Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Level Design tools not quite fast enough, for solo level designers.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    Hey all,

    I'm going to close this thread since it's venturing into other territories than what it was originally intended to be.

    Tim

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by CT007 View Post
    I don't know about you, but I can feel and see lag/unresponsiveness, when the FPS are less than my monitor's Hz. In games, you always want more FPS than your Hz, to have zero game lag, and eliminate screen tearing due to low frames. There is a huge thread about people arguing over "what the eye can see" and such, in the UT forums, if you're interested. I'm not. I definitely prefer it here in the Engine forums over the UT forums, as people are much more mature. Also, I'm not an Unreal Engine fanboy, as I suspect there are many of(without solid cause & comparison testing)...I'll use the tools that live up to my standards.

    Just to note, Unity uses about 0% CPU, and about 250MB RAM.
    I'm sorry for being offensive, but sometimes I just can't handle myself!
    You're absolutely right about more mature scene on this forum and so far you are the first person who stands out.
    You're keep making drama from everything and everywhere, you're calling everyone who proves you wrong or disagree with you "Unreal fanboy" and your complaints are completely ludicrous, inadequate and baseless.
    It's not even negative feedback, it just fluffy whining and attempts to play "Everyone on this forum just %ProductName% fanboys, but I'm not biased and I'm the crusader of truth and I will fight Injustice on this forum!"
    Your next post is simply pinnacle of this behaviour.


    And yes, just to note:


    And by the way, half of this thread is completely offtopic and about bashing/defence of UE4 and not about level design tools(Including my post).
    I'm looking at you, moderators!
    Last edited by zeOrb; 07-23-2014, 07:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by CT007 View Post
    I don't know about you, but I can feel and see lag/unresponsiveness, when the FPS are less than my monitor's Hz. In games, you always want more FPS than your Hz, to have zero game lag, and eliminate screen tearing due to low frames. There is a huge thread about people arguing over "what the eye can see" and such, in the UT forums, if you're interested. I'm not. I definitely prefer it here in the Engine forums over the UT forums, as people are much more mature. Also, I'm not an Unreal Engine fanboy, as I suspect there are many of(without solid cause & comparison testing)...I'll use the tools that live up to my standards.

    Just to note, Unity uses about 0% CPU, and about 250MB RAM.
    1. Tearing occurs when you don't have V-sync on. Actually you could have 60 Hz on a 120hz monitor and there would be no tearing at all.
    2. The fact with this 30+ isn't me, it's a medical fact about the human eye.
    3. You feel no responsiveness if you have long response time on your monitor, or have 40hz or less.
    4. It can't really be taken as an argument against the engine, realtime rendering of such graphics isn't easy, and 60 Hz will be more than enough for 90% of the people here propably, or more.
    5. Unity isn't really that advanced as Unreal, and epic is working on it, so we get lower cpu usage when minimized.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by yahodahan View Post
    Basically, I created a tool with exactly this in mind (seriously fast, intuitive, powerful level editing/modeling), and have been building it up for several years now. Unfortunatly (for UE4), its a Unity tool, but I'm looking into converting it over to Unreal, since many users are telling me they'd love to have it. Also, I'm simply excited to come "home" to Unreal!
    Thanks for making this plug-in for Unity, man... Great stuff. Finding your plug-in may very well be the deciding factor in using/choosing Unity, for the team I'm working with. I certainly respect Unity for having such 3rd party content available.

    I have been testing the latest versions of Unity, UDK, and UE4, and Unity is simply an inspiring breath of fresh air, unlike UDK & UE4, which are more like drowsy engineering programs that require tutorials for everything. It's so stupid simple to use...I love it. I could map happily all day with it! Yes, it's fairly technically & graphically limited, but being fun/inspiring is what I feel Unreal is critically missing.

    I liked everything that I saw in the ProBuilder 2.2 video, especially the ability to move/rotate/scale the textures hands-on like that. The speed of geometry creation could be faster though, as editors like Trenchbroom and Cube 2 have shown, but I understand this is a traditional-style set of modeling tools(which certainly has its uses!).

