(VIDEO) UE4's Geometry Mode is inadequate when compared with that of Quake 1

General Feedback & Requests
86

[=;442068]
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.
[/]

Disagree and discuss is one thing, calling a whole lot of people ‘lazy’ because they don’t see things as you do (or you refuse to see their point of view) is another.

‘already a solution’… yeah, become a 3D artist… That takes all of what, like 2 or 3 hours? LOL. whatever…

87

In which case you are willfully ignoring everything everybody is saying, and what I’ve said in my videos. I don’t whip out the phrase “straw man” lightly (irks me, for whatever reason) but you are attacking straw men.

As others have mentioned, you are also being a little bit of a jerk - you’re perfectly entitled to argue and discuss and disagree, but that is not what you’re doing when you paint everybody who disagrees with you as lazy, inexperienced, unwilling to learn, or lacking expertise and flexibility. You’re not discussing, you’re dismissing, which is a bit rude. Let’s all be discussing with a view to learning and sharing ideas, huh? Old Guard stuff never helped anybody.

Nobody here is saying they want in-editor tools as a replacement for 3D modeling. 3D modeling tools have been being used erroneously as a replacement for level design tools. Think about the chronology of that for a bit. Before, game engines had level design tools. 3D modeling tools were still used for a *lot *of stuff in games. That was fine! But the need for level design tools never went away. People just stopped providing them.

Here are some things which are true:

**-Level Design is a skill

-3D Art is a skill

-Most 3D Artists are not good at Level Design, and most Level Designers are not good at 3D Art! Just like how most professional football players are not also professional surfers! It can happen, but it isn’t likely!

-Level Design tools are not good for creating 3D art - that’s not what they’re for

-3D Art tools are not good for creating levels - that’s not what they’re for

-Good 3D Art tools are available!

-Good Level Design tools are *not available. *We want to make them available!

-The availability of Good Level Design Tools benefits everybody! And it negatively impacts nobody!
**

So, you know - what’s the angle here? Why would you be being negative in here? Is your goal purely to stop other people getting what they want, not because it affects you if they get it, but because you don’t happen to want the same thing? That would be weird!

#hopethishelps

88

[=arbopa;442071]
Disagree and discuss is one thing, calling a whole lot of people ‘lazy’ because they don’t see things as you do (or you refuse to see their point of view) is another.

‘already a solution’… yeah, become a 3D artist… That takes all of what, like 2 or 3 hours? LOL. whatever…
[/]

If the tools are built into UE4 then you’d still have to have the same skills as a 3D artist.

89

[=;442076]
In which case you are willfully ignoring everything everybody is saying, and what I’ve said in my videos. I don’t whip out the phrase “straw man” lightly (irks me, for whatever reason) but you are attacking straw men.

As others have mentioned, you are also being a bit of a jerk - you’re perfectly entitled to argue and discuss and disagree, but that is not what you’re doing when you paint everybody who disagrees with you as lazy, inexperienced, or lacking expertise and flexibility. You’re not discussing, you’re dismissing, which is a bit rude. Let’s all be discussing with a view to learning and sharing ideas, huh? Old Guard stuff never helped anybody.

Nobody here is saying they want in-editor tools as a replacement for 3D modeling. 3D modeling tools have been being used erroneously as a replacement for level design tools. Think about the chronology of that for a bit. Before, game engines had level design tools. 3D modeling tools were still used for a *lot *of stuff in games. That was fine! But the need for level design tools never went away. People just stopped providing them.

Here are some things which are true:

**-Level Design is a skill

-3D Art is a skill

-Most 3D Artists are not good at Level Design, and most Level Designers are not good at 3D Art! Just like how most professional football players are not also professional surfers! It can happen, but it isn’t likely!

-Level Design tools are not good for creating 3D art - that’s not what they’re for

-3D Art tools are not good for creating levels - that’s not what they’re for

-Good 3D Art tools are available!

-Good Level Design tools are *not available. *We want to make them available!

