[=;545135]
So, what’s wrong with making maps in Hammer/DarkRadiant/TrenchBroom and instantly importing them into UE4?
[/]
Nothing that’s the way it really should be done.
[=;545135]
So, what’s wrong with making maps in Hammer/DarkRadiant/TrenchBroom and instantly importing them into UE4?
[/]
Nothings really wrong, but it defeats the purpose of ineditor geometry tools. Its obviously a lot more efficient in terms of productivity to be able to design and create in editor rather than having to use an external program.
[=;545321]
Nothings really wrong, but it defeats the purpose of ineditor geometry tools. Its obviously a lot more efficient in terms of productivity to be able to design and create in editor rather than having to use an external program.
[/]
[=;545326]
Plus the lighting is totally different, and reference meshes needed to complete the scene are different.
Lumberyard / Cryengine have the right idea imho. Epic should add more advanced mesh editing tools…
[/]
The thing is that if Epic has no time/resources to implement other, more critical features and bug fixes, they are not going to implement CSG in UE4 any time soon (or ever).
With currently available approach, you’d block out level in TrenchBroom for example, bring it into UE4, play test it, go back, fix it, etc. So once it’s all said and done, do lighting and detail pass (with meshes) in UE4. Note that when you bring Quake’s map (or HL2’s map or Doom 3 map) into UE4, it is brought as bunch of static meshes, not as brushes.
Nice
Regards!
[=;545516]
The thing is that if Epic has no time/resources to implement other, more critical features and bug fixes, they are not going to implement CSG in UE4 any time soon (or ever).
With currently available approach, you’d block out level in TrenchBroom for example, bring it into UE4, play test it, go back, fix it, etc. So once it’s all said and done, do lighting and detail pass (with meshes) in UE4. Note that when you bring Quake’s map (or HL2’s map or Doom 3 map) into UE4, it is brought as bunch of static meshes, not as brushes.
[/]
Not to be rude, but I don’t understand the “no time/resources” argument being made.
Do you know something we don’t?
~
Because it is more a tool for a niche developers, mainly hobbyist (0 money to epic) , useful for only a few types of games.
The only good to bsp it saved money in pay artist. :rolleyes:
You need a epic programers dedicated to , when probably no only triple AAA studios ask for that .
[=;546175]
Well, when you chat with Epic staff via PM, they allude to staff being busy with Paragon etc.
Plus they have shown very little interest or low priority for thread and other areas like:
GI, Multiplayer Origin shifting, Dynamic Terrain / in-game Terrain-Editing, Planetary terrain…
[/]
I had no idea.
Shame really…
~
Probably with the wave of plugins in the market many features can see the light
[= ;546146]
Do you know something we don’t?
~
[/]
Perhaps, but it’s a common sense. We are at 4.12 already, **** load of little things are missing, some small bugs aren’t being fixed. Epic has several games in development, etc.
[=;545516]
The thing is that if Epic has no time/resources to implement other, more critical features and bug fixes, they are not going to implement CSG in UE4 any time soon (or ever).
[/]
Unless you own epic games, you’re not in position to tell what they’re going to do.
People want the , and so they’ll keep requesting it.
[=;546540]
but it’s a common sense.
[/]
It is not, and it comes off as an attempt to shut down someone else’s request. Would be nice if people stopped using “company X has no resources to spare for your request!” argument, especially when they don’t work at that company.
[=;546547]
Unless you own epic games, you’re not in position to tell what they’re going to do.
People want the , and so they’ll keep requesting it.
It is not, and it comes off as an attempt to shut down someone else’s request. Would be nice if people stopped using “company X has no resources to spare for your request!” argument, especially when they don’t work at that company.
[/]
My thoughts exactly.
~
[=;546547]
Unless you own epic games, you’re not in position to tell what they’re going to do.
[/]
I don’t need to own Epic. I can speak up my mind freely, based on the history of the UE4 and what direction it’s been taking.
[=;546547]
People want the , and so they’ll keep requesting it.
[/]
Yes, I want too. But, I am just being realistic and choose to use a different workflow (CSG nonetheless)
[=;546547]
It is not, and it comes off as an attempt to shut down someone else’s request. Would be nice if people stopped using “company X has no resources to spare for your request!” argument, especially when they don’t work at that company.
[/]
Maybe someone else needs to get their **** together and actually make some bad *** level using CSG, so that Epic sees it and says “wow, indeed there is use for it, people do use it and make wonderful things with it. Let’s help them succeed and make those **** CSG tools built into UE4”. Until there is such a thing, forget about it. It’s just a useless talk. While wants it, no one shows anything that would motivate Epic to work on .
Remember, Epic asks for a small royalty from your commercial games. Epic doesn’t run charity and they are not going to implement any features that would not yield monetary output, even if it will take a while to generate that output.
[=;546732]
based on the history of the UE4 and what direction it’s been taking.
[/]
That’s called speculating.
[=;546732]
Maybe someone else needs to get their **** together and actually make some bad *** level using CSG,
[/]
I believe several pages ago there were mentions of UE4 levels made using CSG, might be wrong about it.