    Well, I guess I'll have to say, "Thanks" to Epic, for creating the Marketplace, so guys like yahodahan can help take us into the future we should be at already.
    Last edited by CT007; 07-23-2014, 02:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Cube2222 View Post
    Excuse me, but please explain to me how 90~ is an acceptable medium for you, taking in account teh fact that a human eye can't notice 30+ and most monitors run on 60-80 HZ.
    I don't know about you, but I can feel and see lag/unresponsiveness, when the FPS are less than my monitor's Hz. In games, you always want more FPS than your Hz, to have zero game lag, and eliminate screen tearing due to low frames. There is a huge thread about people arguing over "what the eye can see" and such, in the UT forums, if you're interested. I'm not. I definitely prefer it here in the Engine forums over the UT forums, as people are much more mature. Also, I'm not an Unreal Engine fanboy, as I suspect there are many of(without solid cause & comparison testing)...I'll use the tools that live up to my standards.

    Just to note, Unity uses about 0% CPU, and about 250MB RAM.
    Last edited by CT007; 07-23-2014, 02:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by CT007 View Post
    For an empty or basic map, "slow" is less fps than my monitor's Hz(120), and "too slow" is half that. ~90 is an acceptable medium for me, and of course I expect heavy lag with a dense map, but the overall performance/responsiveness of UDK is significantly better.
    Excuse me, but please explain to me how 90~ is an acceptable medium for you, taking in account teh fact that a human eye can't notice 30+ and most monitors run on 60-80 HZ.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Hey folks- "DotCam" pointed me over to this thread (thanks!), and I'd love to have your thoughts on my thread + poll here: https://forums.unrealengine.com/show...307#post102307

    Basically, I created a tool with exactly this in mind (seriously fast, intuitive, powerful level editing/modeling), and have been building it up for several years now. Unfortunatly (for UE4), its a Unity tool, but I'm looking into converting it over to Unreal, since many users are telling me they'd love to have it. Also, I'm simply excited to come "home" to Unreal!

    The tool, "ProBuilder", is really an amalgamation of my experience with 3DS Max, Unreal, Hammer, and Unity- trying to take all the best bits of each, while keeping a really, really sharp focus on staying intuitive and user-friendly. We (tech dev and I) also understand the use for ProBuilder is generally going be early prototyping, blocking out levels, and perhaps stylized, simplistic final geometry, and develop with that in mind as well. No silly bells-n-whistles that won't actually be used

    Here's a quick (though fairly old, we've added much more since!) video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpQelCVPPZg

    Again, if you feel this is of interest, please let me know your thoughts! Porting the tool to UE4 will likely be a major undertaking, but it looks like a great option so far- let us know, thanks! Thread linked below, again:
    https://forums.unrealengine.com/show...307#post102307

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by CT007 View Post
    For an empty or basic map, "slow" is less fps than my monitor's Hz(120), and "too slow" is half that. ~90 is an acceptable medium for me, and of course I expect heavy lag with a dense map, but the overall performance/responsiveness of UDK is significantly better.
    This will always be the case when you upgrade to better graphics, without upgrading your video card as well, I have a GTX 660 ti currently and it runs at a solid 120fps with the "realtime" setting turned off, 60fps in realtime depending on how much is on screen is more than achievable in most cases, dipping to 40fps under load.

    Unfortunately it comes with the territory when the visuals are upgraded, however a lot of these can be turned off or down in the viewport "Show" options, it depends on how good you want the graphics to be in your game, but having the "Quick Settings -> Engine Scalability Settings" all set to Epic and every other option on or on high, will of course slow you down without a high end graphics card (much better than mine) to achieve 120fps in realtime.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by jwatte View Post
    umm... we'll have to disagree there. I think a lot of modern, high-end games were built before 2004.
    Current game physics is the same math as 20 years ago.
    Current game graphics is the same methods as 20 years ago (but more of it! MUCH more!)
    Current game networking is the same algorithms as 20 years ago.
    Current game mechanics are, if possible, even less rich than they were 20 years ago, at least for comparable blockbuster titles.
    Current game software engineering has perhaps caught up to where the rest of software engineering was 20 years ago by now :-)
    And the art of war, philosophy, painting, our language, science, tool making, has all had 500+ years to mature. What's 10 or 20? Not much, I surely hope. If our current game dev tools and methods today are anywhere near the 'pinnacle', I am sad monkey.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by badsensation View Post
    1.) You say the editor runs too slow for you, but give no specificity in what is or what you are perceiving to be, "too slow."
    For an empty or basic map, "slow" is less fps than my monitor's Hz(120), and "too slow" is half that. ~90 is an acceptable medium for me, and of course I expect heavy lag with a dense map, but the overall performance/responsiveness of UDK is significantly better.

