Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So Epic....Lets talk about BSP

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

  • #16
    It's hard to imagine someone being against better BSP tools... That being said, this is more an engine-level issue. The UT team has what 4-5 programmers working on it? There's enough for the UT team to do to develop the game. This thread should be moved to the general Unreal Engine forum area.
    Find My: Twitter | YouTube | Downloads | Podcast
    Unreal Prime Weapons: Impact Hammer | Enforcer | BioRifle | Shock Rifle | Link Gun | Ripper | Minigun | Flak Cannon | Rocket Launcher | Sniper Rifle | Grenade Launcher | Dispersion Pistol
    Other: Lore | Invasion | Pickups & Powerups | Achievement Ideas

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Wail View Post
      It's hard to imagine someone being against better BSP tools... That being said, this is more an engine-level issue. The UT team has what 4-5 programmers working on it? There's enough for the UT team to do to develop the game. This thread should be moved to the general Unreal Engine forum area.

      Indeed, this is true. And i deliberated on where to post. I settled on posting within the UT forum because the entire community is well acquainted with the woes of BSP, proactively interested in improving, and has a focused team of EPIC developers struggling with the exact same issues we're having. Who at EPIC uses BSP the most in active development? My money is on the UT dev team. Plus the UT forum is a bit more....focused I guess is the right word. From the responses I've gotten so far, the quality of discussion and engagement is much higher than similar attempts ive seen in the UE4 forums.

      I feel that if we want to affect change to the current BSP system, generating some internal discussion and momentum with a focused group of developers may be more productive then starting this topic in the UE4 forums. Ive found similar threads started in the UE4 forums, and they just seem to die and get buried. The UE4 forums can be a bit of a zoo - while in the UT forums, people like Jim Brown seem to engage and read these sections quite regularly - the UT team may be small but they've got some legendary Unreal developers within that small team. If the community can help generate advocacy for better bsp tools among the UT developers - and output some fruitful discussion and insight, everyone wins. I dont have the expectation that this thread will result in immediate and direct action, but I do hope to get the UT devs to discuss the topic a bit more actively (and perhaps slowly poison the minds of their fellow EPIC developers with similar thoughts).

      Im glad to migrate this discussion when it's gained some traction. But for now, I think requesting the UT developers to share their thoughts isnt unfair - its not like im asking them (you? cant quite tell if you're a dev.) to tackle and solve geometry 2.0. its been on the backlog since january for a reason.

      Plus i suspect that iterating on UT has a tangible influence on UE4 at large, and vice versa.

      Also, I have no doubt that clever programmers peruse this section of the forums as much as they do their own sections.
      Last edited by Boogerbreath; 07-03-2015, 06:16 PM.

      BOOGERBREATH
      UT Modder, Gears Modder
      Folio: http://designabacination.prosite.com/

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Wail View Post
        This thread should be moved to the general Unreal Engine forum area.
        Not possible. Ever since the split, these are separate forums, at least in terms of content. OP will have to recreate the thread there.
        "Yeah. _Lynx can fire the lightning gun, have the lightning bolt turn a 90 degree corner, stop and ask the closest teammate for directions, confuse the directions and get lost, realize it went the wrong way, make a U-Turn, and get a headshot on the intended target."
        - RenegadeRetard

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by _Lynx View Post
          Not possible. Ever since the split, these are separate forums, at least in terms of content. OP will have to recreate the thread there.
          O rly? Oh well, Id probably write up a new post anyways with the ideas and insights gleaned from this thread. Besides, getting the UT devs to discuss the subject is basically directly interacting with Epic IMO. Im not looking for someone to charge off and solve Geo 2.0 right this second, just wanna discuss and speculate on whats possible. Maybe get some insight on why BSP doesnt have much priority in terms of tool improvements for the engine.

          BOOGERBREATH
          UT Modder, Gears Modder
          Folio: http://designabacination.prosite.com/

          Comment


          • #20
            Nice video, well prepared with good presentation.

            my points summarized:
            • Great speech
            • Fully support a crusade for improved BSP
            • Possibly better to post this in UE4 forums, not UT, not sure if Epic UT staff even work on the core BSP functionality
            • UE4 (with a few current exceptions) is the easiest BSP tool i have used (out of the Unreal engines 15+ of them)
            • From a business point of view, neglecting BSP is a bad idea
            • high expectations for the community to spend time creating asset libraries for there environments is a bad idea; it produces inconsistent themes and levels within UT and will only end in poor performance and really huge file sizes.



