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

    #61
    I tried UE4 a while back and the lack of this was the reason I didnt bother to play around with it for long, designing a simple level turned out to be way more complicated than I expected.

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by kurylo3d View Post
      This may sound like a dumb question, but why would u even WANT to use bsp rather then a 3d package. Manipulating polygons with full control is way easier.. Build your entire level inside your 3d package if need be.. or box out your bsp portion there... it has all the snapping to grid... and u have no rules to follow . Polygons can be slided up and extruded anyway u want.
      This is all in the video. And this followup 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


        #63
        Originally posted by kurylo3d View Post
        This may sound like a dumb question, but why would u even WANT to use bsp rather then a 3d package. Manipulating polygons with full control is way easier.. Build your entire level inside your 3d package if need be.. or box out your bsp portion there... it has all the snapping to grid... and u have no rules to follow . Polygons can be slided up and extruded anyway u want.
        Personally because having spent a lot of time in radiant editor, it is easier and faster to work with than putting out $$$$ for a 3d package and spending all the time needed to learn those packages.
        Acclivity Game Studios. Making a BP FPS, Tutorial Series on Blog : On Unreal Wiki : Twitch

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by arbopa View Post
          Personally because having spent a lot of time in radiant editor, it is easier and faster to work with than putting out $$$$ for a 3d package and spending all the time needed to learn those packages.
          Blender is free, and whatever 3D modeling tool you use you would still have to learn how to use them. Why waste time developing modeling tools when there's 3D software out there that will do things way better?

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
            Blender is free, and whatever 3D modeling tool you use you would still have to learn how to use them. Why waste time developing modeling tools when there's 3D software out there that will do things way better?
            Thanks for not listening, at all.
            Acclivity Game Studios. Making a BP FPS, Tutorial Series on Blog : On Unreal Wiki : Twitch

            Comment


              #66
              Seriously.
              Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
              Blender is free, and whatever 3D modeling tool you use you would still have to learn how to use them. Why waste time developing modeling tools when there's 3D software out there that will do things way better?
              There isn't.

              Unless you're counting, like, Hammer or Trenchbroom.

              A level design tool and a 3D art tool are not the same thing
              and do not serve the same need
              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


                #67
                Which means you don't need the level of control that 3D programs offer. While the tools in UE4 can be improved a bit, they don't need to be at the level where you could do an entire level without using static meshes, since that would be a waste. Most of the people that want more modeling tools are lazy and simply don't want to use a separate 3D program to make their meshes. It would be nice, but a 3D artist can use their 3D software to create content for anything that uses 3D, rather than the one game engine.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
                  since that would be a waste. Most of the people that want more modeling tools are lazy and simply don't want to use a separate 3D program to make their meshes.
                  1) in your opinion.
                  2) great, now you insult others, how civil.

                  One should not need to be an 'artist' to create a good looking and playable level, PERIOD. No need to be a snob about it and dismiss or belittle others.
                  Acclivity Game Studios. Making a BP FPS, Tutorial Series on Blog : On Unreal Wiki : Twitch

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
                    Why waste time developing modeling tools when there's 3D software out there that will do things way better?
                    As an Indie, my wish list for level design is to have an infinite supply of modular assets, that way the need for either BSP or 3D app is minimized... So I'm no fan of BSP/CSG. It was fastidioso to-work-with in UDK, how were you supposed to simultaneously move and scale BSP with meshes etc???... Plus there were subtle lighting differences between BSP + SM's iirc. However pipeline-wise, I can think of many reasons to keep level design solely within the game engine :

                    1. You want dynamic lighting and core UE4 materials available to you while you iterate...
                    2. You need to construct a supporting piece to complete a structure, but you don't own 3D source files to the other assets (to use as a reference)...
                    3. Your chief modeler is away and you need to make changes to a level urgently...
                    Last edited by UnrealEnterprise; 12-22-2015, 03:27 AM.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by kurylo3d View Post
                      This may sound like a dumb question, but why would u even WANT to use bsp rather then a 3d package. Manipulating polygons with full control is way easier.. Build your entire level inside your 3d package if need be.. or box out your bsp portion there... it has all the snapping to grid... and u have no rules to follow . Polygons can be slided up and extruded anyway u want.
                      Because BSPs approach is significantly faster than traditional modeling tools when it comes to modeling of certain kinds of architecture.
                      BSP building handles automatically texture unwrappings, snapping and takes care of many other things, which you'll be doing by hand with traditional modeling tools.

