Good eye! I totally didn’t noticed it. I’ll see if there is something I can do within Hammer 2014 to fix , if not I’ll file a bug report. Adding TexCoord for hundreds of materials won’t be fun 
That’s why my entire map is grey.
I tried exporting a map from Hammer now, without Modo I could not import it since it said some meshes lack information, will try with Modo now.
EDIT: Working fine with Modo, but Triggers and other non-brush stuff from hammer were converted to 1 unit thick walls, how to remove them?
Hey everyone, great discussion on brush tools in . We know we’ve got some wrinkles to iron out with BSP and we hope to be able to address some of the concerns with Geometry 2.0 in a future release. For sort of feedback on our tools, be sure to hit up the Feedback for Epic forum, as nearly identical talks are being had in anotherthread there :).
For discussion about workflows and approach, feel free to carry on in general discussion 
When you build lighting you get hit with UV errors as well, the problem is Hammers FBX export ( even when you import it back into Hammer the textures are upside down as well )
news about geometry 2.0 I think the workflow is fine at the moment for production teams, but for the people that arn’t production teams / 3D experts and don’t want to be forced to use external 3D modeling programs just to be able to be able create what was easily doable since Quake 1 is just frustrating, Hammers idea of having basic tools to create meshes like brushes but still allow the production way of doing things as well is pretty and that kind of speedy workflow for hobbyists is differently something to think about.
There are a lot of examples where the simplicity of using cubes an basic shapes can also be very pretty if used correctly… Portal, Black Mesa Source are very ‘blocky with added in models’ but they are still great games that look amazing.
All I can say is what a time consuming boring process the bottom picture was, all just to get something basic, i’m sure there’s other ways to tile a blueprint etc but why bother.
://iforce.co.nz/i/hm23sec3.ppj.jpg
What exactly were you trying to do?
Something as simple as creating tile-able assets shouldn’t take that long.
On average it takes roughly 5 - 10 minutes (depending on the texture creation of course).
What do you feel took so long?
~ Jason
UV texture mapping, importing and exporting between two programs, in hammer its click drag apply material done, and the result is a perfect simple mesh created from within the engine itself that just works, no fps drawbacks.
I’m just failing to see why basic game walls need to be complex models with UV textures handled by external modeling tools.
Ah, so you are like many others that like the BSP approach better.
Personally, I agree.
When I started career path it was just a hobby in modding using BSP it’s what I’m used to.
The thing is Static Meshes are a big thing and I’d being lying if I said that they were not efficient in terms of power consumption.
If someone could fix BSPs so that they are not so taxing and add a bit more versatility we’d be in business.
Until then, Static Meshes are your best option. Although I prefer BSP, I got used to Static Meshes… you just have to keep using them you’ll get used to them eventually.
~ Jason
[QUOTE=Jason Forrester;199568]
Ah, so you are like many others that like the BSP approach better.
Personally, I agree.
When I started career path it was just a hobby in modding using BSP it’s what I’m used to.
The thing is Static Meshes are a big thing and I’d being lying if I said that they were not efficient in terms of power consumption.
If someone could fix BSPs so that they are not so taxing and add a bit more versatility we’d be in business.
Until then, Static Meshes are your best option. Although I prefer BSP, I got used to Static Meshes… you just have to keep using them you’ll get used to them eventually.
That’s the thing though, Hammer has changed its BSP into Meshes in the new editor, but you can still treat and manipulate them like you could with the old bsp brush tool and then just slap a texture on it, align it and your in business, the time to make stuff is cut in half by using method, but the option is still there to export / import or just leave it as is if you want to make it more complex in an external tool you can, but at least they give you the choice.
I stopped mapping nearly 10 years ago with GTKRadiant and Worldcraft / Hammer so I’m used to the old ways of doing things to pursue web development (pays easier).
I don’t see making things more complex and less user friendly as being a step in the right direction, not if you want your user base to grow. As just a causal mapper, I just can’t get used to new workflow that’s designed for larger more streamlined production teams.
I find going the other way much easier but it’s more of a case that I’ve been using 3ds since 3.5 so I don’t see it so much as BSP versus mesh kind of thing but rather what kinds of tools one is used to.
You can differently get used to a certain way of doing things and there’s certainly more then one way to skin a cat, for me even with the textures coming in upside down I would still find the Hammer method faster for mapping, even if it needs to be UV Mapped in Maya or Blender first and then imported into unreal.