            1. I am a big supporter of BSP, i strongly feel a movement away from BSP is a bad idea;
            It won't be long before custom maps are literally filled with huge file sizes from custom mesh work that people say they want, but will inevitably complain when people are not producing "amazing high detail, perfectly topologised and mapped mesh" and that's a huge learning curve compare to playing with BSP. Especially since noone is sharing assets or Tutorials (myself and tidal blast excluded)

            - its unrealistic to expect people to easily get into the engine if BSP is neglected, its a core feature, if it doesn't work, people will not use the engine


            2.
            For me UE4 (BSP bugs and issues aside) has been the easiest and fastest BSP solution i have ever used, but i do feel that it should not be in such a bad state after over 2 years of development and more than 20 years of BSP and CSG experience.

            3. UT team is not the UE4 team. If users are interested in where Epic's priorities are at the moment, you may be interested to search for stuff like this:


            ... You can see how big "Epic's UT Team" achievements have been considering they are so damn small, but they are currently focussed on video stuff in gaming.

            And that's why this thread may be better in the Unreal engine forum. The core engine needs to have great BSP functionality for the UT Team to be able to give us a UT version that works, but the UT team have specific prioritize that they usually announce after they have started them, none of which are focussed on fixing BSP issues afaik.

            4. Being able to create a complex BSP shape using a network of additive and subtractive CSG is the fundamentals to learning 3D modelling, it should 100% be supported as a spring board and entry to both the Unreal Engine and 3D modelling in general.
            I would never be able to use Mudbox for high poly modelling and texture baking if it wasn't for first starting in the unreal engine with BSP

            * Exporting the aforementioned network of BSP from UE4, into 3DSMax and going from there can be a very smooth ride in ue4 compared to UE3 and UE3.5/ UDK. Best its even been (current ridiculous issues aside)

            5. Awesome speech

            6. Unrealistic expectations are set from people saying that BSP is needs to be forgotten about and people should just use a 3D program instead.As you state in your video, "this is not the solution" and i totally agree.

            People who think everyone can learn 3d modelling and the correct procedures just to block out a map, or even to produce content for an entire map are clearly messed up in there way of thinking. Time will show these people maps filled with poor UV's, weird textures, bad optimisations and LOD's.
            - I know i said the UT Team is small, but damn, 10 people working on 1 map all of whom have Uber industry experience and a network of friendly and helpful people surrounding them, + all the community feedback they could hope for, compared to 1 person making a map with little to no correct resources.
            - yeh that'll work! (sarcasm)

            7. Epic obviously want to have good BSP, because alot of changes have been made since UDK, they just don't work lol

            p.s.
            - i can 3d model, high and low poly, bake textures, but i don't want my UT to require a 4tb hardrive to store 1 game and a few community maps filled with mediocre content (i make enough of that already LOL)
            - i wouldn't have learnt all that without Unreal and the speed of BSP tools in UE, im sure alot of people are the same. Those people who scream for mesh probably learnt with BSP at first lol.#

            All maps every UT game ever use BSP. I make the first 100% custom BSP map for UE4 and people whine like little kids because they don't understand the dev process despite Epic giving over a years worth of inside info, that didn't encourage me to make a mesh version and spend 10 x the amount of time of the map which is exactly what mesh making does. Now ironically everyone is complaining about BSP tools lol and i have moved onto 100% mesh for said map

            However i would happily make BSP version of my 50+ maps from all the Unreal games and then use that as the basis to create shared modular mesh for all maps, so i don't need to create new mesh for every map, if the damn BSP worked.. But i can't do that efficiently without Good BSP!! and it's difficult to compete with the standard and team Epic have

            All aimed for OP: Noone else. sorry in advance if people start ranting offtopic from my post especially moxnix (who will inevitably troll me)
            Last edited by TKBS; 07-04-2015, 10:45 AM.
            Internet BlackOut in <2 weeks,last chance to request 4 years of Unreal Development(something from every Unreal Engine 50+ maps, chars, weapons, mods, mutators and more).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Tidal Blast
              I hope that you guys also realize that when we encourage mappers to use BPS instead of a proper 3D application to build levels, we also end up with over 500 map layouts and 2 maps finished with environment art. We have a generation of level designers right now who can barely model anything in the industry and it's honestly kind of lame, because that limits the quality of their layouts.
              Tidal Blast, you are slightly missing the point while messing thigs up. It is clear from the posts. No one's encouraging "mappers to use BPS instead of a proper 3D application to build levels". No one. BSP is not meant to build levels nowadays, it is meant to prototype them. And prototyping needs efficient in-engine geometry editing. That's all. You can't do valid and efficient prototyping with a 3D package. No one's underestimating the need of using a proper 3D package later on. These are two separate phases of the process, and also two distinct fields of level creation.
              Last edited by insomnaut; 07-03-2015, 08:46 PM.
              @insomnaut aka charon / DM-Coma / ArmorWare

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tidal Blast
                No, I was talking strictly about prototyping. That said, here is a quote from Hourences that he made last year on the UE4 forums about BSP vs Static Meshes. Note that Hourences is both a level designer & environment artist and on top of that his priority is to build game levels pretty fast.

