[=;442383]
It’s the design methodology and optimisation of the source engine. If you pick a source engine triple A game, it uses mainly BSP and meshes for decoration. If you take an unreal engine (3,4) triple A game, it uses mainly meshes.
[/]
It is not “design methodology and optimization” of the engine. It means that THEY have , and UE4 doesn’t and that in their engine that can be used for the bulk of level modeling.
Iirc UE2 used to have something similar built in. I’m still not sure who decided switch away from it. Might be something similar to the idea of using occlusion culling that relies on previous rendering frame, which causes flickering.
[=;442383]
It’s the design methodology and optimisation of the source engine. If you pick a source engine triple A game, it uses mainly BSP and meshes for decoration. If you take an unreal engine (3,4) triple A game, it uses mainly meshes.
[/]
It’s true that idTech rendering is specifically built with in mind and thus optimized for it. However, I think the point that being made is that the style of building with tools that handle level design-specific needs is a huge benefit for level designer iteration and thus potentially for the development of the game.
Even if on the back end the engine were to convert everything in to meshes (as I understand it the HammUEr tool does) the greater benefit that can be realized is the improvement on human interface/development time, not necessarily some rendering/compilation need. I have gotten to the point with the existing tools in UE4 where I can block out levels relatively quickly, but I would see a huge benefit from some expansion of that toolset and cleaning up some of the weird collision issues it causes.
It’s really to see so much passion for these tools and the engine. I wanted to step in since things seems to be getting heated and remind ** that they should keep the conversation professional and not dismiss people’s requests. Epic is reading the feedback on thread, we really do want to hear it and appreciate you taking the time to write it.
[=;442396]
It is not “design methodology and optimization” of the engine. It means that THEY have , and UE4 doesn’t and that in their engine that can be used for the bulk of level modeling.
[/]
It is. At least as far as I remember when I read the documentation it was written that teh engine is optimized for bsp, so one should use mainly bsp and meshes only for decoration.
[]
It’s true that idTech rendering is specifically built with in mind and thus optimized for it. However, I think the point that being made is that the style of building with tools that handle level design-specific needs is a huge benefit for level designer iteration and thus potentially for the development of the game.
Even if on the back end the engine were to convert everything in to meshes (as I understand it the HammUEr tool does) the greater benefit that can be realized is the improvement on human interface/development time, not necessarily some rendering/compilation need. I have gotten to the point with the existing tools in UE4 where I can block out levels relatively quickly, but I would see a huge benefit from some expansion of that toolset and cleaning up some of the weird collision issues it causes.
[/]
Not sure about the implementation details, although why would the static meshes be less optimised then as they are?
I too agree that handier to use tools would benefit level designers, but in my opinion complex functionality shouldn’t be included, because that’s what your 3d package is for. Why block out a level in ue4, if you can do that in blender and import later in less than a minute.
I think that there should be better integration. So that I don’t need to edit in 3d package -> export from 3d package -> import to ue4 -> place in level. It should be edit in 3d package -> change windows to ue4 and see your change populated immediatelly.
[=;442383]
It’s the design methodology and optimisation of the source engine. If you pick a source engine triple A game, it uses mainly BSP and meshes for decoration. If you take an unreal engine (3,4) triple A game, it uses mainly meshes.
[/]
was kind of my point before though, source engine games are just plain dated, largely because of approach - they look like they’re a decade old and it’s because they’re using decade old techniques - as per my example before, Counterstrike: GO is visually more or less on a parity with Call of Duty 4, a game from 8 years ago. Where Valve will go with their Source 2 games is another question, as it remains to be seen. I suspect they’ll also adopt a much mesh-heavier approach to building environments.
However, the geometry tools really do need some love. They’ve not really changed much since 1996 (some of the same bugs have persisted for 20 years!) and working with them is much less than ideal. Ideally, I’d like to see much updated tools, with an easy means to export the geometry into a 3d modelling package for decorating etc.
To me it sounds like proponents of not having decent CSG tools never made games single handily, especially featuring actual levels and not terrain or grid based modular pieces.
