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

    Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
    I understand what people want,
    It is pretty clear you do NOT. Why do you continue to rudely battle this? As a moderator you should just step out (and quite frankly if I were Epic you would no longer be a moderator do to insults and attitude).
    Acclivity Game Studios. Making a BP FPS, Tutorial Series on Blog : On Unreal Wiki : Twitch

    Comment


      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. For example: every COD ever made (including fan fav COD4), every Quake game, every Doom game, every Half-Life game (including 3 yukyuk - but, seriously, Source 2 uses it), Portal 1 and 2, L4D1+2, TF2. Essentially every game somehow related to the idTech tree. I know not everyone in the world likes all these games but it is undeniable that many of them have had an enormous impact on the industry, developers, even the world!

      Arguing against supporting tools that use this technology is quite silly.

      Comment


        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.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Cube2222 View Post
          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 this feature, and UE4 doesn't and that in their engine that feature 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.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Cube2222 View Post
            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 this 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.

            Comment


              Hey everyone,

              It's really awesome 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 everyone that they should keep the conversation professional and not dismiss people's requests. Epic is reading the feedback on this thread, we really do want to hear it and appreciate you taking the time to write it.
              Twitch /unrealalexander| Twitter @UnrealAlexander
              How to report a bug? | Installation & Setup issues?
              Call me to a thread by posting this: [MENTION]Alexander Paschall[/MENTION]

              Comment


                Originally posted by NegInfinity View Post
                It is not "design methodology and optimization" of the engine. It means that THEY have this feature, and UE4 doesn't and that in their engine that feature 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 this 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.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Cube2222 View Post
                  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.
                  This was kind of my point before though, source engine games are just plain dated, largely because of this 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.

                  Comment


                    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: http://kristianduske.com/trenchbroom/

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Cube2222 View Post
                      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 this 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 this kind of flickering issue.

                      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.

                      Originally posted by Cube2222 View Post
                      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 this direction is a dead end. Most of the 3d software is not geared towards level design.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by ambershee View Post
                        This was kind of my point before though, source engine games are just plain dated, largely because of this 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.
                        Last edited by arbopa; 12-23-2015, 04:43 PM.
                        Acclivity Game Studios. Making a BP FPS, Tutorial Series on Blog : On Unreal Wiki : Twitch

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by ambershee View Post
                          This was kind of my point before though, source engine games are just plain dated, largely because of this 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" this days, akin to Trespasser game from 1998.
                          Last edited by NegInfinity; 12-23-2015, 04:40 PM.

                          Comment


                            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

                            Originally posted by NegInfinity View Post
                            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" this 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?

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by darthviper107 View Post
                              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?[/QUOTE]
                              Acclivity Game Studios. Making a BP FPS, Tutorial Series on Blog : On Unreal Wiki : Twitch

                              Comment


                                Again, not every UE4 user is a part of AAA studio. 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 squad of AAA artists. Neither is feasible to obtain.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X