PDA

View Full Version : Packing a new scene loses some textures



Dillon
01-27-2013, 06:03 PM
Packaging a scene where objects and their textures are in various places. After repackaging a scene into a new content directory, some of the textures go missing. :(

Is this a known bug? The textures are UV textures. Its weird that some of them go missing, while the rest of them get carried into the new scene / content directory.

djwaterman
01-27-2013, 07:24 PM
All I can think of is to open the packaged scene, and replace all the image maps one at a time with the same ones from the packaged scene location, and once you've done that save the scene. I think what is happening is that when you open the scene it is still pulling things from the original directory. Another option would be to use the TrueArt plugin called save scene and all objects increments. This will save all the objects and scene as copies with the extension 001. Then take these new object and scene files and paste them into a new folder along with a copy of the image files.

http://www.trueart.pl/?URIType=Directory&URI=Products/Plug-Ins/SaveSceneAndAllObjects

There might be better ways to do what you want. One thing about Lightwave is that you can't click on an object or image file and find out what directory it is being pulled from. You only know this at the point you load and object or image, but once it is loaded you have no way of checking. At least that's my understanding, I'd love to know that I'm wrong about this.


There's also this plugin I just saw that does something about image folders, haven't used it but.

http://www.trueart.pl/?URIType=Directory&URI=Products/Plug-Ins/CollectImages

jeric_synergy
01-27-2013, 11:14 PM
When you say "textures" do you mean "bitmaps"?

Phil
01-28-2013, 05:01 AM
Packaging a scene where objects and their textures are in various places. After repackaging a scene into a new content directory, some of the textures go missing. :(

Is this a known bug? The textures are UV textures. Its weird that some of them go missing, while the rest of them get carried into the new scene / content directory.

Report it, with representative content. Package scene should catch everything. There are some complications with 3rd party plugins that don't host their images within the usual LW context (e.g. infiniMap), but it doesn't sound like one of those situations.

Danner
01-28-2013, 08:45 AM
Package scene has always worked here. On the second link of djwaterman's post he points to Collect Images. That will work too. It's similar to package scene, but from modeler, it saves every image loaded into modeler to a specified directory, even if no object is currently using the image, so make sure it's a fresh modeler before you load your objects. Otherwise you'll end up with unwanted images. Collect Images then changes the paths in the LWO to link them to the images in the new location, so be sure to save your objects after using Collect Images.

jeric_synergy
01-28-2013, 12:32 PM
I've never had trouble w/Package Scene either, but TBH they are usually very small scenes.

Snosrap
01-28-2013, 08:28 PM
I was having the same issue with images not and even some objects not being moved to the new locations. I have since been using it with the "Preserve Existing Structure" unchecked and everything moves over fine - just not in the existing file structure of course.

jwiede
01-29-2013, 08:30 AM
I was having the same issue with images not and even some objects not being moved to the new locations. I have since been using it with the "Preserve Existing Structure" unchecked and everything moves over fine - just not in the existing file structure of course.
I've also seen the problem with images not being copied/moved as expected, but haven't had time to pin down the precise trigger conditions into a reliable repro. Unfortunately, leaving "Preserve Existing Structure" unchecked makes the operation "destructive", and I'm not comfortable relying on LW to move (vs copy) assets in most cases.

Dillon
01-29-2013, 11:53 AM
Thanks for your feedback, guys. I haven't tried unchecking "preserve existing structure", and glad that I haven't! I wasn't aware that turning this feature off destroyed the current directory structure. Yikes! Thanks for the input, John W.

These are jpeg images using UV mapping. It's weird that most of the images move to the new content directory, but a few of them go astray. Looks like I'll have to hunt them down.

After 5 years hiatus from LW (I stopped using it during the v7 series, and coming back, it's awesome to see the improvements, but not so awesome to see some of the same lame bugs that bite at the worst times. Looking forward to 11.5, though!

Dillon

jeric_synergy
01-29-2013, 12:32 PM
Jweide, is "Preserve Existing structure" literately destructive? I thought it just made a default set of directories in the NEW folder.

