at it.

[leo.civil.uefs]

I'm having a problem with my WIP, the firing platform that I got working is now broken and I didn't touch it, I only removed the earlier broken ones and added new ones in their place.

Some of these wont accept a delpoyment block even though they are all using the same model, which has simply been mirrored left-right in milkshape. Getting a touch frustrated, especially with the long processor time when trying to add deployment blocks which fail...

Might give it a break for a few weeks and see if I have the resolve to come back at it.

I had problems with this in past. The point is that you need all your objects in a deployment block in the same height. Also, you must go adding them one by one but the next one in the row must be linked\touching the last one, if they are not touching each other, it will not work.

Try this.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a idea.

Its possible to add invisible masks for the terrain? I guess the answer is yes since they can have alpha channels.
My idea is to make some part of the terrain invisible to simulate bridges.
As we cant have bridges properly working, we could just edit the terrain on it, like we actually do, and then make the terrain on it invisible, keep the bridge model and Kabum! No one would know that your troops would actually be walking in solid ground.
Just look at my esgaroth. The bridge will probably need to be removed. So what about keep it, and edit the terrain under it to match the bridge platform, and then paint the mask with the alpha channel to be invisible.

[makanyane]

I have a idea.

Its possible to add invisible masks for the terrain? I guess the answer is yes since they can have alpha channels.
My idea is to make some part of the terrain invisible to simulate bridges.
As we cant have bridges properly working, we could just edit the terrain on it, like we actually do, and then make the terrain on it invisible, keep the bridge model and Kabum! No one would know that your troops would actually be walking in solid ground.
Just look at my esgaroth. The bridge will probably need to be removed. So what about keep it, and edit the terrain under it to match the bridge platform, and then paint the mask with the alpha channel to be invisible.

The masks are applied as layers on top of the terrain colours generated by the geography.db textures, and each other in sequence (so path overlaying mud gives path texture showing...) if you had an invisible bit of texture masked on then I think you'd just see through to the texture underneath.

Getting a touch frustrated, especially with the long processor time when trying to add deployment blocks which fail...

I'll have a look at that on the old copy of your model I've got - I suspect you need to break the objects down into smaller bits - grouping just the faces that make up the walkway surface into one object and leaving the rest as a separate object is probably best way to speed it up (tool analyses every face in the object to check if it's in the walkway plane or not)

I'm having a problem with my WIP, the firing platform that I got working is now broken and I didn't touch it, I only removed the earlier broken ones and added new ones in their place

That's weird - especially as your results on the working one were different to mine in the first place - mine definitely worked with the doors at the same height but with a gap between the deployment block door height and the terrain level below. It also worked for me if I moved the deployment door block further out along the path (so it was over a drop without changing the terrain)...

erm, is there any change in the way you're testing? e.g. custom battle instead of campaign? or a different map location?

Now Im having the same problem with a new settlement, AI sends some tike 90% of his troops and invade it but some like 2 or 3 units still try to circle the settlement like they do in vanilla, looking for a alternative way. It has 3 frontal gates wich the AI seems to be using ok but the other units who try to circle it are looking for some passage that does not exist and fatally getting stuck.

the one I had trouble with (given up temporarily) was trying to do three concentric layers of walls for Caerphilly castle - it'd work fine as two layers - with the third added AI would breach first wall then head off into the countryside as though looking for a quicker route in towards the second layer, instead of just marching through the destroyed bits

so no I haven't really come up with a solution - might be worth trying placing 'defend points' on the route they're meant to take. That's not what they are meant to be for but it might help in giving a clue to the attackers too

[Eothese]

Hey makanyane, my testing is the same, even down to the factions and units used. I think the new ramp approach looks better than the flat walkway and even had two sets of doors side by side working. So I will stick with the ramp, but I think for the sake of my sanity I'll make the platform part a lot smaller and do as you say and try to have the none deployable parts as other objects. Hopefully that will speed things up with the editor.

I mentioned the model/object not being accepted for deployment after I've mirrored it left-right, or back-forwards. I've also had the editor create an ms3d of the structure that worked, the result did work, but the sides were split down into more sides.

