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

    #31
    Originally posted by Hevedy View Post
    Yes, go and say that in the Unreal Tournament 4 forums where all maps now are under GSC/BSP, and to the mappers(hobbyist & professionals) from Call of Duty, Counter, Valve games and other games.
    And if you haven't used that in your life to create a map why comment about this ?
    Mappers/Modders != Game Devs

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Errvald View Post
      Mappers/Modders != Game Devs
      I think you are being very disrespectful here. You keep on trying to set up strawmen for things like this, or even things like C# support in the engine (asserting that the only reason people want C# is that they find C++ hard). I think it would be better if we stick to the topic at hand, rather than devolving into an inane tangential argument over whether or not "modding" constitutes game development.

      Furthermore, I would say it's hard to disagree with JoeWintergreen's initial point, which is that the geometry editing tools in UE4 are extremely limited. Can we all agree on that at least? As pointed out, the runtime slowness of BSP brushes in UE4 is not at issue here, so long as there is a path to convert to static meshes. Indeed, CSG is only one specific method of geometry editing, and it may be the case that the optimal way forward is something else entirely (especially true if we would like to enable the possibility of in-game geometry editing for endusers).

      Even if you are of the belief that the geometry editing tools are only for greyblocking, honestly at this juncture they are insufficient for even that. People from Epic have even weighed in on the many threads this point has lead to, and they agree with it, they just aren't sure yet what course to take and when they will begin.

      The best thing we can do at this point is offer suggestions. Workflows, use cases, restrictions: all of these can help when planning for future features. In fact, if there are enough of us (at least, enough of us we are programmers), why don't we take it on as a community project?

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Errvald View Post
        Last time I checked none of the major Game Engines had incorporated their own '3ds max' in their editor.

        BSPs are enough for placeholders, I have the feeling you guys are confusing game engines with game mods...
        You should check out the Source Engine 2 new hammer editor - I've been spoil by how awesome it is. I don't think it uses a traditional BSP/CSG anymore? It's a full blown modeler ala Modo. Epic Games should look into doing the same thing for their Geometry 2.0 stuff.

        http://community.thefoundry.co.uk/di...x?f=83&t=91506

        It's a alpha release and still needs more modeling tools for architectural stuff, but the workflow is fast.

        edit: The new source 2 hammer can do everything the old hammer does but more and faster @Joe, great video I'm 100% with you on this issue!
        Last edited by SonKim; 12-28-2014, 07:41 PM.
        TOUR of DUTY

        Comment


          #34
          Errvald:

          "Those are game specific tools."

          If you're going to keep on vomiting out this line you'll need to actually make a case for it at some point. Currently it's a meaningless statement.

          "You've only shown outdated engines"

          If multiple teams and large studios are still shipping successful games on these engines then they are not outdated in any meaningful way, certainly no way that justifies a failure to compete with them.

          "Mod makers aren't game developers." "This whole debate comes from people who are used with MODs and thought making 'real' games would be that easy."

          This is incredibly disrespectful to everyone here and wrong on every conceivable axis.

          Firstly, modding, provided an SDK, literally is non-commercial game development. Counter-Strike is a game. It didn't become a game when Valve bought it. It's the same thing, and the people who make mods are deserving of some respect.

          Secondly, you have no reason to think that anybody on this forum for a commercial game development engine to which we are all licensed is a modder rather than a developer or to make any assumptions about their level of experience. Pretty good odds most people here have shipped games. I'm living off of one of mine. If anything, you call your own knowledge of the subject into question by asserting that it's somehow beyond the capabilities of the team behind Unreal Engine 4 to incorporate basic geometry tools equivalent to those seen in many, many engines since the 90s into their cutting-edge game engine, or that those tools aren't desirable, in the face of developers at least as qualified as yourself who are backing the idea right in front of you.

          Thirdly, I still don't think you know what we're even proposing, because you keep bringing up other, irrelevant proposals that aren't the one being made and dismissing those instead. Are you sure you watched the video?
          Impromptu Games|dev blog|twitter|itch.io store|Patreon
          Impromptu Procedural Ladders|Impromptu Procedural Handrails|Impromptu Procedural Stairs
          |Impromptu Fire Propagation|InFlux Example Game|Impromptu Vector Field Painter

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by JoeWintergreen View Post
            I never do this, but I did a Me Talking Over Video video. This one is about the ways in which Unreal Engine level design has a lot of catching up to do when compared to Quake 1's (in one important respect, anyway) if it's planning on targeting smaller developers more now. More specifically it's about how editing CSG in Unreal (including 4) sucks, and why that is something that should be fixed instead of handwaved away as not being a big deal.



