Gamedev \ Game Modding

[Barbarian Conan]

I loved the tech, but once I got the graphics engine working, I would lose interest and do something else.

I’ve tried to do some game dev so many times, I get bored before I’ve even written a line of code. So I’ll just be a spectator.

I once read a blog post stating that you need to keep your hobbyist projects small enough to finish (or to finish a piece) in 2 weeks. It's been pretty accurate for me. After 2 - 3 weeks I lose interest for a while. If it's something I completed and can pick back up, I will probably do so. If it's just a skeleton with all the interesting work done, I probably wont.

 

[cguy]

There's always something neat to play with when making a game, or working with graphics. I found this today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comments/12fkdrt

That looks incredible.

 

[cguy]

I once read a blog post stating that you need to keep your hobbyist projects small enough to finish (or to finish a piece) in 2 weeks. It's been pretty accurate for me. After 2 - 3 weeks I lose interest for a while. If it's something I completed and can pick back up, I will probably do so. If it's just a skeleton with all the interesting work done, I probably wont.

I had a few that went on for a year or two, but it just never was an actual game. I would just add more tech to some demo game play.

My general take is that if one wants to finish a game, they should either limit their tech focus to 10% of their time and use off the shelf software, engines, etc., or alternatively if one wants to focus on tech, work in a team which has dedicated game play developers/designers working concurrently with you.

I remember there being a lot “Make games not engines” discussions back in the 90’s. The advice is 100% correct for a one person team. With nearly 3 decades of hindsight now, for the most part, most of those I know who were building engines had a lot of success working for bit AAA companies overseas, and some pivoted into other industries and are making a fortune (those skills are worth a lot in other industries). Most of those who went on about building games, built a bunch of mediocre indie games that went nowhere and eventually ended up working at the bigger studios designing awful games about sport or educational games, etc. It’s a tough industry!

 

[Moosedrool]

 

[wizardofid]

You mention polygon count isn't important. ? Since when. When working with round objects the minum sub division needed for the around object to appear round is 8 -12 sides with normal smoothing. 12 sides is basically the best middle ground. Pending the object of course, with any thing over 24 sides being negligible. Additionally even with VR you could always apply LOD to trees, pretty much all 3D game engines support it to some extend. Most engines also have a tree system in place or plugin tree system that can reduce quality or billboard trees the further it is away from the camera. Implying polygons isn't important is daft, especially with VR were the player is able to view props, level design, and texture detail in much closer detail compared to FPS or 3rd person view, with the last two a lot more forgiving. The last two have capsules for collision purposes prevent cameras from getting up really close to objects. VR still uses a capsule of sorts but the placement of the camera is different to that of FPS and 3rd person. It pretty much the basics here. Whatever is accessible to the player, needs to be highest reasonable detail, what isn't can be reduced or omitted entirely, whatever you add polygon wise somewhere can be taken away somewhere else. Bumping the tree up a bit is barely going to have a significant enough impact to FPS. You can do it with less than 200 - 400 polygons.

So yeah for VR polygon count and texture quality is vitally important.

The tree system in place can render a 100 000 thousand trees without issue, Automatically scale rotate and you can have up to 16 different tree types in a particular biome. The simple trick is that it billboards the trees after a certain distance from the camera.You don't even need a LOD based model as it automatically switches over to billboards. Both unity and unreal can achieve similar effects.







I personally finished off a project that is releasing on Friday on steam as DLC for an engine based on the wicked engine, which has a realtime dynamic lighting system and has VR support, and has a realtime sky box.


Designing a modular system like this for an engine that doesn't have a primitives, was fun. Polygons particularly because of the round shape of the environment, is vital.

 

[Moosedrool]

You mention polygon count isn't important. ? Since when. When working with round objects the minum sub division needed for the around object to appear round is 8 -12 sides with normal smoothing. 12 sides is basically the best middle ground. Pending the object of course, with any thing over 24 sides being negligible. Additionally even with VR you could always apply LOD to trees, pretty much all 3D game engines support it to some extend. Most engines also have a tree system in place or plugin tree system that can reduce quality or billboard trees the further it is away from the camera. Implying polygons isn't important is daft, especially with VR were the player is able to view props, level design, and texture detail in much closer detail compared to FPS or 3rd person view, with the last two a lot more forgiving. The last two have capsules for collision purposes prevent cameras from getting up really close to objects. VR still uses a capsule of sorts but the placement of the camera is different to that of FPS and 3rd person. It pretty much the basics here. Whatever is accessible to the player, needs to be highest reasonable detail, what isn't can be reduced or omitted entirely, whatever you add polygon wise somewhere can be taken away somewhere else. Bumping the tree up a bit is barely going to have a significant enough impact to FPS. You can do it with less than 200 - 400 polygons.

