What do YOU think would make maps higher detail? - Developers

[QUOTE=Firegod522;26508493]Source can have all that. It isn't THAT hard. For the dynamic lighting, there is a fix on the valve wiki page to tie it to the vis system. Volumetric lighting is just a shader really. [hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYiVkHEzThk[/hd] I'm sure a few of you guys have seen this. You just need to know some programming and HLSL and you are good to go.[/QUOTE] Holy mother of god, [b]EXTREME DINOSAURS[/b] in Source?!

[QUOTE=Zally13;26529044]If I'm right, and I have no reason to doubt myself, Garry's Mod should be upgraded to the new engine.[/QUOTE] I would hope so. If it isn't, that would be kind of upsetting.

[QUOTE=Zally13;26529044]If I'm right, and I have no reason to doubt myself, Garry's Mod should be upgraded to the new engine.[/QUOTE] It's not so simple... There's a reason we didn't move up to the L4D1/2 Engines...

Pretty sure Portal is main branch.

[QUOTE=Zally13;26520828]Portal 2 has a nice new model lighting system I believe.[/QUOTE] Why do people say this? It's the same old shitty lighting we saw in Alien Swarm. Just watch all the Portal 2 videos. All the relevant shadow and model lighting problems are still there.

[QUOTE=Hostel;26535882]Why do people say this? It's the same old shitty lighting we saw in Alien Swarm. Just watch all the Portal 2 videos. All the relevant shadow and model lighting problems are still there.[/QUOTE] I thought that alien swarm had a pretty nice lighting system. Sure valve isn't going to change EVERYTHING with the lighting but there are some changes obviously.

[QUOTE=Hostel;26535882]Why do people say this? It's the same old shitty lighting we saw in Alien Swarm. Just watch all the Portal 2 videos. All the relevant shadow and model lighting problems are still there.[/QUOTE] [media]http://playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Portal-2-1.jpg[/media] The screenshots show that the models are lit differently in different places.

Eh, Alien Swarm's system is just direct lighting with no radiosity and liberal use of bloom and projected textures with dynamic shadows. [editline]7th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Zally13;26536460][media]http://playstationlifestyle.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Portal-2-1.jpg[/media] The screenshots show that the models are lit differently in different places.[/QUOTE] That's a dynamic shadow light.

[QUOTE=BmB;26536494]Eh, Alien Swarm's system is just direct lighting with no radiosity and liberal use of bloom and projected textures with dynamic shadows. [editline]7th December 2010[/editline] That's a dynamic shadow light.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the models, unless I'm misreading what you're saying.

The shadow on the model is from an [url=http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Env_projectedtexture]env_projectedtexture[/url]

[QUOTE=Ray551;26529993]Holy mother of god, [b]EXTREME DINOSAURS[/b] in Source?![/QUOTE] Is there an other kind?

[QUOTE=Zally13;26536561]I'm talking about the models, unless I'm misreading what you're saying.[/QUOTE] It is possible though, here's a screenshot from Episode Two: [media]http://imageshack.dk/imagesfree/5Ku93562.jpg[/media]

[QUOTE=BmB;26538889]It is possible though, here's a screenshot from Episode Two: [media]http://imageshack.dk/imagesfree/5Ku93562.jpg[/media][/QUOTE] The models have some sort of shader on them and they look a lot better than they do in ep2. Obviously projected textures work on models, everyone figured this out long ago. Hell I made a mod where you screw around with it. [img_thumb]http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/4663/lightdynamic0056.jpg[/img_thumb]

There isn't anything to disagree with the models are receiving per vertex lighting right there.

It seems to glitch more in the current build, or so it seems. Portal 2 just looks more advanced and natural.

That's because it's not the same things going on. One is per vertex from vrad lights the other is per pixel from projected textures.

[QUOTE=BmB;26540090]That's because it's not the same things going on. One is per vertex from vrad lights the other is per pixel from projected textures.[/QUOTE] So then the other pictures would have the same effect. You kind of just contradicted yourself there. Unless, again, I misread.

What other pictures? It's two completely different kinds of lights.

[QUOTE=BmB;26540183]What other pictures? It's two completely different kinds of lights.[/QUOTE] You're right. I completely misread. Sorry.

I don't get why people don't understand this: Source is not about hyper-detail. This is true for many game engines, but Source especially. The point is not to produce super uber-quality maps that have 100% absolute photographic, picture-perfect, oh-my-God-I-thought-it-was-real-for-a-second quality. You know why? Because the player will most likely breeze through it in the space of a second. All your effort will be for naught when they decide to throw bottles at citizen's heads or gun down the pigeons. A good map is not meant to be a destination, but a route; the player will be doing things on the way through, not hanging around critiquing the curtains. And if they are, it means that your map is [b]boring[/b]. A level in Source is little more than a facade. Imagine an old hollywood set in a studio. Are the buildings going to be super-detailed all over? Will they have 100% accurate interiors? Will you even be able to open the doors? Of course not, because they're made of plywood, styrofoam and paint. But you don't know (or care) because the action is going on in front of it, capturing your attention. To all you mappers: go back and play HL2 again. And while you're at it, take a good hard look to see how all the elements of the maps fit together. I think you'll find that many of them look like complete arse under even a rough examination. Everyone uses "Valve Quality" to mean "exceptionally good looking mapping", when Valve really don't make particularly beautiful levels. Instead, they make maps where stuff happens, and in turn the players don't look too hard for the seams.