            Otherwise: lovin' the engine, dudes, honestly it's really great don't hate me <3

            To reiterate: I know that the conventional wisdom is "just don't use CSG in Unreal for anything more than whiteboxing, man!" My assertion is that

            -UE4's CSG tools are inadequate even for that

            -that the conventional wisdom only has validity in the first place because support for csg is bad, not because staticmesh-based level design is a superior technique.

            I'm also aware that UE's CSG isn't efficient for performance for a few reasons (last I checked every face was a draw call) but again, I'm sure it's a thing that could be fixed if prioritised.


            Finally someone gets it, basically just thrown in the towel with Unreal Engine today, I'm sick of the complexity of learning Maya, importing something that looks like garbage ( isn't casting shadows properly light bleeds through from outside lol..., don't get me started on uv texturing I would have better luck programming my own NASA space shuttle launch ) all so I can make basic level walls and texture them the correct way.

            And of course some 3d artist already knows how do this, a simple task that takes about 100 steps that involves light maps, shaders, morph toasters etc, Flux Capacitor, etc, it's 'not new user friendly' and it's time consuming beyond stupid.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Soulrolll View Post
              Finally someone gets it, basically just thrown in the towel with Unreal Engine today, I'm sick of the complexity of learning Maya, importing something that looks like garbage ( isn't casting shadows properly light bleeds through from outside lol..., don't get me started on uv texturing I would have better luck programming my own NASA space shuttle launch ) all so I can make basic level walls and texture them the correct way.

              And of course some 3d artist already knows how do this, a simple task that takes about 100 steps that involves light maps, shaders, morph toasters etc, Flux Capacitor, etc, it's 'not new user friendly' and it's time consuming beyond stupid.
              I'm afraid to say, making a game is VERY time consuming. If you are a 3d artist you should know about UV maps, if you don't want to hire one then what do you need UE4 for then?

              Comment


                #37
                I think the OP is looking for something like CRYENGINEs Designer Tool:

                Comment


                  #38
                  Hey guys,

                  Let's try and turn this topic around to it's original purpose of what we would like to see improved with BSP/CSG within the engine. I know this area can be a bit contentious at times, but let's take away the positives and what Epic can consider for Geometry 2.0. While not everyone uses BPS/CSG in the editor, that's not say that they could not use some improvements. Again, this is an area Epic intends to focus some effort on in the future, and having good constructive points, similar to Joe's video, help focus in areas that are most important to the community of developers we have here. The good and the bad feedback is always welcomed.

                  There have been some great ideas thus far and I think Joe put together a very straight forward video to explain his point and what functionality he would like to see added.

                  Let's try and stay on topic with this instead of spiraling into a debate about what makes a game developer a game developer. There are a lot of people in the games industry who got their start with community Mods. I believe there are some here at Epic that came from that background, level designers even. Anyone who wants to take the time to "mod" and put forth effort into any type of game development deserves the respect.

                  Thanks everyone!

                  Tim
                  Tim Hobson | Learning Resources | Epic Games
                  UE4 Documentation

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Wow how nostalgic... legendary QE/GTK Radiant from the old times. I used that editor for good 5 years I think. It was extremely fast to do level designing. That's why I chose QERadiant instead of UnrealED that time. Working with bsp was nightmare for me even though I liked UT better (and Unreal 1 is like a god to me:P). But with the advancement of technology and changing the way we design games, now we use standard 3D packages also used in motion picture industry. That's ok for me 'cos I jumped to post production after working on Quake level editor.

                    BUT... (yeah, a big but)... Sometimes working with BSP brushes is still fast and nice. Or should I say, would have been fast and nice. Though UE4's BSP brush capabilities are great and very useful, they are extremely slow. I think the biggest problem to use BSP in UE4 is the performance issue. One time I was sick of configuring bsp brushes and I converted them to static meshes. Bam. Lightmap went crazy and I had to redesign the whole level from start on Maya.