So yeah for VR polygon count and texture quality is vitally important.

The tree system in place can render a 100 000 thousand trees without issue, Automatically scale rotate and you can have up to 16 different tree types in a particular biome. The simple trick is that it billboards the trees after a certain distance from the camera.You don't even need a LOD based model as it automatically switches over to billboards. Both unity and unreal can achieve similar effects.
View attachment 1506729

View attachment 1506727




I personally finished off a project that is releasing on Friday on steam as DLC for an engine based on the wicked engine, which has a realtime dynamic lighting system and has VR support, and has a realtime sky box.


Designing a modular system like this for an engine that doesn't have a primitives, was fun. Polygons particularly because of the round shape of the environment, is vital.

Polycount is not as taxing as your draw calls. You have to really be trying in your 3d editor or using ridiculously complex assets not truly meant for the purpose to try achieve bad fps due to poly count alone. I cut a lot out of the video so that might not have come out the way I wanted.

People spend hours reducing poly to the min in 3d editors for these. Some over do it with vr and win half a frame while loosing a lot of quality on the visuals. I mean you want to draw something on the screen right? For example that scene. If I de-render all the objects built by me and the trees without any wind zones I win around 3 fps despite rendering nearly 10 million triangles. So you weigh your options against the visuals you need.

You have to instance your scene correctly to reduce the amount of times your cpu talks and cull objects out of view which then increases the time your cpu talks, LOD objects which is yet another draw call each time a more optimised mesh is called Etc...

Balancing that is the correct way to optimise. So I disagree, unless you're drawing a big enough scene and not billboarding trees, culling or using LOD, running into a major fps drop due to poly count alone requires 3d models more complex than a lot of people make it out to be on modern GPUs.

Yeah don’t use cg level objects obviously.

 

[wizardofid]

Polycount is not as taxing as your draw calls. You have to really be trying in your 3d editor or using ridiculously complex assets not truly meant for the purpose to try achieve bad fps due to poly count alone. I cut a lot out of the video so that might not have come out the way I wanted.

People spend hours reducing poly to the min in 3d editors for these. Some over do it with vr and win half a frame while loosing a lot of quality on the visuals. I mean you want to draw something on the screen right? For example that scene. If I de-render all the objects built by me and the trees without any wind zones I win around 3 fps despite rendering nearly 10 million triangles. So you weigh your options against the visuals you need.

You have to instance your scene correctly to reduce the amount of times your cpu talks and cull objects out of view which then increases the time your cpu talks, LOD objects which is yet another draw call each time a more optimised mesh is called Etc...

Balancing that is the correct way to optimise. So I disagree, unless you're drawing a big enough scene and not billboarding trees, culling or using LOD, running into a major fps drop due to poly count alone requires 3d models more complex than a lot of people make it out to be on modern GPUs.

Yeah don’t use cg level objects obviously.

Hours reducing polygon count ?. Wait what ?. Dude you can reduce polygon count, in max, blender, maya or which ever 3d editor in less than 5 seconds. There is even dedicated polygon decimating programs, in fact in most cases you can keep the UV map intact. If you using unreal or unity using primitives with the combination you obviously block out the scene first, so reasonable there it could take a while to reduce, but hours ? Please. ? Of course there use to be an old method of high res mesh that you bake the uv map onto a lower res mesh. Which can fake additional details with the use of normal maps, AO, and even SSAO to some extend. While this method is still occasionally used, however texture painting directly to a mesh, is the in thing these days, with things like quixel, 3d coat, substance painter, armor, mari, mudbox ect, ect. All of them supporting PBR texture painting. What this software also does to reduce memory footprint further is combing the AO, metalness/gloss/roughness into a single surface maps by placing each into the RGB channels of the surface map.

There is a reason why unity, unreal and any modern game engine that uses at least DX10/DX11 has batch rendering and instancing, not only does it reduce the overall draw calls, it reduces the memory foot print.

