Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exporting from Blender

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Exporting from Blender

    Does anyone know the following?

    Does it make any difference if I use Blender version: 2.49 or 2.56a?

    When I export from Blender to UDk, using the FBX format. I get the following message:

    Warning: No smoothing group information was found in this FBX scene. Please make sure to enable the 'Export Smoothing Groups' option in the FBX exporter plug in before exporting the file.
    However there seems to be no such option available, when I export and I can seem to use the mesh/object as normal.

    Also, I having issues exporting UV maps into UDK. I make a UV map and bake it onto the mesh/object, I can see that UV image is now part of the mesh/object but that image does not get exported or imported into UDK. It like I did nothing at all. (This is using FBX format).

    Thanks for any, tips, links or help.

    #2
    Blender 2.57.1 should work...I haven't been getting warnings or errors when exporting FBX. There's also an add-on that someone has been developing in one of the subforums here that allows you to export ASE.

    For UV maps, make sure you add a second UV layer, since I think UDK uses the second one by default.

    Comment


      #3
      use 2.5 and above , 2.49 is almost obsolete. image won't get exported to udk, you need to add up all the textures , normal maps, AO Maps in UDK Material editor , then assigned to your MEsh in UDK.
      Your first uv map can be seen through "Light Map Coordinate Index" in udk static mesh editor.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by dukejib View Post
        use 2.5 and above , 2.49 is almost obsolete. image won't get exported to udk, you need to add up all the textures , normal maps, AO Maps in UDK Material editor , then assigned to your MEsh in UDK.
        Your first uv map can be seen through "Light Map Coordinate Index" in udk static mesh editor.
        It may be a little tricky to do it, but at least with FBX export, I've had the textures and materials automatically import into UDK from Blender. I think it involves using the UV/image editor window in Blender to manually save the texture to a file, but I don't know the exact steps. Typically my materials import with solid colors, but the texture does not.

        Comment


          #5
          why don't you bake your textures, just like your normals in blender then use them in udk.
          I usually bake out the normal first, then AO & textures in last, and combine them in UDK.
          You could also use gimp/pshop for normal/specualr/bump map.
          materials imported by fbx not always give desired results.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Blizzard_Edge View Post
            Blender 2.57.1 should work...I haven't been getting warnings or errors when exporting FBX. There's also an add-on that someone has been developing in one of the subforums here that allows you to export ASE.
            Here is that thread for the .ase exporter, which works extremely well. It supports multiple materials, multiple UVs, and has good support for smoothing groups as well.

            Comment


              #7
              Many thanks for all the replies, this is useful stuff.

              So let me see if I understand the process, for importing UV's from Blender into UDK.

              1) Bake UV's, norms, AO then texture. Question what file format do you save it as and load it into UDK? PNG?

              2) Convert the above file, into material that UDK uses.

              3) Align textures with static model.

              Thanks for the .ase link, I have not yet found one that works well. So I hoping this one works well.

              What are the benefits of each format? ASE over FBX and FBX over ASE?

              Comment


                #8
                I am no expert, but FBX does have more options that you can import into the editor. I think you can import textures and maybe materials. I also think it allows for more collision shapes.

                There is a page on the Epic UDK documentation site that covers the FBX exporter. But the exporter for Blender has to support these features as well.

                If you are doing the basics (materials, UV maps, smooth groups, and collision), that link I gave you should serve you well.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Campagnini ASE exporter is better then FBX exporter in my opinion. As far as material export by fbx to udk is concerned, support is not good. so leave it.
                  @BKDeveloper
                  I usually save my files in PNG/TGA format. And i touch up my nomals & Textures in GIMP.
                  I use Blenders normal mapping function only for highpoly to lowpoly mapping. otherwise, use gimp for all normal/specular maps.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by dukejib View Post
                    Campagnini ASE exporter is better then FBX exporter in my opinion. As far as material export by fbx to udk is concerned, support is not good. so leave it.
                    @BKDeveloper
                    I usually save my files in PNG/TGA format. And i touch up my nomals & Textures in GIMP.
                    I use Blenders normal mapping function only for highpoly to lowpoly mapping. otherwise, use gimp for all normal/specular maps.
                    What options about the ASE exporter are better in particular? The ASE exporter has one checkbox while the FBX exporter has several options in Blender. Also, the FBX exporter has crashed on a complicated mesh for me (and it was very slow previously, but the latest version should be much faster). Campagnini offered to look at the mesh that crashed though, so whatever was the problem may get fixed in the future.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Blizzard_Edge View Post
                      What options about the ASE exporter are better in particular?
                      I don't think it's a matter of options as FBX has way more. I think it's a matter of real-world functionality. Until Campagnini made many improvements on the ASE exporter, it wasn't very useful at all. It's not the case now though.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        @Blizzard_Edge

                        ASE is being updated by our friend/helper/coder campagini with a feedback from the community, so the progress of exporter is getting better every day. i have tried to export several different types of meshes with fbx/ase, fbx is fast usually, but most of the time, exported mesh lacks faces in udk, same doesn't happen with ase.

                        Tight support with lesser options is good, but loose support with more options, turns out to be a mess for newbies.

                        by the way, its a matter of choice. I like open source, community driven stuff.

                        if you feel good with fbx,then, no one is stopping you from using it.

                        @Odedge
                        i exported a roman era building model (With collision), with 16 columns + Roof + Floor (8000 poly) with
                        ASE/FBX and found both models with good collision. ASE sometimes mess up collision, but its usually misaligned mesh. so i usually scale my collision model a notch up.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X