Source 2 believed to be in development - Games

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;41061524]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.[/QUOTE] Yes, that is the correct fix, however it's also not that practical, it does require recompiling every shader, and that's not fast, source has a lot of shaders. Also, at that point I don't think the shader source had been released for Alien Swarm.

New info about the techniques used in titanfall [QUOTE]For those expecting "normal" Source engine - don't. Those super smart coders (like Calen in this thread!) have re-written a massive amount of the codebase.[B] The renderer is completely new (multi-threaded, DX11, 64bit, etc.)[/B], along with all the sound code, netcode, input code, etc. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=63944906#post63944906[/url]

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;41060802]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] 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]fuck i was confusing ssao with hbao shit [editline]16th June 2013[/editline] god fuck i deserve all the dumbs

[QUOTE=Robertto;41061590]New info about the techniques used in titanfall [quote]For those expecting "normal" Source engine - don't. Those super smart coders (like Calen in this thread!) have re-written a massive amount of the codebase. The renderer is completely new (multi-threaded, DX11, 64bit, etc.), along with all the sound code, netcode, input code, etc.[/quote] [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=63944906#post63944906[/url][/QUOTE] Hmm, I'd assume they just heavily modified the actual renderer (you can add dx11 without completely throwing the old rendering out the window). But I'm going to stick with it looks like source, and I'll wait till I can actually poke around in the game until I see how much is / isn't "custom" code. [editline]16th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NixNax123;41061691]fuck i was confusing ssao with hbao shit [editline]16th June 2013[/editline] god fuck i deserve all the dumbs[/QUOTE] HBAO and SSAO are both methods to get the same thing done...

[QUOTE=Robertto;41061590]New info about the techniques used in titanfall [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=63944906#post63944906[/url][/QUOTE] Valve has been working on a DX10 renderer as far back as Source 2007, it's in the leaked code, and appears to be at least partially functional, with some of the test cases made for it. It's not impossible that Valve may have shared this with licensees for Xbox One ports. Source is already multi-threaded...

-snip, i got my info wrong-

[QUOTE=Gamerman12;41062106]Source supports DX10 but only on consoles (it was required for Source on Xbox 360)[/QUOTE] Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the consoles don't use DX10. They were limited to 9 afaik.

[QUOTE=halflife_123;41062832]Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the consoles don't use DX10. They were limited to 9 afaik.[/QUOTE] Xbox 360 had a custom hybrid version of DX9 that had some x10 features.

[QUOTE=halflife_123;41062832]Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the consoles don't use DX10. They were limited to 9 afaik.[/QUOTE] They used 9.0c, which was released during an update to windows XP back when vista was released Albeit, with some preset brown color curves and a few extra sun ray shaders.

Shit, you guys are right. My bad.

[QUOTE=Gamerman12;41063163]Shit, you guys are right. My bad.[/QUOTE] Xbox 360 was DX9 only. The paper you're thinking of with that statement was addressing how they corrected the gamma curve on that console, and it mentioned DX10 as it used that as the example PC gamma curve, particularly with particle effects in mind.

[QUOTE=ben1066;41060431]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] [hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKvMu4K4Z_A[/hd]

[QUOTE=glitchvid;41060975]Yeah, but it wouldn't take too long to figure out if you had licensee contact with VALVe though.[/quote] Source has a good facial animation already, it doesn't make sense to change it since what I saw was terrible. I just hope that's not the final version. [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..[/QUOTE] This is amusing and all, but I think we all realized that Valve knows Source is no longer a good engine for an AAA dev. But Garry was quoted as saying that he's not sure the new one will be modable, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Source 2 came with everyone's favorite authoring tools.

[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41066509]This is amusing and all, but I think we all realized that Valve knows Source is no longer a good engine for an AAA dev. But Garry was quoted as saying that he's not sure the new one will be modable, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Source 2 came with everyone's favorite authoring tools.[/QUOTE] Then why is Titanfall using it? Yeah I know it's heavily modified, but it's still source and very much a Triple-A game.