Due want to know how many draw calls the tree system has ? 1 added a barrel to make it two. There is a reason why people use things like speedtree, it is super economical. In fact this software tree system is so efficient it is able to render 100 000 trees without issue and still have a playable frame rate, of course it is impractical to render a 100 000 trees if they aren't even going to viewed by the player, but it doesn't distract from the fact that you can.

FYI LOD is one draw call, I don't think you grasp the concept around LOD. Only the particular level of LOD that is rendered equals a Draw call, the exception is when each level of LOD has it's own material slot, then draw calls adds up quickly. If you are using the same material for all levels of LOD, it is going to be one draw call. If you are doubling your draw calls you are doing it wrong, for one......disagree the what now ?

 

[Moosedrool]

Yes hours if the optimizer, pro optimizer in max or whatever equivalent 3d modelling tool doesn't give you desired results or if you're dealing with a rigged mesh. Then you manually go in and start welding vertices. You said it yourself, within VR you can get a good view of these things.

Yes your tree environment is a way different type of example. And that is exactly where I would have a billboard and LOD. You need to understand the type of scene. I'm not sure why you're talking about instancing. I'm well aware.

Yes I disagree with a lot of people building environments especially reducing their scene to horrendous rubbish while still having low fps for a complete unrelated reason.

I'll have a relook at unity LOD. I swear it reloaded with each LOD level. The funny thing is the rocks actually are rigged like that in my scene for experimental purposes to see how much I win. The boardwalk not so much yet. But it's also important to note that it's 3 big meshes and 1 low poly invisible collider with practically only 2 standard materials complete with Diffuse, Normal and specular. Not too complex.

 

[wizardofid]

Yes hours if the optimizer, pro optimizer in max or whatever equivalent 3d modelling tool doesn't give you desired results or if you're dealing with a rigged mesh. Then you manually go in and start welding vertices. You said it yourself, within VR you can get a good view of these things.

Yes your tree environment is a way different type of example. And that is exactly where I would have a billboard and LOD. You need to understand the type of scene. I'm not sure why you're talking about instancing. I'm well aware.

Yes I disagree with a lot of people building environments especially reducing their scene to horrendous rubbish while still having low fps for a complete unrelated reason.

I'll have a relook at unity LOD. I swear it reloaded with each LOD level. The funny thing is the rocks actually are rigged like that in my scene for experimental purposes to see how much I win. The boardwalk not so much yet. But it's also important to note that it's 3 big meshes and 1 low poly invisible collider with practically only 2 standard materials complete with Diffuse, Normal and specular. Not too complex.

BS. You can select individual faces to reduce, you don't have to necessarily have to reduce to the entire model at once either. Secondly what does welding vertices have to due with polygon reduction. you would weld vertices only if needed for a animated object, but you don't even have to do that pending how you assign vertices to the bones of the rig. But may result in undesired results in some cases. welding vertices doesn't reduce polygon count it reduces the edges which has ZERO impact on the amount of polygons, nor the amount of triangles either. So what does welding vertices have to do with the price of eggs ?.

Bar that you have feature preservation option with pretty much all major 3d editors so it really doesn't even matter if vertices are melded/welded or not. Additionally you can export the rig and re-import the rig at any point you like and just reassign the bones to vertices as needed, in some cases you can do that automatically these days, and only have to do minor adjusts by removing or adding to bones of the rig. In most cases artists uses a default rig with predefined animation list in most cases or prebuild rig, unless you need some thing custom, you can still slice animation sequences into the rig as well, No need to do it from scratch either.

So yeah polygon reduction can be done in seconds, whether you do an entire model or selected individual faces, with preservation options. Which means it is none destructive and keeps the UV map intact.

 

[Moosedrool]

BS. You can select individual faces to reduce, you don't have to necessarily have to reduce to the entire model at once either. Secondly what does welding vertices have to due with polygon reduction. you would weld vertices only if needed for a animated object, but you don't even have to do that pending how you assign vertices to the bones of the rig. But may result in undesired results in some cases. welding vertices doesn't reduce polygon count it reduces the edges which has ZERO impact on the amount of polygons, nor the amount of triangles either. So what does welding vertices have to do with the price of eggs ?.

What?

You're completely missing the workflow I'm describing and we're talking past each other.

