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

[QUOTE=Shirky;26656596]Yeah, that has nothing to do with shaders, now if your talking about having the animated and not talking about sources shaders then, yes that would be cool[/QUOTE] I'm saying, L4D2's trees have an 'animated' sway effect that is all shader base. It's not a bone animation. They're all static I believe. The materials shader has instructions to create the sway effect.

Half lambert, ssbumps, cube mapped bump reflections, the special skin shader, not to mention the water, there's plenty to choose from. Phong however is a fugly overrated piece of, don't know why everyone jizzes over it. The beauty of the other shaders is how much they accomplish with so little. Heck, considering that Source is gamma accurate and phong is made with gamma inaccuracy in mind it's going to look 3x inaccurate wtf valve. It's like the rim light shader, all it does is create huge white unantialisable splotches on everything and look nothing like actual rim lighting still everyone jizzes what is wrong with you people? [editline]13th December 2010[/editline] Now what would be nice would be if world cubes could be perspective corrected and in higher resolution, and characters could be improved by having a dynamically updating cubemap that could then be used for spherical harmonic lighting and accurate reflections.

[QUOTE=BmB;26665696]Half lambert, ssbumps, cube mapped bump reflections, the special skin shader, not to mention the water, there's plenty to choose from. Phong however is a fugly overrated piece of, don't know why everyone jizzes over it. The beauty of the other shaders is how much they accomplish with so little. Heck, considering that Source is gamma accurate and phong is made with gamma inaccuracy in mind it's going to look 3x inaccurate wtf valve. It's like the rim light shader, all it does is create huge white unantialisable splotches on everything and look nothing like actual rim lighting still everyone jizzes what is wrong with you people? [editline]13th December 2010[/editline] Now what would be nice would be if world cubes could be perspective corrected and in higher resolution, and characters could be improved by having a dynamically updating cubemap that could then be used for spherical harmonic lighting and accurate reflections.[/QUOTE] Thats a good idea, but its fucking expensive to render.

how about a ragdoll poser?

[QUOTE=BmB;26665696]Half lambert, ssbumps, cube mapped bump reflections, the special skin shader, not to mention the water, there's plenty to choose from. Phong however is a fugly overrated piece of, don't know why everyone jizzes over it. The beauty of the other shaders is how much they accomplish with so little. Heck, considering that Source is gamma accurate and phong is made with gamma inaccuracy in mind it's going to look 3x inaccurate wtf valve. It's like the rim light shader, all it does is create huge white unantialisable splotches on everything and look nothing like actual rim lighting still everyone jizzes what is wrong with you people? [editline]13th December 2010[/editline] Now what would be nice would be if world cubes could be perspective corrected and in higher resolution, and characters could be improved by having a dynamically updating cubemap that could then be used for spherical harmonic lighting and accurate reflections.[/QUOTE] Rim lighting is basically a refined fresnel, that's why it looks shit.

A better lighting system overall would go a long way. Portal 2 looks amazing because it has a more refined lighting system. Improved shaders always make a difference too. If Valve made normal maps look better in Source then that alone would probably make a ton of difference.

Do it yourself then. Source has so many Modding capabilities that you can do that.

I've been absent for a while, (I notice I've been saying that a lot here), from Minecraft to OpenGL programming on Android. I've learned quite a bit in the process and hope to come back knowing how to work with the Source SDK code and some HLSL. One thing people need to do is slow down. Anyone can create a room, toss a bunch of props and a light in, then move to the next room, but spending a lot of time fine tuning the detail sets the good maps apart from the great maps. If you can get the atmosphere JUST right, the level will have so much more depth in it. Sometimes going that extra mile requires some complicated stuff, like shaders, a certain type of dynamic lighting, etc. I think that's what really sets the professional maps apart from everything else, knowing how to do really complicated stuff to get just that right feeling.

[QUOTE=Firegod522;26721342]Do it yourself then. Source has so many Modding capabilities that you can do that.[/QUOTE] Though there's barely any documentation with anything that doesn't involve exporting models, converting textures or mapping.

That is why you research. What do you think I've been doing?

[QUOTE=Firegod522;26737075]That is why you research. What do you think I've been doing?[/QUOTE] Deep research :v:

[QUOTE=Firegod522;26721342]Do it yourself then. Source has so many Modding capabilities that you can do that.[/QUOTE] As if I have the know-how. Plus, I'd rather learn UDK than figure out how to ad-lib visual upgrades in to Source.

Well then don't complain. :colbert:

Better lighting, not saying dynamic ... but better, not loading all of the damn light map into the video ram might help with higher light map girds, then optimizing and GPU accelerating VRAD. Tessellation (we actually currently have it since L4D2's build I believe) Higher poly counts. (why not :D) Better prop lighting. Better prop lighting. Semi-better displacement system. Better foliage system. Better texture blending system Surface displacement. (water, explosions, etc) Volumetric effects ?

Robert Briscoe. Dear Esther remake. I shall say nothing more. [url]http://www.littlelostpoly.co.uk/devblog/[/url] This is the man who brought us the stormdrains and the Shard in Mirror's Edge.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;26862914]Better lighting, not saying dynamic ... but better, not loading all of the damn light map into the video ram might help with higher light map girds, then optimizing and GPU accelerating VRAD. Tessellation (we actually currently have it since L4D2's build I believe) Higher poly counts. (why not :D) Better prop lighting. Better prop lighting. Semi-better displacement system. Better foliage system. Better texture blending system Surface displacement. (water, explosions, etc) Volumetric effects ?[/QUOTE] Oh, I didn't know Left 4 Dead 2 supported DirectX 10, let alone 11.

[QUOTE=Legend286;26872192]Oh, I didn't know Left 4 Dead 2 supported DirectX 10, let alone 11.[/QUOTE] I could understand dx10, but I really doubt dx11.

[QUOTE=Firegod522;26764282]Well then don't complain. :colbert:[/QUOTE] Wasn't complaining.

If an artist can make a great map in the source engine, the artist can make an even greater map in the ut3 engine. At least in theory. It can depend on what style people like, but most engines these days aim to be realistic looking. Some people use that dear eshter mod as an example, but the guy who makes that mod said that he's pushing the source engine to the limits. And it kind of looks as good as a modern engine would do [B]normally[/B]. [editline]23rd December 2010[/editline] And people often say "the source engine can look good if blah blah blah" where the explanation usually mentions a lot of "hacking" such as creating new shaders just to make it look better (that isn't really technically hacky, but it's "hacking" your whole "the source engine looks good" thing), or doing lighting tricks that wasn't meant to be done such as using env_projectedtexture as a sun (dunno if anyone did that, it's just an example). And that's a good sign it's outdated. Portal 2 looks pretty good though, but again that's not the source engine we're using today.

Honestly all Portal 2 is is more detail, more shaders and more dynamic shadows.

[QUOTE=Firegod522;26877458]I could understand dx10, but I really doubt dx11.[/QUOTE] Direct X 9 can support limited tessellation (Duh Remember Xbox 360?) Im going to find the supported direct X tessellation chart. Edit: can't find it anywhere D: but it basically showed direct x versions and their ability to GPU accelerated and handle tessellation, dx11 being fully supportive and flexible, 9 being able to but only simple things.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;26890480]Direct X 9 can support limited tessellation (Duh Remember Xbox 360?) Im going to find the supported direct X tessellation chart. Edit: can't find it anywhere D: but it basically showed direct x versions and their ability to GPU accelerated and handle tessellation, dx11 being fully supportive and flexible, 9 being able to but only simple things.[/QUOTE] Tessellation on the GPU was introduced with DX11, there aren't any other versions of it because it's too heavy to do on the CPU.

Some times just fine texturing can do the job.

[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 shit that's awesome, especially when he was like Lol Car at 00:28

If everyone had the time and undying patience, most maps would look better. When it comes to Source mapping, that is especially the key to better looking maps. Some here want a reformed lighting system, but I think it's more about reforming the engine so you can work faster. The faster you can work, the more time you can put into adjusting and detailing. This means we need an editor that allows us to see results of our work immediately. The engine would need to undergo some pretty hefty changes to have this. A real-time dynamic lighting system would allow this, but you lose the advantages of accurate pre-compiled radiosity. One day when the hardware is capable, this argument will be over because we will be able to sample radiosity quickly. Until then there is a careful balance between the quality of pre-compiled lighting and the capabilities of dynamic lighting. I really admired the use of dynamic lighting in Metro 2033; The soldiers with their volumetric-lit headlamps, the shootable lights, the moving anomalies, spinning lights, the subtle quivering shadows from a fire, adjustable spotlights. A dynamic lighting system would be great, but you would have to create additional lights that would simulate ambient light and radiosity for indoor areas. The real downer I see with Source is VVIS, a pain-in-the-ass time waster that sucks away the time we could be spending making our maps look better. There are many mainstream engines that occlude geometry in real-time very quickly on a large scale and Valve is presumably not taking a second to even consider changing their engine to do this right now. Having such a feature would also removed the need for brushes, and we would work only with faces.

[QUOTE=Hostel;26969846]The real downer I see with Source is VVIS, a pain-in-the-ass time waster that sucks away the time we could be spending making our maps look better. There are many mainstream engines that occlude geometry in real-time very quickly on a large scale and Valve is presumably not taking a second to even consider changing their engine to do this right now. Having such a feature would also removed the need for brushes, and we would work only with faces.[/QUOTE] I hope you understand that the current VIS system is one of the reasons Source works so well on low-end machines. It's largely pre-calculated, meaning the game isn't making a bunch of VIS calls every second.

[QUOTE=Legend286;26962723]Tessellation on the GPU was introduced with DX11, there aren't any other versions of it because it's too heavy to do on the CPU.[/QUOTE] It is possible on dx9 and on dx10, Xbox 360 is proof of this. (!!On dx9 & 10 hardware!!) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TruForm[/url] Hurrr. [url]http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1652277&page=4[/url] Double derp.

[QUOTE=HiddenMyst;26970329]I hope you understand that the current VIS system is one of the reasons Source works so well on low-end machines. It's largely pre-calculated, meaning the game isn't making a bunch of VIS calls every second.[/QUOTE] Real-time geometry occlusion culling doesn't mean doing VVIS calculations on the fly. Source's PVS rendering is faster, but not as effective as you think and leaves a lot rendered that wouldn't be in my solution. Low-end machines can do this stuff just fine as well. It's worth the trade off from a developer standpoint. There is a difference between low-end, and ancient hardware.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;26970539]It is possible on dx9 and on dx10, Xbox 360 is proof of this. (!!On dx9 & 10 hardware!!) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TruForm[/url] Hurrr. [url]http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1652277&page=4[/url] Double derp.[/QUOTE] I don't think Valve are going to use something like that, all the excess geometry created will bottleneck the fuck out of any cpu.

Gotta try that out on UT2k4!