No announcement yet.

UDK/UE3 improvements.

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    Okay, people chill out. These are mere observations. If I was wrong there is no need to complain about it. You can simply correct me in a more polite manner. I will admit, I am still new to UDK. I did not know that different physics engines are possible with licensed versions Unreal. But, you have to remember that this is about UDK also. Streaming, I am not quite familiar with streaming. From what I knew, is that it takes multiple levels and links them together using loading times. IE: Borderlands. MDE, or whatever you wanna call it, is just an idea, a thought, a concept, I never said it is something Unreal needs, but a simple idea that I had. Lighting does require lots of CPU, but it I was thinking of more of an optional dynamic lighting. By volumetric particle effects, I mean dynamic effects. Where rather an artist creating them, they are simulated. Foliage, I think I am correct there. I have seen lots of videos on YouTube, made many natural environments, and created many types of foliage, and all of them looked plastic and low res, there is probably a way to improve the foliage, but overall, the foliage needs some work IMHO. Okay, so end of story, I still new to Unreal, and video game development, if I was wrong sorry. I was just sure that Unreal didn't have these, as no games used them, and they were not listen in any websites with info on Unreal. Thanks for the feed back.

    Leave a comment:

  • replied
    I love this thread. It made me so happy for some reason....

    Anyway, WHY are you making a world 6.6 miles (squared I assume?) and not using level streaming? That is a ridiculous amount of space to have loaded up at once.

    The MDE thing sounds kind of stupid to me, I wouldn't use that at all. For terrain we use 3DS Max. And I'm pretty sure that all of what you said has probably at some point been brought up by their staff.

    Leave a comment:

  • replied
    About the World: World of Warcraft uses streaming, why can't you use it?
    I have yet to see a huge map being loaded at once.

    Leave a comment:

  • replied
    Physics: Well, buy Epic a license for all of those engines. You seem to be unaware that software tends to cost money.

    Worlds: Don't listen to people who don't know what they are talking about.

    Terrain: Care to show me an example of a world builder with a better terrain editor? Can you tell us exactly how it's better? Are you capable of using the existing terrain editor to it's maximum ability? What about the one in whatever example you're going to give us?

    Polygons: If you admittedly don't know what you are talking about, it's probably not a good idea to advise.

    "MDE": you'll need to design an engine to do that sort of thing, because there isn't anything existing right now.

    AI: AI is what you make of it. If you want to write better AI, write some better AI. If you want to write some lame AI, write some lame AI. The engine certainly isn't stopping you from writing the next greatest thing in AIs.

    Foliage: Darthviper knows what he's talking about.

    Volumetrics: This is not a concept that is from DX10 or DX11, or whatever. I'm not sure if we're talking about two entirely different things, but from what I know of "volumetric effects", those were largely abandoned a decade ago, for particle systems.

    Lighting: Yes, I'm sure everyone would love to have a real time lighting system. Are you aware of how much CPU power this would require?

    Leave a comment:

  • replied
    I'm glad to see more people turning to UDK but at the same time I get fed up when they come and comment that the engine doesn't have said feature, or does a certain technique differently from another engine. I was about to go through UDN and post links to all your points, but that should be left to you to do research on.

    This is your bible for the next few days, read it well then come back:

    Leave a comment:

  • replied
    Quick thoughts about your bullet points:

    Physics: It's possible, but for licensees, not UDK.

    Worlds: I don't see what's wrong with level. You make it sound like you just can't be bothered to get them working (no offense). Even though you can virtually make anything with UE3, you can still feel in this architecture has been designed for level-based FPSs. I don't think "true" open worlds will be coming to UE without a complete engine overhaul (but I might be very wrong). If large worlds is an absolute necessity for your project, you might want to consider changing engine, or get on with the streaming

    Terrain: I can't really disagree here I've heard rumors that a new terrain editor might come some day, but these are just rumors.

    Polygons: maybe you want to have a look at DX11 Tessellation?