                      Try quickly modeling a city block with interiors, you'll quickly run into issues with "polygonal" approach.

                      Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
                      Which means you don't need the level of control that 3D programs offer. While the tools in UE4 can be improved a bit, they don't need to be at the level where you could do an entire level without using static meshes, since that would be a waste. Most of the people that want more modeling tools are lazy and simply don't want to use a separate 3D program to make their meshes. It would be nice, but a 3D artist can use their 3D software to create content for anything that uses 3D, rather than the one game engine.
                      Please don't turn this into another "I oppose all kinds of BSP" thread. You're moderator, after all.

                      The tools need to be at level where level can be done without 3d package.

                      People are not lazy.

                      3D package is a suboptimal solution for situatiosn where you need to quickly make a lot of structures. Blender is actually not a very good tool for architectural modeling, because you can't quickly put blocks, resize them, snap to each other in such way that would automaticlaly assign proper 3d coordinates in such way that material would tile. You'll be working at quarter of speed compared to editors like hammer. Just try it yourself, really. Free up half of a hour and try to model a city block. Assembling that from meshes will be major pain in the ***, you really want blocks and CSG for this kind of things.

                      Those tools are badly needed in the engine. And the guy who promised to port over ProBuilder to unreal is currently silent.

                      The point is, if YOU specifically don't need those tools, then the best idea would be to walk away instead of arguing to death with people who need them.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally posted by arbopa View Post
                        1) in your opinion.
                        2) great, now you insult others, how civil.

                        One should not need to be an 'artist' to create a good looking and playable level, PERIOD. No need to be a snob about it and dismiss or belittle others.
                        People who haven't made games before download the editor and expect to be able to make complete levels with it, and then they complain about the tools which aren't meant to be used for that purpose. Also, no you have to have artistic skill to make a good looking level, it's absurd to think otherwise.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Sounds to me more like a problem with your respective workflow than a problem with the tools. Unreal's editor can definitely do with better geometry tools, but it doesn't need to replace 3d editors, that's just reinventing the wheel. Blender might not be a good tool for architecture (I wouldn't know, I don't use it), but there are plenty of other 3d packages out there from the top end Max/Maya, to procedurally orientated Houdini, to cheaper packages like Modo, all of which I know have their uses in architectural fields.

                          If you want to quickly build city blocks, you probably want to build some modular assets in your 3d package, bring them into UE4, then assemble them (blueprints like these can help a lot in that regard: https://www.unrealengine.com/marketp...ral-apartments). You don't want to model the entire thing in your 3d package as that's a waste of time and will perform suboptimally compared to a modular approach. You don't want to build the assets in UE4 because that's the domain of 3d modelling packages and that's what they do best.

                          Hammer's geometry tools may be better than UE4's but they certainly do not compete with 3d packages and I wouldn't want to try and build a complex scene with them - as an example CounterStrike GO is the most recent Source engine game that I can think of that uses urban environments, and it looks dated. You can put it side-by-side with Call of Duty 4 from 2007 and they're clearly on a technical parity.

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Originally posted by NegInfinity View Post
                            Because BSPs approach is significantly faster than traditional modeling tools when it comes to modeling of certain kinds of architecture.
                            BSP building handles automatically texture unwrappings, snapping and takes care of many other things, which you'll be doing by hand with traditional modeling tools.

                            Try quickly modeling a city block with interiors, you'll quickly run into issues with "polygonal" approach.


                            Please don't turn this into another "I oppose all kinds of BSP" thread. You're moderator, after all.

                            The tools need to be at level where level can be done without 3d package.

                            People are not lazy.

