<div dir="ltr">Also consider that game engine compatibility is only one aspect of fbx. Andy already alluded to it by mentioning other software, but I just want to make sure everyone understands: fbx's other main draw is that it's an exchange format. My colleagues work with Maya and Max (sometimes Modo, softimage), and it's incredibly important that all files can be imported to any package without losing information (extra uv channels, rig, materials, ngons etc) as is often the case with older formats such as obj or 3ds.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><a href="http://flickr.com/photos/michaelknubben/">http://flickr.com/photos/michaelknubben/</a></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:10 PM, metalliandy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:metalliandy666@googlemail.com" target="_blank">metalliandy666@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
While I am never against adding support for new formats, I don't
think that OpenGEX can currently be used as an alternative to FBX,
or even OBJ, as there just isn't enough industry support for the
format.<br>
<br>
I know it's early days for the format but currently it only supports
Max and Maya, which is great ofc, but it isn't until support is
written for Modo, UE4, TB2, Unity & CE3, Substance, xNormal,
Knald, 3dCoat, etc. that it could even be considered as a
replacement.<br>
<br>
So perhaps the focus for OpenGEX in Blender should be as an early
adopter to support future tech rather than a direct replacement for
FBX, as for the moment at least, it isn't likely that OpenGEX will
get enough support to warrant a full move over. <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
-Andy<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div>On 03/10/2014 05:03, Matt Three wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>I decided to start a thread on this after reading a
number of the other threads on FBX integration. I'm using
Blender with UE4 and while it works pretty well (thanks
mont29) I still find it easier to use .obj for static
geometry. I don't animate so I don't really have an opinion
on that. <br>
<br>
</div>
We all know the problems with FBX being a black box and
Collada's myriad of problems so I would like to draw attention
to another effort done by the C4 Engine guys. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div><a href="http://www.opengex.com" target="_blank">www.opengex.com</a>
is where you can find the spec and information.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
OpenGEX has a well defined open standard and avoids a lot of the
problems with Collada. I was thinking with the relative
openness of UE4 it would be possible to write a plugin to use it
as an exchange format instead of FBX. I realize this is
probably a gigantic undertaking but with the amount of work
going into FBX support in Blender it might be worthwhile. I
doubt you will get CryEngine support but I wouldn't be surprised
if you could get it into Unity.<br>
<br>
Anyway, just a thought.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre>_______________________________________________
Bf-gamedev mailing list
<a href="mailto:Bf-gamedev@blender.org" target="_blank">Bf-gamedev@blender.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-gamedev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-gamedev@blender.org">Bf-gamedev@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-gamedev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>