[B]Fun facts:[/B]
:siren:Valve will not use a new engine, why would they? The Source Engine is their life work
:siren:So far nothing is 100% confirmed
[highlight][B]I made this thread to share my thoughts and speculate with others what they think about the improved Source Engine. [/B][/highlight]
Please go to the [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=904084"]Portal 2 Megathread[/URL] for the [U]latest[/U] Portal 2 info.
Okay so, lets start with who I am. Im a 4 years experienced game designer that go to school and just mod games for the fun of it. Under these 4 years I've learned alot about Src and how it works. I know whats possible, and what looks best ect.
So when I saw the scanned GI magazine about Portal 2, and then saw the ingame screenshot, I was most certain they had improved the engine.
[B]
Lets take a look at this[/B]
[img_thumb]http://redirectingat.com/?id=629X1198&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffilesmelt.com%2Fdl%2F12679385644471.jpg[/img_thumb]
The three screenshot in the top right corner, that is taken of the same area, look at it carefully. As a player, you may not see anything different in there, except new content obviously. Or maybe you do?
I noticed something. The lighting, look at the shadows on the platforms moving up and creating a floor.
These are called dynamics. They move, even if its animated, its dynamic in Src. So? you might be thinking right now. Well, the thing is, dynamic props or object in Src does not render a shadow like that on them. Either they go dark, or they go bright, depending where they are positioned in the world. Other level designers might see where Im going with this now.
[B]This is one of the most concrete evidence of highly improved lighting engine in Src![/B]
Right now I have no idea if its [I]Real-time lighting[/I] or if the same old [I]"fake"[/I] lighting but improved or what.
Now lets move on the the other screenshots in the same image I posted above.
Let's discuss the two screenshots below the ones we just talked about.
I don't want to sound like a douchbag and say that I know better then all of you out there, cause Im pretty damn sure I don't since you guys cracked all those puzzles containing Portal 2 info.
But as a level designer with years of experience, I do know the limits of the Src Engine. That is why, even I got mega shocked and hyped when I saw these new images of Portal 2. Cause, not only can I wait to experience the story and play the game, but also get me hands on the improved engine.
But yeah, let me get why I just said that. The two images we where going to discuss. Those areas are huuuuge. So much bigger then Ive ever seen in Src. In the exception of some maps in the HL2 series, [B][U]BUT[/U][/B] those map's layout was cleverly designed for optimization reasons. So the player could remain a decent amount of fps.
These areas however, are blank open areas with sight over the whole area. And not to mention props all over the place!
Maps like this would not work well over time in Src. [U]Im not saying its not possible to create.[/U]
[B]This is one of the most concrete evidence of huge optimization improvements in the Source Engine.[/B]
But then again my eye might just have been fooled by all the new content and props that might make it look bigger. But [B][U]I highly doubt it.[/U][/B]
Thats my thoughts on this. And I cant wait for Portal 2 to come out, and cant waaaait for Episode 3 and the new particle editor :3
[highlight]Also if Im late, my bad, didnt find anything in the forum.[/highlight]
More images you might want to take a look at:
[img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/12679384797071.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/12679385235261.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/12679385644471.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/12679386065031.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/12679386533881.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/12679387204441.jpg[/img_thumb]
I noticed the lighting but never said anything, I thought it was just me! The lighting definitely looks more realistic than previous versions of Source.
Have they even discussed a new particle editor?
A lot of it looks like concept art, or at least post-modified screen shots for reference.
One thing I've thought of is if they have come up with a new dynamic lighting engine, it must have been difficult making shadows cast [b]through[/b] portals.
[QUOTE=Jimbomcb;20703976]Have they even discussed a new particle editor?[/QUOTE]
Not that I know of, but they did loads of improvement in the particle editor for L4D2.
And when they improve the engine in different ways, they'll surely improve the particle editor, aswell as adding more functions and attributes to it.
It looks like in games to me. Seems like an awful lot of work to make those "screen shots" just to have the actual in game look crappy.
This could be a Maya render, but why would they show their game in a Maya render ?
(if it was a trailer or something i could understand (even if valve use ingame shot for their trailers), but a Press media release ?)
Other than Meet the Team I don't think Valve have ever used artificial stuff like that
Valve didnt use ingame shots for L4D1 and 2
They used for sure the Sourcefilmmaker. It also can render only pictures, you know.
I'm hoping for DX11 support.
[QUOTE=Nalty;20704402]I'm hoping for DX11 support.[/QUOTE]
For what ?
Also i Hope we'll get the choice to use OpenGL or Dx on windows :D
The image you showcased looks like a regular OB flashlight to me.
However, this image looks the most obvious to me:
[URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Wheatly.png[/IMG][/URL]
Self-shadowing on the models, shadows that are much sharper than pre-compiled lighting would allow.
[QUOTE]why would they? The Source Engine is their life work[/QUOTE]
By that logic they would still be using GldSrc.
People need to stop thinking of the Source engine like it's Valve's child. Other developers have dropped their old engines made new engines plenty of times. There are quite a few engines out there that are much, much better than Source, and improving it can only keep you from falling behind for so long. Stop thinking that Valve needs to be emotionally attached to it.
This doesn't mean I think that they'll be replacing the Source Engine in Portal 2. I'm just saying being emotionally attached to Source is stupid.
What I really want to see other than the lighting is the paint. They say it's dynamic and it interacts with portals!?
[editline]08:14PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;20704441]By that logic they would still be using GldSrc.
