Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So Epic....Lets talk about BSP

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

    #31
    Originally posted by NATO_chrisjm View Post
    Geometry 2.0 has been on the trello for a while. I wouldn't necessary 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 to the trello.

    edit: that said, and as wail said, the UT project has probably moved it up the todo list.
    what is it like at this point?

    Comment


      #32
      I have no idea, you'd have to ask the engine team. I tried to get some info when I was over there but no word

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Tidal Blast
        In the end, everyone will use what they want. It's just funny when people say that brushes are slow when there are better alternatuves out there.
        I don't think you realize the problem: The fact that better alternatives exist IS THE PROBLEM. How many old-school mappers and amazing artists wouldn't exist/be relevant today if UE1 had no in-engine CSG/BSP tools? Yeah, Hourences, a godlike artist with 20+ years in the industry is JUST NOW moving onto using 3D apps only. What about Joe Hobby who wants to learn level design 101? UE CSG as it stands right now is REALLY clunky. Even moreso than the UDK/UE3.0 CSG tools. I can only imagine the pace its setting for beginning designers.

        Not to mention, any time you say" There is no problem, as better alternatives exist" you are essentially making an anti-argument. The same anti-argument could be used to argue against literally ANYTHING improving. Your favourite brand of car not measuring up against competitors? "No problem, better alternatives exist". Your art isn't making an impact in the market? "No problem, better alternatives exist". Your game engine of choice has clunky tools? "No problem, better alternatives exist". With this copy-paste argument, one can stop ALL progress on earth.

        Comment


          #34
          I think it depends on what you're going to achieve or what kind of project you're working on. With levels for an arena shooter like UT, there are so many things that can go wrong when your're limiting yourself to 3D package only and not having the possibility to instantly check a level in-engine. If you do some landscapes, massive outdoor locations, you can easily forget about BSP. Knowing how Solus is shaping up I'd be surprised to see Hourences messing with brushes. In multiplayer arena level though, where 100uu in most of cases means whole a lot of difference, where things get more complex than usual, and where you run PIE for every minor change in geometry while prototyping, you simply risk too much with such an approach. If it wasn't arena shooter, I might agree with you in most cases.

          Speaking of game studios and their LD workflow - there aren't too many ones developing successful arena shooters nowadays, right?

          I can live out without more robust geometry tools, but I can't agree that we do not need any at all.
          Last edited by insomnaut; 07-06-2015, 10:23 AM.
          @insomnaut aka charon / DM-Coma / ArmorWare

          Comment


            #35
            I'd like to chuck my 2p-worth in here as a total beginner. Seems like most people discussing this are experienced.


            Of course at my level of 'total noob' understanding, I use BSP... I'm learning, but with only previous Photoshop experience (in terms of having a general understanding of creating shapes and sizing/extruding/skewing them etc) I am having great fun and actually creating maps I can move around in!.... i think the experienced people don't quite 'get', or have forgotten how cool this is! To actually be running about in a map you created is fantastic, even if it looks basic!


            I don't think EPIC should under-estimate this.... From playing the game up to ut2004 it's pretty clear that the the level/map is king and glossy hi-end graphics, while nice & very visually relevant by todays game-standards, are not particularly relevant to game-play. The popularity of particular maps on public servers back in the day wasn't about graphics, it was always about the gameplay the map provided.

            Now as I understand it, EPIC always has the engine/editor system as a product in it's own right for developers, but (again; as I understand it) part of their strategy to re-popularise UT is that EPIC seeks 'get people involved' beyond just playing maps on servers. Also EPIC face the dilemma of whether arena-style 'space-age' games are relevant to the wider, younger game-playing public nowadays & whether such a game can ever be very big beyond a hardcore following (i perceive it that way whether true or not)


            In that respect, BSP is a VERY VERY good thing, because it's very accessible.

            I realise that there is plenty of people out there with hi-end skills who are making UT maps finished to a very high standard graphically/technically/lighting/atmosphere-wise, & I also realise that outside of any 'official Epic-endorsed' system, it is of course possible for skilled map-artist/creators out there to collaborate with someone who makes a good BSP map and this can be done privately between the parties involved.... but perhaps Epic can have some sort of system:


            1. Ordinary people make BSP maps, publish to a 'new maps' server-category & people play them.

            2. Epic can give out monthly awards for best new maps in BSP form by noobs.

            3. The best gameplay maps are chosen and worked on by Epic to make them graphically excellent & released officially with prizes.

            4. Point-3 of course can also create in itself a further category of 'best final artwork', where people with more skills then skin these noob created maps and Epic/voters choose winners.


            In that respect, just as Epic (and most other game companies) put resources/focus into public game-playing events/tournaments, with prizes etc, they can do the same with map creation, but making it VERY accessible, so that a wide user-base of noobs can get involved rather than a smaller pool of only highly-skilled level designers with tons of 3d artwork experience.




