Unreal Engine 4 ... super clunky UI compared to Blender?

Hi folks,

After seeing the UE5 demo, i decided to download UE4 and mess around with it.

First impressions are that i want to try to incorporate it in my workflow to make use of some of the camera FX and other real time stuff it has. And to prepare for using UE5 which looks pretty amazing

BUT! … having used it for a few hours, i have to say i find the interface really horrible and super-clunky.

Navigation around the viewport is just a complete nightmare. My theory is that it’s because it’s designed to be roamed through like a game, not accurately controlled from one vantage point.

And the graphic design of the widgets and other UI elements is some of the worst i’ve seen in any software.

So i’m curious: perhaps all the blender features i’m missing are actually there and i need to invest more time in it? Or does anyone here know it well and can confirm it’s just a crappy interface and i need to learn to love it and live with it?

Thanks!

I used UE4 a couple of years ago and i remember the ui/ux being much better than most 3d app, and i think the 3d navigation is the best of all, it’s very effective to go around in your scene

You are in the right path. Unreal Engine has the capabilities for those areas. Take a look this article: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/spotlights/unreal-engine-in-camera-vfx-a-behind-the-scenes-look and this video:

I agree. It’s not the best software in terms of UI but navigating in viewport is more or less same with Blender (Try getting comfortable with its shortcuts etc.). Having a cleaner UI could be much better. I hope they will rework it completely in UE5 around 2021.

I think you didn’t try Zbrush yet :sweat_smile:

Do not expect to have same features to be in both softwares. Blender is a 3D creation suite. Unreal Engine is a 3D game engine. You basically create stuff in Blender, then send them to Unreal Engine for various purposes.
But they definetely have overlapping areas such as rendering/real time stuff, lighting, simulations, camera FX etc.

Thanks!

Funny you should mention ZBrush … i think it (UE4) actually has a similar graphical look to it’s UI as ZBrush. There’s just sometihng really and deeply unpleasant about how it’s aliased or dithered or whatever the technical term for it is.

I think the best, most crisp interfaces are Blender and Houdini.

I understand that they both have very different feature sets.

I more talking about basic interface usability stuff. Like Blender has the 3D cursor which is so useful, you can snap it to a geometric location and instantiate an object right there. I don’t see anything like that in UE4.

Ad all the various snap settings and transformation orientation settings in Blender, i don’t see that stuff in UE4, or at least i can’t find it.

Honestly, i feel like i’ve stepped out of a time machine in 2010 with UE4. My motivation is really low right now to slog through it, but in my first few hours i created some eye watering FX that i simply could’nt achieve in Blender, so i feel i may have to push through… :roll_eyes:

UE4 is a game engine. You can not compare to Blender.

1 Like

I use UE4 at work and while it is extremely powerful, it can be shocking how clunky some of the most basic tools are, and how undesigned it feels overall.

For example, the manipulator lacks basic features like effective snapping, and it’s very easy to move objects in the wrong direction because the gizmo axis are difficult to select, and depending on the view angle you can also move objects wildly far into the distance by accident. Camera movement is easy (using basic FPS controls) but each of the main three buttons of the mouse activate camera movement in some way as well as doubling as selection and context menu, so you can sometimes move the camera or select things when you weren’t trying to. Camera movement speed is handled very weirdly (there is a slider for speed, multiplier and holding shift stops the camera moving instead of speeding it up - why not just release the move key?)

A lot of the tools look the same but feel like they were implemented by different people in different years because the behaviour is inconsistent - splines, terrain splines and ramps are an example of this. It can be quite crashy. The view settings seem to get saved or reset at random (especially when changing modes) and

Its internal file management is a binary mess, and the inability to integrate well with git is a real pain. Because everything is binary, changing a texture setting flag on a 4k texture results in the entire file needing to be resaved. Moving or renaming files often creates redirectors, which are by default hidden, and create problems of their own.

Undo is unreliable. It works quickly, but sometimes steps are not saved and don’t get undone, but the thing you did before does get undone.

The material editor is awesome and really powerful, but shader compilation can be very slow and it will often compile tons of shaders after what seems like a trivial material change, meaning you don’t always get very immediate feedback on your material edits like you do with Blender or other programs.

Unreal documentation can be lacking or out of date. This is a common problem with 3d software and game engines, but after using Houdini I realised there isn’t really any excuses when Epic has so much money. They do invest in live training videos etc. but these can’t be edited and go out of date all the time. It’s also hard to search video. SideFX do documentation and learning material extremely well.

Overall though, it’s extremely powerful and useful, but I wish Epic would spend a few months just fixing bugs and improving the UI instead of always adding new features unless those new features are improving and building upon existing features. It’s honestly frustrating to realise how powerful Unreal is but how much time wasting, inconsistent crap exists, that in many cases could probably be fixed by an intern in a few days, saving hundreds of thousands of people lots of time. Sure, we can modify the engine ourselves (we do at work), but that takes a lot of time to compile, and you’ll have to update your patches with each new engine update and take time off what you really want to be doing.

