UE2 - UT2kX Converting BSP to Static Mesh?

[rmcollins3]

I understand why it's better to use a 3d modeling program to make static meshes instead of using UED, based on what is written here. My question is though, if I don't happen to have a moddeling program like 3dsmax, is it better to just use the BSP brush, or is it better to convert it to a static mesh, or does it matter?

For example, if I have a simple catwalk or decoration that is currently a BSP additive. Is it better for optimization purposes to leave it as BSP or to convert it to static mesh and save it in mylevel, etc.

I would think it would be better to convert it so the Video card only has to render it once and then store it in memory, whereas it has to continually render BSP...just checking if this logic is correct or not.

 

[Angel_Mapper]

Pic?

 

[xMurphyx]

It has to render everything you see all the time. If you have ten identical StaticMeshes it has to render all 10. It can store one in memory and transform (move, rotate, scale) and light it 10 times if the card supports T&L. So if you want to reuse the same model a couple of times it's beneficial to have it as a StaticMesh as T&L doesn't work with BSP. BSP has to be rendered as is.

I'm not sure if this is 100% correct but I'm fairly sure it's fairly close.

Other benefits of StaticMeshes over BSP include:
- StaticMeshes do not cut BSP so they will never cause BSP errors like holes or ICHs. Complex geometry is therefore a lot less troublesome in StaticMesh form.
- StaticMeshes are lit per vertex, not with a lightmap. This means that not every pixel on every surface receives light information, depending on the lightmap resolution, but only every vertex! This doesn't look quite as good in most cases where the StaticMeshes were built in UnrealEd but it's a LOT faster.
- culling StaticMeshes is easier

I can't say how much it would help in what regard without seeing your walkways, but converting them to StaticMeshes would certainly increase performance and cut down on BSP-cuts.
If it's worth sacrificing the detailed lighting of lightmaps for it depends on the walkways.

 

[rmcollins3]

Ok cool. It's nothing really worth taking a pic of and is really more of a general question regarding performance. It sounds like if it's possible and won't need detailed lighting, then it's good to convert it to a static mesh. It's just a circular walkway with trim - but I will give some advice BEFORE converting to static mesh......make sure the textures are friggin aligned.

 

[WedgeBob]

I miss the days when Maya Personal Learning Edition was actually free to keep, those were the days. Now that Autodesk bought out Alias, they're just too mean, only giving you one free month, then you have to pay through the nose to use it for good. Boy, where's the love for the hobbyist game modder nowadays?

Anyway...to try and answer that question...I've been wanting to know that a lot myself, since I'm one who converts old Doom/Doom II maps that I used to make in order to become UT arenas, in a much more updated form, of course. However, knowing where to replace child sectors/BSP with a static mesh is something worth playing around with. Coming from an era such as my own, where most game engines used almost nothing but BSP and a few decorative pixel meshes of sorts for sprites, trying to grasp this may take some time to think about. However, I still do use the subtractive method of mapping in UT3 as well, since the classic Doom engines were subtractive, as well as the older gens of Unreal Engines, so that pretty much was a seemless transition, or so I thought.