Is Source Mapping going to die? - Developers

I've been following different engines like the torque engine for quite a while now, and what i feel is the main issue with Valve's engine, is the complete reliance on a single bsp map file. There is no real "outside" on source based games, it's just a large room with a floor that look like a terrain, but it's pushing the source engine to do things it wasn't made for. On the torque engine for example you have what they call a "mission file" wich contains the different objects, like the sun, skybox, one (or more) terrain objects, and then you have "interiors" which are basically built like a source engine map is made. The difference is that they are seen by the engine as objects and placed in the mission file like a form of optimised static shape. This is a much more flexible system because a mission file is only a few kb and can be downloaded by the clients very fast, which means that as long as you use existing assets, custom maps are ridiculously small.

[QUOTE=die_angel;21508669] This is a much more flexible system because a mission file is only a few kb and can be downloaded by the clients very fast, which means that as long as you use [b][i]existing assets[/i][/b], custom maps are ridiculously small.[/QUOTE] So, not really as flexible as source in terms of custom content, and Source isn't nearly as bad as many people say. Sure it's quirky, buggy, and not always working, but it's a great platform for developers like us to launch ourselves, because of its learning curve, which isn't really that steep if you use your brain. Also it's fully capable of handling far more complex situations too, as some have said.

[QUOTE=gerbile4;21506129]I remember 3 years ago in 2007. Half life 2 still looked better than most games being put out at the time[/QUOTE] Like Halo 2. (HL2 and H2 were released in the same year.) Don't get me wrong, Halo 2 was a great game, but HL2's graphics beat it by a long shot. Even though Halo 2 was rushed a little near the end.

[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;21510192]Like Halo 2. (HL2 and H2 were released in the same year.) Don't get me wrong, Halo 2 was a great game, but HL2's graphics beat it by a long shot. Even though Halo 2 was rushed a little near the end.[/QUOTE] Yeah. But we all need to also remember that Half-Life 2 was one of those "milestones" in terms of video game graphics.

[QUOTE=gerbile4;21506811]One thing I hope valve will do is bring modelbased mapping and brush based mapping together.[/QUOTE] They started to do that with L4D2, which is to say much much much more stuff was done with props instead of brushwork.

I don't think it will die. I'm not ever gonna stop using it anyways though.

Unreal engine still uses CSG like Source...but their way of doing it feels so ass backwards it might as well be completely different.

[QUOTE=Deadchicken;21503773]Why, because you can't be bothered to make the resources yourself? All the content in the SDK was made by Valve for their games, you're just borrowing it, if you want more content, make it yourself like they did.[/QUOTE] Let me link you to my last project, CHICKEN: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=20210450[/url] In fact, I did make forest resources myself. "Can't be bothered" takes on a different meaning when I have a full time job, which is why that project died. I dunno, I guess after hearing about Unreal's folaige editing stuff I look at source and think it's behind the times. Plus, part of the reason I want source to die is because I don't like this community anymore. I used to like it a couple years ago when people were cool and more supportive. Now everybody is too busy getting offended and opinionated rather than making good content or contributing to others' good content. Why reply? Because people need a wakeup call! Too much fingerpointing and harsh language and teenage wangst and rage. Enough already, go make something awesome! [QUOTE=Deadchicken;21509433]...Sure it's quirky, buggy, and not always working...[/QUOTE] And laggy, don't forget laggy! P.S., I just had a phenomenal idea. I dunno how many collaborative efforts happen around here, but what if somebody coded up a revision control system for maps so multiple people could work on a single map? That'll be 25 cents.

'Nah.

[QUOTE=Civil;21503149]Hmm... Who does then buy all those pointed out games that are very great in graphics? Seems to be quiet a lot. Oh wait, I DO! If your pc is not capable of running crysis on medium settings you got to have some old 2000 machine, my current is nothing special, last time i upgraded was some cheap parts in 2005.[/QUOTE] Some of us are poor and unemployed, and don't have the cash to spare on PC parts every month. The fact that Valve continues to support those who can't afford to upgrade is a strength, in my opinion. It shows they care about the people who have become loyal fans. [editline]08:09PM[/editline] People still work in Goldsrc, Source won't die. [editline]08:16PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Chrisknyfe;21516812]Let me link you to my last project, CHICKEN: [URL]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=20210450[/URL] In fact, I did make forest resources myself. "Can't be bothered" takes on a different meaning when I have a full time job, which is why that project died. I dunno, I guess after hearing about Unreal's folaige editing stuff I look at source and think it's behind the times. Plus, part of the reason I want source to die is because I don't like this community anymore. I used to like it a couple years ago when people were cool and more supportive. Now everybody is too busy getting offended and opinionated rather than making good content or contributing to others' good content. .[/QUOTE] Look at interlopers and eat your words, the interlopers group creates phenomenal work and I've never seen anyone be a dick around there.

