Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Banner advertising on our site currently available from just $5!


1. Learn about the promo. 2. Sign up for GDNet+. 3. Set up your advert!


FBX or COLLADA.


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
3 replies to this topic

#1 alirakiyan   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 15 July 2012 - 05:49 AM

hi
I want to import models into my game or game engine.
it should support animation.
which one is better? FBX or COLLADA? why?

Edited by alirakiyan, 15 July 2012 - 05:51 AM.


Sponsor:

#2 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 19182

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 15 July 2012 - 06:18 AM

FBX has an SDK to help you load the data and it can evaluate nodes as they are run through a simulated animation, allowing you to easily extract data at keyframes and even between them.

However, it has no support at all for any custom data and very few options related to materials.


COLLADA allows custom data to be implanted into the file and can include physics data but there is no SDK for loading the file. You will either need to roll your own or use Assimp. If you use a 3rd-party library you may not be able to access any of that custom data so rolling your own is a safer bet, although a pain in the ass.


My solution is to use FBX for model data and then create a secondary file with the same name but different extension which contains custom data.
This way you get the ease of an SDK for loading everything out of the FBX file plus full customization support, without being limited by the tools you use.


L. Spiro

#3 saejox   Members   -  Reputation: 714

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 15 July 2012 - 07:00 AM

http://assimp.sourceforge.net/

#4 alirakiyan   Members   -  Reputation: 145

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 15 July 2012 - 11:04 PM

http://assimp.sourceforge.net/

assimp imports COLLADA . I think assimp is excellent. (assimp doesnt import FBX DIRECTLY).
but it removes Mesh Subsets.it creates independent meshes from subsets. I dont know if its good or bad.but I think there is no choice for programmers who use assimp.
secondly , if we cant use our own importer , we rely on others. like assimp or FBX SDK.
years ago I just worked with XFiles.directly. Like what L. Spiro said ,

My solution is to use FBX for model data and then create a secondary file with the same name but different extension which contains custom data.

If I needed extra data beside my models , I had to create another file. but as we know , Microsoft stopped supporting it.(and indirectly
suggests using FBX. )
the best choice , I think , is to create my own data format . but I should first import from other formats . I choose FBX or COLLADA .this is the story.

Edited by alirakiyan, 15 July 2012 - 11:08 PM.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS