Wow, that’s really cool. I oughta check out Source 2.
[=SonKim;198810]
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. 
[/]
3ds max, Maya etc do way better job, why re-invent the wheel (and not a better one).
[=;198902]
Wow, that’s really cool. I oughta check out Source 2.
[/]
Definitely try it, let me know what you think about it!
[=Errvald;198932]
3ds max, Maya etc do way better job, why re-invent the wheel (and not a better one).
[/]
I can’t speak about Maya/3DS in terms of level creation, since I’m not will verse in either but it’s not good to make generalized statements like that. I’m a Modo user with 4 years of freelancing experience, it’s a great general purpose DCC app but for me it’s slower for level design compare the Source Engine 2 Hammer editor(which is like Modo-lite but geared toward level design,with aspect of Maya). Bottomline is, Geometry Editor 2.0 is going to happen(it’s on the to-do list), so you might want to add something more constructive to the conversation instead of shooting down the idea of an integrated modeling experience…?
I’d love to do some GUI mock-up of Geometry Editor 2.0 but I think that require programming with Slate!?
[=SonKim;198943]
I can’t speak about Maya/3DS in terms of level creation, since I’m not will verse in either but it’s not good to make generalized statements like that. I’m a Modo user, it’s a great general purpose DCC app but for me it’s slower for level design compare the Source Engine 2 Hammer editor(which is like Modo-lite but geared toward level design,with aspect of Maya). Bottomline is, Geometry Editor 2.0 is going to happen(it’s on the to-do list), so you might want to add something more constructive to the conversation instead of shooting down the idea of an integrated modeling experience…?
I’d love to do some GUI mock-up of Geometry Editor 2.0 but I think that require programming with Slate!?
[/]
Actually, considering GE 2.0 is inevitable, maybe some threads like “Geometry Editor 2.0 Suggestions” would be useful?
For example, video provided by is a nice example of good feedback. GUI mockups, suggestions and experience from using other editors and UE4 BSP in one place could be very useful when Epic start to work on GE2.0
[=SonKim;198810]
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.
[/]
Wow, lighting and occlusion are super crystal clean which is impossible with UE.
[=caner_ozdemir;198953]
Wow, lighting and occlusion are super crystal clean which is impossible with UE.
[/]
Except that it’s rendered in MODO.
Thanks for taking the time to put all of together. We know BSP is important to a lot of developers and that BSP has some rough edges that could be filed upon. As mentioned (thanks !), Geometry 2.0 is something on our roadmap, and sort of candid feedback is valuable when approaching it as a future in Unreal Engine.
Honestly I agree with here -
The built in CSG editing tools are a bit sub par compared to quake but they are better in other ways.
Real time BSP/CSG Subtraction, Addition, etc. (No Geometry Baking needed)
Honestly - I think that Epic can learn from the original Quake level editors and even modern ones such as Trench Broom, Cry Designer and the like even Hammer
My personal grip about the current implementation of Geometry 1.0 is that it slows down to almost a crawl when allot of CSG is in a single Scene.
Geometry 2.0 is coming if we like it or not so it would be best to get our wants and wishes in before it does arrive.
Personally I would like to see -
Larger amounts of BSP/CSG with out slow down. I know of Hammer levels that have reached over 200k entities using default meshes and BSP.
Still no visible slow down in game.
I think that is something that Epic Games should aim for.
Just my thoughts.
Edit: Holy **** that is Source 2! - I should really check that out 
[=SonKim;198944]
I can’t speak about Maya/3DS in terms of level creation, since I’m not will verse in either but it’s not good to make generalized statements like that. I’m a Modo user with 4 years of freelancing experience, it’s a great general purpose DCC app but for me it’s slower for level design compare the Source Engine 2 Hammer editor(which is like Modo-lite but geared toward level design,with aspect of Maya).
[/]
That depends on what level you are building. For most games out there programs like Maya/3DS are used in combination with other programs (zbrush, photo scanning, photoshop and more) to achieve the best possible results.
The BSP need to provide even faster workflow, I agree with that but in the end it will never catch up with well known 3d modeling tools, thus make them suitable only for prototyping.
I’m a bit late to the party here, but I have to say I really agree that BSP/CSG needs to be handled better.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that Static Meshes are a thing, but if someone could find a way for BSP brushes to be far less taxing on a system I’d take them over modular mesh design in an instant.
The thing is, a lot of indie-developers came from the days of mod making. We were playing around in Doom Engine, Quake Army Knife, or Hammer… all of which primarily use BSP brushes for the environment. We’re used to it. As much as BSPs aren’t all fancy and are considered “primitive” by some (pun intended) they really are still extremely useful. It’s sad that UE4 mainly pushes one towards Static Mesh creation. I think a designer should know HOW to model, and what it takes to model, but not all designers can be modelers. BSP brushes have taken a back seat and now most just use them to create “gray-box” levels, but they used to be used for full environments and frankly those days of development were simply put…easier. BSP was simple, but not lazily simple. They just worked. There was no fighting with imports or messing with UVs. BSP brushes did what they were needed for with no hassle.
All that’s needed is a way to limit the consumption numerous BSP brushes have on a system compared to Static Meshes.
If someone could find a way to fix that, BSP brushes can be put back into the game.
~
[=;199138]
Thanks for taking the time to put all of together. We know BSP is important to a lot of developers and that BSP has some rough edges that could be filed upon. As mentioned (thanks !), Geometry 2.0 is something on our roadmap, and sort of candid feedback is valuable when approaching it as a future in Unreal Engine.