UI I wish Blender had from Unreal:

  • Better WASD/FPS camera controls that work with pen tablet input (but without the weird speed controls of Unreal)
  • Better search and add node UI in the node editor

That’s probably it. It’s a fairly short list, which is a good thing I suppose

3 Likes

Blender used to be a game engine/editor. There is some validity to comparisons.

Yeah, you are probably right given how large the codebase is, but some of the issues could be taken care of between one release and the next at least. Improving the manipulator, in particular would save people a lot of time given how fundamental it is and how many users UE4 has.

1 Like

What blender features are you looking for?

1 Like

Unreal is clunky for smaller projects. There’s a lot of functionality that can speed up working on bigger projects, but for smaller stuff it gets in the way more than it helps. As said before shader compilation is slow, if you have material instances set up for the things you do it gets better, but for iteration it’s frustratingly slow.

Also gizmos should die. Pixel hunting for control points is awful if you do that for 8 hours per day.

Not anymore. A game engine never comparisons to a 3D editor. Game Engine designers never think how I create a editor for 3D visualisation. They only want this editor must useful for game creations.

Target goals:

  • Fast realtime render
  • Good GPU, RAM and CPU management.
  • Best Import capabilities
  • Good shader support
  • Good script support
  • Good realtime lighting support
  • Good scene creation
  • Good cutscene creation tools
  • Good action capabilities
  • etc.

Non-targeted goals:

  • Modeling
  • Animating
  • Sculpting
  • UV Editing
  • Video editing
  • Painting (Only basic painting capabilities)
  • Heavy physics simulations
  • Exporting
  • Non-realtime render
  • Render farm support
  • Different render engine support
  • Product render
  • etc.

Thanks for the thoughts and insights.

I’m probably not a typical user. I’m doing video art (non-commercial) and i truly hate waiting for anything to render, so i figure that the way to go may be to make everything in Blender, then bring it (or parts of it) into UE5 and “render” it there on a RTX 3080ti, making use of the realtime lighting and in camera FX.

I have no interest in video games!

So my interest in UE is for the creative possibilities that will be available in about a year (i’m figuring it will take me about a year to get my head fully around UE).

Perhaps Tim Sweeney has realized what UE is missing, hence his interest / investment in Blender? Is realtime rendering the future?

Most engines are geared towards modern production. And even in the previous decades the biggest cost to game development was the art department, this is only even more of a case now.

It is however true that for most engines it makes better sense to work towards better integration with DCC suites rather than reinvent the wheel.

However once done with that it absolutely makes sense to add DCC tools and features to an engine(and not just the editor) since it enables a whole new tier of things that can be done with a game.

Take Star Citizen for an example. A game of it’s scale couln’t be done with an engine lacking in content creation tools.

My friend, creating a AAA game is very costly, too hard and very time consuming work. Most of the big studios use own engine, because necesseries too different for game to game.

Star Citizen project is huge project and developers did not think of this. But when project becomes to huge, their plans broke down.

If Star Citizen developers could think this project would grow, they maybe wrote their own game engine.

Very simple, like Unity or Zbrush got used ot it or use something else.
When you complaing too much , it’s because it’s not the right tool for you, better quit using it.

(While i would understand complaining about workflow and bigger issues in CryEngine, Lumberyard, Unigine , or some open source 3D engines).

Some category people i appreciate really don’t have time to complain on forums

Could you clarify what you mean? I don’t get what you mean. CIG uses Lumberyard which is essentially CryEngine 3.6 with some stuff tacked on it.
CryEngines Editor might look better and less clunky than UE4, but as a whole the engine is notorious for being complicated and not very user friendly on top of VERY badly documented. I don’t think there are many DCC tools and features to find there and in this whole discussion this Engine should count as an example of what not to do. I have no idea if the original CE has outlived it’s bad reputation or if its still in the same state.
UE4 might be clunky, but it gets the job done.
Anyway what were you hinting at?

There’s a lot of customization in that engine(their lumberyard/Cryengine fork) and a lot of procedural generation tools added to it.

There are some very clunky things in Unreal. The manipulater problems mentioned by @Mr_Flamey are one thing.

Parts of the node editor are bad as well. Moving a reroute node for example can be pretty difficult.

However, other parts of the UI are really awesome.

Yeah, ok got it, but still, they themself had to build all this stuff. It doesn’t come with the engine. It’s like comparing a normal Maya with the custom version from ILM or WETA. No normal mortal will ever get their hands at their stuff.

Using godot engine I find myself building similar(though smaller in scale I suppose) tools for myself. In game development I wouldn’t say it’s outside the norm.

However my point is as theres less to add to the engine in other respects the more incentive there will be for the upstream/source engine developers to add such tools. Take for an example the animation tools in unreal. Until they added those not many if any engines/editors really had that.