[QUOTE=CommanderPT;20741909]
The guys behind Euphoria won't let anyone get it. They choose the developers that they want. Before you can even consider it, they must be interested in you. That's why only Rockstar has gotten it. Because they make some of the most popular games ever. Valve are great too but I suppose Natural Motion aren't interested in them.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s[/media]
broke my automerge
[QUOTE=CommanderPT;20741909]The guys behind Euphoria won't let anyone get it. They choose the developers that they want. Before you can even consider it, they must be interested in you. That's why only Rockstar has gotten it. Because they make some of the most popular games ever. Valve are great too but I suppose Natural Motion aren't interested in them.[/QUOTE]
Did you know that somwhere in development of HL2 Valve wanted to have the most advanced facial animations ever. What did they did? They hired a guy who was studying facial expressions for about 30 years, and he helped them make this thing. There is a lot examples like that. Like when they wanted to make comics, so they hired some guy that drew some popular comics and with his help they made lots of TF2 comics (see WAR update) and upcoming Left 4 Dead comics.
Morale of the story: If Valve will want to do something - they will do it. It's not like some developer wants to make something destructible in his game and to do that he must buy PhysX.
Then why no Euphoria?
I mean like. Euphoria would be a big deal. And good almost every which way.
You can have balancing ragdolls without euphoria you know.
[QUOTE=Chunk3ym4n;20744130]You can have balancing ragdolls without euphoria you know.[/QUOTE]
No.
[B]you can't[/B]
[QUOTE=BurningPride;20742251]Then why no Euphoria?
I mean like. Euphoria would be a big deal. And good almost every which way.[/QUOTE]
And why a Half Life game needs Euphoria? GTA needed it for drunk ragdolls, cars and when you bump into people. And in HL it would be only for killing. Pretty expensive if you ask me. Death animations aKa Left 4 Dead do a pretty good job.
[QUOTE=BurningPride;20745259]No.
[B]you can't[/B][/QUOTE]
Because you totally coded a game engine for a hit game before haven't you :rolleyes:
You can, you just need to modify the physics engine/ part of the game engine that handles ragdolls to do this. There is little to no need to use Euphoria other than ease and time saving.
[QUOTE=-TRASE-;20745333]And why a Half Life game needs Euphoria? GTA needed it for drunk ragdolls, cars and when you bump into people. And in HL it would be only for killing. Pretty expensive if you ask me. Death animations aKa Left 4 Dead do a pretty good job.[/QUOTE]
Point taken. It'd just be a fun thing to mess around with.
Then buy GTAIV.
[QUOTE=OrYgin;20749729]Then buy GTAIV.[/QUOTE]
I have it. Can we just stay on topic? Nevermind my posts :crying:
Oh, how Valve could benefit from the use of DMM.
This is what dreams are made of. :allears:
I'd say DMM would be pretty damn cool... But honestly, for Portal, Euphorea is a bit intense, especially because I'm not expecting any humanoids other than the player...
All I wish is that we get a really big improvement over the old Source Engine.
[QUOTE=Nova25;20726378]Why in the fucking fuck of all fucks would they make Portal 2 over Counter Strike 2?
Fuck you, Valve. I'm sick of this new-age, super cool features built into singleplayer games.
I want Counter Strike 2. Do they not understand the profit they would make off of it?
Do they not understand how powerful of a grip they have on the competitive PC gaming world?[/QUOTE]
All a CS2 would serve to do is split the community.
[QUOTE=winsanity;20752998]All a CS2 would serve to do is split the community.[/QUOTE]
Rated you agree. It'd probably end up with terms like 4chan's 'newfag' and 'oldfag' being slung around like it's World War II, and i'd personally like to see patches for CS:S/CS (despite the unlikeliness) and get new games for other series that deserve them more rather than get a new game to a multiplayer series that didn't really need it and get more people bitching about Episode 3 and 'Valve Time'.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Valve finally bit the bullet and went with dynamic shadows. If the whole "modular test chambers" thing is to be believed, then it would make rendering believable lightmaps a fucking huge pain in the ass. Pre-rendered shadows just don't work with changing level geometry. It would make sense to develop a new lighting method that is supported by the majority of current hardware and isn't tied to static scenes as much. Let's hope we get to find out at E3.
