(Spoilers talking about new engine) Portal 2 SDK - When? - Developers

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;29334433]I'd like to see Valve merge the branches back into the main trunk (or whatever they call it), the longer they keep them separate the harder it gets to merge it back.[/QUOTE] This is just valve keeping up with a competitive market. If all their games ran on the same original "branch", Garry's Mod would get all the goodies, but Valve would eventually suffer. Think about it; you can reskin and remap a game on the Source engine as many times as you want, but the core gameplay will still be the same. (Ok, maybe with some minor differences) Adding code and graphics updates to each game is just a part of keeping their games interesting and different from the last. I'll bet even HL2EP3 will be a branch off of something, probably the Portal 2 engine version for the lighting.

Sure. [media]http://i.imgur.com/WITk1.png[/media] edit : there.

[QUOTE=Anthracite;29334431]I'll prove you wrong IronPhoenix. We already have the portal 2 sdk, you just don't know it ! edit : lot of file modifications and fgd editing is necessary though. we're still trying to put up a fgd that works pretty good.[/QUOTE] Oh please dont get cocky and start acting cool. This isnt anything new. It was done with l4d aswell.

jeez there's nothing about being cocky, just saying that we CAN actually map for portal 2 without the SDK.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Legend286;29323103]92 days to compute the whole simulation. :psyboom:[/QUOTE] [img]http://gyazo.com/50a18a861292716c3fa3a65bc647f1c7.png[/img] :psyduck:

So what do we have to do to map for portal 2? I want to get some stuff done as soon as possible.

[QUOTE=Instant Mix;29335840]So what do we have to do to map for portal 2? I want to get some stuff done as soon as possible.[/QUOTE] Check this guide for instructions: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1081022-How-to-create-Portal-2-maps[/url]

Cool. That's kinda better proof. How far are you from getting it working right?

[QUOTE=Kuro.;29332370]So it's not actual dynamic lights again? Nuts. But at least they made the shadows for env_projectedtexture less crappy. Guess I'm gonna have to wait for City 17 Episode 1 to release their shaders (which supposedly work with any Source game and turn pretty much every lightsource into a true dynamic light.[/QUOTE] Nope. 1/4 Life is still using projected textures.

[QUOTE=wootmonster;29305970]http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae300/garry_smith/Humor/game_portal_paradox_001.png[/QUOTE] Lots of accretion. Lots of it.

[QUOTE=Legend286;29337524]Nope. 1/4 Life is still using projected textures.[/QUOTE] There's nothing wrong with projected textures and shadow mapping, just that Valve's implementation is rather poor compared to other, more modern implementations.

[QUOTE=layla;29320245]Okay I'm sorry let's talk about quantum mechanics.[/QUOTE] Maybe. Man was your bickering painful to read. The way you acted in contempt towards Downsider made me want to rip my eyes out of my sockets. Never do that again. Ironically enough it makes you look a tad daft too.

So you bring it up again when it was solved on the last page? You're lucky I didn't pick apart his latest claim because It's even worse than the first one I called him out on.

For what it's worth, I honestly don't see what's wrong with anything layla said. The BSP is not only for sorting the polygons that go with it, but also for dividing up the game world and sorting everything within it. So if downsider is to be believed we can just send the entire level to the gpu every frame and let it cull triangles for us. Please.. You can't even compare a bsp and a "model" (which is an incredibly ambigious description anyway) so what's the point of this argument anyway? I have no idea what downsider's point even is. If it's purely rendering speed then I guess that depends on the shaders, not anything the cpu has done to get it to the gpu. The funny thing is that you need to sort any of the polygons you render or otherwise you're just sending everything to the gpu which is stupid. It's worth mentioning that the bsp is pre computed. Figure it out yourself. [QUOTE=layla;29338913]So you bring it up again when it was solved on the last page? You're lucky I didn't pick apart his latest claim because It's even worse than the first one I called him out on.[/QUOTE] And before you edited it out, I completely agree.

[QUOTE=layla;29338913]So you bring it up again when it was solved on the last page? You're lucky I didn't pick apart his latest claim because It's even worse than the first one I called him out on.[/QUOTE] What the fuck is wrong with shadow mapping? Jesus Christ.

