Offtopic discussion regarding BAT4Max v3

[callagrafx]

Didn't take long for the pissing contest to start, did it? 

It's been brought to my attention that Simfox has decided to comment on this release on another site...that's his perogative but what's not his perogative is to question the legitimacy of this release.  The scripts have been released to the public after months of scrutiny by me, Diggis and other members of BSC.  As Chris had stated that the scripts were ready, and out of Beta, he wanted to release but we asked him to defer until we'd really test driven it.  In that period, Chris went MIA so we left it.  Diggis and I then discussed it and decided that it was worthy of release, but under Chris's name (which it is).  Under no circumstances have we tried to claim this work as our own, not now or ever.  It has the v3 moniker because the function and facility far outstrip the recent v2.5 release.  Use it, don't use it but understand that it drastically improves workflow.  It is not for the novice however, it requires an understanding of Max and it's render capabilities.

[Pat]

That is sad, come on really the release is under Chris name... Now asking this as someone who don't know BAT what does this really do? Does this make BAT more user friendly for a noob? Or more compatible for all the new techniques out there?

[Cockatoo-210893]

It has the v3 moniker because the function and facility far outstrip the recent v2.5 release.

Fantastic, now I have to decide which version of BAT4Max I'm going to use based on politics.  Simfox made some reasonable points (as far as I can tell) on ST. What's your argument, why is v3.0 better than v2.5?
Sorry if this sounds a little rude, (I know that Chris and Simfox are both very skilled members and we're lucky to have them contribute like this) but if it's come down to this level... my BAT4Max is bettur than ur BAT4Max,... then I want to hear both sides of the story.

[callagrafx]

It is indeed a shame Pat....especially as questions were asked where the questioner knew they would not be answered, which suggests that a cowardice on his part.

As for what it does, it really just makes life a little easier for those of us who use 3DS Max.  You still need modelling/texturing & lighting skills, all these scripts do is make it as painless a process as possible to make a game asset.

Fantastic, now I have to decide which version of BAT4Max I'm going to use based on politics.  Simfox made some reasonable points (as far as I can tell) on ST. What's your argument, why is v3.0 better than v2.5?

No-one said it was "better"... in fact, apart from the message about uninstalling previous versions, Simfox's script had not been mentioned.  It's entirely up to you which version you use, the end result is the same, an .sc4model file.

Sorry if this sounds a little rude, (I know that Chris and Simfox are both very skilled members and we're lucky to have them contribute like this) but if it's come down to this level... my BAT4Max is bettur than ur BAT4Max,... then I want to hear both sides of the story.

And you need to ask Simfox that question, he's the one saying that    The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  Simply make a copy of your current install, then try out v3 and see what you think.  If it's not for you, revert back.  No one is twisting arms or forcing you to use anything, the choice is 100% yours.  If you do install and want help with it, then this is the place to ask, and we will answer as best we can.

One thing I will say though, is these scripts have undergone long and rigorous testing (much longer and by more members than v2.5) and it's very stable and easy to use.  It is definitely not a Beta.

[BarbyW]

Can we PLEASE leave politics out of this discussion? Chris left his version of BAT4Max in the care and testing of Diggis and Lee and wanted to release it months ago. Both Diggis and Lee have thoroughly tested this and felt it was time to release it under Chris' name. That is the story, plain and simple. If SimFox wishes to question this version he should come here and discuss it not elsewhere.

[SimFox]

Callagrafx:

Pissing contest you say... well
I didn't want to write here because I knew that it would be very difficult to discuss this issue with you. You tend to turn technical discussion to personal.
People ask you what is, essentially, a technical question - you choose to talk about me. Mind you the question is there because of your labeling and then clear statement that it IS better (far better?). People simply want to see some proof of your claims.
I know my position here is a bit odd one. I'm sort of peddler of competing (yeah funny but still) package.
On the other hand not to inform people about what I consider unsubstantiated claims also not right. So I did. With illustrations and explanations of my opinion, as I respect my readers too much as to say figure it on your own – what a great "support" btw. But I did write in a different place as not to spoil your party here.
When I mentioned the fact that this package was published not by author I specifically stated that I'm not talking about whole copyright issue, so don't misrepresent here what I've said. My concern was that (btw after reading your feature list and that you've rigorously tested it) people may be misleading as to the actual state of things and that your comparison is unfair and heavily (and un-substantiatedly) biased.
For instance your statement of Mental Ray improvements. Care to list some rather then say that there are many?
I thought it was in the interest of public good. To shed some light on the matter.
Looking back I think Barby is totally right I should have written same here. But I just didn't want to get into another fight with you...

If there is an interest in review of features and their realization I can make one, but I somehow doubt you want one...

