feature request: cylinder normal smoothing

[philbrown]

It would be really nice if the "cylinder" BSP brush template resulted in an actual cylinder.

I've noticed that when I import a cylinder mesh from an FBX file, it doesnt really look like a cylinder, unless I have the "Smoothing Groups" option enabled. So I guess the specific feature or option missing from the BSP brush is to have a normal smoothing option?
Please add this, either to the builder brush, or as an edit option to Geometry Mode.

[darthviper107]

Just import meshes, you shouldn't be using BSP for a final game

[philbrown]

I'm not: I convert to static mesh.
My point is, if Epic is going to provide a "cylinder" model, they should make it actually function like one.
They already have functionality to handle normal smoothing groups. They just need to add a little bit of functionality to have it be an option for their surface properties editor, rather than only supporting it for imported models.

[darthviper107]

There might be technical issues with how that would need to be done, in any case people don't really use BSP and smoothing would usually setup already in their 3D modeling program.

[Spoof]

5 minutes in Blender, or any other modelling app, will give you what you want. CSG/BSP is redundant for production modelling and almost obsolete in most workflows.

[philbrown]

I'm not sure why you guys are trying to discourage a request for a feature in UDK.
Does it hurt your own use of UDK if it's in there?
Do you get royalties if people use the other external programs?
Do you work for Epic, and are going to personally get tasked with implementing this request?
I'm guessing the answers are "no", "no", and "no".

You guys are happy with your own workflows, and that's great. Not everyone needs to have the same workflow, though.
It would make life nicer for people who dont have time or patience to learn two tools, to have this small bit of extra functionality in UDK.

For the record, I have maya. I spent some number of days learning to use it. And then I never used it, after I started using UDK. Since the interfaces are very different, I completely forgot how to use it, after I was solidly using UDK for a month. So having to go back and re-learn maya, not to mention deal with all the stupid cross-program-formatting magic
"oops, no you need to go back and RE-EXPORT the thing because you didnt enable the non-default 'smoothing groups' feature" thing, is A Pain In The Rear.
Hooking up this already existing bit of UDK functionality, into the Brush/UV editing tool, would save me a lot of hassle.

[Spoof]

CSG/BSP is almost redundant technology, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was deprecated in UE4 (though Epic are rather fond of retaining legacy code).

Two decades ago it was the only way to make levels. A decade later and it was used to partition large areas for visibility, while meshes did the rest. Nowadays its used simply for blocking out ideas before moving into a proper workflow with meshes.

In some ways it is a burden. There are plenty of posts in the forum where people new to UDK and game dev try to leverage it, only to run into its limits as you have. Its also the least optimal rendering method, and goes completely against the mantra for modern GPU batching.

I highly doubt anyone on the dev team is going to checkout the source files and revise a code path that is, for all intents and purposes, a dead end.

For the record, I hope they do nuke it from UE4.

[Spoof]

Btw, its the nature of indie-dev that you take on all responsibilities in the workflow. You have to be multi-disciplined, with a foot in every application from 3D to 2D, to audio. Otherwise you should be part of a team.

[darthviper107]

It's a waste of resources to add features that support a workflow that shouldn't be used