NinoK
01-29-2013, 12:53 PM
I often package a scene to send it to the render farm. Every time I do, I like to run the content manager past the first screen just to make sure all my paths to content say 'local' instead of 'external'. I've found that sometimes things don't package with the scene like I would expect them to and the CM lets me catch the ones that get left behind.

Snosrap
01-29-2013, 07:44 PM
Jweide, is "Preserve Existing structure" literately destructive? I thought it just made a default set of directories in the NEW folder.No it'a not destructive at all. Package scene is generally used to get your scene and all it's assets onto another drive or device (USB thumb drive etc.) therefore it leaves your current structure alone and just moves the files. I have never lost anything or destroyed a file structure by using Package Scene. Of note: the pre Python version of Package Scene worked flawlessly.

jeric_synergy
01-29-2013, 08:07 PM
I believe 'Preserve Existing Structure" simply copies the folder and subfolder NAMES, rather than using the default LW content directory structure.

Snosrap
01-29-2013, 08:46 PM
I believe 'Preserve Existing Structure" simply copies the folder and subfolder NAMES, rather than using the default LW content directory structure. I'm pretty sure that is incorrect, but it's hard to test or prove seeing how it really doesn't work. I ran a simple test on the same scene to see what structure I would get with and without "Preserve Existing Structure" checked. In the attached screenshot you can see that Preserve Existing Structure tries to maintain the current structure of your scene which is evident in the Objects folder inside the Objects folder. However that is not my structure and also note that no image folder was created. When Preserve Existing Structure is not checked all the proper folders are created, but the structure from your local drive or server is not maintained. I believe Dillion will find his textures(bitmaps) move just fine if he unchecks Preserve Existing Structure. :) I'm certain this is a bug, whether it's a known bug to the devs I can't say.:D

jeric_synergy
01-29-2013, 09:11 PM
.. also note that no image folder was created.
Are there any images used in that particular scene?

Snosrap
01-29-2013, 10:25 PM
Are there any images used in that particular scene? Yes there are. Both exports were with the same scene. The "content manager" is the old version of Package Scene and still can be found by doing a search in the Edit Menu. Notice how it keeps the file structure.

jwiede
01-30-2013, 06:37 AM
Thanks for your feedback, guys. I haven't tried unchecking "preserve existing structure", and glad that I haven't! I wasn't aware that turning this feature off destroyed the current directory structure. Yikes! Thanks for the input, John W.
Hang on, I think I misspoke, I believe I'm mistaken about it being "destructive" w.r.t. moving versus copying scene contents, sorry for any confusion caused, mea culpa, etc. I'm getting the different issues I've had with package scene a bit mixed up, so disregard my previous comments.

Jim M
01-30-2013, 07:31 AM
It would be nice if it package scene checked the scene file for paths and intelligently copied referenced files. As it stands I think its hardcoded to copy certain files types. I have never had package scene copy over ies lights for example.
Having extra steps for sending to renderfarms etc kind of defeats the object of package scene. It's almost fantastic though...

jeric_synergy
01-30-2013, 11:06 AM
It would be nice if it package scene checked the scene file for paths and intelligently copied referenced files. As it stands I think its hardcoded to copy certain files types. I have never had package scene copy over ies lights for example.
Back in Teh Olden Dayes, the Verry Olden Dayes, LW used more reference files than it does now, for instance Motion files!!! (iirc)

:eek: I didn't know IES lights were external reference files: what other elements of a scene are external? PFX? MDD? Anything else?

I hope you reported the PackageScene/IES issue: that's a bug in my book. Or at least a very serious shortcoming.

Jim M
01-30-2013, 11:18 AM
Any file which is loaded into the scene is a referenced file. If you look at the scene file in wordpad / notepad, you will find lot's of paths referencing all sorts of things images/ objects/ plugins etc etc.
They are loaded at scene load, so it's not a 'live' reference, but my point is anyone who can write in python or lscript could write a better more intelligent package scene fairly swiftly.
I mean I can literally look at the scene file and determine exactly what needs packaging everytime as the info is all in there. Obviously no need to package plugins currently, but the rest of it .. woosh. Jobs a good un.
Just needs to be complete and utterly foolproof. Thats is the prereq for 'Package Scene' imo.

jeric_synergy
01-30-2013, 11:28 AM
..... my point is anyone who can write in python or lscript could write a better more intelligent package scene fairly swiftly.
And yet, it hasn't happened.

