There’s so much more involved now that having a complicated mesh in editable state will drag the engine down.
Dunno why you insist on , it’s not a game mod, I’m afraid you’ll have to use Blender/Max/Maya/C4D/etc just like for any other Game Engine, so all thing about indies leaving doesn’t make any sense.
I seriously don’t know what you’re talking about with statements like :
“it’s not a game mod, I’m afraid you’ll have to use Blender/Max/Maya/C4D/etc just like for any other Game Engine”
What’s not a game mod? “Any other game engine”? I’ve just shown you a bunch of recent games on other engines that used BSP, and pointed out that having BSP editing tools demonstrably doesn’t need to have a significant performance hit on an engine, see probuilder/other engines that have it. what are you talking about
[=;198131]
see probuilder/other engines that have it
[/]
All you’ve shown is outdated engines (quake 1, source), even the most ‘Indie’ engine Unity doesn’t do .
I said MOD bcz that’s the only reason those tools were developed.
The only benefit BSP has is that it’s already in the engine, so it’s faster than switching to a different program and exporting out models.
Hi,
[]
so it’s faster than switching to a different program and exporting out models.
[/]
Here is an improvement possible:
-
Add an entry in the context menu for static meshes in the Content browser, right under “Edit mesh”. Call it “Edit Datasource”
button then should not open the static mesh editor, but launch the external 3D application (maybe set in the editor preferecnes) with the asset source.
For extra convienience, UE4 could also then switch over to that appication (?)- The same could be done for textures, opening the image with photoshop, for example…
-
Add another setting, either global and/or asset based, called “Volatile”. should be a simple boolean value.
If an asset is marked as volatile, the engine checks automatically wether the asset should be reimported.
An asset is considered outdated when its timestamp is younger than the date and time of last import.- The reimport check could be done two ways:
- periodically, like autosave.
- everytime the UE4 application receives focus and becomes active. (Typically after you are done with modifying your assets).
In case, the engine would also know which asset is the candidate for (possible) reimport.
- The reimport check could be done two ways:
From the workflow it would boil down to:
- Right-click on asset and choose “Edit Datasource”.
- modify asset and click on export.
- Change back to UE4
What are your oppinions on ?
Cheers,
[=Errvald;198098]
I’d like UE to replace ZBRUSH too but that ain’t going to happen
[/]
Maybe, who knows :rolleyes:
[=Errvald;198134]
All you’ve shown is outdated engines (quake 1, source), even the most ‘Indie’ engine Unity doesn’t do .
I said MOD bcz that’s the only reason those tools were developed.
[/]
Yes, Unity the best example no comment…
Check the all games of Call of Duty series from 2003 to 2014 (Using BSP/GSC ) all maps are different and now check the Battlefield (With Models) all maps with the same house/wall/window model, that is nice…
The pros of BSP is create different maps/levels and create that faster than create the same in external editor.
You can create the level in BSP and then convert to static mesh where is the problem ?
If you make an engine, the idea is give all tools to create what you like/need (your idea).
*And no ProBuilder, Cryengine CSG, Cube 2 Sauerbraten, Tesseract aren’t a examples of true BSP edit or fast edit. Like Radiant or Hammer are.
[=;198255]
Yes, Unity the best example no comment…
[/]
Someone mentioned indies leaving for other ‘indie’ friendly engines due to the lack of , hence why I mentioned Unity.
[=;198255]
Check the all games of Call of Duty series from 2003 to 2014 (Using BSP/GSC ) all maps are different and now check the Battlefield (With Models) all maps with the same house/wall/window model, that is nice…
[/]
Those are game specific tools.
[=;198255]
The pros of BSP is create different maps/levels and create that faster than create the same in external editor.
You can create the level in BSP and then convert to static mesh where is the problem ?
If you make an engine, the idea is give all tools to create what you like/need (your idea).
*And no ProBuilder, Cryengine CSG, Cube 2 Sauerbraten, Tesseract aren’t a examples of true BSP edit or fast edit. Like Radiant or Hammer are.
[/]
I want UE4 to be able to sculpt models the same way ZBrush does and then convert them to static meshes, plus I want UE4 to have a UV unwrap tool etc.
