It's a very nice way to have a modular character. Or two or three. But it's quite expensive way if you have tens of characters. So then you will have to use Mesh Merge functionality of Unreal Engine's core...

@@vladtheclad "Mesh Merge functionality" What node is that? And is it in UE4.27? I think theres 3 ways to merge meshes. But some of them are bad for physics or other things. So Ive only done Set Master node and Skinned mesh.

thank you!! I'm glad you found it helpful!

thank you so much!!

thank you!! yeah it is a pretty simple process

@@GorkaGames thanks for video i try but character body automatically is so small how to fix

you still have to rig any custom meshes you create tho.....

You can export it to an external 3D software and separate the parts

@@starvosxant4348 I’m working on that and the thing exports as static meshes and when converted to skeletal meshes it doesn’t work with the animations any more, very odd

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f656mcte3Lqdk5c.htmlsi=ti27SAIOkBYnxTAI

This channel is garbage. Don't use it to learn.

​@starvosxant4348 blender for example.

thank you!!

+1 if he does it without CastTo, and use better methods like BPI. (I have a CastTo method and it is annoying when I watch to exchange backupassets - the Cast makes a hard link and I have to redo pin lines.)

its almost pure level design, what you cant do?

DId just realised the pack I used is also UE4 skel, any way to make it UE5 skel?

go into project settings and change the virtual shadow maps to shadow maps should fix it :)

I will soon!!

@@GorkaGames ok Man✓

I think Dr hippo maybe?

like customization?

On the left in the "My Blueprint" located below the "Components tab" you should see a part where it says "Functions" and you can find the constructionscript there

@@merry6671 thanks

hmm not really, unless they use the same skeleton and are build to be modular, then yeah, but for cars this really wont be suitable

@@GorkaGames thanks man!

@@GorkaGames much appreciate your work !

Are your parts SK (meshes with Skeletons assigned) or SM (pure Static Meshes without a skeleton)? If the first, then you need the SK car parts to share the same car skeleton. If the second, then in BP you can just overlap meshes / use Construct/Events to switch the meshes = change parts.

@@kenalpha3 thank bud. I will look up. Currently I use armature as generate in Blender but want to change it all to parenting.

This doesn't make sense. The entire point of modularity *is* flexibility.

@@GameDragon2k I mean, I'm new to all of this... but, how is having a single upper body mesh flexible? What if the character wants remove the coat? What if they want to put on a vest? Or any other combination of clothing. Would you have to create a mesh for every possible combination? What if you then have multiple characters, have different body types (skinny, muscular, average, obese), or even just different breast sizes. Seems like some sort of layering system would be much more flexible and "modular"... the difference being that each item of clothing is a module rather than each part of the character.

​@@peterjohnson8570 You would use blendshapes/morph targets for body types and breast sizes, regardless of which method you use. If you were modeling a jacket or vest to wrap over a base mesh, you'd still have to use blendshapes to fit different sizes. "Wrapping" or "layering" clothing is extremely amateurish and extremely poor on performance. This is very dependent on the poly count of your characters, but you have to remember, the engine needs to render and calculate polygons underneath the clothing, even if it's not visible. The primary benefit of a modular workflow is optimization. You can pretty much guarantee that each piece of clothing has an optimized polygon count, without losing any quality because you do not need to worry about any polygons underneath any clothing. This is also more flexible because you can choose to specifically render the parts that you need and save on resources. Head/face meshes for example, tend to be very detailed and high in polygon count. But if your can wear a helmet or mask over their entire head, you wouldn't want to constantly calculate everything behind it, right? The only negative really is Time. The way layered/wrapping method you're explaining is definitely faster. But it is not a good way to do it. Especially if your game has a tight polygon budget. Not a single AAA game does it that way. Sorry for the long reply, but hopefully that made sense.

​@@GameDragon2k Don't apologize for a lengthy comment... it shows time and thought into what was said and is far more insightful than merely saying "X doesn't make sense". I appreciate the detailed response. That does kinda explain why GTAV's clothing is the way it is... though, seems less than ideal. I guess I assumed modern hardware and technologies like Nanite would handle layering well enough for there to be a less static approach than what was used 10 years ago.

@@peterjohnson8570 Unfortunately, Nanite only works with static meshes. Things like mountains, trees, or buildings. Clothing would be a skinned mesh and cannot use Nanite. And yep, if you check out models for some of your favorite games with any kind of character customization, you'll find that a large majority of them do not have polygons underneath clothing. It's an industry standard practice. The only time I'd say a layering method would be apt is if your character is extremely low poly ( ~500-2500). But characters nowadays are closer to 30-50k poly. You just can't afford to waste performance budget on something like that. Especially if you have NPCs that are also customizable. Modular workflow takes more time to get rolling, but it's much more worth it.

no he's not