Bar that you have feature preservation option with pretty much all major 3d editors so it really doesn't even matter if vertices are melded/welded or not. Additionally you can export the rig and re-import the rig at any point you like and just reassign the bones to vertices as needed, in some cases you can do that automatically these days, and only have to do minor adjusts by removing or adding to bones of the rig. In most cases artists uses a default rig with predefined animation list in most cases or prebuild rig, unless you need some thing custom, you can still slice animation sequences into the rig as well, No need to do it from scratch either.

So yeah polygon reduction can be done in seconds, whether you do an entire model or selected individual faces, with preservation options. Which means it is none destructive and keeps the UV map intact.

No, It's simple if you use a reduction method modifier of some sort. Not if you're forcing the exact mesh shape you want. There are different workflows for these things btw. Even in worlds, it's not seconds using an optimiser on selecting faces on a vastly complex structure. There's smoothing groups you want to think of, flat geometry that the optimiser missed, specific shapes the modifier might have destroyed completely if your trying it on the entire mesh. A lot of people including me manually go on and clean up meshes.

So I'm not sure where you come into this "seconds" idea. Maybe you should work for id or some gaming developer and say you'll optimise all their 3d meshes in seconds.

 

[wizardofid]

What?

You're completely missing the workflow I'm describing and we're talking past each other.



No, It's simple if you use a reduction method modifier of some sort. Not if you're forcing the exact mesh shape you want. There are different workflows for these things btw. Even in worlds, it's not seconds using an optimiser on selecting faces on a vastly complex structure. There's smoothing groups you want to think of, flat geometry that the optimiser missed, specific shapes the modifier might have destroyed completely if your trying it on the entire mesh. A lot of people including me manually go on and clean up meshes.

No you said welding vertices with regards to polygon reduction. I am not the one talking out his ass.


Dude, I just showed you a simply preservation feature, and you still don't grasp it. Why would they have that if it is going to be destructive ?. What other meshes is going to be more complex close proximity polygons than the an example character I used. ? Make zero sense if you imply that preservation feature doesn't work, I am sure there are rare exceptions, unless you are born under a rock and still using a chisel and a rock. Decimating polygons manually over an entire mesh is rarely used or needed to be done. You do know you can re-calculate object normals/smoothing ANY time you want, it isn't this magic once off thing you do at export or at the end of modeling. You are over complicating things that isn't complicated.

I have yet to find and instance where feature preservation has been destructive to the point it wasn't usable, it is a reason it is called feature preservation. I have used more modifiers than I can count when I subdivided, extruded, duplicated polygons or used deformers, and reduced the polygon directly afterwards in seconds..........lol

So I'm not sure where you come into this "seconds" idea. Maybe you should work for id or some gaming developer and say you'll optimise all their 3d meshes in seconds.

You do know I have been doing game development for the better part of 2 decades, and do contract/freelance work for a game development company, as well as 3rd party developers.
I am in the credits of their latest software. Go figure. It includes a demo game too. You do know what they say, assumptions is the mother of all fkups.



Also have several published DLCs for their other software.

GameGuru - Industrial Sewer Pack on Steam

A comprehensive asset pack with over 200 items for creating indoor and outdoor sewer-based game levels.

store.steampowered.com

GameGuru - Cold War Pack on Steam

High-quality PBR collection of bunker-themed furniture, equipment, and objects for your next game.

store.steampowered.com

GameGuru - Death Valley Combat Pack on Steam

This extensive pack is based around the US Death Valley desert. It's packed with high quality media so you can create your own sandstone style base. Ideal for making multiplayer maps. The pack also includes new terrain media for that death valley scorched earth look!

store.steampowered.com

 

[Moosedrool]

No you said welding vertices with regards to polygon reduction. I am not the one talking out his ass.

No I'll show you how to manually clean up a mesh with the target weld tool. You are talking out of your ass.

Dude, I just showed you a simply preservation feature, and you still don't grasp it. Why would they have that if it is going to be destructive ?. What other meshes is going to be more complex close proximity polygons than the an example character I used. ? Make zero sense if you imply that preservation feature doesn't work, I am sure there are rare exceptions, unless you are born under a rock and still using a chisel and a rock. Decimating polygons manually over an entire mesh is rarely used or needed to be done. You do know you can re-calculate object normals/smoothing ANY time you want, it isn't this magic once off thing you do at export or at the end of modeling. You are over complicating things that isn't complicated.

