Is Geometry 2.0 Still a Possibility?

I haven’t heard anything about it on the forums for quite some time now. I was just wondering if Epic was still planning to implement it.

~ Jason

What is it supposed to be? Can you link me some information about it?

I don’t think we will see it anytime soon.
It was moved to 2016 and 2017 backlog.
I guess team will work on Sequencer improvements and Niagara development in 2016

For simplicity’s sake:

Here are the threads in case you’re interested (they’re a pretty good read; I suggest you go through them):

  1. Geometry Editor 2.0 suggestion thread - Feedback for Unreal Engine team - Unreal Engine Forums

  2. (VIDEO) UE4's Geometry Mode is inadequate when compared with that of Quake 1 - Feedback for Unreal Engine team - Unreal Engine Forums

~ Jason

Shame. I’ve been looking forward to it for quite a few years now…

Sequencer improvements and Niagara are welcome, but I’d being lying if I said I wasn’t a bit disappointed.

Thanks for the link by the way, I’ll have to keep my eye on that.

~ Jason

Geo 2.0 would make much better to build world objects than BSP. Keep thumbs up for Epic plans about Geometry 2.0

I know!

I’m holding out hope!

~ Jason

I’d send a large envelop containing lots of Benjamins to Tencent.
It certainly wouldn’t hurt :stuck_out_tongue: Otherwise Geometry 2.0 is just a wish…
On a really long wishlist like Terrain-editing-in-runtime, vehicle-fixes…

So basically a more advanced 3D editor within UE4?

I don’t understand why anyone would want to reinvent the wheel inside UE4?

Why wouldn’t you just learn Blender or Max or Maya?

No fan of BSP, but I’d love to see more mesh-editing tools like the level-editing options in Lumberyard.
UE4 offers scaling, rotation, auto-collision, fracturing, Lods, but not dragging of vertices, so why is that?

Other points: it’d be nice to be able to keep working in the same lighting system all the time (UE4 only).
With all reference meshes readily available for creative brainstorming or handy scale & style comparison.
Plus, you never have every Max & Maya source file needed for reference from 3rd party mesh packs etc…
And while you can use FBX export, its more work! (But one-click import / export for all 3D apps would help).

That said, overall I’d expect to see all MD’s wishlist above get completed first, but you always want more.

Iteration speed. I know how to use Maya, but no matter how fast I get at it, it’ll always be faster to use BSP tools for blocking in a level and iterating on it, as opposed to worrying about the tedium of exporting/importing every mesh, setting up collision, and then finally being able to run around in-engine to properly judge something as simple as scale. An improvement to the usability and speed of those tools would go a long way to helping the workflow of the initial map design.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

~ Jason

Just to add onto what @Daniel.Wenograd said,

The last thing I want to do is create everything in an external 3D program to prototype a level, and then have to go back into that program if something doesn’t work.

It’s all about ease-of-use and having one program (UE4) instead of two to block out levels would be great.

That’s the reason maps in Source can be incredibly easy to make.

~ Jason

In a sense; not on par with MAX, but something that can parallel Source engine tools would be great.

~ Jason

You may want to send two envelopes…just in case.

~ Jason

P.S. I had no idea their backlog was so large…

I haven’t really played around with Lumberyard (or Cryengine for that matter): What is their level editor like?

Is it similar to Hammer?

~ Jason

Dude, you know you can multi-quote instead of making five posts in a row, right? Just hit the button on the right of ‘Reply with Quote’ to add anything to your quickly reply box.

…That’s a joke, right?

~ Jason

I would prefer something like Unity AssetPostprocessor implemented in UE4. You could then script everything to automate all that stuff, how it should be imported, how it should be instatiated etc.