[/]
Hi ,
I’ve just created a thread just for that, because one has too many naysayer or people want to debate…
It would be cool if you could Sticky it
For some reason, people tend to get really angry and offensive when you mention any kind of vertex manipulation tools in-editor.
There are many in-game applications for expanded BSP editing, such as a sims-like game in which you build a house. Inserting windows could be as simple as cutting a hole out of the wall the size of said window, but right now the only way to really handle it is to do that yourself beforehand in your modeling application for each and every window and door.
I did a wider-ranging followup video to and would be super interested in everybody’s civil and considered perspectives on the! It got me like 40 twitter followers overnight, which is pleasing
https://.com/watch?v=6ubu76gEvM8
Good Geometry Tools are needed badly.
I do also think that level designers do need to know how to model stuff.
Mainly for their own sake for getting jobs at other companies that do use other toolsets. Mainly so that they are not a burden on other people in the company/Group.
But my 2 cents.
[=;347935]
Good Geometry Tools are needed badly.
I do also think that level designers do need to know how to model stuff.
Mainly for their own sake for getting jobs at other companies that do use other toolsets. Mainly so that they are not a burden on other people in the company/Group.
But my 2 cents.
[/]
Not sure I agree with level designers not being “artists”, it’s like saying a tech artist shouldn’t use shaders… There are generally tiers of skill, some who can and do multiple tasks.
Not to say I disagree with the concept of in-game design, it’s tried true method and nothing new. Even in current AAA engines it’s still nothing new, some game frameworks have been built upon Maya. The question is with todays art pipeline being so intricate, where does it end?
Well I think Pro-Builder sets the correct methodology, so does source engine. It’s not there for character designs, or detail meshes… It’s for getting a base level together quickly, checking lighting, making sure texturing fits with GI. Base (architectural) levels are rarely extremely complex, they generally only require tools like Extrude, Edge loop, Bevel, Weld, Transform manipulation, Bridge, Deform and UV tools.
I’ve said before, unfortunately there are a large number of people in the UE4 community who don’t even make levels who for some reason become really defensive about and show their absolute commitment to keeping the geometry tools as horrible as possible.
Seeing post and the video really opens up old wounds for me, having yelling and swearing at people in the chat about . What right do programmers and other non-level designers have to say to things like “you are doing it wrong” or “just use your 3d application”, it would be akin to me telling a programmers how to configure their IDE. As was recently saying about improving UE4, improving these tools we use 99% of the time would go a lot further than some new lighting/fog we might use once in a blue moon.
Sometimes you just end up with folders full of static meshes that are just oddly shaped walls and corners. It is a mess.
Here is a thread I made about a year ago complaining about : Level Design tools not quite fast enough, for solo level designers. - Feedback & Requests - Epic Developer Community Forums
Thanks for the great video , I hope somebody out there wakes up to being an, in age of game dev where there are 48hour game-jams, retro graphics and minecraft is a top seller, saying “it’s not good enough” for the current standard is total non-sense. I know that there are common solutions to like the “uv to world coords” on a scaled brush but it’s just not as good.
Nice to see someone else cares but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for anything to be done about .
Please, to anyone who has never made a level out there who just says “you are doing it wrong”, just shut up; maybe I should tell you how you don’t need an in-editor compile button or hot reloading, I’m really bitter about , we literally waste hours of time going through import/export, flickering between application windows checking measurements, correcting errors and even if we do use BSP it is still so prone to bugs in the Unreal Engine and always has been. The work flow for creating small-scale levels in UE4 is anything but fun, there is a reason why there is still an active quake / half-like 2 mapping community out there.
Then there are people who don’t want to change it because they are stuck in the over some division of labour mentality that is where environment modelling ends and level editing begins.
I even had an infraction from talking about for “general poor behavior” in thread: Level Design for Mobile really really difficult - Asset Creation - Epic Developer Community Forums
I have lost my cool on several times and I don’t want to get in trouble over loosing my temper about again, I just want to convey my utter frustration with dealing with UE4 community over . Peace.
I feel you bro. I actually got from a friend right after I put up the last video - is someone who’s worked in AAA for years at studios you know, on games you’ve definitely heard of/probably played.
Linked because there’s a swear word.
I hope people can keep it civil in here 
I agree with the OP. I have made many levels with the old editor for COD4. It is cake. Of course the quality is not near what UE4 can do, but it did not require me to be a 3D artist, to be familiar with those programs, jumping in and out of editor to different programs to make things.
I started with UE4 by fiddling with mapping. And without the experience with the 3d modeling programs, it is next to impossible to put together anything worth a ****.
People need to remember, there is a reason why game companies have teams of people that are specific in their knowledge… small places or do it yourself people, can’t freaking know it all.
So in area UE4 has been a disappointment.
Hi ,
If you have specific functions or features that you would like to see in Geometry Editor 2.0, we are interested in hearing your thoughts! Please make sure to post them here:
I have a request in as UE-13088 that is collecting these suggestions and have updated the request to reflect an increase in developers interested in functionality. does not guarantee that it will be immediately looked at but it does help to know how many developers want specific features and what specifically they are looking for. Thank you for great information and post, !
may sound like a dumb question, but why would u even WANT to use bsp rather then a 3d package. Manipulating polygons with full control is way easier… Build your entire level inside your 3d package if need be… or box out your bsp portion there… it has all the snapping to grid… and u have no rules to follow . Polygons can be slided up and extruded anyway u want.