                Still think you're missing the point. In my first post i specifically identify this kind of shrugging "deal with it" attitude. Accepting and assuming that a tool is, and will always be, broken/inefficient isn't an acceptable answer - especially when that tools explicit purpose is to facilitate rapid iteration. Like, what if Epic was like "oh well, our landscape system has some serious issues, but we'll just leave it because its better to make those landscapes in a 3d editor anyways." We'd have a crappy landscape system instead of the robust, constantly improving toolset that we have now. Hourences has accepted that BSP is inefficient, and embraced alternative prototyping methods because theres nothing he can do about it. The point of this thread is to discuss how our BSP toolset can evolve. If you believe theres no feasible solution to better support in-editor geometry tools, then this topic is irrelevant to you. Whether improvements are made or not - it will never impact your workflow. Im not denying that you can efficiently block out with a modular mesh kit - I do feel however that this approach is more often the result of giving up on our current BSP toolset rather than actual personal preference.

                An artist breaking down and meshing a level shell, while solving the modular riddles that they encounter doing so is not "wasting their time" - thats their job. Its why environment artists are wonderful and valuable. A sloppy bsp blockout will give an artist just as hard a time as a sloppy mesh blockout.

                Also Hourences has some great advice and insight. However, assuming his opinion is unilateral dogma and gospel is a bit myopic. I dont think the UT team prototypes with BSP shells because they are incompetent or misinformed on what makes for an efficient level design workflow in UE4. If the BSP or in-editor geometry workflow was better - Hourences would use it. The fact that the UT team uses BSP shells is evidence that they see value using it in their pipeline.

                The point of BSP is that it allows you to build and quickly test your geometry, while maintaining a flexible and easily modifiable level shell to guide your artists. If meshing a bsp shell is a nightmare - its likely from sloppy BSP brushwork. As long as i respect the grid, keep my brushes simple, and know/apply dimensions that are friendly with modular meshes (its not very hard with a base 10 unit system), I have no difficulty with my modular meshing passes. The stipulation that you must perfectly anticipate your geometric needs and make your modular set BEFORE you block out your level is just not acceptable in my eyes - and it just compounds the art bottleneck even further.

                .
                Last edited by Boogerbreath; 07-04-2015, 02:44 AM.

                BOOGERBREATH
                UT Modder, Gears Modder
                Folio: http://designabacination.prosite.com/

                Comment


                • #23
                  I think people are somewhat off when they're focusing on "BSP." Seriously, screw BSP. What ued needs is simply just the basic polygonal modeling tools from any major 3d package right there in the editor. That's basically what Probuilder for Unity seems to be. If they could somehow licence lightwave/modo's modeling tools, I'd be in level design heaven, but I'd settle for Maya/Max's tools too.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Quotidian View Post
                    I think people are somewhat off when they're focusing on "BSP." Seriously, screw BSP. What ued needs is simply just the basic polygonal modeling tools from any major 3d package right there in the editor. That's basically what Probuilder for Unity seems to be. If they could somehow licence lightwave/modo's modeling tools, I'd be in level design heaven, but I'd settle for Maya/Max's tools too.
                    Yeah I think that sort of thinking is the way of the future. I just want a solution that keeps me in the editor window without having to go back and forth.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Cafe sorry i mean (Quotidian) do not underestimate what it takes to make stuff for the Engine. A new Polygonal Modelling tool or even quad tool would directly compete with other companies (i am guessing a bit, maybe staff can confirm)

                      ie,. autodesk: I find it unlikely that Epic can implement such a thing without having a patent for it!!!