-The availability of Good Level Design Tools benefits everybody! And it negatively impacts nobody!
**

So, you know - what’s the angle here? Why would you be being negative in here? Is your goal purely to stop other people getting what they want, not because it affects you if they get it, but because you don’t happen to want the same thing? That would be weird!

#hopethishelps
[/]

If you read what I posted I was careful not to say that here is lazy or any specific person.

Also, I disagree that 3D tools can’t be used to design a level, the only thing they lack is the functionality (mainly things like collision being included by default and having to export meshes to UE4 to use them).

I think what you want is some improved level tools, which there’s certainly a need for even if you’re just blocking out a level. But what I’m responding to is the people that don’t want to use a separate 3D program at all and want to be able to do it all in UE4, which is a waste of development time. It affects me as a user because if Epic has to develop a then that means the have to dedicate resources for that and then other features don’t get attention. I would rather they work on things that most people would benefit from.

90

[]
which is a waste of development time.
[/]
While I disagree with you completely about your second line, and generally do agree with you about people who aren’t willing to use a 3D tool at all, right here depends completely on what they’re making. I’ve no doubt that is true of whatever it is that *you’re *making. But if you take something like, you know, CS, or Half-Life, or something Quake-esque, or Thirty Flights of Loving to use a more modern example, there’s very little you would need a 3D app for.

You shouldn’t need Maya or whatever for simple. Once you’re trying to do anything more complicated than the kinds of stuff the Quake community turns out, yeah, you should probably be getting into meshes. But we can’t even do that right now. The statement in the thread title is true: Quake 1 has better level design tools than Unreal does.

Luckily, there’s now a plugin you can use to make your levels in Quake 1’s tools (more realistically Source’s but whatever) and import straight into Unreal!That is still not as good as just providing the functionality though.

As for callin’ people lazy, I dunno, man. You used a vague generalisation that you knew referred to a lot of people here and then insulted that. I dunno if that’s better? :smiley:

91

[=;442068]
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.
[/]

The isn’t HUGE, and it is enough to express your opinion once instead of repeating it 50 times in hopes that people will get fed up and decide to “agree” with you.

People KNOW what they’re doing, and KNOW what they want, alright? I’m sure that BSP are unsuitable for whatever that is you’re working on, but it is a valid option and a necessary tool for a hundreds of thousands of other projects that use different art style.
I certainly want it. Really. By the way, I know how to model. However traditional modeling process is not good for many kinds of levels, and you really need something more efficient than that.

In many cases splitting level into parts and making a “building kit” is less efficient workflow than making it with bsp and the difference is significant.

Also, development time is not your decision, since you are not epic games. Allocating one guy/(girl?) on that and letting him/(her?) work on it for few months would make huge difference. Since software development is subject to Brook’s law, there won’t significant loss of productivity from that one guy working on geometry tools.

Have you, I don’t know, ever modeled a house yourself? In those older editors, or in something like sims 3, or in, say, Saurbraten/Cube 2 engine? Because you need to be familiar with the process to “get” it.

[=;442080]
If you read what I posted I was careful not to say that here is lazy or any specific person.
[/]

You’re a moderator, which means you’re supposed to be a shining example of good behavior, being helpful, friendly and polite. Instead you’re trying to argue with people to death because they don’t share your opinion. What the heck, really.

[=;442086]

Luckily, there’s now a plugin you can use to make your levels in Quake 1’s tools (more realistically Source’s but whatever) and import straight into Unreal!That is still not as good as just providing the functionality though.
[/]

Thanks for posting, is gonna be useful.

92

[=;442078]
If the tools are built into UE4 then you’d still have to have the same skills as a 3D artist.
[/]

No, not at all. Which sort of proves out that you are not really listening to what people are talking about with level design. Thanks for alerting to that reality.