I’m sorry but BSP are good enough for placeholders, with the hint word here being * PLACEHOLDER *.
Don’t ask for UE4 to become Pixologic + Autodesk + Adobe.
whole debate comes from people who are used with MODs and thought making ‘real’ games would be that easy.
**** totaly agree with you, need normal bsp editor, i hope in future we have it…
[=Errvald;198268]
Someone mentioned indies leaving for other ‘indie’ friendly engines due to the lack of , hence why I mentioned Unity.
Those are game specific tools.
I want UE4 to be able to sculpt models the same way ZBrush does and then convert them to static meshes, plus I want UE4 to have a UV unwrap tool etc.
I’m sorry but BSP are good enough for placeholders, with the hint word here being * PLACEHOLDER *.
Don’t ask for UE4 to become Pixologic + Autodesk + Adobe.
whole debate comes from people who are used with MODs and thought making ‘real’ games would be that easy.
[/]
Yes, go and say that in the Unreal Tournament 4 forums where all maps now are under GSC/BSP, and to the mappers(hobbyist & professionals) from Call of Duty, Counter, Valve games and other games.
And if you haven’t used that in your life to create a map why comment about ?
[=;198285]
Yes, go and say that in the Unreal Tournament 4 forums where all maps now are under GSC/BSP, and to the mappers(hobbyist & professionals) from Call of Duty, Counter, Valve games and other games.
And if you haven’t used that in your life to create a map why comment about ?
[/]
Mappers/Modders != Game Devs
[=Errvald;198343]
Mappers/Modders != Game Devs
[/]
I think you are being very disrespectful here. You keep on trying to set up strawmen for things like , or even things like C# support in the engine (asserting that the only reason people want C# is that they find C++ hard). I think it would be better if we stick to the topic at hand, rather than devolving into an inane tangential argument over whether or not “modding” constitutes game development.
Furthermore, I would say it’s hard to disagree with 's initial point, which is that the geometry editing tools in UE4 are extremely limited. Can we all agree on that at least? As pointed out, the runtime slowness of BSP brushes in UE4 is not at here, so long as there is a path to convert to static meshes. Indeed, CSG is only one specific method of geometry editing, and it may be the case that the optimal way forward is something else entirely (especially true if we would like to enable the possibility of in-game geometry editing for endusers).
Even if you are of the belief that the geometry editing tools are only for greyblocking, honestly at juncture they are insufficient for even that. People from Epic have even weighed in on the many threads point has lead to, and they agree with it, they just aren’t sure yet what course to take and when they will begin.
The best thing we can do at point is offer suggestions. Workflows, use cases, restrictions: all of these can help when planning for future features. In fact, if there are enough of us (at least, enough of us we are programmers), why don’t we take it on as a community project?
[=Errvald;198110]
Last time I checked none of the major Game Engines had incorporated their own ‘3ds max’ in their editor.
BSPs are enough for placeholders, I have the feeling you guys are confusing game engines with game mods…
[/]
You should check out the Source Engine 2 new hammer editor 
- I’ve been spoil by how it is. I don’t think it uses a traditional BSP/CSG anymore? It’s a full blown modeler ala Modo. Epic Games should look into doing the same thing for their Geometry 2.0 stuff.
http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/discussion/topic.aspx?f=83&t=91506
It’s a alpha release and still needs more modeling tools for architectural stuff, but the workflow is fast.
edit: The new source 2 hammer can do everything the old hammer does but more and faster @, great video I’m 100% with you on !
Errvald:
“Those are game specific tools.”
If you’re going to keep on vomiting out line you’ll need to actually make a case for it at some point. Currently it’s a meaningless statement.
“You’ve only shown outdated engines”
If multiple teams and large studios are still shipping successful games on these engines then they are not outdated in any meaningful way, certainly no way that justifies a failure to compete with them.
“Mod makers aren’t game developers.” " whole debate comes from people who are used with MODs and thought making ‘real’ games would be that easy."
is incredibly disrespectful to here and wrong on every conceivable axis.
Firstly, modding, provided an SDK, literally is non-commercial game development. Counter-Strike is a game. It didn’t become a game when Valve bought it. It’s the same thing, and the people who make mods are deserving of some respect.
