Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So Epic....Lets talk about BSP

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

    #46
    BSP/CSG are related somehow? CSG is the.. object and BSP is the method of storing/looking up stuff for the geometry? Or something. It has always been this way?
    Posts are about duel unless otherwise specified. ut duel shortcomings | What is timing? | dm-twentyseven

    Comment


      #47
      1200 views in 4 days on my first thread!?

      Holy cow. Hot topic indeed, lol at the very least I've piqued peoples interest. I've received quite a few warm and welcoming sentiments in both this thread and private messages. I never expected my first post on this board to get such a spirited response, thank you UT community.

      So first, I wanna clarify when I use the word BSP. Its this catchall idiotic shorthand that I've used in my head forever, and it seems its caused some confusion lol. When I talk about "BSP" solutions - I really mean just about any solution - Cross sectional geometry (CSG), binary space partitions (BSP), runtime booleans, mesh modeling solutions like Unitys probuilder, weird-*** voxel voodoo - just about anything that promotes this type of in-editor workflow. I know, I know, BSP as a catchall term makes no sense lol, its a very specific thing. The failure of communication is entirely on my end - I used lazy terminology like a lazy son of a gun, and it appears to have confused the issue a bit. My apologies . Err what word should I use henceforth? "In- Editor Prototyping Tools"? "Geometry Tools/Solutions"? Whatever term is the best catchall, Im open to suggestions.


      Responding to a couple of the replies since I've last posted:
      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.

      Yesssss! Thank you for participating Mr. Kay. Im ecstatic to hear a UT dev weigh in. Id agree regarding keeping the convo geared toward improving the workflow for UT, its a fantastic idea - and may help focus the conversation a little bit.


      So you say you agree BSP/Geometry tools need work. You also mention bugs in the current system that should be addressed in due course - do you imagine Geo 2.0 to simply be a faster, bugfree version of the toolset we have now - or more of an overhaul like Niagra?
      What similar systems have you used that you've felt had some great additional functionality?
      Disregarding feasibility for a second, What is/are your dream solution(s?) - if given free license to speculate on exactly what you would want out of our toolset?

      Like I've said in previous posts, my goal here is to kinda crowdsource brainstorm what kind of improvements are desired/realistic - and maybe generate some community momentum to help get Geo 2.0 promoted out of the wishlist/backlog.


      Originally posted by MoxNix View Post
      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!

      Its not off topic at all. Its literally exactly what I asked for: how would YOU like to see this tool improve? If anything I'd like to see more people pop off with improvements they want and what they'd like Geo 2.0 to be. How do we improve our UT level design toolset?


      I feel like im hearing alot of "BSP sucks, just use a 3d modeler" - which is fine, 3d application-centric workflows will always exist, and its a sentiment that has been clearly established in this thread....however it'd be nice to transition the focus of the convo to constructive feedback on the tool (it seems like peoples posts are naturally gravitating towards this anyways, now the topic has grown a little). Someone giving their thoughts on the issue, and a list of improvements they'd like to see, is far more constructive all around. And arguing amongst ourselves over what improvements are viable and realistic is more constructive then the BSP vs 3d application debate, which is a debate that will go in a circle forever.


      Im sorry to the posts I havent replied to, if that matters to some of you. I read em all. The conversation, in general, seems to be making nice progress with or without my input. Theres way more response then I was expecting, replying to all is....overwhelming, and I feel like weighing in on each and every response is a bit presumptuous on my part. Like im some Czar of this convo or something. In time, I'll scour through the community and dev responses and update the original post with the ideas and constructive feedback you've all shared thus far.

      Keep up the feedback!

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

      Comment


        #48
        I'd definitely also like to see nice robust *call-them-what-you-will* tools. I'm finding it incredibly clunky compared to UEd 2 and 3, and extremely frustrating. I'd very much second that with motion and flow being so important, having to swap between applications is a way to slow progress up immensely - ok, with experience you're going to know much better whether a 60m high nave "feels" right, or whether it doesn't, but to be messing around to and fro between a 3d application and the editor to get it feeling right is a headache that a lot of people don't need.

        I love UT, and while I never completed a level to release standard, I'd hoped to finally do that for this version. But the reality is that I'm a physically decrepit, middle aged parent with too many demands on my time to be able to learn a 3d application thoroughly. All I want is decent geometry tools and some nice meshes and materials. Accessibility is going to be extremely important if we want people actually mapping for UT - it's worth noting that about a year ago, I taught my then-7-year-old to do a CTF map for 2K4 in a couple of days. I'd really like to have that level of accessibility and usefulness in geometry tools for this version too, because I want to see plenty of maps (just maybe not by 7 year olds, they tend to have rather strange ideas about what textures go well together and what amazing juxtapositions you can make of castle meshes with space age ones )

        Comment


          #49
          Oh, I hope I won't look spammy >.>
          I find BSP pipeline a little bit clunky so I made a tool for rapid prototyping, it's quite popular in UE4 audience, so maybe some of you will find this useful too.
          Here is lil old video and link to UE4 thread


          Aand again - sorry for shameless plug :<
          http://i.imgur.com/e54kfOy.png

          Comment


            #50
            Nice rant you've got there. Simplified, well summarized, too bad no one gives a s**t...
            I appreciate the SuperGrid plugin, but a plugin like SuperGrid shouldn't cost any money. It shouldn't even be a plugin.
            What kind of person prefers an asset placing tool over an actual level editing tool?
            What the hell happened???

            Comment

            Working...
            X