[QUOTE=TBot_Alpha;26548611]I don't get why people don't understand this: Source is not about hyper-detail. This is true for many game engines, but Source especially. The point is not to produce super uber-quality maps that have 100% absolute photographic, picture-perfect, oh-my-God-I-thought-it-was-real-for-a-second quality. You know why? Because the player will most likely breeze through it in the space of second. All your effort will be for naught when they decide to throw bottles at citizen's heads or gun down the pigeons. A good map is not meant to be a destination, but a route; the player will be doing things on the way through, not hanging around critiquing the curtains. And if they are, it means that your map is [b]boring[/b]. A level in Source is little more than a facade. Imagine an old hollywood set in a studio. Are the buildings going to be super-detailed all over? Will they have 100% accurate interiors? Will you even be able to open the doors? Of course not, because they're made of plywood, styrofoam and paint. But you don't know (or care) because the action is going on in front of it, capturing your attention. To all you mappers: go back and play HL2 again. And while you're at it, take a good hard look to see how all the elements of the maps fit together. I think you'll find that many of them look like complete arse under even a rough examination. Everyone uses "Valve Quality" to mean "exceptionally good looking mapping", when Valve really don't make particularly beautiful levels. Instead, they make maps where stuff happens, and in turn the players don't look too hard for the seams.[/QUOTE] Yeah well Valve games aren't full of endless shooting like Call of Duty, so the detail actually needs to be there.

[QUOTE=Zally13;26536561]I'm talking about the models, unless I'm misreading what you're saying.[/QUOTE] The light casted over those models are dynamic, per-pixel calculated lighting are casted accurately over objects. When it comes to the pre-calculated/baked lighting, the best models can get is per-vertex.

[QUOTE=Hostel;26552923]The light casted over those models are dynamic, per-pixel calculated lighting are casted accurately over objects. When it comes to the pre-calculated/baked lighting, the best models can get is per-vertex.[/QUOTE] I know, refer to how I said I misread. [QUOTE=TBot_Alpha;26548611]I don't get why people don't understand this: Source is not about hyper-detail. This is true for many game engines, but Source especially. The point is not to produce super uber-quality maps that have 100% absolute photographic, picture-perfect, oh-my-God-I-thought-it-was-real-for-a-second quality. You know why? Because the player will most likely breeze through it in the space of second. All your effort will be for naught when they decide to throw bottles at citizen's heads or gun down the pigeons. A good map is not meant to be a destination, but a route; the player will be doing things on the way through, not hanging around critiquing the curtains. And if they are, it means that your map is [b]boring[/b]. A level in Source is little more than a facade. Imagine an old hollywood set in a studio. Are the buildings going to be super-detailed all over? Will they have 100% accurate interiors? Will you even be able to open the doors? Of course not, because they're made of plywood, styrofoam and paint. But you don't know (or care) because the action is going on in front of it, capturing your attention. To all you mappers: go back and play HL2 again. And while you're at it, take a good hard look to see how all the elements of the maps fit together. I think you'll find that many of them look like complete arse under even a rough examination. Everyone uses "Valve Quality" to mean "exceptionally good looking mapping", when Valve really don't make particularly beautiful levels. Instead, they make maps where stuff happens, and in turn the players don't look too hard for the seams.[/QUOTE] Whilst I agree with that somewhat, it really depends. In Mass Effect 2, your home ship is detailed. Why? Because you spend a lot of time on it. For an FPS where you whiz past it, sure the quality isn't going to be amazing. However, in games, especially RPG's, where you spend a lot of time in one area, that place should be detailed.

There's a difference between "detailed", and having lots to do. You can have a very undetailed map but a very 'detailed' layout that leaves the player lots of places to explore, places to poke into, etc. This still entertains the player even without the impressive visuals or lighting.

[QUOTE=Lord Ned;26554958]There's a difference between "detailed", and having lots to do. You can have a very undetailed map but a very 'detailed' layout that leaves the player lots of places to explore, places to poke into, etc. This still entertains the player even without the impressive visuals or lighting.[/QUOTE] Yes, but visuals always help if you're in that area for extended periods of time.

[QUOTE=Zally13;26555134]Yes, but visuals always help if you're in that area for extended periods of time.[/QUOTE] That's what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE=Lord Ned;26554958]There's a difference between "detailed", and having lots to do. You can have a very undetailed map but a very 'detailed' layout that leaves the player lots of places to explore, places to poke into, etc. This still entertains the player even without the impressive visuals or lighting.[/QUOTE] I prefer to define a ratio of gameplay detail to superficial detail. In the total amount of detail, there are parts of the detail like: Floors, walls, obstacles, physics objects, buttons, enemies etc, that can be considered gameplay detail and integral to the game. Animations that show something about the enemy like a downed antlion squirming is gameplay detail. But then there's the superficial detail, like the bumpmapping and intricate details on said antlions, the sky, the background, elaborate buildings looming, cutscene npc's out of your reach and a whole lot of other things. These don't matter. As long as the player is occupied by the gameplay detail, the superficial detail might as well be *invisible*. It simply does not exist due to tunnel vision. HL2 however does offer moments of respite where gameplay detail is not necessarily occupying you and where a good looking vista might be apt. And, for an example, if you were to reduce a character to its gameplay detail, you would see only the hitbox because this is all that is relevant to the game when you are fighting the character. Anything more detailed than this is basically not going to be seen during combat. Something like glowing eyes on the combine do however increase visibility and has relevance to gameplay, so does the weapon carried. And general enemy type visual id like valve did excellently in TF2 does have a say.

I just thought I would ask this. Source Lighting or UDK Lighting? Which one wins?

[QUOTE=Dragon Master;26557535]I just thought I would ask this. Source Lighting or UDK Lighting? Which one wins?[/QUOTE] imo udk has more freedom, and actually proper dynamic lighting. Though you can add it into source.

[QUOTE=Firegod522;26557569]imo udk has more freedom, and actually proper dynamic lighting. Though you can add it into source.[/QUOTE] I think so too. Imagine a sandbox game in unreal.... It would be the best $2500 I ever spent... :sigh: