Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
PLAN8Customer
This flags up my previous repeated requests for the V3D export locally option to ONLY export the essential required HTML app files and none of the V3D, Blender and other unused files –
As a non-coder, the export locally option is very un “Artist Friendly”, as there is no clear explanation as to which files are required for the HTML app only – it is not an easy task at all to go through the exported files and try and work out what are the actual HTML app files, and what are the puzzle files and blender files etc –
PLEASE can you make the export locally option respect the option that is made checkable in the app manager “general settings”? I really don’t understand why this hasn’t been done – it makes no sense at all, and now with this vulnerability issue, it would help resolve this if the upload app manager in WordPress was only uploading a known set of file types because the exported app locally only contains the required files for a website. If that makes sense?
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.PLAN8CustomerAhh, so it is! My mistake, sorry!
I can confirm that the emission shader in BSDF is now working for me! thank you!
PLAN8CustomerAhh, so it is! My mistake, sorry!
I can confirm that the emission shader in BSDF is now working for me! thank you!
PLAN8CustomerPLAN8CustomerYep, but if there is an option to export the web files only (to the Verge server), why isnt there an option to export the web files only locally?
PLAN8CustomerOK, understood – thanks!
PLAN8CustomerI just tested that, the export to local zip file doesn’t respect that option – all files are included in the zip file
PLAN8CustomerHi,
I believe that only works for uploading to the V3D server? I don’t think that applies for local export? Might be wrong!
PLAN8CustomerOK, thanks – I understand.
But technically, would it be possible to have a list of multiple collision materials? because that would save the work of making a collision mesh and its own material.
PLAN8CustomerYep – this is the simplest and quickest solution IMHO
I can imagine, that wouldn’t be too hard to implement either
PLAN8CustomerAh, OK, I didn’t think about adding an invisible mesh – however, that still would require duplicating everything which is quite time consuming and adds extra data to be transferred for the web delivery which makes it less efficient all round?
PLAN8CustomerPlease see my quite old thread and request for improvement on this function here …
https://www.soft8soft.com/topic/add-export-app-to-computer-button/
Basically, it is a request to make this workflow considerably easier, clearer and more efficient as currently, exporting the Verge3D application folder exports EVERYTHING including the Blender and V3d backend files. It is required to manually and painstakingly prune out the unnecessary files and folders for the web version, but this is no easy task and requires intimate coder level knowledge of what files are not required for the HTML version to work.
Put simply, it is not user friendly and breaks the idea that V3d is as simple as possible for artists that don’t understand the coding side.
- This reply was modified 1 year ago by PLAN8.
PLAN8CustomerDragging this up again as it seems a must to me –
A button to export only the required HTML/web based set of files only that doesn’t include files that are not required for the web version (ie all the Verge3D and blender files as well as unused textures etc).
Or, make the Verge3D folder hierarchy keep the exportable HTML files separated from the design and backend files in the first place so that manual export or copy of the web ready files is a simple case of copy and paste.
It really does seem like this should be a standard part of the workflow to me, given that the whole point of Verge3D is to enable Blender to Web processing.
- This reply was modified 1 year ago by PLAN8.
PLAN8CustomerHi, sorry to drag this up again, but I think this is a bit of a limitation. It would be good to be able to create surfaces/materials that the camera cannot pass through in all camera navigation view options, or at least orbit as well.
Also, on the same vein, Having the ability to select only one collision material in first person view is particularly limiting IMHO. It means that in an example of a 3D property tour, the entire building including all the separate rooms would have to have the floors and wall all on one material – whilst I can see this can be done by making a material with multiple material slots, this is also limiting as the individual “rooms” would require a shared material – all in all it is quite limiting.
The ability to select multiple collision materials seems like a necessity to me in many scenarios.
Thanks for the potential improvement consideration
- This reply was modified 1 year ago by PLAN8.
PLAN8CustomerNote – I am only seeing the AO through the “backside” of the material – IE it’s a thin surface with no thickness, from the frontside, the material renders correctly, through the backside (with double-sided faces enabled) you can see the AO through the material.
-
AuthorPosts