93

[=;442080]
It affects me as a user because if Epic has to develop a then that means the have to dedicate resources for that and then other features don’t get attention. I would rather they work on things that most people would benefit from.
[/]

Well I feel the same about mobile games, and VR, and loads of other stuff that is in UE4. As do many others. But we don’t run around ******** about what people want and putting them down. You on the other hand…

94

[=;442086]
While I disagree with you completely about your second line, and generally do agree with you about people who aren’t willing to use a 3D tool at all, right here depends completely on what they’re making. I’ve no doubt that is true of whatever it is that *you’re *making. But if you take something like, you know, CS, or Half-Life, or something Quake-esque, or Thirty Flights of Loving to use a more modern example, there’s very little you would need a 3D app for.

You shouldn’t need Maya or whatever for simple. Once you’re trying to do anything more complicated than the kinds of stuff the Quake community turns out, yeah, you should probably be getting into meshes. But we can’t even do that right now. The statement in the thread title is true: Quake 1 has better level design tools than Unreal does.

Luckily, there’s now a plugin you can use to make your levels in Quake 1’s tools (more realistically Source’s but whatever) and import straight into Unreal!That is still not as good as just providing the functionality though.

As for callin’ people lazy, I dunno, man. You used a vague generalisation that you knew referred to a lot of people here and then insulted that. I dunno if that’s better? :smiley:
[/]

It seems that the number of people that are shooting for that quality level is very low, hence why it’s not necessarily a pressing.

95

[=;442096]
The isn’t HUGE, and it is enough to express your opinion once instead of repeating it 50 times in hopes that people will get fed up and decide to “agree” with you.

People KNOW what they’re doing, and KNOW what they want, alright? I’m sure that BSP are unsuitable for whatever that is you’re working on, but it is a valid option and a necessary tool for a hundreds of thousands of other projects that use different art style.
I certainly want it. Really. By the way, I know how to model. However traditional modeling process is not good for many kinds of levels, and you really need something more efficient than that.

In many cases splitting level into parts and making a “building kit” is less efficient workflow than making it with bsp and the difference is significant.

Also, development time is not your decision, since you are not epic games. Allocating one guy/(girl?) on that and letting him/(her?) work on it for few months would make huge difference. Since software development is subject to Brook’s law, there won’t significant loss of productivity from that one guy working on geometry tools.

Have you, I don’t know, ever modeled a house yourself? In those older editors, or in something like sims 3, or in, say, Saurbraten/Cube 2 engine? Because you need to be familiar with the process to “get” it.

You’re a moderator, which means you’re supposed to be a shining example of good behavior, being helpful, friendly and polite. Instead you’re trying to argue with people to death because they don’t share your opinion. What the heck, really.

Thanks for posting, is gonna be useful.
[/]

If BSP modeling was as big of an, there would be more people asking for it. If all the people who don’t need more BSP modeling features were to post then that thread would be much bigger.
I’m not advocating for a modular workflow, it would actually be easier to model everything in a 3D modeling app even without modular pieces. That’s why I recommend some times for people to make unique meshes than to try and build things out of modular pieces.
I’ve done quite a bit of modeling (including houses) and I’d much rather use an actual 3D modeling app than any game editor, since they have much more development in for that purpose.

Being a moderator doesn’t mean I have to agree with what posts, and if I disagree then I can share my opinion.

96

[=arbopa;442100]
No, not at all. Which sort of proves out that you are not really listening to what people are talking about with level design. Thanks for alerting to that reality.
[/]

There’s more to level design than 3D geometry, but is only about the ability to create geometry, which is in the realm of a 3D artist. If I’m designing a level it’s as much about what it looks like as it is about if it plays well.

97

[=arbopa;442103]
Well I feel the same about mobile games, and VR, and loads of other stuff that is in UE4. As do many others. But we don’t run around ******** about what people want and putting them down. You on the other hand…
[/]

You’re free to respond to any thread about asking for features and add your opinion about whether you think they are needed.

