The only remaining issue is that there is still a connecting face between the two groups. Did you remove all the FFs? At 0x16de90 I have (buffer is 2 bytes shorter): DE 28 BE 28 DD 28 BC 28 DC 28 BB 28 DB 28 DB 28 E2 28 E2 28 E3 28 E3 28 E3 28 E4 28 E5 28 E5 28 Instead of: DE 28 BE 28 DD 28 BC 28 D...

Protocol X27 wrote:But, with the shorthand I understand that redundant values are omitted.

It's a triangle strip. If you duplicate the first index, the normals for each face would be flipped.
But that might not the issue actually, if only some parts are transparent.

Protocol X27 wrote:Suggestion 2

It's by submesh (material), normally.
For Suggestion 1 I'd try writing faces with a different winding (ABC --> ACB).

It's weird though, maybe you can upload the tmc+tmcl to see what's up.

Protocol X27 wrote:Essentially the normals (faces?) are flipped.

Try writing indexes in a reverse order (inverse the winding of triangles). Or maybe duplicate the first index to flip all normals.

If you add new submeshes (materials) you probably also will need to update the matecp and mcapack sections, and copy the submesh info from the MdlInfo section.

Null offsets mean the section is skipped.

It's like objgeo @matecp, you can jump to a block but I can't seem to find an index to tell me which is for the skin object. (most of them look exactly the same) The itable section has that. The main offsets are for objects. Then you have the number of submeshes followed by the customp index for ea...

Lilstormcloud wrote:The usual transparency procedure doesn't work on the body object, figure there must be something else that needs to be changed

Should be inside the matecp section. Material/texture/shader parameters go there normally.

I'll just modify the obj exporter and add bones/weights/tangents to it and modify my parser to read it in. So zero work is lost. I guess it makes sense for testing. But I thought you would want to write a TMC importer for blender or max or whatever software you are using instead. No intermediaries ...

Rosalin wrote:I can hardly understand just sitting and complaining like you.

What are you even talking about

Rosalin wrote:Sounds like you want everything is automated.

Ideally, sure.
But here I'm just pointing out issues that amandabyyy might have missed, so he doesn't waste too much time on things that are pretty much broken by design.

Rosalin wrote:Multiple UV is not that important thing.

It kind of is. Just like the tangents. The model will be degraded needlessly, especially if you just want to do a couple of minor edits.
Also, dirt textures don't always come last and noesis only exports one uv layer.

artworkplay wrote:isn't .obj an incredibly limited format

It is. I'm not even sure it can support multiple UV maps.