Secondly, you have no reason to think that anybody on forum for a commercial game development engine to which we are all licensed is a modder rather than a developer or to make any assumptions about their level of experience. Pretty good odds most people here have shipped games. I’m living off of one of mine. If anything, you call your own knowledge of the subject into question by asserting that it’s somehow beyond the capabilities of the team behind Unreal Engine 4 to incorporate basic geometry tools equivalent to those seen in many, many engines since the 90s into their cutting-edge game engine, or that those tools aren’t desirable, in the face of developers at least as qualified as yourself who are backing the idea right in front of you.
Thirdly, I still don’t think you know what we’re even proposing, because you keep bringing up other, irrelevant proposals that aren’t the one being made and dismissing those instead. Are you sure you watched the video?
[=;197913]
I never do , but I did a Me Talking Over Video video. one is about the ways in which Unreal Engine level design has a lot of catching up to do when compared to Quake 1’s (in one important respect, anyway) if it’s planning on targeting smaller developers more now. More specifically it’s about how editing CSG in Unreal (including 4) sucks, and why that is something that should be fixed instead of handwaved away as not being a big deal.
https://.com/watch?v=b64lKqbbaUM
Otherwise: lovin’ the engine, dudes, honestly it’s really great don’t hate me <3
To reiterate: I know that the conventional wisdom is “just don’t use CSG in Unreal for anything more than whiteboxing, man!” My assertion is that
-UE4’s CSG tools are inadequate even for that
-that the conventional wisdom only has validity in the first place because support for csg is bad, not because staticmesh-based level design is a superior technique.
I’m also aware that UE’s CSG isn’t efficient for performance for a few reasons (last I checked every face was a draw call) but again, I’m sure it’s a thing that could be fixed if prioritised.
[/]
Finally someone gets it, basically just thrown in the towel with Unreal Engine today, I’m sick of the complexity of learning Maya, importing something that looks like garbage ( isn’t casting shadows properly light bleeds through from outside lol…, don’t get me started on uv texturing I would have better luck programming my own NASA space shuttle launch ) all so I can make basic level walls and texture them the correct way.
And of course some 3d artist already knows how do , a simple task that takes about 100 steps that involves light maps, shaders, morph toasters etc, Flux Capacitor, etc, it’s ‘not new user friendly’ and it’s time consuming beyond stupid.
[=Soulrolll;198502]
Finally someone gets it, basically just thrown in the towel with Unreal Engine today, I’m sick of the complexity of learning Maya, importing something that looks like garbage ( isn’t casting shadows properly light bleeds through from outside lol…, don’t get me started on uv texturing I would have better luck programming my own NASA space shuttle launch ) all so I can make basic level walls and texture them the correct way.
And of course some 3d artist already knows how do , a simple task that takes about 100 steps that involves light maps, shaders, morph toasters etc, Flux Capacitor, etc, it’s ‘not new user friendly’ and it’s time consuming beyond stupid.
[/]
I’m afraid to say, making a game is VERY time consuming. If you are a 3d artist you should know about UV maps, if you don’t want to hire one then what do you need UE4 for then?
I think the OP is looking for something like CRYENGINEs Designer Tool:
https://.com/watch?v=e92CNjw2MjI
Hey guys,
Let’s try and turn topic around to it’s original purpose of what we would like to see improved with BSP/CSG within the engine. I know area can be a bit contentious at times, but let’s take away the positives and what Epic can consider for Geometry 2.0. While not uses BPS/CSG in the editor, that’s not say that they could not use some improvements. Again, is an area Epic intends to focus some effort on in the future, and having good constructive points, similar to Joe’s video, help focus in areas that are most important to the community of developers we have here. The good and the bad feedback is always welcomed. 
There have been some great ideas thus far and I think put together a very straight forward video to explain his point and what functionality he would like to see added.
Let’s try and stay on topic with instead of spiraling into a debate about what makes a game developer a game developer. There are a lot of people in the games industry who got their start with community Mods. I believe there are some here at Epic that came from that background, level designers even. Anyone who wants to take the time to “mod” and put forth effort into any type of game development deserves the respect.
