I bougt the ancient environment pack from the marketplace and I have to say I am a bit disappointed.
The assets look alright but the collision volumes are very bad. If you want to use these assets in a level where the player is supposed to climb/jump between rocks then these assets are useless.
please fix the collision volumes and make it usable and not just visually appealing.
Also if possible fix the mising backfaces for some of the assets, it makes rotating the asset impossible due to missing polygons.
regards,
Chrys
PS: we need definitly a better way to communicate with authors of these marketplace assets.
Hi there, for support on products made for the marketplace, go into the item from the Marketplace tab and you will find the support info for each developer, in case here is the info for pack:
You could always use the collision of the mesh - I don’t have the engine in front of me but I believe if you open the mesh in the properties type “Collision” in the search box and in the “Type” use “Use Complex Collision”.
I second suggestion, and I don’t think it’s a problem with the assets. Most games will want to have optimized (Meaning convex) collisions for things like rocks, just because it’s far cheaper than concave collisions. I’d say from the looks of it they’re doing it right for the general case.
If you want more detailed collisions, either use the mesh as the collision mesh as suggested, or edit the asset and stretch some primitive colliders around the areas you want to be solid. It’s not much work relative to actually creating the asset, (Maybe an hour if you’ve never done that kind of thing before, 15 minutes if you have experience) so you’re still getting off pretty cheap.
thank you for all the suggestions, they were very helpful!
using complex collision fixed my problem so for that I thank you most of all
I will mark thread as resolved.
Chrys
EDIT : actually I cannot mark as fixed, I need the collision volumes changed as applying the complex collision is just a temp solution. I have contacted the author now. I will post an update once I get an answer.
I’m all for following the contact details of the seller rather than posting on these forums, but I’d also like to mention that in specific scenario, those collision boxes are terrible and switching to complex collision is performance heavy.
It doesn’t take more than 5 minutes per asset to fix collision so that you use an optimized collision mesh without going overboard on the complexity. They’re rocks. should have been done by the seller before he copy/pasted them onto Unreal Engine’s marketplace. That kind of quality might have passed in the Unity community, but Unreal games tend to focus much more on immersive environments.
Either way, is where a rating system would definitely come in handy. isn’t the first (or second, or third) complaint regarding asset pack. The seller would surely be motivated to spend the short amount of time fixing his art issues if no one bought the asset due to low ratings.
But all in good time. I’m sure Epic is working on something similar/better to the rating system suggestions already made in other posts.
I wouldn’t say I wasn’t glad the complaints were posted. I almost bought the asset pack until I realized the seller hadn’t made any adjustments from his Unity package (based on complaint posts in forum section). As a buyer I’m grateful that I didn’t have to go through the process of asking for a refund. It’s a hard decision to not post on the forums I think, since everyone knows there’s no other way for others to be aware of what they’re buying into (yet).
With that said, I probably would’ve contacted the seller first and given him 24-48 hours to respond saying the fix was on the way, and if that didn’t happen I’d post with whatever correspondence actually did occur (or if no response, indicate that).
Personally i feel Epic should have picked up and rejected until the author fixed the.
Those collisions are pretty bad. If you are paying for something it should be polished. Not have rushed collision jobs.
I have now contacted the author because using complex collision is not a good solution for me.
I completely agree in the state those assets are , Epic should not have accepted them on the marketplace.
I have no intention to ruin anyone’s reputation or in any way harm the author economically but I have got to look out for my own interests here too.
Its important that people handle openly on the forums so that people like me can that which was not disclosed on the product’s page. Thank you. I know not to get anything from M4K because the collision is absolute ****.
I never had with collisions with any of the K4 packs, my personal with most of them is that they are marked as “prepared to another camera view (first or third person)” yet loads of the models are missing faces that would not be seen from top. meaning that they cannot be used for 3rd or first person view, or turned around in case of stones etc. but never had with collisions and I own the top down interiors, ancient environment, top-down dungeons, top-down city
@Sarr: Have you tried using Top Down Dungeons with a NavMesh? The collisions are okay for a player, but as soon as you add AI using NavMesh or any NavMesh … you get a problem … see post here.
To be honest I really can’t fault the author or blame Epic as to asst use 100%. What is needed is a primer as to expectations that the artist can use as a check list.