    MDE: Interesting concept, but nothing more than a "nice to have" in a company. Besides, by working with one streaming level per category of objects (the way it's done in Gears), you can already kind of achieve that.

    AI: I think a great deal has been done towards that with Navigation Meshes. And they are currently working on an AITree System, which is a bit filled of mystery to me at the moment. But I guess it will work like anim trees, and you'll be able to plug behaviours, branching under defined circumstances.

    Lighting: Well, you can have fully dynamic lighting in UE3. You just need a very powerful computer

    Leave a comment:

  • replied
    There's a few things that they could improve, yes. But several things aren't really an engine issue but rather just the assets. Stuff like foliage--if it doesn't look good, it's your own issue, you need to make it look better. The foliage system is made to be able to display objects automatically with LOD, if the grass and stuff included with UDK doesn't do it for you, then you need to create some that does.

    And for Speedtree--I think some things are limited in the free version that's included in UDK.

    Volumetric effects--I think the only effect that's possible with current technology that isn't available in UDK is real volumetric lighting (see Crysis, Alan Wake). UDK light shafts are just a post-process effect applied to the HDR image, if you aren't looking at the source, then nothing renders. But what should happen is with some things you should still see beams of light even if you can't see the source, like if you're in a dark building and there's a beam of light coming through a hole in the roof--Alan Wake has it for stuff like the flashlight, and I think it'd be a good thing to have. But I don't think there is any volumetric fire/smoke that's possible in realtime situations yet--

    Leave a comment:

  • started a topic UDK/UE3 improvements.

    UDK/UE3 improvements.

    I have recently been getting into video game development, and I have used different softwares since. However Unreal Engine 3(UDK) is the only one I have really liked. There is just something about UDK that is different, a good different, and it's not that way in other free game engines. Anyways, there is still things that I believe UDk and UE3 could benefit from. So here is a list of ideas, for improvements of the engine that could be made. Warning: This list may be long, so do not say TLDR, I don't care, and no one else in the forums cares, ALSO, if you do not agree with my points, or think I am wrong, explain why. Do not just inform me that I am wrong, and I need to do more research and/or get a better knowing of Unreal to make a post like this. People are all ready being asses. So don't stoop down to that level. I know you all can be mature.

    PhysX, is a great physics engine in my opinion. And I am enjoying learning it. However, I think it would be great if the Unreal Engine was compatable with other 3rd party engines such as: Havok, Euphoria, Bullet, ect. And it would also be nice to combine up to two different physics engines. EG. Rockstar utilize bullet, and Euphoria. It would be nice to have the option to use, say, PhysX for environment phsyics, and Euphoria,for character physics.

    Unreal Engine is limited to 6.6 miles (or so I am told, correct me if I am wrong) of land, and to have an open world you would have to either A. Mod the engine, or B. Use level streaming. The Unigine Engine has, hypthetically, endless worlds, using dynamically streaming data. This comes to a problem in Unreal Engine, as 6.6 miles is not very big. In fact, my town is around 15 miles in sqaure diamiter, and it is still really tiny, and that is just the town it self. Not counting, the mountains near by, farms, back-roads, the adobes(four-wheeling ground) and other places owned by the city. One of my game projects, features a similiar town to mine, and similiar in size, and that is somewhat of an hassle. I really don't wanna use level streaming, and code multiple levels together. At least give the option for a sandbox. Nobody really needs "endless" worlds, but in total, the world size a BIG bottleneck for the engine.

