[QUOTE=Lev;41047693]Is it possible Respawn did something like this? Is there a way to tell from the gameplay vids?[/QUOTE]
It's most likely the case, much of what I can see is either models and models, or models and displacements.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;41047340]If you update it slightly (like make models have lightmap grids), you can use it much more effectively, by replacing most brush-based geometry with models (as most engines are now-a-days).
Source renders models for really cheap compared to brushes.[/QUOTE]
Custom lightmap UVs are really needed, the Respawn guys probably implemented it.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;41047924]It's most likely the case, much of what I can see is either models and models, or models and displacements.[/QUOTE]
cool thanks
[QUOTE=.EDI;41046975]Its still brush based and very limited engine.[/QUOTE]
no man that criticism only works when it's the IWengine
Source is way better than the IWengine anyways.
[QUOTE=Horse Strangler;41055632]Source is way better than the IWengine anyways.[/QUOTE]
The issue is nobody takes full advantage of source. I think IW engine does have lightmaps on models though.
What is "taking full advantage of source"? You can hardly make bigger map than 150x150m and optimization is pain in the ass as it has to be done manually by visleaves as it was done in 90's.
[QUOTE=.EDI;41046975]Its still brush based and very limited engine.[/QUOTE]
CoD Ghost's new "revolutionary engine" is brush based
Every time I hear "Source is better than Unreal and Cry Engine because it can run on low end PC's" I fucking lose it. Where did this come from?
I think it's something fans came up with to excuse Valve these last few years for having an antiquated tool and renderer. It took next gen consoles/steambox thing to build a new tool set/renderer with Source 2.
I agree with you that it's team, not the engine that decides if it runs on older PC's.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;41056795]The issue is nobody takes full advantage of source. I think IW engine does have lightmaps on models though.[/QUOTE]
Source goes too, but it uses the UV channel used for your textures. without a custom lightmap UV channel, you're pretty much fucked if you mirror any geometry.
[QUOTE=.EDI;41056938]What is "taking full advantage of source"? You can hardly make bigger map than 150x150m and optimization is pain in the ass as it has to be done manually by visleaves as it was done in 90's.[/QUOTE]
It can support up to 4096^2 textures, it's lighting system (static one) can look top notch when artists know what they're doing, high modularity, HWM facial animations, eye shader, navmeshes, physics simulation, vertex animation support, and a shitton more: source can do a LOT.
Yeah, source can still boast about it's facial animations/physics.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;41057971]It can support up to 4096^2 textures, it's lighting system (static one) can look top notch when artists know what they're doing, high modularity, HWM facial animations, eye shader, navmeshes, physics simulation, vertex animation support, and a shitton more: source can do a LOT.[/QUOTE]
But Counter Strike: Source doesn't look like Crysis so you must be wrong.
[QUOTE=danharibo;41058184]But Counter Strike: Source doesn't look like Crysis so you must be wrong.[/QUOTE]
Yes because css and crysis came out in the same year
Crysis 1 came out later.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;41057971]It can support up to 4096^2 textures, it's lighting system (static one) can look top notch when artists know what they're doing, high modularity, HWM facial animations, eye shader, navmeshes, physics simulation, vertex animation support, and a shitton more: source can do a LOT.[/QUOTE]
Source games, well at least the ones by Valve, still have some of the better animations in general. Facial and other animations.
Also if you think that Source can't do jack, go check up Infra (ModDB, here, wherever) and you can see what can be done when you know what to do.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;41057971]It can support up to 4096^2 textures, it's lighting system (static one) can look top notch when artists know what they're doing, high modularity, HWM facial animations, eye shader, navmeshes, physics simulation, vertex animation support, and a shitton more: source can do a LOT.[/QUOTE]
CryEngine can do all that and more, and it has a WYSIWYG which Source will never have.