Nothing?

[QUOTE=Philly c;29339437]For what it's worth, I honestly don't see what's wrong with anything layla said. The BSP is not only for sorting the polygons that go with it, but also for dividing up the game world and sorting everything within it. So if downsider is to be believed we can just send the entire level to the gpu every frame and let it cull triangles for us. Please.. [b]You can't even compare a bsp and a "model" (which is an incredibly ambigious description anyway) so what's the point of this argument anyway?[/b] [b]I have no idea what downsider's point even is.[/b] [b]If it's purely rendering speed then I guess that depends on the shaders, not anything the cpu has done to get it to the gpu.[/b] [b]The funny thing is that you need to sort any of the polygons you render or otherwise you're just sending everything to the gpu which is stupid.[/b] It's worth mentioning that the bsp is pre computed. Figure it out yourself.[/QUOTE] Wow. You are completely wrong. [editline]21st April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=layla;29339924]Nothing?[/QUOTE] My last post: "There's nothing wrong with projected textures and shadow mapping, just that Valve's implementation is rather poor compared to other, more modern implementations." Your last post: "You're lucky I didn't pick apart his latest claim because It's even worse than the first one I called him out on."

Right, there's nothing wrong with projected textures, It's a common technique to do shadow mapping.. Followed by a huge assumption based on absolutely nothing whatsoever. Last time I checked, they haven't written a paper on it so you have no right to question their implementation. I'll be adding shadow mapping to my viewer, maybe you can judge my implementation when I'm finished? [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/99765/6234326.png[/img]

[QUOTE=layla;29340070]Right, there's nothing wrong with projected textures, It's a common technique to do shadow mapping.. Followed by a huge assumption based on absolutely nothing whatsoever. Last time I checked, they haven't written a paper on it so you have no right to question their implementation. I'll be adding shadow mapping to my viewer, maybe you can judge my implementation when I'm finished?[/QUOTE] I'm basing it on the fact that it doesn't support radial lights and there's only one texture available to write to at once, the first being a result of the second. Shadow mapping isn't hard to add, most of it's done for you on the GPU, so why can't they properly instance it? That's why I call it a poor implementation. Is that enough for you? And to quote you here, about your BSP viewer: [quote]So you took a well documented format, read it in and shoved it into a VBO? Well, congratulations! Your point is still irrelevant though.[/quote]

I'm sure they would have considered the alternatives and have valid reasons for why they do something a certain way, that's the way I see it at least.

[QUOTE=layla;29340443]I'm sure they would have considered the alternatives and have valid reasons for why they do something a certain way, that's the way I see it at least.[/QUOTE] Looking at the tons of other games, console games included, that have full shadow mapping, I'm heavily doubting this.

I'm actually interested in how Valve made all of that glass shatter like that. I can't be the only one who thought that the glass shaders looked really nice?

[QUOTE=kaine123;29342392]I'm actually interested in how Valve made all of that glass shatter like that. I can't be the only one who thought that the glass shaders looked really nice?[/QUOTE] It's a prop. Cinematic physics remember.

[QUOTE=layla;29340070]Right, there's nothing wrong with projected textures, It's a common technique to do shadow mapping.. Followed by a huge assumption based on absolutely nothing whatsoever. Last time I checked, they haven't written a paper on it so you have no right to question their implementation. I'll be adding shadow mapping to my viewer, maybe you can judge my implementation when I'm finished? [img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/99765/6234326.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] The problem with projected textures is the video memory usage and performance drop as you begin adding more lights to the scene.

I cant wait to get my hands on Cave Johnson talkings!

[QUOTE=Best4bond;29342717]I cant wait to get my hands on Cave Johnson talkings![/QUOTE] Took me long enough to rip the music :)

Do you guys have problems opening Portal 2 gcf's? GCFscape cant open them for me, it crashes upon loading the paks.

Make sure you have the latest version of gcfscape. And they are pak files now, not gcf's

Also, make sure you're opening the pak01_dir.vpk and not any of the others (not sure if the others can be opened like that).