It’s fine when a team has several artists who can churn out modular pieces or even make actual levels. However, where there is one artist that is also a level designer, or dedicated level designer who comes from idTech/Source, proper CSG is invaluable.
It shouldn’t be an argument whether to have it or not. It’s already there, in the engine. Just needs optimization and tools on par with Radiant/Hammer or better yet, like Trenchbroom: TrenchBroom
Not sure about the implementation details, although why would the static meshes be less optimised then as they are?
[/]
Hah.
As far as I know BSP tools originally were created out of need to have level represented as BSP Tree. Brush like structure is easier to turn into bsp trees than polygonal soup, due to the fact that brush often is convex object. The point of BSP trees is hidden surface removal and occlusion culling.
Scene constructed from static meshes will require something like Umbra to bake occlusion info and results will be worse compared to CSG scene where you can make it perfect. Currently used PVS removal technology in UE4 actually may be inferior to both Umbra and BSP trees because it relies on previous frame data, which results in flickering (reported in multiple threads). Unreal’s “solution” for is to create low-detail “filler” meshes within level, which is quite ridiculous, also built-in occlusion mechanism that can bake occlusion data essentially stores it in 2 dimensional form, making it useless for highly vertical scenes. Source engine does not have kind of flickering.
Regardless of original purpose of BSP trees it turned out that guys who made original bsp-based editors did a good job and came up with great tools. So people want CSG now, regardless bsp or not bsp being used for PVS removal. Occlusion shenanigans in UE4 is different sotry.
[=;442474]
I think that there should be better integration. So that I don’t need to edit in 3d package -> export from 3d package -> import to ue4 -> place in level. It should be edit in 3d package -> change windows to ue4 and see your change populated immediatelly.
[/]
I think direction is a dead end. Most of the 3d software is not geared towards level design.
[=;442500]
was kind of my point before though, source engine games are just plain dated, largely because of approach - they look like they’re a decade old and it’s because they’re using decade old techniques - as per my example before, Counterstrike: GO is visually more or less on a parity with Call of Duty 4, a game from 8 years ago. Where Valve will go with their Source 2 games is another question, as it remains to be seen. I suspect they’ll also adopt a much mesh-heavier approach to building environments.
However, the geometry tools really do need some love. They’ve not really changed much since 1996 (some of the same bugs have persisted for 20 years!) and working with them is much less than ideal. Ideally, I’d like to see much updated tools, with an easy means to export the geometry into a 3d modelling package for decorating etc.
[/]
I would imagine that most people making games/levels, are not making artistic masterpieces… 1) because it is most often not needed… 2) for the games they make it would tax the players computer too much. A simple cube, if you use the proper texturing and normal mapping, can look stunning. You don’t need to use a 3D program and actually make all the facets that can be accomplished with a normal map.
While it would be nice to think that all games are going to have ultra realistic maps, that are archvis quality… that’s just not realistic for so many reasons.
[=;442500]
was kind of my point before though, source engine games are just plain dated, largely because of approach - they look like they’re a decade old and it’s because they’re using decade old techniques - as per my example before, Counterstrike: GO is visually more or less on a parity with Call of Duty 4, a game from 8 years ago. Where Valve will go with their Source 2 games is another question, as it remains to be seen. I suspect they’ll also adopt a much mesh-heavier approach to building environments.
[/]
It doesn’t matter. Not everybody goes for hyperrealism, there are many artistic style, and for some reason source based games tend to age well. Decade old argument doesn’t really matter either, because many technologies used in today’s rendering aren’t exactly new.
The interesting thing is that since “building levels from meshes” became popular, I started seeing less of interesting level designs. It is pretty much “heightmap with some trees and placeables” days, akin to Trespasser game from 1998.
Most people are striving for things to look as good as they can, that’s one of the reasons people use UE4, and even other non realistic styles don’t have to look blocky
[=;442520]
The interesting thing is that since “building levels from meshes” became popular, I started seeing less of interesting level designs. It is pretty much “heightmap with some trees and placeables” days, akin to Trespasser game from 1998.
