[QUOTE]-Added a parameter that discounts “player sound” status when determining the distance of a sound that is currently hardcoded into the operators system (“[I]source 1[/I]″ legacy).. “force_not_player_sound”[/QUOTE]
from cs go update
they now call the engine source 1
we might see something interesting about source 2 soon
[QUOTE=xplodwild;37164660]Area Lights is in the Alien Swarm SDK (and I'm sure you played with it already in Garry's Mod), known as Volumetric Light or Projective-texture lights. Nothing new.[/QUOTE]
No, you just don't know what you're talking about. The dynamic lighting in Source isn't area. The shadows don't blur the further they go; like physical lights do.
[editline]11th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=testinglol;37180547]from cs go update
they now call the engine source 1[/QUOTE]
Makes me think: cs:s was that first released source game, hl2 followed :)
-snip- I give up. Believe what you want.
[QUOTE=testinglol;37180547]from cs go update
they now call the engine source 1
we might see something interesting about source 2 soon[/QUOTE]
My everything is ready
[QUOTE=testinglol;37180547]from cs go update
they now call the engine source 1
we might see something interesting about source 2 soon[/QUOTE]
Really interesting, the current version of Source was supposed to use DirectSound API with Miles, but something happened with Windows Vista / 7 so it uses some Miles fallback that isn't as good; you can get it back by using 3d Sound Back and "snd_legacy_surround 1"
I'd love to see source2 naively support OpenAL Soundcards.
[editline]11th August 2012[/editline]
Well, Source 04 - 09. The L4D+ versions use an updated version I think.
(I don't exactly know, not all the SRC files are available, and even if; its Miles so it might be hard/impossible to find out from the engine itself.)
[QUOTE=The Jack;37173020]Stop bringing up skyrim. It just makes me want to throw things at you. It's a mosty ugly game and todd's a colossal cunt.
I realy hope we get grass/terrain like this soon. But im not sure if it's fps friendly and optimised or they have a beast of a computer. It's still pretty good though.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdMaFWGLxKE[/url][/QUOTE]
[t]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/524903977712402195/DF271C33EB5CA3E783ACB1B10B8E321245651483/[/t]
Hi.
(It's included with Source Shader Editor.)
I hope source 2 has an extremely detailed gore/gibbing system that works in a similar manner to environment destruction a la Red Faction. I want to be able to use bullets to dig holes in bodies, or use a shotgun to blow chunks out of someone without armor.
[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;37223653]I hope source 2 has an extremely detailed gore/gibbing system that works in a similar manner to environment destruction a la Red Faction. I want to be able to use bullets to dig holes in bodies, or use a shotgun to blow chunks out of someone without armor.[/QUOTE]
And good documentation on it ?
Think of all the fun shit modders could do with it.
[QUOTE=OP;37099582]"Source is considered the most flexible, comprehensive, and powerful game development environment out there. And it's about to get even better."[/QUOTE]
Oh Gabe, you are a [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1200933&p=37212841&viewfull=1#post37212841]joker[/url].
[QUOTE=Legend286;37223529][t]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/524903977712402195/DF271C33EB5CA3E783ACB1B10B8E321245651483/[/t]
Hi.
(It's included with Source Shader Editor.)[/QUOTE]
Is that fps friendly?
also- in the future i hope that everything becomes physics based. EVERYTHING.
[QUOTE=The Jack;37229512]Is that fps friendly?
also- in the future i hope that everything becomes physics based. EVERYTHING.[/QUOTE]
Just go outside?
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;37229534]Just go outside?[/QUOTE]
I have a problem with shooting at people outside :/
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;37229534]Just go outside?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Jack;37229562]I have a problem with shooting at people outside :/[/QUOTE]
Not to mention the graphics are terrible.
[QUOTE=The Jack;37229512]Is that fps friendly?
also- in the future i hope that everything becomes physics based. EVERYTHING.[/QUOTE]
Could you expand on "everything being physics based" by actually saying something?
[QUOTE=El_Jameo;37229571]Not to mention the graphics are terrible.[/QUOTE]
Can't even disable bloom, bloody outrageous.
[QUOTE=danharibo;37229579]Could you expand on "everything being physics based" by actually saying something?[/QUOTE]
Mellee combat for instance? Sharpness, angle of impact, weight and strength of both weapon and place where it impacts, How each body moves to the hit or gets damaged.
perhaps recoil could be done entirely be physics (with animation trying to counteract)
[QUOTE=The Jack;37229794]Mellee combat for instance? Sharpness, angle of impact, weight and strength of both weapon and place where it impacts, How each body moves to the hit or gets damaged.
perhaps recoil could be done entirely be physics (with animation trying to counteract)[/QUOTE]
Those could all be modeled accurately, no need to involve a physics engine.