If they really get Dynamic shadows for all lights, i hope they built a new Map editor, or atleast a new vrad/vvis.
[QUOTE=Sie-Sveinhund;20728065]Am I the only one who's excited about [highlight]dynamic fucking liquid?[/highlight][/QUOTE]
That sounds like something people would make dirty mods with.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;20752592] [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/v/a06hAe747Do&hl=en&rel=0&autoplay=1&fs=1&hd=1"][/URL]
[URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=a06hAe747Do[/URL]
This is the newest version of the physics engine Source runs on (Havok) and their destruction engine.
GPU accelerated on nvidia and ati. It is seamlessly cross-platform compatible. :smug:
In Portal/Ep3 Please!
I remember in the ep2 benchmark leak, they had this simple dynamic fluid benchmark using combining metablobs. Perhaps they dusted it off for Portal 2:
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/#"]View YouTUBE video[/URL]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/v/znq_0MzUy84&hl=en&rel=0&autoplay=1&fs=1&hd=1"][/URL]
[URL]http://youtube.com/watch?v=znq_0MzUy84[/URL]
[/QUOTE]
Ok fuck we need it to Gmod. NOW.
[QUOTE=-TRASE-;20757814]Ok fuck we need it to Gmod. NOW.[/QUOTE]
.
[QUOTE=BloodYScar;20704198]Valve didnt use ingame shots for L4D1 and 2[/QUOTE]
Are you always saying stupid things or is that something you save to make yourself look more like an idiot when discussing Valve games?
[QUOTE=Nova25;20726378]Why in the fucking fuck of all fucks would they make Portal 2 over Counter Strike 2?
Fuck you, Valve. I'm sick of this new-age, super cool features built into singleplayer games.
I want Counter Strike 2. Do they not understand the profit they would make off of it?
Do they not understand how powerful of a grip they have on the competitive PC gaming world?[/QUOTE]
Counter-Strike is shit.
It looks like all they did was render it with Ambient occlusion. Examples below ( made them in blender in a minute )
Before
[IMG]http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/1728/beforeti.jpg[/IMG]
After
[IMG]http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/7729/aftersk.jpg[/IMG]
And just like in the op pictures. "Its either dark or light"
before or imaginary source
[IMG]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2899/before2k.jpg[/IMG]
after ( render with AO )
[IMG]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/5425/after2j.jpg[/IMG]
if you can think of the first picture to be source and second to be render you get the same results as the OP's pictures
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;20757795]That sounds like something people would make dirty mods with.[/QUOTE]
lol hahaha, I see what your thinking ;D
[QUOTE=Fearlezz;20763944]lol hahaha, I see what your thinking ;D[/QUOTE]
Yeah I'd use it for milk simulation :q:
:eek: why!?
Ok, seriously. Dynamic shadows might make the game look pretty, but I think better destruction physics would be better. Half-Life 2 was known for it's groundbreaking physics, but others have caught up. It's time for Valve to regain that position.
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;20803487]Ok, seriously. Dynamic shadows might make the game look pretty, but I think better destruction physics would be better. Half-Life 2 was known for it's groundbreaking physics, but others have caught up. It's time for Valve to regain that position.[/QUOTE]I think that is more of an EP3 thing than a Portal 2 thing. Obviously, it is possible to a good extent. Look at what Crytek, Havok, and Volition have/are doing. If we could get the same thing in the Source engine, especially in Garry's Mod, it would be great.
I really think dynamic lighting needs to be implemented first, though. It isn't just eye candy. It is something that could change the way maps are made and the engine is rendered. Porting probably wouldn't be a problem, but it definitely would get rid of a lot of trouble that mappers have to deal with (light leaks and getting cube maps to work properly, for example). Not to mention that it would allow for much faster map building times and maybe even being able to alter maps in-game (like the CryEngine, or, on a smaller scale, the C4 Engine).
Now we know they still use cubemaps
[url]http://gameinformer.com/mag/portal2.aspx[/url]
[QUOTE=Fearlezz;20814659]Now we know they still use cubemaps
[URL]http://gameinformer.com/mag/portal2.aspx[/URL][/QUOTE]
What?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