                    Of course static mesh building is like a standard in nowadays games, still we should have the freedom to make "some" design choices on BSP. For example now I am building a sky level for my flight game. I already designed detailed meshes on Maya. But I would have designed more common buildings which seem like an Egyptian tower or pyramids on BSP and in engine. I don't know the rest of you but although I did work as a mattepainter, I'm not a texture artist and I'm in very deep trouble about UV's. So I have a couple suggestions:

                    For better static mesh integration:
                    - UE4 can automatically create better UVs for models. Currently there are lots of issues about this.

                    For BSP:
                    - Manipulating the vertexes, adding subtracting etc. are cool. I think BSP is great but it kills the performance. If their performance issue is solved, then making simple geometry would be faster on Unreal and we wouldn't have to design&implement&UV everything, everything! on Maya.

                    See here, there are some very crude buildings in my level. Everything is static mesh here but giant arches and that tower-like buildings would have been easily bsp geometry if the BSP wasn't a performance issue for me. And also it would have been granted me nearly a week and I'd be further on my schedule. Alas, not.

                    Edit*: By the way the first video by JoeWintergreen is superb. Hammer seems like even better than Quake Editor. It would be extremely fast and awesome if Geometry 2.0 will be fast and smooth like that.

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	bubub.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	84.0 KB
ID:	1064641
                    Last edited by Wanderer_eternal; 12-29-2014, 10:35 AM.
                    voidrunnerthegame.com

                    facebook.com/voidrunnergame

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Tim Hobson View Post
                      Hey guys,

                      Let's try and turn this topic around to it's original purpose of what we would like to see improved with BSP/CSG within the engine. I know this area can be a bit contentious at times, but let's take away the positives and what Epic can consider for Geometry 2.0. While not everyone uses BPS/CSG in the editor, that's not say that they could not use some improvements. Again, this is an area Epic intends to focus some effort on in the future, and having good constructive points, similar to Joe's video, help focus in areas that are most important to the community of developers we have here. The good and the bad feedback is always welcomed.

                      There have been some great ideas thus far and I think Joe put together a very straight forward video to explain his point and what functionality he would like to see added.

                      Let's try and stay on topic with this instead of spiraling into a debate about what makes a game developer a game developer. There are a lot of people in the games industry who got their start with community Mods. I believe there are some here at Epic that came from that background, level designers even. Anyone who wants to take the time to "mod" and put forth effort into any type of game development deserves the respect.

                      Thanks everyone!

                      Tim

                      Hi Tim,

                      While I go agree with Joe on everything mention in the video. I wonder if it would be possible to have both improve BSP/CSG modeling tool and static modeling toolset(ala Source Engine 2 hammer) under the same roof(Geometry Editor 2.0) - this way we get the best of both worlds! I can see many advantages to use BSP like quicking blocking out the walls of a building and then doing booleans to create the window opening, then converting that to a static mesh this is where I start adding further details. Geometry Editor 2.0 should be extensible so people can write their own modeling tool(with Source code access of course).

                      Those documentation about new Hammer is a little dry but they should give you guys an idea about the basic modeling workflow, UI:

                      https://developer.valvesoftware.com/...s/Level_Design

                      The best way to experience it is to download Dota 2(free) + install the Dota 2 workshop tools and take it for a run. They really set the bar high for "level editing" toolset.

                      To put things into perspective, you can create your entire level with advance modeling tools in the new Hammer editor(everything you see here is modeled in Hammer):

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	Town2.jpg
Views:	3
Size:	710.1 KB
ID:	1064669

                      The new Hammer has some down side, its done away with the old brush workflow demo in Joe's video. I think if Epic does it they should improve the brush workflow and add static modeling ala Source 2 hammer. It support ngons,quads,triangles like a true 3d modeling app.
                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by SonKim; 12-30-2014, 01:01 AM.
                      TOUR of DUTY

                      Comment


                        #42
                        Originally posted by SonKim View Post
                        Hi Tim,

                        While I go agree with Joe on everything mention in the video. I wonder if it would be possible to have both improve BSP/CSG modeling tool and static modeling toolset(ala Source Engine 2 hammer) under the same roof(Geometry Editor 2.0) - this way we get the best of both worlds! I can see many advantages to use BSP like quicking blocking out the walls of a building and then doing booleans to create the window opening, then converting that to a static mesh this is where I start adding further details. Geometry Editor 2.0 should be extensible so people can write their own modeling tool(with Source code access of course).