Could Irrational Games do what they did with Infinite under Source? Hell no, Source needs alot of fog and faking elements to make assets to not look like it came from TF2.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41058823]CryEngine can do all that and more, and it has a WYSIWYG which Source will never have.[/QUOTE]
Crysis uses a node graph, not a navmesh system (well, to be fair it's an odd hybrid).
it's also a deferred rendering engine: which means it's graphics are exactly that: what you see is what you get. It also means your lighting is limited to what it can do in real time, no full indirect GI (Although it does it's best to fake it).
Cryengine also has little modularity, modders can only touch high-level code: no low-level stuff as you can in Source.
Also no, Cryengine does not have as complex a facial animation system as Source's HWM: it's more akin to source 2004's systems: predefined animations and pulls as compared to a "real time" morph system.
I'm sure there's also plenty more to cover, but that's just what I know about at a glance.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41058823]Could Irrational Games do what they did with Infinite under Source? Hell no, Source needs alot of fog and faking elements to make assets to not look like it came from TF2.[/QUOTE]
Yes. You could most likely do everything infinite did under Source. Hell, that's a horrible game to pick: it wasn't that technologically advanced.
You're also assuming that Unreal (And bioshock infinite specifically) DIDN'T fake a lot of elements, and DIDN'T use a lot of fog... which is absurd.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;41059146]Crysis uses a node graph, not a navmesh system (well, to be fair it's an odd hybrid).
it's also a deferred rendering engine: which means it's graphics are exactly that: what you see is what you get. It also means your lighting is limited to what it can do in real time, no full indirect GI (Although it does it's best to fake it).
Cryengine also has little modularity, modders can only touch high-level code: no low-level stuff as you can in Source.
Also no, Cryengine does not have as complex a facial animation system as Source's HWM: it's more akin to source 2004's systems: predefined animations and pulls as compared to a "real time" morph system.
I'm sure there's also plenty more to cover, but that's just what I know about at a glance.[/quote]
Then explain to me why does Titanfall's facial animation look worse than Tomb Raider 2013?
Also I thought it was noted that Valve never released any documents on how to use the HWM, someone said here that they've kept it to themselves.
[quote]Yes. You could most likely do everything infinite did under Source. Hell, that's a horrible game to pick: it wasn't that technologically advanced.
You're also assuming that Unreal (And bioshock infinite specifically) DIDN'T fake a lot of elements, and DIDN'T use a lot of fog... which is absurd.[/QUOTE]
Doubtful, as it uses UE3. Which has decent DOF, which is one of Source's weak points, and loading screens. And Global illumination lighting (wasn't particularly impressed with CSGO's).
There's alot of stuff that infinite's engine has which Source would falls short on.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41059363]Then explain to me why does Titanfall's facial animation look worse than Tomb Raider 2013?
Also I thought it was noted that Valve never released any documents on how to use the HWM, someone said here that they've kept it to themselves.
[/QUOTE]
You sort of answered your own question there, dude.
does nobody know that when devs license source they have more control over the engine than a kid just making a source mod
also people don't understand that valve can change source it's not fucking hard to add DOF/global illumination/ssao/any other 'modern' engine feature
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41059363]Then explain to me why does Titanfall's facial animation look worse than Tomb Raider 2013? [/QUOTE]
"How come when I use this paint brush my paintings turn out morbid but when you use it yours look good?"
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;41059866]Uhhhhhhhh stop taking old engine branches as examples, source fantastic realtime bokeh DoF, SSAO and many of those 'modern' engine features, since Alien Swarm actually, and they are all fantastic when enabled[/QUOTE]
Alien Swarm doesn't really have the DoF and it doesn't have SSAO at all last I checked. To even get the DoF working you have to start it with an unsupported command line argument to enable hdr level 3 or something if I am not mistaken, which gives a higher bitdepth depth buffer which in turn allows for a good DoF effect.