I'll try and move the door positions further back on my problem platform and see if that helps any, but if it was working before I deleted the broken ones...

#Edit,
No, moving the doors back doesn't help. The first platform is still not deployable.

[makanyane]

I mentioned the model/object not being accepted for deployment after I've mirrored it left-right, or back-forwards. I've also had the editor create an ms3d of the structure that worked, the result did work, but the sides were split down into more sides.

missed that.... there's definitely something odd going on between that model and the editor - can you send me your un-mirrored model ms3d that is accepted so I can try and figure out what's going on with that

I'll try and move the door positions further back on my problem platform and see if that helps any, but if it was working before I deleted the broken ones...

#Edit,
No, moving the doors back doesn't help. The first platform is still not deployable.

actually can you send that as well - eg if you've still got it the version with the working platform and the broken ones still in - failing that the not working at all one - I can at least check if the door number assignment looks correct in the text file.

Though as my working version didn't work for you I'm getting a bit stumped on this as well!

[leo.civil.uefs]

The masks are applied as layers on top of the terrain colours generated by the geography.db textures, and each other in sequence (so path overlaying mud gives path texture showing...) if you had an invisible bit of texture masked on then I think you'd just see through to the texture underneath.

I dont see how what you said cancels my idea.

What if we make the top layer (mask) invisible in the bridge section and just dont edit the same section in the other ones?
Or what about making them all invisible in the bridge section?

I dont understand much about alpha channels so I cant just go and test it by myself. Anyway I think this thread is the right place to discuss some like that.

[makanyane]

If you don't apply a texture via the mask you see the 'natural' terrain texture i.e. the battleground texture that you'd see if there wasn't a settlement there.... if you have an invisible texture applied via mask, I'm pretty sure you're just going to see the same natural terrain texture that's underneath it.

I dont understand much about alpha channels so I cant just go and test it by myself.

I assume from that that you're a GIMP sufferer , sorry user

I'll give it a try and see what happens.


EDIT: just tried - doesn't work - not for the reason I thought though. It simply ignores the alpha channel for those textures - so you can't make it invisible / transparent anyway. Sorry.

[leo.civil.uefs]

If you don't apply a texture via the mask you see the 'natural' terrain texture i.e. the battleground texture that you'd see if there wasn't a settlement there.... if you have an invisible texture applied via mask, I'm pretty sure you're just going to see the same natural terrain texture that's underneath it.


I assume from that that you're a GIMP sufferer , sorry user

I'll give it a try and see what happens.


EDIT: just tried - doesn't work - not for the reason I thought though. It simply ignores the alpha channel for those textures - so you can't make it invisible / transparent anyway. Sorry.

Ok makanyane, thanks.

[RollingWave]

does this mean that them silly keeps can finally have a use instead of just being good looking? I'm assuming it should be possible modify them into being actually usable giant towers that cover the square areas right?

[Devils_Advocate]

Hi wd and mak,
are you thinking about reproducing the IWTE tool for the warscape-engine (ETW, NTW, S2; or either for one of them)?

[makanyane]

does this mean that them silly keeps can finally have a use instead of just being good looking? I'm assuming it should be possible modify them into being actually usable giant towers that cover the square areas right?

in theory - there' some issues with some of those bits in that they're so many 100's of objects a lot of it exceeds what you can get into one structure to work with, but it's worth a try - probably figure out which structure/s they are in - use the 'specials' 'write ms3d file - undamaged' - if it's still to larger for that you'd need to play with 'structures' 'split structure ms3d'

merge all the objects that you want to form the 'tower' together - duplicate that group and make the second a damaged version - put that back in with the new object at the bottom of the groups list (numbered so it's a 2 group object) - make collision for it - make it a tower and add firing slots.

if you haven't used IWTE before that's possibly not the best thing to start with.....

Hi wd and mak,
are you thinking about reproducing the IWTE tool for the warscape-engine (ETW, NTW, S2; or either for one of them)?

remarkably unlikely - we don't even own any of them...

does the structure of the files even look similar, or is it all hidden in some bigger compressed file anyway?