[QUOTE=Strider_07;21517127] Look at interlopers and eat your words, the interlopers group creates phenomenal work and I've never seen anyone be a dick around there.[/QUOTE] You're absolutely right... I need to leave this forum for Interlopers! PEACE DOGGS ITS BEEN FUN

[QUOTE=Chrisknyfe;21517452]You're absolutely right... I need to leave this forum for Interlopers! PEACE DOGGS ITS BEEN FUN[/QUOTE] You can't generalize the entire modding community based off of Facepunch. That was my point.

You're not going to get many polite/friendly ratings talking like that. Source will die, but you won't care when it does, if anyone here knows what Pivot is then you understand that things can go from popular to dead in 2 months. You'll move on. Also with Source being easy to learn, don't think others won't be, more developing tools will come that will make model engines easy. When it does we'll just make another Gmod on a better engine and it'll be almost the same as updating Source.

Who cares when source mapping will die, it's not like Valve will suddenly go "SOURCE IS DEAD WE'RE DISABLING THE SDK FOR ETERNITYYYYY" one day. I mean there are much older games than source that still have a fairly active community.

Yes, We will all move onto editors like Crytek 3 Sandbox etc.

[QUOTE=Deadchicken;21509433]So, not really as flexible as source in terms of custom content, and Source isn't nearly as bad as many people say. Sure it's quirky, buggy, and not always working, but it's a great platform for developers like us to launch ourselves, because of its learning curve, which isn't really that steep if you use your brain. Also it's fully capable of handling far more complex situations too, as some have said.[/QUOTE] It is still quite flexible, want a new building? hop in your favourite bsp editor (hammer, quark, ...) and make it. Need a different terrain? the mission editor allow you to paint the terrain elevation even while the game is running. It's pretty flexible i would say :D to me most problems of source is that it inherit a pretty heavy past from the quake serie, where the concept of buildings was all about enclosed spaces and the concept of "outside" was simply a room with a taller ceiling with a nice texture applied in parallaxe to make it look like there is no ceiling. Today in source that's still how it works, excepted that now we get 3D skyboxes, and displacement surfaces, which aren't really that much of a revolution.

I wasn't going to post in here, but hey...why not while i'm waiting for my next thought to arrive for SOURCE mapping. I map in source. I understand it's strengths and its weaknesses. I don't see the lack of a larger grid as a weakness, but i do see the people who complain about such things as weak mappers. The usual complaint is that maps are too small to fly planes in. Well, here's a surprise, source is NOT DESIGNED for gmod, as much as you desire it to be. Source is great for detailed yet confined areas, which is why bunkers in source look so much better than wide open spaces. Another strength for source is that it will run on most computers. In the last 6 years i have had three pc's, all capable of running source. The pc that i built that has a gforce4 onboard could probably run source. It is very accessable, and very powerful. This is like the debate where someone say "pc gaming is dying". It's not, but it is changing. Source is fully capable of doing whatever you want it to do, its main weakness is the mappers who complain about it.

I expect source engine mapping to stick around, after all, Half-life 2 is one of the most popular games of all time. People still make maps for Far Cry 2, and no one really plays them cause the game had boring multiplayer. I will say that better mappers are likely to move to other alternatives as they reach the limits of the engine and better options become available. People who mostly do level design as a hobby may stay, and there is something to be said for confining yourself to a medium and doing something great with it. I imagine mod teams will likely drift towards more viable solutions given time, due to the structure of a mod team vs the structure of a game studio. Myself, I am drifting away into unknown and unreal territory, as well as in the programming direction. Yes, Source maps are designed for small areas, and they are still reasonable at that, but I think the engine needs an upgrade to still make small levels look viably large.

One additional thing is, once I was at a friend's place who was trying to learn mapping for CoD: MW. And what did I see in the map editor? Brushes! (And a basic texture looking completely identical to Nodraw, just a different name, dohoho.) My point being is, if a fresh and considered-to-be-beautiful engine still uses brushes, that's good news for us Source users.

I am going to use the existing size effectively. Though I need them to increase the view range to much further away.

[QUOTE=Civil;21521790]I am going to use the existing size effectively. Though I need them to increase the view range to much further away.[/QUOTE] You can do that yourself.

Do you think that when valve releases a new engine they will drop all the stuff from the current sdk and start from scratch? I mean, the continuity of hammer between Half-Life and Half-Life 2 was something I really like despite all the inherent problems. I do see the problems with continuing in that direction though, especially with all of the innovations made in other engines. Even if the editor remains the same in Valve’s hypothetical ‘post-source’ engine, I don’t see how it could operate on the same principles that it does now.

[QUOTE=Best4bond;21502303] I think that soon... There gonna need to do a whole overhaul on the SDK, Its falling behind [/QUOTE] For fucks sake someone finally agrees with me.