                      Patent application title: TECHNIQUE FOR MAPPING A TEXTURE ONTO A THREE-DIMENSIONAL MODEL


                      Read more:
                      http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20140253547
                      http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/2014...#ixzz3evnqi1k1

                      ^^ i posted this stuff to make users aware of how much procedural and legal mumbo-jumbo Epic probably have to go through to achieve what us common users want but are not even aware of.

                      p.s. i am not fully clued up on this stuff and i hope it's not going off on a tangent, but i guess BSP solutions would be easier

                      Tidal Blast has also illustrated the difficulties that may be encountered in this area, but then ironically proposes using 3D modelling tools
                      - Evidence suggests a BSP map made by an experience BSP LD will be better received than a novice 3D modeller trying to make an entire environment. It is not about competing, it is about provide a robust alternative toolset

                      Quotidian:
                      Q. great you can 3D model
                      (we know its a great thing, i enjoy it also, im not being sarcastic), but you truly believe for a new user that not improving BSP tools is a good idea?
                      - You must put aside your bias from having the ability to 3D model, just because you think it's easy doesn't make it right for everyone

                      Let's Fix BSP and the mountain of issues left over from UDK The question is How? is it out of community control?

                      Last edited by TKBS; 07-04-2015, 10:53 AM.
                      Internet BlackOut in <2 weeks,last chance to request 4 years of Unreal Development(something from every Unreal Engine 50+ maps, chars, weapons, mods, mutators and more).

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TKBS View Post
                        Cafe sorry i mean (Quotidian) do not underestimate what it takes to make stuff for the Engine. A new Polygonal Modelling tool or even quad tool would directly compete with other companies (i am guessing a bit, maybe staff can confirm)
                        There are tons of modeling suites in competition with each other, pretty much all of them have the same basic tools for polygonal modeling and texturing. And if a company like Autodesk had that much control on the 3d modeling market, anti monopoly laws would be put into effect.

                        ie,. autodesk: I find it unlikely that Epic can implement such a thing without having a patent for it!!!
                        I'm pretty sure simple polygonal editing tools like object/face/edge/vert select/move/scale, extrude, bevel, lathe, weld verts, etc - even boolean operations - are not under a patent that would hinder Epic in using these kinds of tools in their editor. Even more advanced polygonal editing tools are unlikely to be restrictively patented, because so many different modeling packages share the exact same tool. And in the future when engines are good enough to handle subdivisions, there's Pixar OpenSubdiv. And even if they are patented, ued is already stepping on these patents in one way or another with its very primitive bsp editing tools.


                        Read more:
                        [/COLOR]http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20140253547
                        http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/2014...#ixzz3evnqi1k1

                        ^^ i posted this stuff to make users aware of how much procedural and legal mumbo-jumbo Epic probably have to go through to achieve what us common users want but are not even aware of.


                        Let Epic's lawyers do what they're payed for and figure this out then, if it's even much of an issue (which I really, really doubt it is)


                        p.s. i am not fully clued up on this stuff and i hope it's not going off on a tangent, but i guess BSP solutions would be easier[Arial]
                        [/FONT]
                        Tidal Blast has also illustrated the difficulties that may be encountered in this area, but then ironically proposes using 3D modelling tools
                        - Evidence suggests a BSP map made by an experience BSP LD will be better received than a novice 3D modeller trying to make an entire environment. It is not about competing, it is about provide a robust alternative toolset


                        There is no such evidence (or at the very least, that's a really silly juxtaposition you're making there) I mean, what do you imagine the benefits of BSP would be for a level designer? BSP is something rendering programmers care about for their rendering pipeline. For level designers, BSP has always been something you have to work around and understand, it's not a level design "tool" per se. I remember all the hassle with solids and semi solids back in UT99. There was nothing about that process that inherently made levels better. BSP in and of itself (for a level designer) has always been something that imposed limitations, something that always found a way to hamstring you in one way or another. A great level designer will make great levels regardless of the tools, but good level design tools makes this process much easier. BSP has very little to do with tools - and the tools that are in ued at the moment are basically very primitive 3d modeling tools anyway. So why not ask for better tools rather than "BSP" (which is meaningless in terms of rendering at this point anyway)


                        Quotidian:
                        Q. great you can 3D model
                        (we know its a great thing, i enjoy it also, im not being sarcastic), but you truly believe for a new user that not improving BSP tools is a good idea?
                        - You must put aside your bias from having the ability to 3D model, just because you think it's easy doesn't make it right for everyone

                        Let's Fix BSP and the mountain of issues left over from UDK The question is How? is it out of community control?

                        Do you even know what BSP is and why it was important in the past? For a "new user" there is absolutely no doubt that polygonal modeling is better and easier to understand than BSP.