People need to stop thinking of the Source engine like it's Valve's child. Other developers have dropped their old engines made new engines plenty of times. There are quite a few engines out there that are much, much better than Source, and improving it can only keep you from falling behind for so long. Stop thinking that Valve needs to be emotionally attached to it.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. GoldSrc was an evolution of the engines of the first 2 quake games. Source is an evolution of GoldSrc. Maybe some other version will be the evolution of Source?
That would be awesome, especially because source is a good engine on lot of points (but a poor one on lot of points too).
Well I'm a very optimistic person, and believe that there will be improved engine, I suggest to waif for some info rather than some scanned screenshots.
But I can tell you one thing: Valve made some screenshots of L4D2 with player with noclip pointing his flashlight so it looks like dynamic shadows. But shadows on Portal 2 scans are not from source flashlights. I can see it.
Who cares if it's Source or not, it's made by Valve, they know what they're doing
I've never seen valve releasing pre-rendered shit. Normally it's just ingame shit that was optimized with SFM
[QUOTE=Batmoutarde;20704691]I've never seen valve releasing pre-rendered shit. Normally it's just ingame shit that was optimized with SFM[/QUOTE]
So what is there none pre-rendered? SFM is a renderer.
-sniped shit-
Oh hey, for people rating me dumb:
[QUOTE]What changed with no doubt is that Portal will have high-res shadow maps (also soft ones). Don't think Pixar, think [B]Mass Effect 2[/B]. Only less pixelated.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://gameinformer.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.ImageFileViewer/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles.00.00.00.00.09/1586.610.jpg_2D00_610x0.jpg[/IMG]
Those pixelated shadows sure do look familiar.
[quote=sergeant turtle;20704421]the image you showcased looks like a regular ob flashlight to me.
However, this image looks the most obvious to me:
[url=http://filesmelt.com/][img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/wheatly.png[/img][/url]
self-shadowing on the models, shadows that are much sharper than pre-compiled lighting would allow.[/quote]
lightmapped models yeah
[QUOTE=Populus89;20705009]In that case ep2 already had dynamic ones.[/QUOTE]
No it didn't. All shadows are cast at a precalculated angle and distance, they don't change based on light sources. The only light that casts dynamic shadows is the flashlight.
[QUOTE=KarmaPolice;20705624]No it didn't. All shadows are cast at a precalculated angle and distance, they don't change based on light sources. The only light that casts dynamic shadows is the flashlight.[/QUOTE]
It still had them, and you can put them everywhere instead of the regular light entities
[QUOTE=KarmaPolice;20705624]No it didn't. All shadows are cast at a precalculated angle and distance, they don't change based on light sources. The only light that casts dynamic shadows is the flashlight.[/QUOTE]
So it did.
I wasn't saying "ep2 had all dynamic lights". I said ep2 just had them. A 3 year old game had them already.
[QUOTE=Populus89;20705659]So it did.
I wasn't saying "ep2 had all dynamic lights". I said ep2 just had them. A 3 year old game had them already.[/QUOTE]
Except the Episode 2 method sucked balls. It was expensive on performance, and only one light could cast shadows at any given time. Which is why what the poster above you said to do doesn't work, incidentally.
[QUOTE=Sergeant Turtle;20704421]The image you showcased looks like a regular OB flashlight to me.
However, this image looks the most obvious to me:
[URL="http://filesmelt.com/"][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Wheatly.png[/IMG][/URL]
Self-shadowing on the models, shadows that are much sharper than pre-compiled lighting would allow.[/QUOTE]
I can tell you its not a flashlight, if you check where the light source comes from, and how big it is, and how bright.
Unless theyve changed the flashlight setting just for taking those screenshots. But then again it says that IG played those maps.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;20705643]It still had them, and you can put them everywhere instead of the regular light entities[/QUOTE]
No you can't.
1. Env_projectedtexture entities don't actually light things, it'll still be fullbright no matter how many env_projectedtextures you place.
2. Env_projectedtexture entities are far too expensive to render to be used in great number.
3. Env_projectedtexture doesn't calculate light-bounces or any of the things that VRAD does so they'll look unrealistic and generally shite.
[QUOTE=Populus89;20705009]Hold on a minute.
You tell me you have "years of experience", yet you somehow fail to explain, and I'm willing to bet, understand, lightning in games? Or at least you can't call things by their name?
I have no idea what kind of lightning you mean, because despite your game design experience, you cannot use proper terminology. First of, there is no way Valve would ever implement raytracing. It's not possible. That method bases on calculating each and every ray of light passing through the screen. Imagine having a Pixar movie rendered on your pc.
If you're not talking about raytracers, and by god I hope you aren't, there is no distinction from "Real-time" lighting and "fake" lighting you mention. In games, shadows are always fake and always in real-time. Unless you mean static and dynamic shadows. In that case ep2 already had dynamic ones.
What changed with no doubt is that Portal will have high-res shadow maps (also soft ones). Don't think Pixar, think Mass Effect 2. Only less pixelated.
I also agree that they've let Source free by having it handle more stuff. I doubt it's anything revolutionary, just optimizing. The number of poly and objects on screen doesn't depend entirely on the engine's features, but the power of your pc. For an engine to handle more stuff, you simply have to optimize it.
I don't think Source was overhauled. I have no doubts they've added a lot of new features and made improvements to match current standards, but it's not a revolution. The reason for this is that Source was always a beautiful and powerful engine.[/QUOTE]
"you're so dumb! you don't even understand the lightning [sic] effects"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