Look at any 10 random maps for Crysis, FC2, etc. They all look the same Look at any 10 random (good, non-noob) maps for Source and you'll see a hell of a lot of difference. In other words, model based engines suck because they are usually always are somewhat nature-oriented, and you tend to see the same models over and over and over and over.......... If Valve makes an improved displacement system, better lighting, larger Hammer entity/brush/etc. limits, Hammer shall live forever.

And the fact is that you can very well use source as a model-based engine, you just need to keep brushes to a minimal and fix vertex lighting.

[QUOTE=Kuro.;21516087]Unreal engine still uses CSG like Source...but their way of doing it feels so ass backwards it might as well be completely different.[/QUOTE] It still has it, but that doesn't really mean you're supposed to use it. It's pretty backwards but it is more powerful. You generally only see it being used for a few surfaces in commercial games. Also, Source is model based already, but I understand why people say it this way because there is an unnesseccary disconnect. You're creating basic shapes out of blocks and then vbsp takes it and creates geometry out of it in the same format as any other model in the game. The difference is that the engine decides what parts of it are rendered using the bsp. In my opinion the brush system is old and only really had benefits in 1998. It's ridiculous texture alignment tool doesn't help either. Creating geometry in any other way is far more powerful and advantageous, and as far as I can see you could still preprocess it in the same way with a few tweaks. There's no reason open world games have to have boring worlds with a few buildings and trees placed down. They can have levels with entirely unique and seamless geometry if it was made. It's just that in general and unfortunately they don't. It's usually down to time constraints and other game development bullshit. Unreal 3 maps have unique level geometry throughout in general. Just look at games like Mass Effect 2. You think that that game would have even half as beautiful levels if it was created using cubes?

yeah it won't die for awhile; but it'll descend once Valve stops using the current version of source

Source will never die as long as I live. Even if I have to do it myself, I will keep it alive alone.

So what's the 3 most common mapping principles? Heightmaps+meshes mesh based only brushes+meshes To be honest I don't see source mapping dieing anytime soon. Considering the amount of maps that still are released to this day, or taking a quick look at those Dear Esther map screenshots.

[QUOTE=Strider_07;21517692]You can't generalize the entire modding community based off of Facepunch. That was my point.[/QUOTE] Yes I can... yes I can!!! [QUOTE='[yournamehere];21517729']You're not going to get many polite/friendly ratings talking like that.[/QUOTE] *TTTTHHHHHHFFFFPBBBBBBTTTTTT* I'm way too awesome to need your silly rating system! Take that, THE MAN! [QUOTE=IronPhoenix;21521082]I wasn't going to post in here...[/QUOTE] You couldn't resist! It's a flamewar and there's not enough of them anymore. I can SMELL your pent up rage from across the intertubes. [QUOTE=IronPhoenix;21521082]...but i do see the people who complain about such things as weak mappers.[/QUOTE] Well, that's, like, just your opinion maaan. *sniff* [QUOTE=IronPhoenix;21521082]...source is NOT DESIGNED for gmod...[/QUOTE] Absolutely correct. So, there are things mappers would like to do in GMOD that are not possible at the moment. And they complain about them with the hope that someone will update either GMOD or Source SDK, not necessarily because they are unable to design their maps within the constraints (again, talk to anyone who has tried to make a naturey map. It's NOT EASY.) If complainers are bad mappers, then every software developer who has ever submitted a bug ticket is a bad coder. [QUOTE=IronPhoenix;21521082]Another strength for source is that it will run on most computers.[/QUOTE] Correct again, and so let me complain about some of the fancy new engines that are out there: they really should give their engines the ability to scale down performance to be compatable with older hardware. Then again, that's not economically viable, is it? [QUOTE=IronPhoenix;21521082]Source is fully capable of doing whatever you want it to do...[/QUOTE] Absolutely not. There's a reason people complain about its limits! [QUOTE=IronPhoenix;21521082]...its main weakness is the mappers who complain about it.[/QUOTE] It's main weakness is... that it has a lot of weaknesses! What you are actually talking about is the weakness of the FACEPUNCH community, and the weakness of the community is... well, all of us. We're all opinionated, stuck up assholes who think that the shit we excrete (i.e. our maps) is fucking gold, and everyone else sucks at mapping, and that we're absolutely correct about the right way to map, and which mappers are gods and which suck. GROW UP PEOPLE! God, if source is going to die it's because nobody in the community can get along with eachother cause they're all "lone wolves". All of us (and now all of YOU, because I quit mapping forever fuck this shit) act like 13 year olds about our maps. And almost none of us can collaborate on a map without somehow sectioning it up so we're all STILL working alone on stuff. Yes, I'm guilty of the same shit too. We've all got to grow up sometime, though. Shit dogg, shit just got deep.