Thanks !
Wow how nostalgic… legendary QE/GTK Radiant from the old times. I used that editor for good 5 years I think. It was extremely fast to do level designing. That’s why I chose QERadiant instead of UnrealED that time. Working with bsp was nightmare for me even though I liked UT better (and Unreal 1 is like a god to me:P). But with the advancement of technology and changing the way we design games, now we use standard 3D packages also used in motion picture industry. That’s ok for me 'cos I jumped to post production after working on Quake level editor.
BUT… (yeah, a big but)… Sometimes working with BSP brushes is still fast and nice. Or should I say, would have been fast and nice. Though UE4’s BSP brush capabilities are great and very useful, they are extremely slow. I think the biggest problem to use BSP in UE4 is the performance. One time I was sick of configuring bsp brushes and I converted them to static meshes. Bam. Lightmap went crazy and I had to redesign the whole level from start on Maya.
Of course static mesh building is like a standard in nowadays games, still we should have the freedom to make “some” design choices on BSP. For example now I am building a sky level for my flight game. I already designed detailed meshes on Maya. But I would have designed more common buildings which seem like an Egyptian tower or pyramids on BSP and in engine. I don’t know the rest of you but although I did work as a mattepainter, I’m not a texture artist and I’m in very deep trouble about UV’s. So I have a couple suggestions:
For better static mesh integration:
- UE4 can automatically create better UVs for models. Currently there are lots of issues about .
For BSP:
- Manipulating the vertexes, adding subtracting etc. are cool. I think BSP is great but it kills the performance. If their performance is solved, then making simple geometry would be faster on Unreal and we wouldn’t have to design&implement&UV everything, everything! on Maya.
See here, there are some very crude buildings in my level. Everything is static mesh here but giant arches and that tower-like buildings would have been easily bsp geometry if the BSP wasn’t a performance for me. And also it would have been granted me nearly a week and I’d be further on my schedule. Alas, not.
Edit*: By the way the first video by is superb. Hammer seems like even better than Quake Editor. It would be extremely fast and if Geometry 2.0 will be fast and smooth like that.
[=;198597]
Hey guys,
Let’s try and turn topic around to it’s original purpose of what we would like to see improved with BSP/CSG within the engine. I know area can be a bit contentious at times, but let’s take away the positives and what Epic can consider for Geometry 2.0. While not uses BPS/CSG in the editor, that’s not say that they could not use some improvements. Again, is an area Epic intends to focus some effort on in the future, and having good constructive points, similar to Joe’s video, help focus in areas that are most important to the community of developers we have here. The good and the bad feedback is always welcomed.
There have been some great ideas thus far and I think put together a very straight forward video to explain his point and what functionality he would like to see added.
Let’s try and stay on topic with instead of spiraling into a debate about what makes a game developer a game developer. There are a lot of people in the games industry who got their start with community Mods. I believe there are some here at Epic that came from that background, level designers even. Anyone who wants to take the time to “mod” and put forth effort into any type of game development deserves the respect.
Thanks !
[/]
Hi ,
While I go agree with on everything mention in the video. I wonder if it would be possible to have both improve BSP/CSG modeling tool and static modeling toolset(ala Source Engine 2 hammer) under the same roof(Geometry Editor 2.0) - way we get the best of both worlds! I can see many advantages to use BSP like quicking blocking out the walls of a building and then doing booleans to create the window opening, then converting that to a static mesh is where I start adding further details. Geometry Editor 2.0 should be extensible so people can write their own modeling tool(with Source code access of course).
Those documentation about new Hammer is a little dry but they should give you guys an idea about the basic modeling workflow, UI:
https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_2_Workshop_Tools/Level_Design
The best way to experience it is to download Dota 2(free) + install the Dota 2 workshop tools and take it for a run. They really set the bar high for “level editing” toolset.
To put things into perspective, you can create your entire level with advance modeling tools in the new Hammer editor(everything you see here is modeled in Hammer):
The new Hammer has some down side, its done away with the old brush workflow demo in Joe’s video. I think if Epic does it they should improve the brush workflow and add static modeling ala Source 2 hammer. It support ngons,quads,triangles like a true 3d modeling app.