The UV Texture unwrapping etc is what I find the most painful though, especially if you just want to tile a texture along a single face without it looking like a hack job / not quite lining up properly, again I am talking from a new learner perspective and not a 3D expert perspective, I’ve honestly given the tools and 3D modeling tutorials a good thrashing and it’s still seems overly complicated for what is trying to be achieved.
If anyone is interested I’ve created a new thread just to take suggestion for Geometry Editor 2.0:
https://forums.unrealengine/showthread.php?55497-Geometry-Editor-2-0-suggestion-thread
We can still debate in thread :P. I’m a pretty experience 3D artist - I can UV unwrap with my eyes closer with that said I find the act of applying texture(thus creating the UV) in the new Hammer much much quicker then using Modo for the same task. Like Soulroll mention you have choices you can just deal with primitive brush or take it further by editing them.
The problem is simply building collision and graphics data from many BSP brushes. If collision was turned off, it should be faster and streamlined as in other CSG apps. Adding a back-end option to allow for advanced users is the best choice.
Otherwise, delaying all actual processing is the only option to use BSPs faster on modern hardware.
://cryengine/news/cryengine-designer-tool
CryEngine has already had a modeling tool which seems to have capabilities to create real game assets as well as prototype levels without the need of external DCC tools
Hey folks, just a quick update, we are coming very close to moving into full production on “ProBuilder” for Unreal. Just gotta knock out some special stuff for Unite (end of September), and then we are full-throttle for Unreal Honestly really, really excited for , as my roots are in Unreal
Below is a quick vid of what we have working in Unity, hoping to have + more in Unreal very soon:
Hope is of use! 
; You can do everything that I see in the Cube 2 video by using the pen tool. Though the pen tool is much slower to create the desired shape in many cases than the 2d Shape Editor that I believe was last seen in UE2, and you could do much more with one brush by using that. More than one brush can achieve the same result as the things you use to be able to create with that tool. So I’m on your side. I still miss that 2d Shape tool a lot. But my point is that there are still ways you can achieve the same result. It’s too bad that UE4 doesn’t still provide it as an option on the side. The pen tool is sometimes buggy doing simple things. Hall of mirrors happen for dumb reasons.
The second biggest thing that bothers me is that they removed the option to build mostly from subtractions. UDK had an option to use a subtractive or additive style. I’ve yet to see if adding an enormous cube in order to ant-hill my way through it will give me buggy problems all over the place, but that’s what I’m doing. In my opinion, subtracting areas out leads to many less brushes that need to be used and us old school mappers have our brains wired to think way. Why should I use 6 brushes to create a single square room when I can use one? And why does it look like the popular consensus is that models are less taxing on frame rate than BSP is with engine? From my experience, with the older engines, a massive amount of BSP would equal the performance impact of a small amount of static meshes. So what’s changed? Why are static meshes better for frame rates now than BSP?
Who the hell would create a map directly in Maya or other 3d tool?
I think people saying ******** like have never, ever, worked on serious and professional level design.
Level design is about getting ideas done FAST and QUICK.
Core is prototyping over and over and prototyping has to be done directly in engine launching the game every 30 seconds to check if the flow of the gameplay is how you expect it to be.
Are respawn points placed well from collision points?
Does part of the map needs a rework on visibilities and line of sights? Should I maybe add a second path to point?
I simply cannot see an easy to do so in a 3d modelling program, because there isn’t.
Level design is not about beauty, it is not even about the specific setting or scenario, it really comes down to block stuff that determines how your player moves around the enviroment and how the game is played.
I really cannot understand the two categories in discussion:
-I do stuff in my 3d modelling program. Cause your map, unless it’s about exploring enviroment, but even then not even skyrim or assassin’s creed have such a level design pipeline, is going to suck and modifying stuff on the fly would be a pain.
-I want to do all stuff in engine. Engine will always be very limited when it comes down to detailing your map. We’re not anymore in 1999 and BSP based level design can only get you so far.
You know who has probably approach 1?
Dice, and it’s extremely visible in how poorly their levels were designed in Hardline and 4 (there’s a reason they keep recycling BC and BF3 maps in their DLCs ;)).
Rockstar does, from what I’ve heard.
Quite a lot of companies work directly in 3d applications for world geometry and have built pipelines orientated around kind of workflow, often having internal software plugins and techniques to allow for rapid iteration - it’s very normal.
Not that I’d recommend working like that, especially within Unreal, but do do it.
Well to be fair fbx files update when they’re modified so you can probably configure whatever app you use to autosave an fbx at a designated folder which would mean constant updates inside UE4.