[/]
What about today’s games aren’t interesting? Battlefront is one of the best looking games of all time. Bloodborne is a masterpiece, you’re saying those games have less interesting level design?
[=;442525]
Most people are striving for things to look as good as they can, that’s one of the reasons people use UE4, and even other non realistic styles don’t have to look blocky
[/]
Have you gone on steam and seen what is popular? I am guessing not, because one can not make such a statement if they pay attention to what is selling and what people are playing. As to using UE4 because they want things to look as good as they can… um… there are engines that do BETTER with some rendering and lighting… if people wanted ‘better’ they would be using those.
Google level design, do some reading. Interesting and good level design is hard to find anymore.
What about today’s games aren’t interesting? Battlefront is one of the best looking games of all time. Bloodborne is a masterpiece, you’re saying those games have less interesting level design?
[/]
Again, not every UE4 user is a part of AAA . A lot of indies use UE4 and 95% of indies do not have resources to create AAA art of Bloodborne.
It’s not about masterpiece vs flat surface with normal maps purchased from marketplace. It’s about getting levels done in timely manner with resources at hand. For indies it’s CSG as seen in Quake/CS.
I’d love for my games to look like AAA games. However, I either need time (which waits for no one) or a ton of money to hire a of AAA artists. Neither is feasible to obtain.
[=arbopa;442539]
Have you gone on steam and seen what is popular? I am guessing not, because one can not make such a statement if they pay attention to what is selling and what people are playing. As to using UE4 because they want things to look as good as they can… um… there are engines that do BETTER with some rendering and lighting… if people wanted ‘better’ they would be using those.
Google level design, do some reading. Interesting and good level design is hard to find anymore.
What about today’s games aren’t interesting? Battlefront is one of the best looking games of all time. Bloodborne is a masterpiece, you’re saying those games have less interesting level design?
[/]
I’m guessing you haven’t either because the vast majority of top selling games use very little to no BSP and have a focus on high quality graphics. Lighting and rendering aren’t the only thing that makes something look good, the environments in Battlefront are organic and complex, something that would be difficult if not impossible to do with BSP. If you think level design isn’t good any more, then that’s your. Games are making more than they did before so trends don’t support your views.
[=Skytram;442354]
Just want to point out that many of the best and most popular games ever made used BSP for level design, which in and of itself is an objectively good argument for considering including it.
[/]
BSP hasn’t been the primary level design/dressing methodology for about a decade now. We need better massout tools in Unreal 4 that’s for sure, but let’s not muddy the waters with things that Epic knows firsthand isn’t true.
[=;442540]
Again, not every UE4 user is a part of AAA . A lot of indies use UE4 and 95% of indies do not have resources to create AAA art of Bloodborne.
It’s not about masterpiece vs flat surface with normal maps purchased from marketplace. It’s about getting levels done in timely manner with resources at hand. For indies it’s CSG as seen in Quake/CS.
I’d love for my games to look like AAA games. However, I either need time (which waits for no one) or a ton of money to hire a of AAA artists. Neither is feasible to obtain.
[/]
You can achieve high quality without having to have tons of money. Expensive software won’t do anything if you don’t have any skill to use them, and a skilled person could make something good whether they were using Blender or 3ds Max. I’ve seen many indies do a much better job than Counter Strike.
[=;442561]
You can achieve high quality without having to have tons of money. Expensive software won’t do anything if you don’t have any skill to use them, and a skilled person could make something good whether they were using Blender or 3ds Max. I’ve seen many indies do a much better job than Counter Strike.
[/]
You kidding right? No, you must be kidding, because making art has nothing to do with software. It’s the most time consuming part of game development. That’s why there 100 artist on 10 programmers in AAA studios. And games still take years to make. How do you expect a small indie team (especially without external funding) or a lone developer to make same quality of a 200 strong AAA team.
Hell, even even III (AAA-indies) have money to outsource art or have bunch of artists in-house.
Doesn’t matter how skilled you are - you need to make 100 pcs of art, code the game, make levels, you want to cut down you production time. There is no way to iterate 3D art efficiently when it comes to level design. That’s what CSG/BSP is for. Not to mention you can leave it as-is and simply add a few 3D models here and there, instead of modeling entire level to conform to BSP layout.
