I tried UE4 a while back and the lack of was the reason I didnt bother to play around with it for long, designing a simple level turned out to be way more complicated than I expected.
[=;441287]
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.
[/]
is all in the video. And followup video:
https://.com/watch?v=6ubu76gEvM8
[=;441287]
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.
[/]
Personally because having spent a lot of time in radiant editor, it is easier and faster to work with than putting out $$$$ for a 3d package and spending all the time needed to learn those packages.
[=arbopa;441416]
Personally because having spent a lot of time in radiant editor, it is easier and faster to work with than putting out $$$$ for a 3d package and spending all the time needed to learn those packages.
[/]
Blender is free, and whatever 3D modeling tool you use you would still have to learn how to use them. Why waste time developing modeling tools when there’s 3D software out there that will do things way better?
[=;441437]
Blender is free, and whatever 3D modeling tool you use you would still have to learn how to use them. Why waste time developing modeling tools when there’s 3D software out there that will do things way better?
[/]
Thanks for not listening,** at all.**
Seriously.
[=;441437]
Blender is free, and whatever 3D modeling tool you use you would still have to learn how to use them. Why waste time developing modeling tools when there’s 3D software out there that will do things way better?
[/]
There isn’t.
Unless you’re counting, like, Hammer or Trenchbroom.
*
A level design tool and a 3D art tool are not the same thing** and do not serve the same need*
Which means you don’t need the level of control that 3D programs offer. While the tools in UE4 can be improved a bit, they don’t need to be at the level where you could do an entire level without using static meshes, since that would be a waste. Most of the people that want more modeling tools are lazy and simply don’t want to use a separate 3D program to make their meshes. It would be nice, but a 3D artist can use their 3D software to create content for anything that uses 3D, rather than the one game engine.
[=;441487]
since that would be a waste. Most of the people that want more modeling tools are lazy and simply don’t want to use a separate 3D program to make their meshes.
[/]
- in your opinion.
- great, now you insult others, how civil.
One should not need to be an ‘artist’ to create a good looking and playable level, PERIOD. No need to be a snob about it and dismiss or belittle others.
[=;441287]
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.
[/]
Because BSPs approach is significantly faster than traditional modeling tools when it comes to modeling of certain kinds of architecture.
BSP building handles automatically texture unwrappings, snapping and takes care of many other things, which you’ll be doing by hand with traditional modeling tools.
Try quickly modeling a city block with interiors, you’ll quickly run into issues with “polygonal” approach.
[=;441487]
Which means you don’t need the level of control that 3D programs offer. While the tools in UE4 can be improved a bit, they don’t need to be at the level where you could do an entire level without using static meshes, since that would be a waste. Most of the people that want more modeling tools are lazy and simply don’t want to use a separate 3D program to make their meshes. It would be nice, but a 3D artist can use their 3D software to create content for anything that uses 3D, rather than the one game engine.
[/]
Please don’t turn into another “I oppose all kinds of BSP” thread. You’re moderator, after all.
The tools need to be at level where level can be done without 3d package.
People are not lazy.
3D package is a suboptimal solution for situatiosn where you need to quickly make a lot of structures. Blender is actually not a very good tool for architectural modeling, because you can’t quickly put blocks, resize them, snap to each other in such way that would automaticlaly assign proper 3d coordinates in such way that material would tile. You’ll be working at quarter of speed compared to editors like hammer. Just try it yourself, really. Free up half of a hour and try to model a city block. Assembling that from meshes will be major pain in the ***, you really want blocks and CSG for kind of things.
Those tools are badly needed in the engine. And the guy who promised to port over ProBuilder to unreal is currently silent.
The point is, if YOU specifically don’t need those tools, then the best idea would be to walk away instead of arguing to death with people who need them.
[=arbopa;441494]
- in your opinion.
- great, now you insult others, how civil.
One should not need to be an ‘artist’ to create a good looking and playable level, PERIOD. No need to be a snob about it and dismiss or belittle others.
[/]
People who haven’t made games before download the editor and expect to be able to make complete levels with it, and then they complain about the tools which aren’t meant to be used for that purpose. Also, no you have to have artistic skill to make a good looking level, it’s absurd to think otherwise.