I have tons of respect for Chris, although I did't necessarily agreed with him on some of the features and some directions he was going, but at least with him I could talk about technical side of things. Those discussions were mutually beneficial and we sort of helped each other fed some ideas and also suggestions or clues to their technical implementations.
As I see this v3 is very much unfinished. And I seriously doubt Chris would call it V3. BTW the documentation he had written calls it  "Bat4Max ALN Addon V1 and Gmax4Bat4Max" and you should have left it at that.
We also sort of agreed not to release competing V3 as not to confuse the community  and such a confusion is exactly what have happened. But Chris isn't here to answer questions and fix the issues...

[callagrafx]

Callagrafx:

Pissing contest you say... well
I didn't want to write here because I knew that it would be very difficult to discuss this issue with you. You tend to turn technical discussion to personal.
People ask you what is, essentially, a technical question - you choose to talk about me. Mind you the question is there because of your labeling and then clear statement that it IS better (far better?). People simply want to see some proof of your claims.

Actually, with several comments made at ST, the "personal" bit was made by you.  Why did you choose that misleading post there instead of here, which is the official support thread, if not to further your own agenda.

I know my position here is a bit odd one. I'm sort of peddler of competing (yeah funny but still) package.
On the other hand not to inform people about what I consider unsubstantiated claims also not right. So I did. With illustrations and explanations of my opinion, as I respect my readers too much as to say figure it on your own – what a great "support" btw. But I did write in a different place as not to spoil your party here.

How do you call them unsubstantiated?  The script has only been available for a few days, so how on earth you think you can evaluate it in such a short space of time is beyond me....And what claims are you referring to? Shaun and I only listed what the scripts do.

When I mentioned the fact that this package was published not by author I specifically stated that I'm not talking about whole copyright issue, so don't misrepresent here what I've said. My concern was that (btw after reading your feature list and that you've rigorously tested it) people may be misleading as to the actual state of things and that your comparison is unfair and heavily (and un-substantiatedly) biased.

Your "concern" was that you were being upstaged, nothing more. It was released UNDER CHRIS'S NAME and he gets ALL the credit.  Copyright remains his and will do so until he says otherwise.  Please don't try to obfuscate the matter...the script has many improvements to B4M 2, and every single one of those has been properly tested.  Your claim that this is rough beta smacks of simple competitive rivalry.  There IS NO COMPETITION!  Chris developed these scripts, we tested them and released....end of story.

For instance your statement of Mental Ray improvements. Care to list some rather then say that there are many?
I thought it was in the interest of public good. To shed some light on the matter.
Looking back I think Barby is totally right I should have written same here. But I just didn't want to get into another fight with you...

As I said previously, I listed improvements from memory...and a lot of what Chris did was under the hood and wasn't really disclosed.  I know he fixed the sun/sky rig, did a lot of gamma stuff and a lot of lighting stuff...Instead of getting all pissy and posting a diatribe at ST that holds wrong and misleading information, have a look for yourself. 

If there is an interest in review of features and their realization I can make one, but I somehow doubt you want one...

I think that, given your previous posts and stated opposition to a lot of what Chris did, I somehow think you are right, as it would not be objective.

I have tons of respect for Chris, although I did't necessarily agreed with him on some of the features and some directions he was going, but at least with him I could talk about technical side of things. Those discussions were mutually beneficial and we sort of helped each other fed some ideas and also suggestions or clues to their technical implementations.
As I see this v3 is very much unfinished. And I seriously doubt Chris would call it V3. BTW the documentation he had written calls it  "Bat4Max ALN Addon V1 and Gmax4Bat4Max" and you should have left it at that.
We also sort of agreed not to release competing V3 as not to confuse the community  and such a confusion is exactly what have happened. But Chris isn't here to answer questions and fix the issues...

And on that note, let me show you something:



This was Chris's image that he used to release to the scrutineers.  He labelled it V3.  And if I recall, you criticised a lot of his work unncessarily and stated "I don't agree, don't do this" on a number of occasions.  Your opinions about this script have been noted.

If there are two scripts out there, so what? Chris's scripts helped my workflow enormously, especially with prop creation.  I have used your 2.5 script and found it adequate, but it didn't really speed up work.

This is the last post that will be made regarding Chris's vs Simfox's scripts.  The community now has a choice of what to use.  If you prefer SF's then use that, end of story.  This childish "my script's better than yours" is pathetic and will no longer be tolerated.  This thread is for technical support as best as we can provide, so let's stick to the topic on hand, shall we?

[callagrafx]

OK, done some testing regarding lightrigs....Looking at the Huge rig it does indeed look like it's a legacy file, as it does exactly the same in the original BAT4Max 2...So ye can't blame Chris for that one.  However, I cannot replicate Simfox's nightlighting problem:

This is a scene with two simple objects with a null texture.  Image A is with the standard light rig:



Using the Maxis night settings, as you can see there is a definitive soft decay

Same model, with MR Sun/Sky.  Only difference between this and Simfox's test is that I set the proper environment.  Simfox's "test" was basically flawed and was implying that anyone else using Max doesn't know what they are doing.  Chris presumed the opposite.