    Originally posted by badsensation View Post
    2.) With 4.3 - the editor will adjust various quality/rendering settings automatically based on the hardware you throw at it. You are free to turn this off. You can change what it will default to under Quick Settings->Engine Scalability Settings.
    Cool, thanks. That gets me up to 90-110fps in an empty map with all ppfx off, but UDK is a solid 120fps(capped at 120 :/). I disabled performance monitoring, too.

    Originally posted by badsensation View Post
    4.) I am sure if we see Geometry 2.0 at some point in the future people such as yourself, that are stubbornly adamant about not touching any of the modelling packages available, will have more options.
    I'm adamant about not wasting extra time & money with external tools, to model relatively incomplex shapes(BSP) that could be done in-Editor(and are in some other editors).

    Originally posted by badsensation View Post
    5.) I would wager that you are part of the one half of one percent that thinks the new Editor is a step backward as compared to the old way of doing things.
    Yes, it's definitely a loss in performance, and some loss of BSP functionality, but it's still under development(I think/hope!). I see UE4 as a huge change/facelift, that wasn't exactly for the better, although I've heard good things about Blueprint and such. Change means you have to get used to/learn the new things, but in this case change has also dropped the Editor's responsiveness I miss from UDK. Even with the Engine Scalability thing set to lowest, it's not fast enough for me, so yes, UE4 is of no use/interest to me in it's current form.


    Originally posted by Jason Forrester View Post
    I get your qualms, but I think UE is still UE basically.
    Its neither a step forward or backward because BSP brush work is considered obsolete.
    Do I agree?
    Actually, no. I think BSP brush work is still a good alternative.
    But, UE is leaning towards the more accepted use of Static Meshes.

    ~ Jason
    I think static meshes have been the fad since UE2, and still are, of course, but we have lost BSP functionality, and that's what gets me. Thankfully Epic agrees, and Geometry 2.0 is on the way...or should be.


    Originally posted by DotCam View Post
    To do this, go into the Editor Preferences, "Viewports" Tab, under "Controls", click the down arrow to display the rest of the options, as you can see in the following image:
    Great! Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Modern game development is only like 10 years old
    umm... we'll have to disagree there. I think a lot of modern, high-end games were built before 2004.
    Current game physics is the same math as 20 years ago.
    Current game graphics is the same methods as 20 years ago (but more of it! MUCH more!)
    Current game networking is the same algorithms as 20 years ago.
    Current game mechanics are, if possible, even less rich than they were 20 years ago, at least for comparable blockbuster titles.
    Current game software engineering has perhaps caught up to where the rest of software engineering was 20 years ago by now :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by CT007 View Post
    3). Can I still disable "Grab and Drag To Scroll Ortho Cameras" like in UDK? I couldn't find this option.
    To do this, go into the Editor Preferences, "Viewports" Tab, under "Controls", click the down arrow to display the rest of the options, as you can see in the following image:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.PNG
Views:	1
Size:	101.4 KB
ID:	1052762

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by CT007 View Post
    Alright, so I have UE4 now, and here are my issues & summary:

    1). The editor runs too slow on my fairly strong PC(i-7 860, GTX 670 OC, Win7 x64) to be able to get anything done quickly. This is not good for the majority of us casual gamers/mappers, or for anyone, really... UDK runs at least twice as fast(in general), with realtime on or off, and with a decent performance increase in DX9 mode vs DX11.

    2). The game and editor(in realtime) seem to be limited to 60 FPS. Anyone know how to remove/"unlock" it? I looked around in the configs for a bit, but didn't find much. My FPS do not seem to be locked in UDK.

    3). Can I still disable "Grab and Drag To Scroll Ortho Cameras" like in UDK? I couldn't find this option.

    4). The BSP tools are about what I expected; live BSP editing is great(this is also possible in UDK, I found out), and being able to select/edit verts, edges and polygons is great, but otherwise these tools are stiflingly limited. More limited than UE1 possibly, with the 2D Shape Editor being removed. The entire BSP system seems pretty buggy/bad right now. Unreal's surface alignment(UV) tools have always had only barebone functionality, and still do.

    Overall, I am not happy with the current editor, due to the poor performance, poor BSP tools, and the odd, new interface/layout. Give me a "High-Performance Editing" mode, please... UDK is very, very good; I'm not sure why we had to go and make a completely new editor...?
    I get your qualms, but I think UE is still UE basically.
    Its neither a step forward or backward because BSP brush work is considered obsolete.
    Do I agree?
    Actually, no. I think BSP brush work is still a good alternative.
    But, UE is leaning towards the more accepted use of Static Meshes.

