[QUOTE=The Jack;39926784]Some things i'd like.
A tool that allows people to make stuff happen without coding them. This is ludicrously important for small teams/loners
Larger lands.
Easier creation of larger lands.
More tinting channels.
better physics in regard too being in vehicles.
Cubemap falloff. for a beetle-like sheen.
Better grass[/QUOTE]
If by land you mean map, then sure.
I really do want better vehicle (at least car) physics though, it's one of Source's weak points these days in my opinion.
One thing I hope they do is keep Hammer relatively the same in terms of UI. I absolutely hate UDK and other engine's methods of brush creation, but Hammer hits the nail on the head in terms of simplicity. I know modeling is overtaking brushes, but we'd lose out on tons of custom maps for multiplayer games if Valve decides to force people into using models and not allowing the simplicity that brushes offer.
[editline]17th March 2013[/editline]
New features would be great, too, of course. I just wouldn't want them to throw everything around and change it all.
[QUOTE=Zally13;39947091]One thing I hope they do is keep Hammer relatively the same in terms of UI. I absolutely hate UDK and other engine's methods of brush creation, but Hammer hits the nail on the head in terms of simplicity. I know modeling is overtaking brushes, but we'd lose out on tons of custom maps for multiplayer games if Valve decides to force people into using models and not allowing the simplicity that brushes offer.[/QUOTE]
This is one of the reasons I have a hard time using another editor that mainly relies on models. Since I'm not much of a modeler myself, I have to rely on what models are given to me or use brushes. The way Hammer handles brushes is just amazingly simple and easy.
I think if they decide to keep brushwork (which I hope they do) that they turn more towards Radiant style (COD) because it is basically advanced brushwork.
[QUOTE=Zally13;39947091]One thing
[editline]17th March 2013[/editline]
New features would be great, too, of course. I just wouldn't want them to throw everything around and change it all.[/QUOTE]
As much as I use hammer and agree where your coming from, The 2 main things I want to change in the editor itself (exluding real-time renders) is a new simplified interface but still got those powerful tools and showing what lighting would look like in the editor (in-engine)!
To a message to valve: Show us [B]Half-Life 3[/B] already!
[QUOTE=stargate660;39947263]As much as I use hammer and agree where your coming from, The 2 main things I want to change in the editor itself (exluding real-time renders) is a new simplified interface but still got those powerful tools and showing what lighting would look like in the editor (in-engine)![/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, of course. I'm just talking in terms of UI and how it handles some things. I also like how textures are handled, but maybe that's just me, I guess I wouldn't mind too much if they changed that.
[QUOTE=stargate660;39947263]
To a message to valve: Show us [B]Half-Life 3[/B] already![/QUOTE]
Patience is the key here.
[QUOTE=stargate660;39947263]As much as I use hammer and agree where your coming from, The 2 main things I want to change in the editor itself (exluding real-time renders) is a new simplified interface but still got those powerful tools and showing what lighting would look like in the editor (in-engine)![/QUOTE]
No the editor itself is fine, it's very simple and easy, all it needs is less crashes and new icon that don't look like they were made in 1997.
[QUOTE=Armageddon104;39947397]No the editor itself is fine, it's very simple and easy, all it needs is less crashes and new icon that don't look like they were made in 1997.[/QUOTE]
I like it when it looks like it's made like 15 years ago. That tells me that the software did such a good job that it even reached till 2013, and that makes me feel good when I use it.
[editline]17th March 2013[/editline]
Even if it's forced because there's nothing else to use anyway.
Real-time lighting
Real-time material edit updater (So like when you make changes in VTFedit, it auto-updates it in Hammer)
More advanced I/O system
Just a few things I thought of off the top of my head that I would like to see in the new Hammer.
More odessa mustache action
[QUOTE=slayer20;39947477]
Real-time material edit updater (So like when you make changes in VTFedit, it auto-updates it in Hammer)
[/QUOTE]
This already happens for me.
[QUOTE=Lamarr;39947677]This already happens for me.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and Squirrel scripts in cs:go/portal 2 is like a very advanced I/O system.
We need more obsolete man! [img]https://developer.valvesoftware.com/w/images/thumb/1/19/Obsolete.png/40px-Obsolete.png[/img]
Don't forget this
[T]http://i.imgur.com/Q0RV98z.jpg[/T]
I hope they make the compile menu in Hammer more user friendly with nice check boxes and such!
