Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Unfortunately better brush editing tools would solve only half the problem, there is also a great performance cost if you don't convert them to static meshes, which kinda undermines the whole point of having BSP's in your level.
    I'm not sure if there is a solution for it, but my guess is that's exactly why it's been in this state for so long, because it's too troublesome to optimize it, doesn't mean it's not possible though.

    Comment


      Originally posted by The Britain View Post
      I think, it's because Epic/Unreal has a different methodology. People who have been taught/learned the "Unreal way" generally like that way.
      That's kinda funny to think about. UE1 / UnrealEd had one of the most, in my mind, elegant BSP solutions of any engine of its time. I've been jonesing for something half as intuitive ever since those days, and was really disappointed when Epic moved towards static meshes as a paradigm in UE2 onwards. That said, I understand it from an artist-centric perspective, but for a hobbyist like myself, it was never quite the same.

      Originally posted by SimplyMark View Post
      Unfortunately better brush editing tools would solve only half the problem, there is also a great performance cost if you don't convert them to static meshes, which kinda undermines the whole point of having BSP's in your level.
      I doubt whatever Epic comes up with will be a 'true' BSP system though, as yeah, it's a nightmare for optimisation. My hope is that it's some sort of system not unlike what ProBuilder does, where brushwork is automatically converted to meshes (at least I'm 99% sure that's how it works), so you get the flexibility of CSG brushing, but none of the culling headaches. HammUEr's system of splitting parts of the BSP into separate meshes upon import is also pretty neat. There are definitely workarounds. I don't think anybody is asking for a full hardcore BSP implementation like Uncle Carmack used to make, but just something that makes rapid iteration a bit more feasible.

      Comment


        I really just want to bash bsp around like this and then take it into max/maya once i've made something i like:


        We could mock a level up with a styllus with this kind of interactivity.

        Comment


          If you take a look at CryEngines Designer tools, its exactly what UE4 should have, even now to compete with the engine. Its basically a simple modeler inside the editor.
          Stylized Low Poly Environment
          Stylized Low Poly Pine Forest
          Stylized Low Poly Buildings
          First Person Horror Template

          Comment


            Originally posted by Shirk View Post
            If you take a look at CryEngines Designer tools, its exactly what UE4 should have, even now to compete with the engine. Its basically a simple modeler inside the editor.
            Yes and no, because the 2D support is limited I think, the last versions Cryengine got awesome tools, but too bad for 2D viewports, bad design.
            Hevedy - Instance Tools: https://hevedy.itch.io/hevedyinstances
            Hevedy - Image Tools: https://hevedy.itch.io/imagetools

            Comment


              Originally posted by Hevedy View Post
              Yes and no, because the 2D support is limited I think, the last versions Cryengine got awesome tools, but too bad for 2D viewports, bad design.
              AS far as Im aware CryEngine only has one view port, and thats 3D. I dont see how 2D support would be limited in any what what so ever, its literally the exact same thing that any 3D modeling program offers.
              Stylized Low Poly Environment
              Stylized Low Poly Pine Forest
              Stylized Low Poly Buildings
              First Person Horror Template

              Comment


                If Geo 2.0 comes out this year - It would be great to have it working in VR.

                Here is a video of what I mean

                Comment


                  Originally posted by HeadClot View Post
                  If Geo 2.0 comes out this year - It would be great to have it working in VR.

                  Here is a video of what I mean

                  Yeah add VR support to Blender too...
                  Hevedy - Instance Tools: https://hevedy.itch.io/hevedyinstances
                  Hevedy - Image Tools: https://hevedy.itch.io/imagetools

                  Comment


                    Hi,

                    I just found this discussion and I agree with the OP, it would be great to have some improvements on this.

                    You guys who are "opposed" to have better geometry tools I don't understand why is that.

                    Yes, we know that the best selling games have artists and the game is created with meshes and all that...

                    Now, why don't you check the Steam Stats? http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ It doesn't matter when you do it, count how many players are playing Dota, CSGO and TF2 and compare the result to the rest of the "best sellers" using non-BSP's.

                    I'm a Sketchup pro and you can't even begin to understand how infuriating is that something that can be made in Sketchup in an hour can take DAYS with the current BSP tools, and I'm not joking, I had a recreation of my city's old town and I cursed the cr*p out when I tried to do the same with just the editor.

                    So yes, I had to create meshes and import them one by one and then relocate them, exhausting.

                    Why choose a slower and more tedious workflow when you can just do this process in one step, with one program and faster?

                    I mean, if the tools could be improved to give me just a third or a quarter of the speed I have drawing in Sketchup I would be still faster because I wouldn't need all the import and placement boredom and I could apply materials right there!

                    I don't think we're asking to make Paint Photoshop, we want to make Paint better, that's all.