Not sure if it's popped up in this thread so far but i'd love to see Unlimited Detail integrated with the current polygon technology.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4[/url]
[QUOTE=rezOnance;37254605]Not sure if it's popped up in this thread so far but i'd love to see Unlimited Detail integrated with the current polygon technology.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gAbgBu8R4[/url][/QUOTE]
unlimited detail is a bullshit scam
[QUOTE=KaNe1310;37254764]unlimited detail is a bullshit scam[/QUOTE]
Nope, and it's very much feasible. Did you know that the next id Tech engine is using that technology?
[editline]15th August 2012[/editline]
Or at least, that KIND of technology.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;37254925]Nope, and it's very much feasible. Did you know that the next id Tech engine is using that technology?
[editline]15th August 2012[/editline]
Or at least, that KIND of technology.[/QUOTE]
Have you even LISTENED to John Cormack (The guy behind ID tech) about it ?
Have one
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hapCuhAs1nA[/media]
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;37228719]Oh Gabe, you are a [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1200933&p=37212841&viewfull=1#post37212841]joker[/url].[/QUOTE]
You linked to a post where you rant about Frostbite, which as far as we know, can only do shooters; have a lot of bloom, and has NO mod support; I'd call source more "Flexible" than frostbite.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;37254925]Nope, and it's very much feasible. Did you know that the next id Tech engine is using that technology?
[editline]15th August 2012[/editline]
Or at least, that KIND of technology.[/QUOTE]
"Re Euclideon, no chance of a game on current gen systems, but maybe several years from now. Production issues will be challenging." - john carmack
[editline]15th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;37255459]You linked to a post where you rant about Frostbite, which as far as we know, [b]can only do shooters;[/b] have a lot of bloom, and has NO mod support; I'd call source more "Flexible" than frostbite.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7c/Needforspeedtheruncover.jpg/250px-Needforspeedtheruncover.jpg[/img]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Generals_2.png[/img]
also you do realize when you're talking about "a lot of bloom" that's very easily flexible, right? not every game that would use FB2 look like BF3, lmao
I had no idea, i'm going to watch this now.
EDIT: :(
To you guys saying that John Carmack is saying the technology isn't possible now, have this: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km0DpZUgvbg[/url]
And yes, animation is possible, there's a few demos around about how to do this mathematically.
Rate me disagree all you like, the proof exists right there.
Is it bad that i alternate between understanding what he says and aspire to understand what he says?
I loved the moment where he goes on about their awesome raytracing at 16 FPS and then they show us the CPU graph with like 24 threads screaming at 90%.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;37259693]To you guys saying that John Carmack is saying the technology isn't possible now, have this: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km0DpZUgvbg[/url]
And yes, animation is possible, there's a few demos around about how to do this mathematically.
Rate me disagree all you like, the proof exists right there.[/QUOTE]
SVO =/= "Unlimited Detail"
SVO is a way of saving and reading (to be rendered) Voxles, which REALLY aren't very flexible and don't look THAT good; there is a reason we use polygons for raster images man, they are EASIER to use and look BETTER; you could make a room that dense in detail with polys and it would render even faster.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_voxel_octree[/url]
And John Carmack knows what he is talking about, Its not fesable, and even when we do get Ray-Tracing for games, we will still use polys, because its what we've used for a long time, and what works best.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;37259693]To you guys saying that John Carmack is saying the technology isn't possible now, have this: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km0DpZUgvbg[/url]
And yes, animation is possible, there's a few demos around about how to do this mathematically.
Rate me disagree all you like, the proof exists right there.[/QUOTE]
so how are you going to accomplish animation with SVO or point cloud modelling? are you just going to google "unlimited detail animation" and send [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8A4bsfKH8]this[/url] at me like you have an actual fucking clue as to what you're talking about b/c this frame-by-frame solution hampers CG animation so fucking much
Source is pretty crap and outdated now, only thing going for it is polished netcode + lack of model reliance when building levels.
[QUOTE=Aurora93;37263689]so how are you going to accomplish animation with SVO or point cloud modelling? are you just going to google "unlimited detail animation" and send [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF8A4bsfKH8]this[/url] at me like you have an actual fucking clue as to what you're talking about b/c this frame-by-frame solution hampers CG animation so fucking much[/QUOTE]
I don't want to take this further off topic, so I've sent it to you instead.
[QUOTE=T3hGamerDK;37259693]To you guys saying that John Carmack is saying the technology isn't possible now, have this: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km0DpZUgvbg[/url]
And yes, animation is possible, there's a few demos around about how to do this mathematically.
Rate me disagree all you like, the proof exists right there.[/QUOTE]
ugh pro-euclidian people are the worst
yes animation is technicaly possible but its not feasible by any stretch of the imagination no matter how many small scale demos you can pull out of your arse to support it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