                        The engine doesn't use BSP trees for viability culling anymore. For optimization, Epic replaced all BSP on Outpost with meshes, so BSP is probably not even as efficient as simple meshes either. There's absolutely no reason to want BSP "fixed" in the editor. We need better rapid prototyping tools, that's it. Which essentially means better tools for simple and fast modeling and texturing. I think fairly traditional polygonal modeling would be the best blueprint, but I guess you can make a case for something more like Sketchup, ArchiCAD or Revit. But a case for BSP? There is none.
                        Last edited by Quotidian; 07-04-2015, 01:15 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          There's no one 'right' way to build a level, and certainly BSP is not very relevant in finished level designs that have all the art in place. But BSP is in no way vestigial, it's not obsolete or irrelevant. You may not use it or like it yourself but plenty of people do, and all official UT4 map shells so far have used it.

                          Those saying that it is irrelevant aren't contributing anything constructive here when this is a discussion about improving the feature for those who use it. If that's all your input in this thread is then kindly click away from this page and don't bother posting anything because you're just derailing and polluting discussion.

                          It's a feature that people use and it can be improved, that's what this discussion is about. Should it be a major priority for the engine devs? I don't personally think so, but I would like to see it improved because it's an engine feature I use. It's as simple as that.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Mangley View Post
                            There's no one 'right' way to build a level, and certainly BSP is not very relevant in finished level designs that have all the art in place. But BSP is in no way vestigial, it's not obsolete or irrelevant. You may not use it or like it yourself but plenty of people do, and all official UT4 map shells so far have used it.

                            Those saying that it is irrelevant aren't contributing anything constructive here when this is a discussion about improving the feature for those who use it. If that's all your input in this thread is then kindly click away from this page and don't bother posting anything because you're just derailing and polluting discussion.

                            It's a feature that people use and it can be improved, that's what this discussion is about. Should it be a major priority for the engine devs? I don't personally think so, but I would like to see it improved because it's an engine feature I use. It's as simple as that.
                            I completely disagree. It's obvious at this point that people don't actually understand what BSP is, and that fact alone makes this whole discussion very weird and confused. What BSP is is a specific method for an engine to render a scene and determine visibility/collision and what is and is not relevant to the renderer. As far as I can tell, UE4 does not use BSP at runtime, or if it does, it is less optimal than using static meshes. "Vestigial" is actually a very good word for BSP at this point. It's likely that what people actually want when they talk about "BSP" is better prototyping and modeling tools inside the editor, but yammering on about "BSP" is definitely not helpful.

                            Also, telling people with a specific opinion to get lost.. jeez.
                            Last edited by Quotidian; 07-04-2015, 02:32 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Mangley View Post
                              There's no one 'right' way to build a level, and certainly BSP is not very relevant in finished level designs that have all the art in place. But BSP is in no way vestigial, it's not obsolete or irrelevant. You may not use it or like it yourself but plenty of people do, and all official UT4 map shells so far have used it.

                              Those saying that it is irrelevant aren't contributing anything constructive here when this is a discussion about improving the feature for those who use it. If that's all your input in this thread is then kindly click away from this page and don't bother posting anything because you're just derailing and polluting discussion.

                              It's a feature that people use and it can be improved, that's what this discussion is about. Should it be a major priority for the engine devs? I don't personally think so, but I would like to see it improved because it's an engine feature I use. It's as simple as that.
                              Yup.

                              BSP is probably being more heavily used in the UT community than any other project using Unreal Engine 4. It wouldn't surprise me if there are 50-100 people out there who are or have developed levels for UT4 using primarily BSP.

                              Fact of the matter is, if a tool is being heavily used by a number of people then it seems like it'd be useful to try and make UE4 more efficient and effective for people using it. Beyond that, there's additional value in doing so, since improving BSP tools will directly reflect on the quality of levels made for Unreal Tournament, which itself is a flagship product of Unreal Engine.
                              Find My: Twitter | YouTube | Downloads | Podcast
                              Unreal Prime Weapons: Impact Hammer | Enforcer | BioRifle | Shock Rifle | Link Gun | Ripper | Minigun | Flak Cannon | Rocket Launcher | Sniper Rifle | Grenade Launcher | Dispersion Pistol
                              Other: Lore | Invasion | Pickups & Powerups | Achievement Ideas

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Geometry 2.0 has been on the trello for a while. I wouldn't necessarily expect it soon, but I'm sure some time and effort is being put into it. Things they have no intention of doing don't tend to get put on the trello.

                                edit: that said, and as wail said, the UT project has probably moved it up the todo list.
                                Last edited by NATO_chrisjm; 07-04-2015, 03:19 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X