    While there is programs specifically made for terrain, many of which are Unreal compatible, Unreal has a horrid terrain editor. The best you can make with it is snow mounds, and dunes. This would make it easier on indie developers, as there wouldn't be any problems, more specifically money problems, licensing different softwares such as Grome. The terrain editor doesn't need much done. But the things that need to be done, are somewhat serious. Foliage generation system: The engine I can think of here is the CryeEngnine, there is foliage generator system. I have worked on many maps in UDK, and forests, or other types of maps are my arch nemesis. It is a pain in the *** to put trees on the map one by one, or by duplicating and arranging them. My life would be complete if I could just select the different SpeedTrees I wanna use, select the radius, how thick the brush will be, ect, and just hold control and mouse, and generate the trees. I mean who would disagree with that? On the other hand I need to create terrain for those trees right? Well, to do that, I either go purchase a license for Grome,(still waiting for that UDK exporter!) Or try to make terrain in a modeling program like Blender, or Maya. Neither of the last two, are what you wanna use when creating terrain, there just a bit to difficult, for a task that shouldn't be. Adding things such as: Road, and river tools, improved terrain sculpting tool, then the option to modify the terrain you just made by, making a section flat, where certain textures will go on the terrain, make a cliff stick out while still keeping a rough, and rugged look, not just making it 100% smooth, and many other things that Epic could do to improve the terrain editor. A texture painter is also something that is really useful for saving time.

    Unreal Engine, is known for having great looking games, at really high performance, utilizing interesting tech. There is still tech that I think the Unreal Engine is missing out on. PolyBump, I do know that Zbrush uses PolyBump, however it would be nice to have that feature in the unreal engine, as not everybody uses Zbrush. I think enough is said there. Another technology I have noticed in a few engines, is disappearing polygons, I really don't know what it is called, but the basically it gets rid of unnecessary polygons when you are behind, or in front of, a building or other object, improving performance. I'm sure Epic could do a bit more research, and find even more ways to improve performance. Performance is one of the big sellers on the Unreal Engine.

    Multi Developer Engine(MDE?):
    This is an idea, I have, that I do not think any 3-D program or engine has. But, correct me if I am wrong. The Idea is to simplify the whole process by using a trick, similar to how an MMO works. But instead of players raiding dungeons, developers will be able to edit the engine simultaneously. Still confusing? Think of halo's forge, making a map with friend online, except forge is Unreal engine, and you have the whole tool-set for making a game. Hope that makes sense. I think it is a very interesting concept.

    In the Batman Arkham Asylum E3 videos, the guy(not sure of his importance in the role, or his name) said that Batman used dynamic A/I. I thought that was cool, excpet when I played the game. I think he meant that they created different paths for the A/I and used a script for the A/I to dynamically use the different paths... lol. But really. Unreal Engine A/I is good. But needs some improvements, such as truly dynamic A/I, A/I that interacts with the environment, ect.

    Okay, I know I covered some of the foliage problems in the terrain part. But, regardless, there is other problems with the foliage. 1.) The engine undoubtedly needs a better foliage renderer. I often find my trees created in SpeedTree look half as good in UDK. Why? Shouldn't the trees look the same? 2.) On top of that, trees are rendered fairly low res. It just looks bad. I know the engine isn't really geared towards PC's, however the option to have high res textures in trees, for PC development wouldn't hurt. Grass just looks plainly awe full. Unless you make dry brown grass, your grass will just be a fake looking dark green color. Not only that, but grass looks like plastic? I think you could do much better epic.

    Volumetric effects are slowly, but surely beginning to be the future. Unreal Engine, however, misses out on them. Effects like: Volumetric fire, smoke, wind, explosions, water, ect. Are all really cool, and save developers time. The Unreal Engine does use Dx9, and Dx10, and I have seen youtube videos of Dx10 features, including volumetric effects, so possibly, volumetric effects are possible. So I may be wrong. But, as far as I know, the Unreal Engine doesn't support volumetric effects.

    The vertex lighting is nice, But I would much rather see real-time lighting. The only thing I have against real-time lighting is with UE3's lighting, being baked into vertex lighting, you can place as many lights as you want without affecting performance. Another problem that needs to be improved in lighting, is how it looks. The main draw back of Unreal Engine, is night time isn't as dark as it should be. Not much I can think of on this, but I just think the lighting needs to be improved.

    Well. This is all I can think of for now. If you have any ideas, just reply and tell me them. Please support. Hopefully Epic will read this. Good day