98

I block out my levels with bsp and supergrid and build meshes in a 3D package, so I get my work done already. Doesn’t change the fact that the built-in tools are lacking/broken and Epic should get on asap! How affects their resources shouldn’t be our concern tbh and I trust they can manage task. :slight_smile:

99

[=;442131]
There’s more to level design than 3D geometry, but is only about the ability to create geometry, which is in the realm of a 3D artist. If I’m designing a level it’s as much about what it looks like as it is about if it plays well.
[/]

is a fundamental misunderstanding of what level design is.

Also, you’re literally just quoting everybody’s points and missing them. It’s insane how much you’re missing them! I’d almost suspect you’re missing them on purpose!

“You’re free to respond to any thread about asking for features and add your opinion about whether you think they are needed.”

He doesn’t do that because it’s a worthless contribution. I’m not working on a VR game, but that is a bad reason to object to Epic working on VR support. I’m not working on a mobile game, but that is a bad reason to object to Epic furthering mobile support. I’m not working on an Xbox One game, but that is a bad reason for me to ask them to deprioritise Xbox One support. You don’t feel you or your projects would benefit from good geometry tools, and do not understand why anyone would want them, and that is a bad reason for you to object to them. You’re not contributing; you have nothing to say but “nah ur rong”. It’s fine, and commendable, to leave a conversation when you add nothing to it but bewildered hostility.

“Being a moderator doesn’t mean I have to agree with what posts, and if I disagree then I can share my opinion.”

Nobody disagrees with that. People object to your rudeness and dismissiveness and see it as unworthy of a moderator. I think you might know already.

“If BSP modeling was as big of an, there would be more people asking for it”

is a big ol’ fallacy. There is no reason to believe that is true.
**
Any time anybody brings up** dudes like you drop in and start telling everybody they’re wrong. You start from the conclusion - that they’re wrong - and then make up reasons to justify why (inexperience, can’t afford tools, too lazy to learn). You give every indication of feeling somehow threatened by the existence of workflows other than your own, even when it’s abundantly clear that those other workflows work for people, and work well, and there is demand. Right now, there are several of us in here talking to a wall, and it’s exhausting. Why would people bring up when the most common response is stubborn (and for some reason *loud) *refusal to even consider what we’re saying? Not to mention we’re on a relatively underpopulated forum, devoted to an engine that many people choose not to use *because of *. My videos about get a lot of likes, there’s a lot of people who talk to me in the comments/on twitter/facebook/things other than being supportive, and they mention that they never bring it up on forums because of people who want to shut them down rather than just discuss it. Like !

100

[=;442148]
is a fundamental misunderstanding of what level design is.

Also, you’re literally just quoting everybody’s points and missing them. It’s insane how much you’re missing them! I’d almost suspect you’re missing them on purpose!

“You’re free to respond to any thread about asking for features and add your opinion about whether you think they are needed.”

He doesn’t do that because it’s a worthless contribution. I’m not working on a VR game, but that is a bad reason to object to Epic working on VR support. I’m not working on a mobile game, but that is a bad reason to object to Epic furthering mobile support. I’m not working on an Xbox One game, but that is a bad reason for me to ask them to deprioritise Xbox One support. You don’t feel you or your projects would benefit from good geometry tools, and do not understand why anyone would want them, and that is a bad reason for you to object to them. You’re not contributing; you have nothing to say but “nah ur rong”. It’s fine, and commendable, to leave a conversation when you add nothing to it but bewildered hostility.

“Being a moderator doesn’t mean I have to agree with what posts, and if I disagree then I can share my opinion.”

Nobody disagrees with that. People object to your rudeness and dismissiveness and see it as unworthy of a moderator. I think you might know already.