[QUOTE=I am Error;41067366]Then why is Titanfall using it? Yeah I know it's heavily modified, but it's still source and very much a Triple-A game.[/QUOTE] [quote][B]"We were kind of interested in Source early on because it’s very familiar to our designers,"[/B] said Richard Baker, a software engineer at Respawn who previously worked on Call of Duty 2, Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2. [B]Source also suited Respawn’s desire to hit a constant 60 frames per second on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3[/B], where other third-party engines weren’t up to the task.[/quote] [URL]http://www.polygon.com/e3-2013/2013/6/12/4419110/titanfall-respawn[/URL] Though a high stable framerate is important for gameplay, engine/programming-language familiarity is essential for developers. It's easy to keep development costs down if you understand how the tools work.

Of course Source can do 60+ frames easily because nothing is done in real time. When source map is compiled, hammer editor calculates all the lighting and optimization(visleaves). Thats why the map ends with good framerates. However this "pre-calculating" isn't very modern.

[QUOTE=3noneTwo;41067585][URL]http://www.polygon.com/e3-2013/2013/6/12/4419110/titanfall-respawn[/URL] Though a high stable framerate is important for gameplay, engine/programming-language familiarity is essential for developers. It's easy to keep development costs down if you understand how the tools work.[/QUOTE] I wasn't actually asking, rather I was making a point.

[QUOTE=I am Error;41068425]I wasn't actually asking, rather I was making a point.[/QUOTE] Then your point just got shot out of the air. [QUOTE=.EDI;41068387]Of course Source can do 60+ frames easily because nothing is done in real time. When source map is compiled, hammer editor calculates all the lighting and optimization(visleaves). Thats why the map ends with good framerates. However this "pre-calculating" isn't very modern.[/QUOTE] Say that to Frostbite 3. [QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41066509]Source has a good facial animation already, it doesn't make sense to change it since what I saw was terrible.[/QUOTE] A lot of people change what ain't broke. [QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41066509] This is amusing and all, but I think we all realized that Valve knows Source is no longer a good engine for an AAA dev. But Garry was quoted as saying that he's not sure the new one will be modable, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Source 2 came with everyone's favorite authoring tools.[/QUOTE] VALVe deems source perfectly fine for their needs, DOTA 2 was made on it, CS:GO was released recently, TF2 still undergoes active development: a small/medium team at VALVe just decided "Hey, we could probably make some big nice changes to source for the next-gen": hence Source 2.

[QUOTE=I am Error;41067366]Then why is Titanfall using it? Yeah I know it's heavily modified, but it's still source and very much a Triple-A game.[/QUOTE] Because it's expensive to make a new engine and West/Zampella is familiar with Quake tech so.... [QUOTE=glitchvid;41068629]VALVe deems source perfectly fine for their needs, DOTA 2 was made on it, CS:GO was released recently, TF2 still undergoes active development: a small/medium team at VALVe just decided "Hey, we could probably make some big nice changes to source for the next-gen": hence Source 2.[/QUOTE] Source fits Valve's free to play model fairly well as well as the esport forcus. If Valve were to make a big budget singleplayer game in the next gen, Source wouldn't be the right choice. We're all anticipating Valve unveiling Left 4 Dead 3, I'd be surprised if Valve didn't use Source 2. Smash I believe stated on his forum that Valve is finally finished updating TF2 game and moving onto other projects.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;41068629]Then your point just got shot out of the air. [/QUOTE] No my point exactly was that it can and still is used for AAA games.

[QUOTE=.EDI;41068387]Of course Source can do 60+ frames easily because nothing is done in real time. When source map is compiled, hammer editor calculates all the lighting and optimization(visleaves). Thats why the map ends with good framerates. However this "pre-calculating" isn't very modern.[/QUOTE] But it makes sense to precompute as much as you can if what you want is high performance, who cares if that isn't "modern". Modern techniques are only really interesting if you figure out a clever way to do something that previously was computationally expensive cheaply; then you get the pretty without the performance hit and you want to be dropping the old way as soon as humanly possible. Otherwise, you're just throwing more computation at the problem, and you're optimising for pretty rather than for speed.