[QUOTE=eatbeavers;39948548]I hope they make the compile menu in Hammer more user friendly with nice check boxes and such![/QUOTE]
Oh god no! They need to get rid of the compile process full stop! I want to jump in immediately without the need to compile the map everytime I need to playtest the map!
You need to compile a map to make it playable or testable. I can't see any work around that.
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;39950255]You need to compile a map to make it playable or testable. I can't see any work around that.[/QUOTE]
don't use bsp maybe
don't bake in lighting too
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;39950255]You need to compile a map to make it playable or testable. I can't see any work around that.[/QUOTE]
God, when the hell are you?
This is like a cheesy ass time travel movie where they go back in time and someone says "I CAN'T IMAGINE ANYTHING BEING MORE EFFICIENT THAN STEAM ENGINES"
[QUOTE=Juniez;39950278]
don't bake in lighting too[/QUOTE]
This is actually good, why put real time on everything?
[QUOTE=stargate660;39949346]Oh god no! They need to get rid of the compile process full stop! I want to jump in immediately without the need to compile the map everytime I need to playtest the map![/QUOTE]
Not right now, a lot of stuff still can't be done in full real-time, Even BF3 has pre-computed lighting / ambient occlusion.
But having it more real-time (for example, a fast-pass of AO or non-update) would be really nice.
[QUOTE=Francisco;39950934]This is actually good, why put real time on everything?[/QUOTE]
because next gen machines can (probably) handle it and the improvements in workflow efficiency makes it worth the performance
ideally though it'd be pretty cool to use an approximation for working and then bake it down once you've finalized it, kind of like what frostbite 2 does. But that sounds like a lot of work to implement
[QUOTE=Juniez;39952196]because next gen machines can (probably) handle it and the improvements in workflow efficiency makes it worth the performance
ideally though it'd be pretty cool to use an approximation for working and then bake it down once you've finalized it, kind of like what frostbite 2 does. But that sounds like a lot of work to implement[/QUOTE]
I dunno man, if you can write in dynamic lighting why would it be hard to implement both?
[editline]17th March 2013[/editline]
[sp]i'm not a programmer though...[/sp]
[QUOTE=Juniez;39952196]because next gen machines can (probably) handle it and the improvements in workflow efficiency makes it worth the performance
ideally though it'd be pretty cool to use an approximation for working and then bake it down once you've finalized it, kind of like what frostbite 2 does. But that sounds like a lot of work to implement[/QUOTE]
Your development machine can handle real-time lighting sure, but there's no need for dynamic lighting for static lights; baking in the lightmaps for the final version makes a lot of sense.
[QUOTE=danharibo;39952319]Your development machine can handle real-time lighting sure, but there's no need for dynamic lighting for static lights; baking in the lightmaps for the final version makes a lot of sense.[/QUOTE]
Computers are already at the point where we can handle dynamic lighting. I'm sure a lot of people who play Source games can't (because Source seems to attract less hardware competent computers), but it's definitely at that stage with the new hardware.
[QUOTE=Zally13;39952795]Computers are already at the point where we can handle dynamic lighting. I'm sure a lot of people who play Source games can't (because Source seems to attract less hardware competent computers), but it's definitely at that stage with the new hardware.[/QUOTE]
maybe in a year or two but no way those machines are common right now
Oh boy new hat simulators!
In all seriousness I'm looking forward to this. Hope it can come out by the next gen of consoles
[QUOTE=Juniez;39952927]maybe in a year or two but no way those machines are common right now[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, but that's why I said with new hardware. What's coming out can handle it.
[QUOTE=Zally13;39952795]Computers are already at the point where we can handle dynamic lighting. I'm sure a lot of people who play Source games can't (because Source seems to attract less hardware competent computers), but it's definitely at that stage with the new hardware.[/QUOTE]
Currently FB3 is probably the best engine out there for this: but even that isn't fully real time, the AO and overall lighting schemes are pre-computed (and it takes a shitton of computing power).
I'm personally holding out til REAL dynamic lighting (Raytracing) becomes fully realtime.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;39954039]Currently FB3 is probably the best engine out there for this: but even that isn't fully real time, the AO and overall lighting schemes are pre-computed (and it takes a shitton of computing power).
I'm personally holding out til REAL dynamic lighting (Raytracing) becomes fully realtime.[/QUOTE]
FB3? DICE's engine? That's Frostbite 2, there is no Frostbite 3.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