                    Edit: Also, nobody is denying that static meshes have better performance, AFAIK once you are happy with the geometry you can transform it into static meshes, can't you? Then why use an external tool at all?
                    Last edited by masterneme; 03-10-2016, 03:29 PM.
                    ProBoon, Old-School FPS, Open Source & Tutorials
                    Support Project Boon on Patreon

                    On Steam Soon, Click Below

                    Comment


                      I think that we should just go the Source 2 route and use static meshes instead of BSP, but still allow for the same flexibility in creation as BSP.
                      Stylized Low Poly Environment
                      Stylized Low Poly Pine Forest
                      Stylized Low Poly Buildings
                      First Person Horror Template

                      Comment


                        No fan of BSP, but I'd love to see more mesh-editing tools like the level-editing options in Lumberyard.
                        UE4 routinely offers scaling, rotation, auto-collision, fracturing, Lods, but not dragging of vertices??? Why the limitation...
                        Last edited by EntrpriseCustomr; 03-11-2016, 12:08 AM.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
                          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 issue. Games are making more than they did before so trends don't support your views.
                          You do realize the biggest selling FPS of last year, Black Ops 3, is still made with a **** load of brushes right? Its more brush than it is models. Go check out videos for the alpha mod tools just released, I'll wait.

                          My biggest complaint about Epic's geometry tools is the builder brush, I don't want to have to find the builder brush, scale it up, type in sizes, drag verts, etc and then "make" something. Its super slow. At my last studio (we used UE3) I worked in Maya for blockouts because the BSP is so lacking and I still didn't like it despite knowing that program very well. When you're making geometry within the editor you have so much more context of the level, where the spawn is, lighting and shadows, quicker iterations, quicker testing (PIE), scale is easier to understand, etc.

                          You keep bringing up performance, but there are many games being made with UE4 that aren't pushing the processing power of the platforms they run on and nor will they. Not every team is out there trying to break the next graphics barrier, where losing half a millisecond when using BSP if of any great concern. I don't think Epic would actively rebuff simpler games or limit its accessibility because you want everyone to spend less time learning Unreal and more time learning Maya. That seems completely backwards to me.

                          As others have said before, even if you can argue that there aren't dozens or hundreds of teams that would prefer the simplicity of BSP for their small mobile game (or their retro shooter, etc), the crux of the matter is that it still takes too long to blockout and iterate in Unreal.

                          Comment


                            [MENTION=4674]sarchasm[/MENTION]: I am on the same page with you (as I am sure many other devs too) and logically it makes sense to get these tools a go so that indies(and AAA-indies) can do small games or prototype quickly, for Android/iOS and mobile VR, but it seems that Android is at the bottom of the priority list (and most likely because UE4 hasn't been used whole a lot by indies because Unity crowd paints UE4 to be some kind of monster when it comes to mobile; plus having Paragon in development doesn't help several platforms anyway)

                            Comment


                              Ive watched this thread for a year and a half be a fight for and against whether or not BSP should be used or not and waiting for Epic to develop a replacement (aka Geometry 2.0). Why not come together as a community and build the replacement, I've noticed this trend of wait for Epic for features, with the occasional developer going off and doing it themselves (Rama and ioFlow studios, etc.). I think there is enough skill in the community to work on this and have a prototype up and going in a matter of months, once complete it could be submitted as a pull request to Epic or integrated with their current efforts with Geometry 2.0.

                              I know there has been no argument about Unity in this thread, but I have noticed in others, people bring up the fact that Unity has tonnes of features that UE4 does not, this is because the community is actively developing these options (albeit to sell on the marketplace). The same thing does not really occur in this community, its basically submit a feature request and wait for Epic.

                              I understand not everyone has the time to work on such a big project, but that's why I think it would make a good community project, people who want to assist, can assist when they have time. And with the amount of feedback this thread has received, I don't think you will have problems finding help. Even I would be willing to lend a hand, even tho I have absolutely no interest in BSP level design, but I do have a good knowledge of the rendering backend of UE4.

                              Anyways thats just my 2c. Like I said, if someone starts a community project, I am happy to lend some of my time to get it up and running. Hell if there is enough interest in the concept, I'll start the community project.
                              NVIDIA GameWorks merged branch (v4.9.2) (v4.12.5) (v4.13 p2)
                              Feel free to Donate if you wish to support me

                              Comment


                                Wouldn't it be easier to import Quake 1 map and convert Quake brushes into UE4 brushes? (Epic would still have to optimize BSP in general, but it's a way less work than making whole set of BSP tools)

                                Trenchbroom was built by 1 very dedicated guy. It took years to get it where it is now. I doubt Epic has resources to do that (unless they just license the UI / workflow from Trenchbroom author). So maybe better run Trenchbroom / Radiant in parallel with UE4, and simply refresh imported .map inside UE4 to get updates?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X