[=;546732]
Epic doesn’t run charity
[/]
That’s stating the obvious.
[=;546732]
and they are not going to implement any features that
[/]
That’s speculating and benefits of the were explained 2 or 3 pages ago, few months ago.
Either way, those kind of messages aren’t helping anyone.
I would greatly appreciate if the people stopped trying to argue in feedback threads or attempting to shut down someone else’s proposition.
In the end it is epic’s decision. Not mine and not yours.
These messages helping you to understand that coming back here and keep asking Epic isn’t gonna change things.
Show them a reason for CSG level design tools to exist in UE4 (and make sure your game generates some kind of money or public interest), and then, maybe then things will start moving.
I would greatly appreciate that you stop telling people who provide more useful feedback than your “I want ! Stop telling me why I can’t have it! I want !!!”
Cool it guys! Lets not start a fight. Now get back on topic.
Thank you
Saw that too, but considering how road map works I am a bit reserved about those estimates.
[=;597111]
Saw that too, but considering how road map works I am a bit reserved about those estimates.
[/]
Atleast we know they are working on it now 
[]
Atleast we know they are working on it now
[/]
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 .
The UMG editor of Unreal at the moment is just horrendous to work with, I find it to be fiddly and time consuming… Why don’t you guys at Epic just add drag and drop support features for the blueprints for editor. The UMG editor should beable to just drag out images and drop them straight unto the canvas itself, not just have to do it through a texture slot menus just to get the picture to show up on the canvas
There should’ve been also some dialog window huds examples put in the editor and also pre-made transparent hud screens for those making space games… There should’ve been more resources instead of stripping the engine down to the very bare essentials.
And the UMG text system having a key encryption makes no sense to me. Why do you need a key encryption code for typing text in the hud?
You should beable to just drag any image from the content browser and just dump it straight onto the UMG canvas but it looks like you have to go through a slot menu first to get it to show up on the canvas, more unnecessary mouse clicking.
Your blueprint system seems to be only half complete. There should be NODE GROUP COMPONENTS not just only the ability to build components up from separate nodes. There should be customized node groups so you can assemble common blueprint components quickly without having to rebuild the code all from scratch so you can have a pre-made group library of these basic components and can customize the variables Oh that would be nice…
The Engine should’ve also come with Behavior Tree Examples to show us, it should’ve come with examples of the blackboard system.
it should’ve come with more examples resources than what it was packed up with.
They broke people’s material shaders and projects because they had removed the old blueprint and material nodes, when they
should’ve left the old nodes intact. But the old stuff won’t work.
UDK has got more pins than Unreal 4 on its material node… UDK has the following pins: Diffuse, Diffusepower, Emissive, Specular, Specular Power, Opacity, Distortion, Transmission Mask, Transmission Color, Normal. Customlighting, AristotropicDirection, Worldpositionoffset, World Displacement, Tesselation Factors, Subsurfacescattering Color, SubsurfaceAbsorptionColor, SubsurfaceScatteringRadius.
And Unreal 4 node only has these pins: Base Color, Metallic, Specular, Emissive Color, Opacity, Opacity Mask, Normal, World Position Offset, World Displacement, Tessellation Multiples, Subsurface Color, Ambient Ocllusion, Refraction.
Huge major difference missing pins… as a result because half of these pins were missing off the node, I couldn’t build
the ocean shader from UDK into Unreal 4.
You should beable to just drag out any object from the editor viewport window like the matinee flim strip actor and just drag it straight
into the blueprints window and it turns automatically into a blueprint node for blueprints to connect to it. Just like how your material editor does
the same thing with dragging textures out from the content browser.
Because your Engine has got a problem with the Matinee actor not always showing up in blueprints nodes list when its been selected and you can’t drag it straight into the blueprint window either if it dont’show up in the node list, because for the matinee actor does not always show up, don’t know why. is about as frustrating as that other bug with the Fade Effect for Matinee…
Why do you have a big long list of Text Descriptions of all the NODES without having a small PREVIEW WINDOW on the palette list
so we can see at a glance what the nodes LOOK like that we are scrolling through to find? For some of these nodes are under
similar names, but different color codes and can be a bit confusing and time consuming to try to hunt the node down in the list
when there’s no Graphical Preview for us to see as we scrolling DOWN THE LIST which node we need to find.
And If you don’t know the name of the node but know what it looks like, then well, you have to go through the list. BECAUSE EPIC has
got no Index list to refer to show all the node names along with their blueprint images.
The Blueprint pallete list has no preview picture of the node so you can associate the node name with the node.
its just only a big long text list of names that you scroll through and hope you click on the right one.
But you don’t know that until it pops up on the screen if its the right one or not, which means, having to
rummaging through the list trying to find it as there’s no preview picture showing you the node. Or I couldn’t find the option to show
node previews.
Unreal is slow and its because of poor navigation layout and lack of visuality on certain menus… It needs a much faster way of doing things, because the
way it is now, its just slow with the current layout. I DO think the graphics are pretty with both what the engine can do
and with the user interfaces.