Anyhow, it sounds like there are more people wanting good BSP tools and I am guessing it’s just a matter of priorities for Epic at point.
[=;442556]
I’m guessing you haven’t either because the vast majority of top selling games use very little to no BSP and have a focus on high quality graphics.
[/]
You are looking at multi-million dollar AAA games. Dude, you really need to move on, you have said your peace, we get it, you think others are lazy because they do not work like you do. I still find it a joke that Epic let’s someone as argumentative and rude as you to be a moderator.
[=;442561]
You can achieve high quality without having to have tons of money.
[/]
Time is someone nobody can buy. Again, that you do not seem to get that makes it clear you are not even trying to understand the views of others. Yeah, we get it, you will use overkill for your projects, now quit hating on those that do not agree with you.
[=;442567]
You kidding right? No, you must be kidding, because making art has nothing to do with software. It’s the most time consuming part of game development. That’s why there 100 artist on 10 programmers in AAA studios. And games still take years to make. How do you expect a small indie team (especially without external funding) or a lone developer to make same quality of a 200 strong AAA team.
Hell, even even III (AAA-indies) have money to outsource art or have bunch of artists in-house.
Doesn’t matter how skilled you are - you need to make 100 pcs of art, code the game, make levels, you want to cut down you production time. There is no way to iterate 3D art efficiently when it comes to level design. That’s what CSG/BSP is for. Not to mention you can leave it as-is and simply add a few 3D models here and there, instead of modeling entire level to conform to BSP layout.
Anyhow, it sounds like there are more people wanting good BSP tools and I am guessing it’s just a matter of priorities for Epic at point.
[/]
Art doesn’t actually take that long once you know what you want to make, what wastes time is figuring out what the game is going to be–for example, Bioshock Infinite took 5 years to make, yet probably half of that time was wasted because they changed their minds. There was a huge amount of work that didn’t get used. For an indie it’s more about managing scope, you can’t make something as big as GTAV, but you can make something of the same quality if it’s smaller. And people have done some extremely high quality work with very small teams.
[=arbopa;442581]
You are looking at multi-million dollar AAA games. Dude, you really need to move on, you have said your peace, we get it, you think others are lazy because they do not work like you do. I still find it a joke that Epic let’s someone as argumentative and rude as you to be a moderator.
Time is someone nobody can buy. Again, that you do not seem to get that makes it clear you are not even trying to understand the views of others. Yeah, we get it, you will use overkill for your projects, now quit hating on those that do not agree with you.
[/]
I think it’s lazy for people to want Epic to put time into developing a simply because they don’t want to use tools outside of the editor. Someone isn’t rude just because they disagree with you.
[=;442588]
Art doesn’t actually take that long once you know what you want to make, what wastes time is figuring out what the game is going to be–for example, Bioshock Infinite took 5 years to make, yet probably half of that time was wasted because they changed their minds. There was a huge amount of work that didn’t get used. For an indie it’s more about managing scope, you can’t make something as big as GTAV, but you can make something of the same quality if it’s smaller. And people have done some extremely high quality work with very small teams.
[/]
You said it - managing scope. Managing scope == not making AAA game, which also means BSP levels would work much better for indie production than AAA pipeline.
You can sure make 1-level game that is a size of average Quake 1 DM level, and make it look like Gears of War 1, but you will spend a few years on it. Will you recover the cost? No, you will not. Not to mention any expansion you will do now have to look at least as good as your initial game.
I don’t think you actually made a game, from scratch. Not a mod, not a show case for UE4, but actual game. I did and working on another one and I can tell you that it takes me less time to script something than actually make art that is driven by that script. Concept (whether drawn or imagined) + high poly + low poly + baking + texturing + setting **** up takes much longer than wring code.
Even going by pricing for contract work, a lot of gameplay stuff cost less to make (and takes less time to make) than a single static model. Don’t even get me started with animated models and characters. And to make actual playable level, with models, would probably cost as much as simple gameplay of entire small game.