Jim M
01-30-2013, 11:34 AM
Probably because alot of people don't even use package scene. Many don't have renderfarms. And once you know the few gotchas it works.
This isn't a moan, I think sometimes it is better to get a product out with features that 95% work... there are a lot of arguments for that!!

jeric_synergy
01-30-2013, 12:10 PM
I wish there were a developer "B-Team" to pick up on all the little, non-rocket-science stuff, that are in aggregate extremely ANNOYING.

They're not show-stoppers, but they make you grit your teeth again and again (and again), and make it hard to sell the LightWave brand to other users, because they're just Stupid Things. Like the content directory issues, and the Package Scene issues here.

I'd start a 'low-hanging fruit' thread but there's always some @sswipe who pops in with "Uh wahhnt full fluid dynamics with real-time ray traced refraction", dragging the thread off-topic instead of sticking to the simple stuff that we just can't believe has been hanging on for eight versions.

A "B-team" would allow NewTek/LWG to "audition" programmers at a slightly lower rate, get them acclimated to the code-base, and fix some un-sexy issues that have been hanging on 'wayyyy past their due date. :chicken: :chicken: 8~

Dillon
01-30-2013, 12:37 PM
Hi Jim,

No need to apologize. I misspoke, too!

I have always had "preserve current" UNCHECKED, because I want LW to organize the new scene/objects/images into the directory structure it likes to work with. It's cleaner to migrate big projects that way.

Perhaps that is why the issue exists for me... I'll try to CHECK it and see if that is more successfull. As everyone else seems to agree, this is a very stupid issue to have exist. It seems a fundamental basic thing to have working, to package a scene once its built to clean up any messy organizational issue. For me, it skips certain texture images which is incredibly frustrating. From what others are saying, it seems that its not limited to just forgetting certain images, either.

*shakes fists at the sky*


Hang on, I think I misspoke, I believe I'm mistaken about it being "destructive" w.r.t. moving versus copying scene contents, sorry for any confusion caused, mea culpa, etc. I'm getting the different issues I've had with package scene a bit mixed up, so disregard my previous comments.

Dillon
01-30-2013, 04:24 PM
Tried content manager and got exactly the same error. :( About half the images/textures get broken.

Erg....



I often package a scene to send it to the render farm. Every time I do, I like to run the content manager past the first screen just to make sure all my paths to content say 'local' instead of 'external'. I've found that sometimes things don't package with the scene like I would expect them to and the CM lets me catch the ones that get left behind.

ncr100
01-30-2013, 04:52 PM
Are the files special in any way...ie containing space or "special" characters?

Dillon
01-30-2013, 04:56 PM
No .. typical file names with _ spacers (name_01.jpg).

I resolved the issue by saving out each object using content manager to consolidate the images / attached to their objects and rebuilt the scene after doing content manager with each object.

What a giant pain in the butt. >:(

papou
01-30-2013, 05:36 PM
a tip: Actually Package scene cannot bring Image Clone/Instance. (It will be debugged in lw11.5)

Dillon
01-30-2013, 06:36 PM
hmmm ... and how do you know? . ....

But good to know...



a tip: Actually Package scene cannot bring Image Clone/Instance. (It will be debugged in lw11.5)

Snosrap
01-30-2013, 08:25 PM
I wish there were a developer "B-Team" to pick up on all the little, non-rocket-science stuff, that are in aggregate extremely ANNOYING.

They're not show-stoppers, but they make you grit your teeth again and again (and again), and make it hard to sell the LightWave brand to other users, because they're just Stupid Things. Like the content directory issues, and the Package Scene issues here.

I'd start a 'low-hanging fruit' thread but there's always some @sswipe who pops in with "Uh wahhnt full fluid dynamics with real-time ray traced refraction", dragging the thread off-topic instead of sticking to the simple stuff that we just can't believe has been hanging on for eight versions.

A "B-team" would allow NewTek/LWG to "audition" programmers at a slightly lower rate, get them acclimated to the code-base, and fix some un-sexy issues that have been hanging on 'wayyyy past their due date. :chicken: :chicken: 8~Good idea!