                            3D package is a suboptimal solution for situatiosn where you need to quickly make a lot of structures. Blender is actually not a very good tool for architectural modeling, because you can't quickly put blocks, resize them, snap to each other in such way that would automaticlaly assign proper 3d coordinates in such way that material would tile. You'll be working at quarter of speed compared to editors like hammer. Just try it yourself, really. Free up half of a hour and try to model a city block. Assembling that from meshes will be major pain in the ***, you really want blocks and CSG for this kind of things.

                            Those tools are badly needed in the engine. And the guy who promised to port over ProBuilder to unreal is currently silent.

                            The point is, if YOU specifically don't need those tools, then the best idea would be to walk away instead of arguing to death with people who need them.
                            If you want games to look good, then bsp is not an option. Many props require high res mesh to low res mesh baking for textures. You get into an area where the tools of a full 3d modeling package are needed, and to build that into the engine just for convenience is a huge waste of development resources. What would be the best option is a tool where you could link your 3d program with UE4 and be able to update the level instantly with changes. That's much more doable and useful to everyone

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by ambershee View Post
                              Sounds to me more like a problem with your respective workflow than a problem with the tools. Unreal's editor can definitely do with better geometry tools, but it doesn't need to replace 3d editors, that's just reinventing the wheel. Blender might not be a good tool for architecture (I wouldn't know, I don't use it), but there are plenty of other 3d packages out there from the top end Max/Maya, to procedurally orientated Houdini, to cheaper packages like Modo, all of which I know have their uses in architectural fields.

                              If you want to quickly build city blocks, you probably want to build some modular assets in your 3d package, bring them into UE4, then assemble them (blueprints like these can help a lot in that regard: https://www.unrealengine.com/marketp...ral-apartments). You don't want to model the entire thing in your 3d package as that's a waste of time and will perform suboptimally compared to a modular approach. You don't want to build the assets in UE4 because that's the domain of 3d modelling packages and that's what they do best.

                              Hammer's geometry tools may be better than UE4's but they certainly do not compete with 3d packages and I wouldn't want to try and build a complex scene with them - as an example CounterStrike GO is the most recent Source engine game that I can think of that uses urban environments, and it looks dated. You can put it side-by-side with Call of Duty 4 from 2007 and they're clearly on a technical parity.
                              That really doesn't work. And no, it is not a wrong workflow, it is weak point in the unreal editor.

                              Modular approach leads to seams on lightmass and most lighting solutions. Seriously, have you tried to assemble large building from prefabs? It is major pain in the ***, and it is defeintely not the way it should be done.

                              The point of BSP is not to compete with modeling packages. Their point is to be used for one edge case scenario, namely level modeling, building modeling and that includes ONLY basic building skeleton. Modeling packages will be used for everything else, including level details and furnishings.

                              Those tools are NEEDED.

                              There's no point in bringing up high-budget AAA titles, because most indies will not have budget of call of duty.

                              ----

                              Honestly, I have no idea why wanting bsp triggers violent opposition on those forums.

                              Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
                              If you want games to look good, then
                              Then you're gonna need to throw a lot of money at the problem. UE4 is marketed for everybody, and ye average indie studio will not have budget of fallout 4, call of duty, etc. There's more than one type of game (3rd person, rts, etc), there's more than one type of visuals, so while BSP might not look that great under the microscope, they're still going to be very useful in large slew of game genres.

                              It is not a waste of development resources, because it will be one more feature to draw people in and use the engine. All for the glory of Epic Games.

                              Average indie dev won't have access to secret aaa technique called "throw money at the problem and hire more monkeys to zerg rush the project". So there's no real reason to make them muck around in the editor placing one mesh at the time.
                              Last edited by NegInfinity; 12-22-2015, 03:48 AM.

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Indies are fully capable of downloading Blender for free and using that which isn't that different from what AAA developers do. Why settle for making things difficult by trying to do things in the editor when there are cheap/free options that allow you to have the quality you want?

                                Level designers could use a few improvements to make blocking out a level easier, but it certainly shouldn't go as far as trying to do the work of a 3D modeling app.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X