+- The VG Resource (https://www.vg-resource.com)
+-- Forum: Main Content (https://www.vg-resource.com/forum-103.html)
+--- Forum: Site Discussion (https://www.vg-resource.com/forum-106.html)
+--- Thread: Models resource rant (/thread-27220.html)
Models resource rant - TGE - 06-01-2015
Sooo I got another batch of models rejected after about a month.
Why? Complaints about texture paths in FBX files.
Simply put, FBX files suck at path handling.
To clarify, FBX files don't have to be binary. In fact I always export to FBX v6 ASCII because that's the oldest version supported by 3ds Max.
If you were to look into the texture paths in the fbx, you'd soon notice that you can't do anything about the textures not being found because the handling is utter trash.
Yes I did edit the paths, but they won't load because it will always assume absolute paths, regardless of what you specify or whether or not the relative filename element is correct.
In fact, RTBs fbx submissions don't have proper texture paths either, but that's not an issue because he approves his own submissions.
Second of all, please don't ever complain about the texture filenames in SMD files as extensions in the file are ignored by the (official) parser (which is why they never load on import, really)
Third of all, why do both of our TMR mods just to appear to be 2 of the most busy people on the site? I get that people get busier with their life over time, but please be reasonable and recruit for more moderators as the current submission and review rate of submissions has come to a near halt resulting in the current moderators having to plow through relatively huge batches of submissions.
RE: Models resource rant - Random Talking Bush - 06-01-2015
I'm definitely not responsible for declining those submissions, but I am for being too busy lazy and not keeping things up to date on The Models Resource. I know about the broken paths in my FBX files, but yeah, there's just no option for the paths because FBX is stupid (but at the same not, as it's the only one of the three formats that I use that remembers smoothing group setups)...
Peardian? If you're there, what do you think about all this? TGE knows what he's talking about.
RE: Models resource rant - Garamonde - 06-01-2015
Well to be fair, "recruiting for more moderators" isn't as easy as it sounds. Hardly anyone who works with models here has enough knowledge in models and a trained eye to see errors in submissions (this is why I never did it). You could probably do it, but you'd have to run that by Dazz.
RE: Models resource rant - Peardian - 06-02-2015
That's not an entirely accurate account of what happened. I rejected that last batch of models because you only had FBX models. The rule guidelines have always stated that you need at least an OBJ or a DAE in the submission. I was explaining the FBX path thing because that is one of the reasons we require OBJ and DAE. I was willing to let the broken texture paths in the FBX slide as long as you had a working OBJ and DAE.
I am sorry about the month part. My life is busy, and it takes a long time to check every model submitted. I usually have to dedicate an entire day to it and nothing else, and I can only do that on the weekends.
RE: Models resource rant - TGE - 06-03-2015
(06-02-2015, 09:53 PM)Peardian Wrote: That's not an entirely accurate account of what happened. I rejected that last batch of models because you only had FBX models. The rule guidelines have always stated that you need at least an OBJ or a DAE in the submission. I was explaining the FBX path thing because that is one of the reasons we require OBJ and DAE. I was willing to let the broken texture paths in the FBX slide as long as you had a working OBJ and DAE.
I am sorry about the month part. My life is busy, and it takes a long time to check every model submitted. I usually have to dedicate an entire day to it and nothing else, and I can only do that on the weekends.
As much as I agree with what you say now, I don't think you made it quite clear beforehand that you would've let the path issue slide in the rejection notice nor did you ever mention that it was one of the reasons for the requirement of an OBJ or a DAE (but I'll let that slide, because that's not completely relevant).
I think it's important to make things clear instead of leaving them up to one's interpretation.
The lack of an OBJ was an oversight as I can see it being useful for people that make papercrafts or just need a simple reference etc. but that was not the point of my post.
The point of my post was not to represent what had happened, it was merely me ranting about certain aspects of the approval system I disagreed on, of which I still hope you keep those things in mind.
That aside, you don't have to be sorry for the waiting time. I know people have busy lives to take care of, I was just saying that there should maybe be a way to reduce it by recruiting new moderators. Thanks either way.
RE: Models resource rant - Peardian - 06-04-2015
I certainly did not intend to be unclear with my message. Unfortunately, I cannot review what I sent because I do not get a copy of the rejection message. I'm pretty sure I mentioned needing an OBJ or DAE, though. I'm a bit surprised that you don't know that rule, since it has been part of the submission guidelines as long as I can remember.
However, I have never once received a message from you explaining the FBX situation or that you had ever attempted to fix the issue. The reason I didn't mention the "I'll let it slide" part is because I didn't know you had ever attempted fixing the issue and I try not to encourage people to be lazy. Remember, you're allowed to respond to rejection messages and dispute my reasoning if you disagree with it.