[=;597155]
No matter with what they will come up with … Im probably not gonna use it.
Reason is simple: It cant possibly beat MODO (or max, mayer, etc for that matter).
For rough blocking, the current BSP system is good enough as it is. For anything beyond, I go with the foundry…
I hope Epic does not divert too much resources into .
[/]
I’m sorry, but I gotta disagree here. The point of a pseudo-CSG system is not to replace modelling tools - both in mine and many other peoples’ opinions, they serve pretty different roles in the pipeline. Unreal’s geometry tools don’t need to rival Modo or any dedicated 3D package - They just need to be able to let level designers work on basic level geometry in-engine, and do so quickly and intuitively. If Unreal’s current geometry tools are good enough for you as-is, then that’s great, but IMO goes over some pretty empirical reasons why they’re currently not up-to-scratch in his original video. I’d also argue that they’re a terrible idea as part of any production pipeline, other than ‘replace with static meshes later’, as they’re a huge performance hog.
There are loads of other reasons why IMO UE4 still needs some good geometry tools - I happen to be one of the people that feel level design has taken a real retrograde step in terms of complexity as a result of the industry favouring a purely mesh-based approach. I’d also argue that using a full modelling package to model game geometry entirely separately from the game is a crazy idea in terms of good workflow. And finally, Max, Maya, and basically every 3D package out there save Blender are prohibitively expensive if all you want to focus on is level design - it’s kind of analogous to buying a Swiss army knife when all you want to do is cut some paper.
Again, by all means, if doing most of your level work in Modo works for you, then that’s great, but there is demand for better in-engine geometry tools for good reason.