“If BSP modeling was as big of an, there would be more people asking for it”

is a big ol’ fallacy. There is no reason to believe that is true.
**
Any time anybody brings up** dudes like you drop in and start telling everybody they’re wrong. You start from the conclusion - that they’re wrong - and then make up reasons to justify why (inexperience, can’t afford tools, too lazy to learn). You give every indication of feeling somehow threatened by the existence of workflows other than your own, even when it’s abundantly clear that those other workflows work for people, and work well, and there is demand. Right now, there are several of us in here talking to a wall, and it’s exhausting. Why would people bring up when the most common response is stubborn (and for some reason *loud) *refusal to even consider what we’re saying? Not to mention we’re on a relatively underpopulated forum, devoted to an engine that many people choose not to use *because of *. My videos about get a lot of likes, there’s a lot of people who talk to me in the comments/on twitter/facebook/things other than being supportive, and they mention that they never bring it up on forums because of people who want to shut them down rather than just discuss it. Like !
[/]

Spot on. I have already reported one of his posts, hoping to call Epics attention to the behavior of one of their ‘moderators’. Totally out of line IMHO.

101

If you think a isn’t useful to many people, then you should respond. For example if you think VR isn’t going to be successful and would be a waste of resources then it doesn’t matter if you’re making a VR game or not, you can voice your opinion. As is the same for the people you say are telling you they want the --If there’s a massive amount of people that want a then it won’t matter if they don’t share. If they’re intimidated by people disagreeing with them then it won’t matter if people disagree if there’s enough responses that people want the . The people who don’t need the improved modeling features aren’t likely to respond because things are working for them OK already. People who do have an are more likely to speak out, so it would be absurd not to say something if you have an. All I’m seeing is a handful of people who know anything, and then a bunch of inexperienced people who know little about game development workflows and think that it’s supposed to allow them to create a full level in the engine.

A much better solution to the that would benefit would be to make using a 3D software more convenient. There’s little that BSP can offer that 3D modeling software doesn’t, and since most people use workflow already it would be a better use of time. Levels are much less “boxy” these days and the tools would have to be much more complex than what BSP is good for.

102

[=;442172]
If you think a isn’t useful to many people, then you should respond.

[/]

No, if you aren’t going to use it, it is none of your business and you should walk by without interfering. “Live and let live”.
The only exception is when people request removal of features you rely on.

Engine devs will decide if it worth their time or not, not you.
Arguing against just creates useless noise, and create unpleasant impression of the community, especially when moderators do that.

Besides it is quite obvious at point that is useful to many people.

[=;442172]
If they’re intimidated by people disagreeing with them then

[/]

So, every person that puts a request should pass trial by combat, resist being intimidated and slay a dragon or something? is ridiculous. Developers are supposed to COOPERATE and HELP each other, instead of dealing with kind of nonsense.

103

guys, thats one of the most polite, but pointless drama i ever saw popcorn.gif

104

[=;442172]
The people who don’t need the improved modeling features aren’t likely to respond because things are working for them OK already.
[/]
If only!
[]
All I’m seeing is a handful of people who know anything, and then a bunch of inexperienced people who know little about game development workflows and think that it’s supposed to allow them to create a full level in the engine.
[/]
Here’s you rudely throwing around baseless insults again. How do you be a moderator and think is the way to behave? is a game development community. Stop calling people’s experience and expertise into question because you’re having trouble understanding what they’re talking about.

105

[=;442194]
No, if you aren’t going to use it, it is none of your business and you should walk by without interfering. “Live and let live”.
The only exception is when people request removal of features you rely on.

Engine devs will decide if it worth their time or not, not you.
Arguing against just creates useless noise, and create unpleasant impression of the community, especially when moderators do that.

Besides it is quite obvious at point that is useful to many people.

So, every person that puts a request should pass trial by combat, resist being intimidated and slay a dragon or something? is ridiculous. Developers are supposed to COOPERATE and HELP each other, instead of dealing with kind of nonsense.
[/]

People are free to give their opinion on engine developments–for example, there were people wanting less new features and more performance improvements.

There’s no reason to think that people will be hostile to posting about an–having an opposite opinion isn’t hostility, it’s simply the other side of the discussion. The forums have rules to avoid hostility, notice I’m not insulting anyone or doing something against the rules.