By the way, these day/night renders were generated by selecting "Set Night Mode" (1), choosing the mode (2), in this case Day/Night and then clicking "Day/Night Preview" (3) which will render both day and night renders automatically.

[SimFox]

The script has only been available for a few days, so how on earth you think you can evaluate it in such a short space of time is beyond me....And what claims are you referring to? Shaun and I only listed what the scripts do.

beyond you, you say? Well, this is exactly what worries me...

Your "concern" was that you were being upstaged, nothing more. It was released UNDER CHRIS'S NAME and he gets ALL the credit.  Copyright remains his and will do so until he says otherwise.  Please don't try to obfuscate the matter...the script has many improvements to B4M 2, and every single one of those has been properly tested.  Your claim that this is rough beta smacks of simple competitive rivalry.  There IS NO COMPETITION!  Chris developed these scripts, we tested them and released....end of story.
As I said previously, I listed improvements from memory...and a lot of what Chris did was under the hood and wasn't really disclosed.  I know he fixed the sun/sky rig, did a lot of gamma stuff and a lot of lighting stuff...Instead of getting all pissy and posting a diatribe at ST that holds wrong and misleading information, have a look for yourself. 

How convenient...
So basically you just go and make claims that there is a lot, but refuse to clearly say what those are?
What does Fixed Sun/Sky rig means?
What does a lot of lighting stuff means?
A LOT of gamma stuff? Funny, if memory serves me right that was the point of our first clash here on SC4D...we seem to be still at it... Such a pesky, peace wrecking feature...

Or you think it is absolutely unreasonable to ask about what exact features this release offers?
Very nice first sample of support...


BTW you made an original claim that it has a LOT of improvements over V2.5, not 2...

I think that, given your previous posts and stated opposition to a lot of what Chris did, I somehow think you are right, as it would not be objective.

And on that note, let me show you something:



This was Chris's image that he used to release to the scrutineers.  He labelled it V3.  And if I recall, you criticised a lot of his work unncessarily and stated "I don't agree, don't do this" on a number of occasions.  Your opinions about this script have been noted.

This is sooo typical of you... lets just selectively look at thing you want us to look... But if we dare to open our eyes wider... what do we see??:

so how and why Addon v3 get trasofmed to Bat4Max v3.  BTW the installation instructions included refer to it as "Bat4Max ALN Addon V1"
Of course in the end this is a silly debate...

This is the last post that will be made regarding Chris's vs Simfox's scripts.  The community now has a choice of what to use.  If you prefer SF's then use that, end of story.  This childish "my script's better than yours" is pathetic and will no longer be tolerated.  This thread is for technical support as best as we can provide, so let's stick to the topic on hand, shall we?

Does that mean that community will never have a definitive list of features and any information of usage of numerous buttons?
And I never had any problem with you using whatever you want to... I have problem with you misinforming the community...

[SimFox]

well enough with this catfight...
It doesn't really benefit any one, and the community least of all.
More tools - the merrier...
But there should be clear specifications so that people could make na informed decisions, and problems should be dealt with...
OK, about problems.
I'll return to the issue with rigs and preview later but now I have a new one to report...
Old evil has risen it head again:



At some point along the development Chris made claim that he has dealt with this issue away... He, however never revealed how, or even what did he see as a reason for this.
But here it is again. This was about 5th export of same model from a file that NEVER had been saved with SC4Modle name selected/pasted-in.
All previous 4 went fine.

If anyone be interested I can provide offending SC4Modle file for examination. Just tell me how..

[SimFox]

I think it would be preferable to keep one problem per message - this way it would be easier to reference and quote them later, right? If there are other opinions on the subject I can edit them in all together...

So problem 2.

About script doing the work of Deltree...
well apparently it doesn't really do it after all

After having that checker experience I have decided to Clear Outputfiles. by pressing "Clear Outputfiles" button in BatchCMD roll-up
CMD window popped up and I saw quickly running list of something--- files and folders being deleted I assumed...
Imagine my surprise when I opened the output folder in BAT and so the Model folder is still there and plenty of folders inside, files as well...
On closer examination it transpires that some files (all the image files bmp or FSH were in fact deleted - apparently that is what I have seen running in a CMD window. But all the *.fsh.TGI and Index.fsh files were left untouched. Because Index.fsh were there the subfolders were left there as well.

Manual deletion of those is also blocked - message saying that they are used by another program pops up.
BTW Max is still open at this stage. So basically those files and folders had become indestructible...

