MCX Hierarchy Editor, material change

[n1m1abc]

Hi, in hierarchy editor menu under material, i would ask if i can change it to link another texture file !

 

[=rk=]

We can already do that task with the Material editor.

 

[tgibson]

Actually you can't - you can't change the material of that single part.

 

[arno]

Hi,

What's listed there is a material, which is a lot more than the texture used. At the moment you can't change the material in the hierarchy editor. Do you suggest to select another material and assign that to the part? I don't think making a new material from the hierarchy editor would make sense.

In the material editor you can modify the material settings, but that would apply to all parts using that material.

 

[n1m1abc]

Hi,

What's listed there is a material, which is a lot more than the texture used. At the moment you can't change the material in the hierarchy editor. Do you suggest to select another material and assign that to the part? I don't think making a new material from the hierarchy editor would make sense.

In the material editor you can modify the material settings, but that would apply to all parts using that material.

Okey, I get it.

Thank you all.

 

[tgibson]

And yes, it would be wonderful to be able to:

1. Create a new material in the Material Editor (including making a copy of an existing material)
2. Assign that new material to various parts in the Hierarchy Editor.

 

[arno]

Hi Tom,

I would have to see if and how that can be done. Now a material is always linked to a modelpart. So it would not be possible to make a new one and later assign it. I would have to think about this

 

[Henk Schuitemaker]

As an alternative you can already use the Material Template Editor to create material templates which can be applied to model parts any time you need to.

 

[dickb]

And yes, it would be wonderful to be able to:

1. Create a new material in the Material Editor (including making a copy of an existing material)
2. Assign that new material to various parts in the Hierarchy Editor.

+1 I ran into this problem recently where I was converting a FS9 a/c to FSX. The original author had used the same material for many parts in the VC cockpit, and I wanted to change just some of them.

 

[=rk=]

I ran into this problem recently where I was converting a FS9 a/c to FSX. The original author had used the same material for many parts in the VC cockpit, and I wanted to change just some of them.

Yes, the solution there is to isolate and export that part, then use 3d software to re color, or regroup that part into several parts; then, back in MCX, remove the original part and combine to the model, what you have created in its place. It might help to imagine all parts in a model with the same material, are interpreted as a unique sub model, despite the fact there is no geometry connecting them. Any further discrimination, or deconstruction of model components, would require MCX to have the same scope of operation, as 3d modeling software and require users to perform model converting in software with that same level of complexity, imo.

However, I would greatly enjoy the experience of the MCX cursor interacting with individual faces, or polygons, should Arno provide the ability.

 

[arno]

+1 I ran into this problem recently where I was converting a FS9 a/c to FSX. The original author had used the same material for many parts in the VC cockpit, and I wanted to change just some of them.

That use case makes sense. Splitting the material would be good in that case, so that you can tweak some.

 

[arno]

However, I would greatly enjoy the experience of the MCX cursor interacting with individual faces, or polygons, should Arno provide the ability.

I have been thinking about that. But I'm not sure how to do it in a useful way. I mean clicking on a polygon and then removing a single polygon would be not user friendly if you want to remove many, while it might work for one. So ideas for the kind of interaction are welcome.

 

[=rk=]

Clicking single poly's could be procedural, but if you could combine that with a group select/deselect function, you could define fairly complex groupings of polygons, with relative ease. To be more precise; if you had an arbitrary shape of a cylinder and a larger band at one end and you wanted to separate the two, something like a peanut butter jar and lid, you could arrange the view, such that a shift+right click and held while sweeping the cursor, highlights all the polygons of the lid, then, as part of the procedure, you could left click to remove individual polygons, or right click to add individual polygons. You could add a shift+left click to sweep and un highlight polygons, if any of this were possible.

 

[tgibson]

Or a slightly different suggestion. Since left and right drag are already used for moving the object, add the relatively standard shift (add to selection) and ctrl (remove from selection). Thus use shift-left drag to add to the selection (or as in Rick's first sweep, begin the selection), then shift-left click to add individual polygons, and then ctrl-left drag or ctrl-left click to reduce the selection.

This way most users will only have to remember to hold down the shift key to begin the selection process. Otherwise it's the same interface as many other programs (Paint Shop Pro and Word, for example).

 

[arno]

I guess adding or removing polygons that are (partly) inside the rectangle on screen would indeed work best. But I think it would make most sense to first select a modelpart and then inside that modelpart active the polygon mode. Or would you imagine the polygon mode is over multiple parts?

Would dragging a rectangle also make sense to select multiple nodes/parts at once? Now you can only click at a point.

 

[=rk=]

I believe that this is where things start to get tricky, because both levels of selection you describe, would be useful, under different circumstances. Enabling each, with unique key combinations to invoke either, adds fidelity, but also complexity.

 

[dickb]

Yes, the solution there is to isolate and export that part, then use 3d software to re color, or regroup that part into several parts; then, back in MCX, remove the original part and combine to the model, what you have created in its place.

True. Though the process seems unnecessarily complex for what I needed to achieve. And in my case I don't have a 3D modelling tool which will import the isolated/exported part (I'm still using FSDS for model creation) Plus I've had one or two issues merging parts back into models. Just being able to change the part material in the HE would be a lot easier.

Not to say I don't see the advantages of being able to select individual polygons or groups/parts in MCX.

 

[tgibson]

I would think that selecting polygons in single parts makes the most sense to me. If you need to combine them later you could do that by using the Export/Import technique, but that would be quite rare. And dragging would be helpful.

 

[=rk=]

the process seems unnecessarily complex for what I needed to achieve.

This is my point about a model converting tool, actually reaching into the 3d space and accomplishing something meaningful there, without becoming inherently complex.

I don't have a 3D modelling tool which will import the isolated/exported part (I'm still using FSDS for model creation)

Sketchup will do it for free, as I believe will Blender. However, there is no need to switch from software you are comfortable with. MCX will export to native .fsc format, I myself do all my keyframe animations, using parts derived through MCX, from my Sketchup model, into FSDS for animating, then back to MCX to combine. There is no reason you could not do the same, albeit just to color them.

While Arno is indeed a wizard, it seems optimistic to assume MCX will do better 3d work, than the 3d software you already know how to use.

And dragging would be helpful.

A glass interactive partition, like the one in my avatar, would also be helpful and probably no less achievable.

 

[dickb]

However, there is no need to switch from software you are comfortable with. MCX will export to native .fsc format,

I didn't know that - thanks. I will go check that out.