    ~ Jason

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by CT007 View Post
    Alright, so I have UE4 now, and here are my issues & summary:

    1). The editor runs too slow on my fairly strong PC(i-7 860, GTX 670 OC, Win7 x64) to be able to get anything done quickly. This is not good for the majority of us casual gamers/mappers, or for anyone, really... UDK runs at least twice as fast(in general), with realtime on or off, and with a decent performance increase in DX9 mode vs DX11.

    2). The game and editor(in realtime) seem to be limited to 60 FPS. Anyone know how to remove/"unlock" it? I looked around in the configs for a bit, but didn't find much. My FPS do not seem to be locked in UDK.

    3). Can I still disable "Grab and Drag To Scroll Ortho Cameras" like in UDK? I couldn't find this option.

    4). The BSP tools are about what I expected; live BSP editing is great(this is also possible in UDK, I found out), and being able to select/edit verts, edges and polygons is great, but otherwise these tools are stiflingly limited. More limited than UE1 possibly, with the 2D Shape Editor being removed. The entire BSP system seems pretty buggy/bad right now. Unreal's surface alignment(UV) tools have always had only barebone functionality, and still do.

    Overall, I am not happy with the current editor, due to the poor performance, poor BSP tools, and the odd, new interface/layout. Give me a "High-Performance Editing" mode, please... UDK is very, very good; I'm not sure why we had to go and make a completely new editor...?
    1.) You say the editor runs too slow for you, but give no specificity in what is or what you are perceiving to be, "too slow."

    2.) With 4.3 - the editor will adjust various quality/rendering settings automatically based on the hardware you throw at it. You are free to turn this off. You can change what it will default to under Quick Settings->Engine Scalability Settings.

    3.) Someone else will have to chime in and answer.

    4.) I am sure if we see Geometry 2.0 at some point in the future people such as yourself, that are stubbornly adamant about not touching any of the modelling packages available, will have more options.

    5.) I would wager that you are part of the one half of one percent that thinks the new Editor is a step backward as compared to the old way of doing things.

    In my opinion judging from reading your previous posts - I don't believe you're ever going to be happy with the new system as a whole and perhaps you're struggling for naught. I would rather quit completely than ever go back to using the old tool-set. There are other options available to you outside of UE4, and while we all want better performance, the community is segmented based on what the community wants to see in the future pertaining to new features/enhancements.

    Your wants especially in regards to going backward (in many respects) do not seem to fit in with the direction of the Engine and tools as a whole. You are still able to use UDK and you are most certainly able to pickup another package.

    I am not trying to offend you, but if any product or service wasn't viable to me in not just a single, but multitude of ways - I wouldn't be using it - and that seems to be where you stand. If I wanted a particular model of car in black, with leather seats and a manual transmission: I might settle on the same model in white, but if the seats were cloth and it had an automatic transmission - I wouldn't buy it! Catch my drift?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Alright, so I have UE4 now, and here are my issues & summary:

    1). The editor runs too slow on my fairly strong PC(i-7 860, GTX 670 OC, Win7 x64) to be able to get anything done quickly. This is not good for the majority of us casual gamers/mappers, or for anyone, really... UDK runs at least twice as fast(in general), with realtime on or off, and with a decent performance increase in DX9 mode vs DX11.

    2). The game and editor(in realtime) seem to be limited to 60 FPS. Anyone know how to remove/"unlock" it? I looked around in the configs for a bit, but didn't find much. My FPS do not seem to be locked in UDK.

    3). Can I still disable "Grab and Drag To Scroll Ortho Cameras" like in UDK? I couldn't find this option.

    4). The BSP tools are about what I expected; live BSP editing is great(this is also possible in UDK, I found out), and being able to select/edit verts, edges and polygons is great, but otherwise these tools are stiflingly limited. More limited than UE1 possibly, with the 2D Shape Editor being removed. The entire BSP system seems pretty buggy/bad right now. Unreal's surface alignment(UV) tools have always had only barebone functionality, and still do.

    Overall, I am not happy with the current editor, due to the poor performance, poor BSP tools, and the odd, new interface/layout. Give me a "High-Performance Editing" mode, please... UDK is very, very good; I'm not sure why we had to go and make a completely new editor...?
    Last edited by CT007; 07-20-2014, 04:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X