I have yet to find and instance where feature preservation has been destructive to the point it wasn't usable, it is a reason it is called feature preservation. I have used more modifiers than I can count when I subdivided, extruded, duplicated polygons or used deformers, and reduced the polygon directly afterwards in seconds..........lol




You do know I have been doing game development for the better part of 2 decades, and do contract/freelance work for a game development company, as well as 3rd party developers.
I am in the credits of their latest software. Go figure. It includes a demo game too. You do know what they say, assumptions is the mother of all fkups.

Maybe I am still under a rock. And Good for you.

I still don't believe you optimise good quality meshes in seconds without creating rubbish and I still consider polycount less imported than cpu calls. And I still see rubbish because of this especially in VR space where the creator focused all their attention on things that won them 3fps instead of the 50 they needed to shave for VR.

 

[wizardofid]

No I'll show you how to manually clean up a mesh with the target weld tool. You are talking out of your ass.

Still has nothing to do with polygon reduction

Maybe I am still under a rock. And Good for you.

I still don't believe you optimise good quality meshes in seconds without creating rubbish and I still consider polycount less imported than cpu calls. And I still see rubbish because of this especially in VR space where the creator focused all their attention on things that won them 3fps instead of the 50 they needed to shave for VR.

Dude you need to study your modeling software much closer.............

Just downloaded this

Male Base Mesh 3d model - Free3D

Free Download, 3d Male Base Mesh model available in obj and made with Zbrush.

free3d.com

Able to reduce it by half without losing detail and kept the original normals/smoothing.......

 

[Moosedrool]

Still has nothing to do with polygon reduction



Dude you need to study your modeling software much closer.............

Just downloaded this

Male Base Mesh 3d model - Free3D

Free Download, 3d Male Base Mesh model available in obj and made with Zbrush.

free3d.com

Able to reduce it by half without losing detail and kept the original normals/smoothing.......

View attachment 1506961




View attachment 1506959

First yes you can definitely reduce poly with target welding. Manually cleaning up is a process I've used and seen over. I'll upload a video demonstration tonight.

No I will use the pro optimiser on the mesh example. Gives you the same poly percentage ratio. And unless I was baking out a normal map I wouldn't have subdivided it that far in the first place.

 

[Moosedrool]

welding vertices doesn't reduce polygon count it reduces the edges which has ZERO impact on the amount of polygons, nor the amount of triangles either. So what does welding vertices have to do with the price of eggs ?.

I must be high or something then... But to my eyes the triangle count in this simple mesh is reducing to over 50%

I can show you an example of using a optimiser as well. Pro optimiser is destructive. The Multires modifier is closest to decimate in blender but at what percentage do you stop and have the optimal mesh... or useless polygons?

 

[cguy]

I must be high or something then... But to my eyes the triangle count in this simple mesh is reducing to over 50%

Euler’s Formula supports this.

 

[semaphore]

I never took an interest in it. I can 3d model, script in c# and understand the basics of materials and stuff. I'm not a great shader crazy guy who never leaves his basement and creates unbelievable ****. But for unrelated purposes I kinda know my way around the tools for various things.

This all started because in 2020 I wanted my own shiba inu for VRChat.

I have to admit. It's more fun developing stuff for VR than just a video game. Whether it's a VR game or just a scene. I've digged a bit into UE as well, looking for better performance. Unreal is great for reducing CPU and memory overhead just due to the language but since nothing like what I'm faffing around in exist you have to build it from the ground up and creating multiplayer environments is a lot of networking code.. It really isn't just simple game triggers and stuff. But I'm learning here and there. So currently I'm just building on top of the Neos SDK and VRC sdk.

My experience was mostly writing water simulations in Ogre3D, I was borderline obsessed with trying to create stupidly realistic caustics. Got a pretty decent scene going with nice waves, caustics and foam and then moved on to the next thing.

 

[wizardofid]

I must be high or something then... But to my eyes the triangle count in this simple mesh is reducing to over 50%

I can show you an example of using a optimiser as well. Pro optimiser is destructive. The Multires modifier is closest to decimate in blender but at what percentage do you stop and have the optimal mesh... or useless polygons?