            If you look at a game like GTA online, people cant design the world of course but they can build racetracks for bikes/cars & there is the mission-creator... but this always takes place within the already-created GTA5 world. Given the focus by todays youngsters (yes I am very old), I think there is some potential in youngsters getting involved to create BSP based 'mini-world' urban environments where the emphasis is on 'ghetto' style variations on UT.... contemporary weapons (no cars tho) & then they and their friends can just run about 'mirking' each other.... You can then switch CTF to 'CTW'... where 2 gangs defend their weed-factory/stash from each other:

            "RED TEAM HAS CAPTURED YOUR WEED!!"



            All you need is some free & basic 'urban-environment' doors/windows, lamp-posts, road surface textures, etc in a 'ghetto-content' folder included with the editor, so noobs can quickly texture some basic BSP blocks for buildings, texture roads etc & some basic 'weapon & shield' pickups included, with a shotty, some 9mm and other assorted 'urban' weapons, plus bullet-proof vests for shields, plus make the health items burgers & drinks etc. These created maps - which can even be a rough approximation of the players actual city/town location - can then be published as a team's 'ends' or 'manor' or 'turf'

            Also the old UT movements of dodging and wall jumping... well you dont get that of course in games like GTA5, but those moves can work EASILY in a UT based 'urban' game & not look stupid because then they become 'Parkour' moves. I mean how coool would that be? Games like GTA really restrict player movement but in such an 'urban' game anyone who masters the 'Parkour' moves gets the less accessible pickups.


            But there must be some way to have such maps created on mac/pc available for console players to actually play on, because without that it wont really work.




            I think there is some great potential for this. Players (especially younger ones) who after completing the game's actual story are then restricted to things like GTA5 online and creating very basic online 'missions' within that game, could be enticed to a new UT game which features the same shoot em up team action they get in a game like GTA5 online, but where they can make an actual map.

            It could be big cos Epic don't need to waste resources making an actual game, with a world design & a story & cut scenes & scripts & actors & music and all that malarky... people just make their own damned game! - which is the map at the end of the day.


            y'getmiblud?


            Anyways all such things can come from BSP, so perhaps as the OP said, some thought might be given to making BSP stuff a bit quicker. I personally dont have a problem with the BSP as it is, but from watching Hammer videos i can see what the OP is saying.


            If i was EPIC i would be working on this, releasing urban maps (that can even include maps of small parts of actual major cities from London to Chicago etc), and also i'd include a simple mechanic built-in, so players climb ladders and slide down drain-pipes when these are in immediate proximity.





            Such an 'urban' angle of course creates huge potential for cross-marketting... Epic can even do advertising deals with clothing manufacturers to release clothes for players with actual brand labels... adidas, nike, puma, dope couture, stussy, wu-tang etc... such labels can advertise new clothing releases within game by simply having their new releases as player clothing skins.


            So in summary, does the world - and by that i mean the majority of kids today (again yes i am old) - need a new arena shooter which is 'space age'? How do the majority of kids relate to that? The point I'm saying is, by doing the above and focusing on BSP map creation as an actual product you create a popular game without having to create an actual game. You can still carry on with the traditional business model of course, making both urban & space-age maps for release.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Tidal Blast
              Many years ago, game level creators were both designers & artists. At some point, game studios started to split the job into multiple jobs and now we have level designers and environment artists. Essentially these days... level designers create a blockout, test gameplay for two weeks, then artists arrive, they break down the level to create modular assets, they'll change some areas of the map to fit the art, they'll create unique assets to fit the blockout, etc. However, when it comes to the creation of game levels, the art is the bottleneck and there are many issues with the method that I just described. Designers waste a lot of time testing the gameplay when some areas will change anyway when artist will touch the map. Artists waste tremendous amount of time trying to break down the map. Artist will have to create more meshes than they should to fit the custom blockout, etc. The workflow that Hourences uses is a lot more efficient. He creates the modular meshes first and then build the level with those. Right from the start, that means that he doesn't create a blockout and waste his time trying to adjust the gameplay when it will change later anyway. Because he uses meshes to build the level, he doesn't have to break down a blockout into modular meshes, etc. He basically works at least 2-3 times faster than usual, plain and simple. And because most level designers these days aren't also 3D artist, the quality of their map layouts often take a hit.
              This plus the post below and your references to hourences indicates you want pieces of the level that can be snapped together to create the layout? Are you suggesting people create these modular sections before starting their layout? Or are you suggesting that level designers work on a base grid (50, 100, whatever, in the 3d package) so environment artists can mesh the level more efficiently using blocks like this?

              https://forums.unrealtournament.com/...l=1#post148402
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SxTqlom3Fg 22minutes

              Why is much time wasted breaking down the map to mesh it? Can you explain how using a 3D package solves the custom blockout problem?
              Last edited by joellll; 07-06-2015, 08:36 PM.
              Posts are about duel unless otherwise specified. ut duel shortcomings | What is timing? | dm-twentyseven

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Tidal Blast
                Look, I was simply trying to point out that level design as so much to do with art that it just shouldn't be ignored.
                Rightio. Was hoping you would be able to shed a little more light from what I have assumed you meant but I guess "learn 3D" is enough.