Closing Max had finally make them mortal again... Now manual deletion was successful.

I repeated the whole thing again.
Export, FSH Batch Build, Clear Outputfiles
result was precisely the same - only image files deleted while all other are still where they were and are (while Max is on) indestructible by regular deletion process

BTW Checker problem is still there

[SimFox]

Rigs.
To speak of them there MUST be some prehistory/situational background explained.
1. when I asked you about features of this release you have specifically mentioned ability/support for various Lighting rigs easily available from pull down menu. I repeat, you have volunteered this information. True, you did say that it is as you remember. Anyway since it is one of few – btw the ONLY (apart from Batch) specific thing you've remembered it must have been good.
2. you have many timers rushed to defend what I call "bells an whistles" and you valuable time saving features. Our disagreement on the whole perception of those is obvious. Fine. Have it your way. But  keeping this logic shouldn't it mean that those should be a working ones? And at the working directly – by button pressing. If it too much of a bother for you to do Select-Clone-Attach and you see as an invaluable button that perform these tree simple operation shouldn't same logic apply to other buttons as well? Apparently not, your logic is very selective and particular. And it bends whenever you want to justify whatever you need to. It would be you personal mater, but here there many people who rely on your "expert" opinion.

So to the Lighting rigs.
This pull down selection simply exemplifies the fault of an approach that does a lot of decorative stuff without actually fixing what is broken.
The issue there, btw, goes beyond simple misalignment of huge rig. Instead of fixing the problem it adds pull down menu so it would be easier to select faulty rig or rig that is potentially incompatible with either current render or even version of max.
Sun and Sky rig.
It is very curious to see you change of heart here...

The problems can be avoided if simply use the target lights that were designed to emulate the ingame lighting.  There's no need to be so complex for a game asset that is only viewed at 96dpi and then only at set zoom levels.  ...  Add to the fact that very few of us have later versions of Max 

and

It's not really a problem to correct the Huge rig...However, If you have a model that is so huge as to require this lightrig, you are MUCH better off using MR Sun/Sky. Although for people not using 8, then a fix would definitely be in order. 

so... mr Spoke, what, what, what???
Apart of such a flexibility of views (both time fairly unapologetic). There is a bizarre "explanation". So it is a large size of the model that determines appropriateness of Sun/Sky rig? Care to elaborate on this? Just to bring knowledge to the masses...

At any rate. I selected this rig:


Now, tell me where does it say that this is a MR Sun/Sky? BTW why MR Sun/Sky Is it really the setup? I don't thing so..
How would user even supposed to know that he needs to use Mental Ray for this to work?
Does it warn of any compatibility issues? What version was that Rig created in?
And of course it is all MY fault... I assume things wrong... I'm so evil and arrogantly look down on people... On the other hand, I was proponent of such a setup back when you claim it to be total heresy and waste of time. And have been writing detailed tutorials explain people various aspects of this method. Basically being consistent and teaching them. What do you do (apart from mentioned high opinion holding). You post this picture as an all encompassing answer and explanation


So, how does it all work? Magic? Or by AA settings that your picture shows? Or it is your kind presumption that makes everything better?
Or is it something the red arrow is pointing on? Would you care to explain to the public what is it and where did it come from? Or you think simply presuming is enough?

Anyway it all about your claim of rigorous testing.
Problems are inevitable, no piece of such a complex scripting will really be without some mistakes. So hugely and unnecessarily (by duplicating existing features) complicating them makes it all that harder to test properly and iron out all bugs for public release.

[BarbyW]

SimFox, may I suggest you temper your tone somewhat in these posts. They are unnecessarily aggressive in tone. You may not agree or may have criticisms but there are pleasanter ways of posting them.

[SimFox]

Preview.
It is said that this release has proper night preview.
What is exact definition of word proper in this context?
Basically, could this:

be called a proper preview of this:

? Never mind the issues with geometry being screwed at this view – I mean color/illumination  - the whole point of night preview, right?
For this previews I used Day/Night Preview, Rig that is there  by default and Scanline, so basically out of box defaults and not any "user screw-up".
Comparing night preview modes, again very numerous.
While Day/Night preview mode is selected choosing 2 time pass or 3 time pass is ineffective. At any setting it only does 2 pass render.
Selecting Maxis NightMode produces this result:

Looks good, unfortunately it couldn't be called a preview in a strict term, as the process used to generate this picture has nothing in common with the way game will generate it. Although colors/illumination levels are now good.
BTW all these are produced with same very rig – some version of the default one. So, the difference in color/illumination is due to processing done by script.

And here is preview at Gizmo night mode:

note odd blue thingie...
another issue is when we switch to truNite mode set to Gizmo we have this:

here is half-half picture:

I wouldn't go in settings of trunite, as I remember Chris clearly stated that he saw those as a provisional.