Sigh other programs other than blender like autodesk list of programs, welding actually means taking two vertices or edges and combing them into one edge instead of having two edges sharing the same local coordinates without removing the actual egde/vertice, I am not a blender user but have occasionally used it, and as far as I am aware it doesn't have preservation features by default unlike pretty much all autodesk programs. So I assume you are a blender user, which accounts for the assumption that it takes everyone ages to do polygon reduction, which is false. Maya, max and quite a few other programs all have preservation features, in their polygon reductions. Hell even their free program called meshmixer which I often use, has some preservation features.


And no the polygon reduction tool reduces by default 50% it is only after that that you actually start losing "volume". Pending the amount of polygons in some instances you may need to reduce the ratio. But it always tries to protect the volume first, it will globally target the most dense areas first, and reduce without affecting the volume of the mesh to the min amount of polygons to retain the volume, it is only after that you start losing volume and before actual faces gets deleted.

"welding" in terms of autodesk programs actually mean taking several intersecting edges/points/vertices and combing them into a single edge/point/vertices, I also have the benefit of edge splitting and as well as, bridging of edges/points/vectices if they are interecting and pending the setting, the bridge point will be either the distance between them divided by half or either the left/right/top/or bottom local coordinate. What the video shows is removal of edges/points/vertices, it isn't the same in autodesk programs it is quite a bit different and much more functional, where you can highlight one and make an automatic extended selection of lots of edges that share the same local coordinate with shortcut keys.

If you are using blender, I am sure you can find a 3rd party script that has feature preservation, much rather pay a a monthly premium and have 99% of what I need by default and do it in a 1/4 of the time. There is many instances where you can still manually edit faces and filter edges/points/vertices. Their boolean operations, with convex and concave shapes is second to none and rather flexible, you rarely run into major issues, unless it is an extremely complex asset which may causes crashes or errors. I mean even their subdivision is non destructive as well it creates a secondary mesh which you can freeze at any point, to halt alteration to the newly created mesh or the original.

Blender is great, but it lacks features that make my job easier and sificantly more automated and faster, pretty much the reason why max has been pretty much industry standard, for a very long time and a requirement for pretty much any game dev job application.

 

[Moosedrool]

Sigh other programs other than blender like autodesk list of programs, welding actually means taking two vertices or edges and combing them into one edge instead of having two edges sharing the same local coordinates without removing the actual egde/vertice, I am not a blender user but have occasionally used it, and as far as I am aware it doesn't have preservation features by default unlike pretty much all autodesk programs. So I assume you are a blender user, which accounts for the assumption that it takes everyone ages to do polygon reduction, which is false. Maya, max and quite a few other programs all have preservation features, in their polygon reductions. Hell even their free program called meshmixer which I often use, has some preservation features.


And no the polygon reduction tool reduces by default 50% it is only after that that you actually start losing "volume". Pending the amount of polygons in some instances you may need to reduce the ratio. But it always tries to protect the volume first, it will globally target the most dense areas first, and reduce without affecting the volume of the mesh to the min amount of polygons to retain the volume, it is only after that you start losing volume and before actual faces gets deleted.

"welding" in terms of autodesk programs actually mean taking several intersecting edges/points/vertices and combing them into a single edge/point/vertices, I also have the benefit of edge splitting and as well as, bridging of edges/points/vectices if they are interecting and pending the setting, the bridge point will be either the distance between them divided by half or either the left/right/top/or bottom local coordinate. What the video shows is removal of edges/points/vertices, it isn't the same in autodesk programs it is quite a bit different and much more functional, where you can highlight one and make an automatic extended selection of lots of edges that share the same local coordinate with shortcut keys.

If you are using blender, I am sure you can find a 3rd party script that has feature preservation, much rather pay a a monthly premium and have 99% of what I need by default and do it in a 1/4 of the time. There is many instances where you can still manually edit faces and filter edges/points/vertices. Their boolean operations, with convex and concave shapes is second to none and rather flexible, you rarely run into major issues, unless it is an extremely complex asset which may causes crashes or errors. I mean even their subdivision is non destructive as well it creates a secondary mesh which you can freeze at any point, to halt alteration to the newly created mesh or the original.

Blender is great, but it lacks features that make my job easier and sificantly more automated and faster, pretty much the reason why max has been pretty much industry standard, for a very long time and a requirement for pretty much any game dev job application.

So 3ds max 2016 used in that video isn’t autodesk?

 

[wizardofid]

So 3ds max 2016 used in that video isn’t autodesk?

Lol looked like blender didn't pay close enough attention.......But still that is removing edges rather than "welding".