                I think this was the most relevant image from the post I quoted.
                Last edited by joellll; 07-06-2015, 09:44 PM.
                Posts are about duel unless otherwise specified. ut duel shortcomings | What is timing? | dm-twentyseven

                Comment


                  #38
                  I'd like to chip in here with a few words. Our BSP/Geometry tools need work for sure, we all agree they can be improved, I'm not sure when or if it is planned though. As others have mentioned, it is useful for creating shells for a game such as UT, the bugs in the current BSP system should be addressed in due time like any other bug from what I understand (material alignment issues etc)

                  I've used BSP/Primitive editing solutions from all the major engines that have support for it, and I managed to adapt quickly to Unreal, suppose I've got used to various limitations in each toolset, the "shell" after all is perhaps only a quarter of the work that goes into a finished level.

                  Yes, 3d packages are a great solution that I enjoy using, but I would only use it if the level called for it, vast open terrain, organic structures (like a tree house theme, volcano etc)

                  Obviously I'm referring to UT specifically, there is a such a variation in workflows for other games and companies, we should keep this focused toward UT.
                  Last edited by Chris.Kay; 07-07-2015, 12:14 AM.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Going slightly off topic but still closely related, the 3 main things I'd like to see change ASAP with BSP editing in order of importance are

                    1. Fix the texture alignment bugs.
                    2. Make the Lathe tool work.
                    3. Give us the ability to convert static meshes into brushes. I found that real handy in the editor for 2k4 when I wanted to make simple changes to a mesh like vertex editing it to be wider or taller without deforming other parts like scaling along a single axis can do, changing, realigning or adding more textures. All I did was convert to brush, make the changes, build and convert back to mesh. Quick, real easy to do and it worked great!
                    Last edited by MoxNix; 07-07-2015, 01:51 AM.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Speaking of bugs, is the postprocess volume screwed this release? I can't see any options beyond the basic brush settings.
                      Posts are about duel unless otherwise specified. ut duel shortcomings | What is timing? | dm-twentyseven

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Nah they are just hidden in menu tree things. Gotta expand them.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          I personally love BSP. I am a mapper that has been previously focussed on UT2004. During that time I have made maps that have too many BSP brushes for UE4 to even handle (it crashes when I try to import it). I released maps under the name ChookWoods in UT2004. These maps were near pure BSP and they were also pushing the limits on the number of brushes used. Whilst I appreciate I cant get away with making a pure BSP map in ut4, I also understand the need for it to exist, and to exist in a sense that is highly usable.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by Tidal Blast
                            Look, I was simply trying to point out that level design as so much to do with art that it just shouldn't be ignored. Level design just cannot be a specialization on its own when it is actually the combination of both environment art and game design; a multi-specialization. The best level designers that I've met or seen in the industry were once environment artists who later became level designers, which is obviously a very natural path.
                            I'm not saying I disagree, but I think that kind of approach applies way more to single player level design. There, you'd use art and lighting to direct a player through a level. For a game like UT this isn't really the case, since the game is fundamentally about a player's interaction with a layout. Using light/art as part of the "gameplay" is much more of a special case than the norm for most levels. Being both an artist and a level designer at the same time will probably cost you time, because you'd have to redo art to suit changes in the layout with that sort of workflow. Level design for a game like UT is much more about the intricacies of a layout that will be played again and again and to a certain extent needs to be memorized by the player. For those kinds of projects you need to be much "closer" to the game in a stripped down state (ie, layout shells with no art) in order to make small iterations to a layout. Jumping back and forth between two or more tools and constantly exporting/importing is a serious time sink. This is why I think your instance on workflows outside of the editor is misguided. If the in-editor geometry tools were solid, there would be no benefit in using Max or whatever to create layout shells.

                            Originally posted by [Epic]Chris.Kay View Post
                            I'd like to chip in here with a few words. Our BSP/Geometry tools need work for sure, we all agree they can be improved, I'm not sure when or if it is planned though. As others have mentioned, it is useful for creating shells for a game such as UT, the bugs in the current BSP system should be addressed in due time like any other bug from what I understand (material alignment issues etc)

                            I've used BSP/Primitive editing solutions from all the major engines that have support for it, and I managed to adapt quickly to Unreal, suppose I've got used to various limitations in each toolset, the "shell" after all is perhaps only a quarter of the work that goes into a finished level.

                            Yes, 3d packages are a great solution that I enjoy using, but I would only use it if the level called for it, vast open terrain, organic structures (like a tree house theme, volcano etc)

                            Obviously I'm referring to UT specifically, there is a such a variation in workflows for other games and companies, we should keep this focused toward UT.
                            Do you know if the "BSP" in unreal is even actual BSP at this point?
                            Last edited by Quotidian; 07-07-2015, 02:42 PM.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              It hasn't been BSP for a long time. I think it's actually called CSG (constructive solid geometry). Not really sure what the difference is.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Yeah, so people should stop referring to it as BSP then...

                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_space_partitioning

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X