And with regards to global illumination, Source has it more than you may consider, the lightmaps are calculated with radiosity, so for static geometry, you'll get some of the best lighting possible.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;41059866]Uhhhhhhhh stop taking old engine branches as examples, source fantastic realtime bokeh DoF, SSAO and many of those 'modern' engine features, since Alien Swarm actually, and they are all fantastic when enabled[/QUOTE]
i wasn't (source atm doesn't have ssao or global illum), i was just trying to get people to understand that licensing an engine is completely different from modding it at home
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41058823]it has a WYSIWYG which Source will never have. [/QUOTE]
stopped caring about your arguments right here
Graphics make the engine, guys. It's not about the tool pipeline or the average framerate during normal gameplay. You also cannot at all add features to an engine.
Why does UE3/4 exist? CryEngine is already better. Source should just get canceled.
[editline]16th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=NixNax123;41060473]i wasn't (source atm doesn't have ssao or global illum), i was just trying to get people to understand that licensing an engine is completely different from modding it at home[/QUOTE]
Well I wanted to keep this post 100% sarcastic, but it looks like I can't.
Source has both; without any community modding. Where have you been, and what have you been smoking? Dota 2.
I'd also like to point out that on the community side, even realtime [URL="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1604397/deferred%202010/Bokeh/2012-05-01_00001.jpg"]Bokeh DOF[/URL] has been done. There's a lot of modern engines that don't offer that out of the box.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41059363]Then explain to me why does Titanfall's facial animation look worse than Tomb Raider 2013?
[/QUOTE]
Not gonna lie, they look mediocre: but maybe they switched to using a different system that native in source (due to it's lack of documentation)
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41059363]
Also I thought it was noted that Valve never released any documents on how to use the HWM, someone said here that they've kept it to themselves.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but it wouldn't take too long to figure out if you had licensee contact with VALVe though.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41059363]
Doubtful, as it uses UE3. Which has decent DOF, which is one of Source's weak points, and loading screens. And Global illumination lighting (wasn't particularly impressed with CSGO's).
[/QUOTE]
UE3 does have decent DOF, but none of it was used in Infinite... Loading screens are a valid point: not that Infinite had exceptionally expensive levels though, as for GI... CS:GO's Vrad solver is only slightly different from any other version (since OB engine): the difference is it has cascaded shadows ("Realtime" sun shadows) which it didn't have.
[editline]oh shit[/editline]
Welp, gonna let Sam Ze Nemesis and 1/4 life finish this, since they have infinitely more experience in Source code than I do.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;41060689]I'm currently out of my main PC so I can't show a good example, these screenshots are all from last year or before that, with some modification on the code you can enable all features natively without workarounds, for example DoF.
[img]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/577830787819204425/44CB9FCE2ECB93B21B0AAB447031213E18D0FD5C/[/img]
All SFM shaders are there too and most of them work fine realtime, of course they needed some adjustments to work, but most all work fine, including SFM AO and [url=http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/560946438217306100/7C3EE9F93580302C85448514323495631E5505D2/]lightshafts[/url], (well before SFM was public), there's also unfinished [I]Tesselation[/I] code which can be fixed, it's halfway there and work with specific meshes already.
Also yes, VRAD has the same radiosity technology of Lightmass, when used correctly the results can be fantastic, I've made this some time ago
[img]http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/506890571822465986/636496CE00F66FE62076B568902B6AB15529CA46/[/img][/QUOTE]
Hm, but surely without using the higher hdr level the bit depth of the depth buffer hurts? It certainly did when I attempted to implement SSAO. It would be nice if you documented these features...
Example of why low bit depth depth buffer is very problematic if you for example, attempt to reconstruct normals:
[IMG_THUMB]http://i.minus.com/i27QT8knA6YTA.png[/IMG_THUMB]
[QUOTE=ben1066;41061313]Hm, but surely without using the higher hdr level the bit depth of the depth buffer hurts? It certainly did when I attempted to implement SSAO. It would be nice if you documented these features...
Example of why low bit depth depth buffer is very problematic if you for example, attempt to reconstruct normals:
[IMG_THUMB]http://i.minus.com/i27QT8knA6YTA.png[/IMG_THUMB][/QUOTE]
The fix is to make your own depth buffer and disregard/disable the low-bit depth one Valve did, or move onto deferred. It's been done many times.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