Sounds to me more like a problem with your respective workflow than a problem with the tools. Unreal’s editor can definitely do with better geometry tools, but it doesn’t need to replace 3d editors, that’s just reinventing the wheel. Blender might not be a good tool for architecture (I wouldn’t know, I don’t use it), but there are plenty of other 3d packages out there from the top end Max/Maya, to procedurally orientated Houdini, to cheaper packages like Modo, all of which I know have their uses in architectural fields.
If you want to quickly build city blocks, you probably want to build some modular assets in your 3d package, bring them into UE4, then assemble them (blueprints like these can help a lot in that regard: Procedural Apartments in Blueprints - UE Marketplace). You don’t want to model the entire thing in your 3d package as that’s a waste of time and will perform suboptimally compared to a modular approach. You don’t want to build the assets in UE4 because that’s the domain of 3d modelling packages and that’s what they do best.
Hammer’s geometry tools may be better than UE4’s but they certainly do not compete with 3d packages and I wouldn’t want to try and build a complex scene with them - as an example CounterStrike GO is the most recent Source engine game that I can think of that uses urban environments, and it looks dated. You can put it side-by-side with Call of Duty 4 from 2007 and they’re clearly on a technical parity.
[=;441529]
Because BSPs approach is significantly faster than traditional modeling tools when it comes to modeling of certain kinds of architecture.
BSP building handles automatically texture unwrappings, snapping and takes care of many other things, which you’ll be doing by hand with traditional modeling tools.
Try quickly modeling a city block with interiors, you’ll quickly run into issues with “polygonal” approach.
Please don’t turn into another “I oppose all kinds of BSP” thread. You’re moderator, after all.
The tools need to be at level where level can be done without 3d package.
People are not lazy.
3D package is a suboptimal solution for situatiosn where you need to quickly make a lot of structures. Blender is actually not a very good tool for architectural modeling, because you can’t quickly put blocks, resize them, snap to each other in such way that would automaticlaly assign proper 3d coordinates in such way that material would tile. You’ll be working at quarter of speed compared to editors like hammer. Just try it yourself, really. Free up half of a hour and try to model a city block. Assembling that from meshes will be major pain in the ***, you really want blocks and CSG for kind of things.
Those tools are badly needed in the engine. And the guy who promised to port over ProBuilder to unreal is currently silent.
The point is, if YOU specifically don’t need those tools, then the best idea would be to walk away instead of arguing to death with people who need them.
[/]
If you want games to look good, then bsp is not an option. Many props require high res mesh to low res mesh baking for textures. You get into an area where the tools of a full 3d modeling package are needed, and to build that into the engine just for convenience is a huge waste of development resources. What would be the best option is a tool where you could link your 3d program with UE4 and be able to update the level instantly with changes. That’s much more doable and useful to
[=;441534]
Sounds to me more like a problem with your respective workflow than a problem with the tools. Unreal’s editor can definitely do with better geometry tools, but it doesn’t need to replace 3d editors, that’s just reinventing the wheel. Blender might not be a good tool for architecture (I wouldn’t know, I don’t use it), but there are plenty of other 3d packages out there from the top end Max/Maya, to procedurally orientated Houdini, to cheaper packages like Modo, all of which I know have their uses in architectural fields.
If you want to quickly build city blocks, you probably want to build some modular assets in your 3d package, bring them into UE4, then assemble them (blueprints like these can help a lot in that regard: Procedural Apartments in Blueprints - UE Marketplace). You don’t want to model the entire thing in your 3d package as that’s a waste of time and will perform suboptimally compared to a modular approach. You don’t want to build the assets in UE4 because that’s the domain of 3d modelling packages and that’s what they do best.
Hammer’s geometry tools may be better than UE4’s but they certainly do not compete with 3d packages and I wouldn’t want to try and build a complex scene with them - as an example CounterStrike GO is the most recent Source engine game that I can think of that uses urban environments, and it looks dated. You can put it side-by-side with Call of Duty 4 from 2007 and they’re clearly on a technical parity.
[/]
That really doesn’t work. And no, it is not a wrong workflow, it is weak point in the unreal editor.
Modular approach leads to seams on lightmass and most lighting solutions. Seriously, have you tried to assemble large building from prefabs? It is major pain in the ***, and it is defeintely not the way it should be done.
The point of BSP is not to compete with modeling packages. Their point is to be used for one edge case scenario, namely level modeling, building modeling and that includes ONLY basic building skeleton. Modeling packages will be used for everything else, including level details and furnishings.
Those tools are NEEDED.