[QUOTE=aiusepsi;41073335]But it makes sense to precompute as much as you can if what you want is high performance, who cares if that isn't "modern". Modern techniques are only really interesting if you figure out a clever way to do something that previously was computationally expensive cheaply; then you get the pretty without the performance hit and you want to be dropping the old way as soon as humanly possible. Otherwise, you're just throwing more computation at the problem, and you're optimising for pretty rather than for speed.[/QUOTE] The downside is that its more work for the developer, especially how unintuitive Hammer is. Alyx needed complex shader effects to look good, compare this in other engines where NPC/game assets interact with the environment's lighting. Why would static lighting be better than something that's interactive? This is one of the reasons why I'm hoping for real-time ray tracing. That's the next step IMO.

[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41073717]The downside is that its more work for the developer, especially how unintuitive Hammer is. [/QUOTE] Things being precomputed don't always force developers to work harder, UE3 has baked lighting, and it takes only seconds to get ingame and test. [QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41073717] Alyx needed complex shader effects to look good, compare this in other engines where NPC/game assets interact with the environment's lighting. Why would static lighting be better than something that's interactive? [/QUOTE] That's simplifying it way too much: it's more than an issue of "interactive or not". [QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41073717] This is one of the reasons why I'm hoping for real-time ray tracing. That's the next step IMO.[/QUOTE] I don't think anybody is against raytracing, but it currently isn't feasible on current hardware.

[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;41073717]Why would static lighting be better than something that's interactive?[/QUOTE] It's better because it's computationally cheaper, so you can render more frames in a second. If more frames per second is what you want, prebake all your lighting! That's the point of it being a trade-off. You're up against a fixed limit - how many computations you can do per second - so you can spend that on fancy dynamic lighting, or you can spend it on more frames. Neither is really better or worse than the other, it's just what you want to achieve. [QUOTE]This is one of the reasons why I'm hoping for real-time ray tracing. That's the next step IMO.[/QUOTE] I think the reason people seem to like the idea of ray-tracing is that it seems like "doing light properly" without any ugly hacks. Thing is, there are always ugly hacks, because actually tracing every ray in a scene is impossible. A ray scattering off a surface generates rays in every direction; the number of rays blows up exponentially. So you always have to do something ugly to cut your number of rays down to something reasonable. You also have to deal with the discreteness of your rays; there's a video going about of real-time raytracing, and it looks "bitty" when the camera is in motion. That's a sampling artifact, the random noise generated by not getting enough rays through the system. Those are really hard sorts of problems that aren't easily solved. As hardware gets better, you can just throw more hardware at it, but you can throw more hardware at the other approaches too.

With the kind of semi-generic hardware we have today and the research that goes into optimizing the rendering pipelines, rasterizing triangles is probably going to be the way to go for a long time.

[QUOTE=danharibo;41074564]With the kind of semi-generic hardware we have today and the research that goes into optimizing the rendering pipelines, rasterizing triangles is probably going to be the way to go for a long time.[/QUOTE] I give it 6 years until we start seeing full blown ray-tracing (Well, path-tracing and like as well.) in game engines.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;41074574]I give it 6 years until we start seeing full blown ray-tracing (Well, path-tracing and like as well.) in game engines.[/QUOTE] What for? most things you can achieve using ray-tracing you can achieve a similar effect, quicker, by using the existing graphics pipeline.

[QUOTE=danharibo;41074628]What for? most things you can achieve using ray-tracing you can achieve a similar effect, quicker, by using the existing graphics pipeline.[/QUOTE] There gets a point where approximating the "real" effect outweighs actually simulating it. You can make shadows higher and higher res, throw more polys on screen, calculate ambient occlusion to a more accurate and sharper degree: but eventually it just gets more expensive than to just raytrace everything: you solve problems regarding motion blur, DOF, and real time reflection all in one swoop.

Does it though?

It took 2 GTX Titans to run the Brigade tech demo (with some artifacting) @ 40 FPS. Maxwell series is next on Nvidia's road map, I imagine it being second generation maxwell where it can feasibly run ray tracing with no artifacting. Source 2 isn't exactly coming any time soon anyway, so...