                        Those documentation about new Hammer is a little dry but they should give you guys an idea about the basic modeling workflow, UI:

                        https://developer.valvesoftware.com/...s/Level_Design

                        The best way to experience it is to download Dota 2(free) + install the Dota 2 workshop tools and take it for a run. They really set the bar high for "level editing" toolset.

                        To put things into perspective, you can create your entire level with advance modeling tools in the new Hammer editor(everything you see here is modeled in Hammer):

                        [ATTACH=CONFIG]21129[/ATTACH]

                        The new Hammer has some down side, its done away with the old brush workflow demo in Joe's video. I think if Epic does it they should improve the brush workflow and add static modeling ala Source 2 hammer. It support ngons,quads,triangles like a true 3d modeling app.
                        3ds max, Maya etc do way better job, why re-invent the wheel (and not a better one).

                        Comment


                          #43
                          Originally posted by JoeWintergreen View Post
                          Wow, that's really cool. I oughta check out Source 2.
                          Definitely try it, let me know what you think about it!



                          Originally posted by Errvald View Post
                          3ds max, Maya etc do way better job, why re-invent the wheel (and not a better one).


                          I can't speak about Maya/3DS max in terms of level creation, since I'm not will verse in either but it's not good to make generalized statements like that. I'm a Modo user with 4 years of freelancing experience, it's a great general purpose DCC app but for me it's slower for level design compare the Source Engine 2 Hammer editor(which is like Modo-lite but geared toward level design,with aspect of Maya). Bottomline is, Geometry Editor 2.0 is going to happen(it's on the to-do list), so you might want to add something more constructive to the conversation instead of shooting down the idea of an integrated modeling experience....?

                          I'd love to do some GUI mock-up of Geometry Editor 2.0 but I think that require programming with Slate!?
                          TOUR of DUTY

                          Comment


                            #44
                            Originally posted by SonKim
                            I can't speak about Maya/3DS max in terms of level creation, since I'm not will verse in either but it's not good to make generalized statements like that. I'm a Modo user, it's a great general purpose DCC app but for me it's slower for level design compare the Source Engine 2 Hammer editor(which is like Modo-lite but geared toward level design,with aspect of Maya). Bottomline is, Geometry Editor 2.0 is going to happen(it's on the to-do list), so you might want to add something more constructive to the conversation instead of shooting down the idea of an integrated modeling experience....?

                            I'd love to do some GUI mock-up of Geometry Editor 2.0 but I think that require programming with Slate!?
                            Actually, considering GE 2.0 is inevitable, maybe some threads like "Geometry Editor 2.0 Suggestions" would be useful?
                            For example, video provided by JoeWintergreen is a nice example of good feedback. GUI mockups, suggestions and experience from using other editors and UE4 BSP in one place could be very useful when Epic start to work on GE2.0
                            SuperGrid: Marketplace Page | Feedback Thread | Demo | Website
                            Level design and prototyping for newbies

                            Comment


                              #45
                              Originally posted by SonKim View Post
                              Hi Tim,

                              While I go agree with Joe on everything mention in the video. I wonder if it would be possible to have both improve BSP/CSG modeling tool and static modeling toolset(ala Source Engine 2 hammer) under the same roof(Geometry Editor 2.0) - this way we get the best of both worlds! I can see many advantages to use BSP like quicking blocking out the walls of a building and then doing booleans to create the window opening, then converting that to a static mesh this is where I start adding further details. Geometry Editor 2.0 should be extensible so people can write their own modeling tool(with Source code access of course).

                              Those documentation about new Hammer is a little dry but they should give you guys an idea about the basic modeling workflow, UI:

                              https://developer.valvesoftware.com/...s/Level_Design

                              The best way to experience it is to download Dota 2(free) + install the Dota 2 workshop tools and take it for a run. They really set the bar high for "level editing" toolset.

                              To put things into perspective, you can create your entire level with advance modeling tools in the new Hammer editor(everything you see here is modeled in Hammer):

                              [ATTACH=CONFIG]21129[/ATTACH]

                              The new Hammer has some down side, its done away with the old brush workflow demo in Joe's video. I think if Epic does it they should improve the brush workflow and add static modeling ala Source 2 hammer. It support ngons,quads,triangles like a true 3d modeling app.
                              Wow, lighting and occlusion are super crystal clean which is impossible with UE.
                              https://canerozdemirportfolio.wordpress.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X