There’s no point in bringing up high-budget AAA titles, because most indies will not have budget of call of duty.
Honestly, I have no idea why wanting bsp triggers violent opposition on those forums.
[=;441535]
If you want games to look good, then
[/]
Then you’re gonna need to throw a lot of money at the problem. UE4 is marketed for everybody, and ye average indie will not have budget of fallout 4, call of duty, etc. There’s more than one type of game (3rd person, rts, etc), there’s more than one type of visuals, so while BSP might not look that great under the microscope, they’re still going to be very useful in large slew of game genres.
It is not a waste of development resources, because it will be one more to draw people in and use the engine. All for the glory of Epic Games.
Average indie dev won’t have access to secret aaa technique called “throw money at the problem and hire more monkeys to zerg rush the project”. So there’s no real reason to make them muck around in the editor placing one mesh at the time.
Indies are fully capable of downloading Blender for free and using that which isn’t that different from what AAA developers do. Why settle for making things difficult by trying to do things in the editor when there are cheap/free options that allow you to have the quality you want?
Level designers could use a few improvements to make blocking out a level easier, but it certainly shouldn’t go as far as trying to do the work of a 3D modeling app.
[=;441537]
That really doesn’t work. And no, it is not a wrong workflow, it is weak point in the unreal editor.
Modular approach leads to seams on lightmass and most lighting solutions. Seriously, have you tried to assemble large building from prefabs? It is major pain in the ***, and it is defeintely not the way it should be done.
[/]
I’ve shipped multiple games of various scales using the Unreal Engine (from first-party AAA to small indie), and is the approach I would generally recommend. If you’re having issues with seams, I suspect the is with your assets, likely their lightmap UVs. Setting up lightmap UVs has always been a bit awkward with respect to lightmass - but that’s an with lightmass, rather than geometry tools.
I’m not saying that UE4 doesn’t need better geometry tools, it’s really does, but it also doesn’t want to try and replace dedicated modelling packages.
[=;441565]
Indies are fully capable of downloading Blender for free and using that which isn’t that different from what AAA developers do. Why settle for making things difficult by trying to do things in the editor when there are cheap/free options that allow you to have the quality you want?
[/]
“Making things more difficult” is forcing people to model everything in external app when the same things could’ve been done in less time within editor. Why make things difficult when they can be made easier, faster and more efficient AND that technology has been around since 1990s?
Also, there’s no real alternative, aside from maybe valve hammer and some ancient tools geared towards Quake 1. If there WERE real alternative it would’ve been linked and sticked long time ago.
Why the heck do you argue against bsp to begin with? If you’re not using those, ignore the thread, you are not the target audience.
[=;441653]
That would make a big time saving difference!
[/]
Unity does that (monitors changes to file), and that is very annoying , because every time you re-save some file, you have to wait till editor editor finishes (re)importing it, before you actually can do anything in the level. If the file is an fbx skeleton with dozen animation, pause can be significant. Now, UE4 fbx import is very slow, so will get on your nerves very quickly.
[=;441533]
People who haven’t made games before download the editor and expect to be able to make complete levels with it, and then they complain about the tools which aren’t meant to be used for that purpose. Also, no you have to have artistic skill to make a good looking level, it’s absurd to think otherwise.
[/]
Honestly I can not believe you are a moderator with these attitudes and disdain for others that do not agree with you. You are not correct, on any level. Please move on to a different thread.
[=;441664]
Unity does that (monitors changes to file), and that is very annoying , because every time you re-save some file, you have to wait till editor editor finishes (re)importing it, before you actually can do anything in the level. If the file is an fbx skeleton with dozen animation, pause can be significant. Now, UE4 fbx import is very slow, so will get on your nerves very quickly.
[/]
I can’t find it right now, but someone was working on a tool for Maya and UDK where they had their level in Maya and it was linked with UDK so that modeling changes happened almost instantly and they had the viewport linked so your viewport in UDK matched what you had in Maya. Something like that would be much more useful than trying to copy modeling tools into UE4.
[=arbopa;441702]
Honestly I can not believe you are a moderator with these attitudes and disdain for others that do not agree with you. You are not correct, on any level. Please move on to a different thread.
[/]
I have the right to discuss and disagree just like anyone else. My point is that Epic shouldn’t waste time implementing a huge where there’s already a solution where the only inconvenience is having to export the mesh to UE4.