[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;42757440]Src->Src2 will probably be like GoldSrc->Src[/QUOTE]
There's still tiny remnants of GoldSrc in Source. Expecting the same with Source 2, really.
I'm hoping a move from BSP will be a priority.
[QUOTE=Drak_Thing;42757748]I'm hoping a move from BSP will be a priority.[/QUOTE]
BSP still is a good format for indoor scenes, it's just poor for outdoor. I'm pretty sure that Unreal still uses BSP too.
[QUOTE=psikobare;42755549]gabe specifically said it was a brand new engine[/QUOTE]
IW keeps saying that about their engine, but we all know Ghosts is still ID Tech 3 with bloat added.
"a brand new engine" doesn't exist, its just the next phase of the technology.
There's IW engine getting a single new feature every year, and then there's the leaps between the IDtechs and the Unreal Engines and Goldsrc to Source.
No, it won't be from-scratch-brand-new, but I'm doubting it's gonna be less than a complete overhaul at this point.
I think most people consider "brand new" to mean an engine with numerous drastic changes made since the last iteration.
[QUOTE=xalener;42759773]There's IW engine getting a single new feature every year, and then there's the leaps between the IDtechs and the Unreal Engines and Goldsrc to Source.
No, it won't be from-scratch-brand-new, but I'm doubting it's gonna be less than a complete overhaul at this point.[/QUOTE]
There was a time that Source was getting frequent features added, but most of them were one or two features.
But with all those updates over the years and hybrid Source, I'm not sure if there will be that big jump that Goldsrc and Source had.
Well they can still lead the way in the physics department. Video games have been relatively stagnant in that area pretty much since HL2 came out.
Yeah, Crysis 1 probably has the best physics in any game in current gen and that was 6 years ago. Most games today still have laughable physics systems.
Wouldn't mind someone expanding upon hair physics, though. TR was nice in that area.
^admittedly dying from sprinting into a wall with speed on is a pretty plausible way to die.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;42760838]Yeah, Crysis 1 probably has the best physics in any game in current gen and that was 6 years ago. [/QUOTE]
I keep hearing this, but I neeever got that impression when playing it with physics maxed.
Yeah, there's a lot of physically active stuff, but none of it acts very well. The dead bodies don't fall like bodies, the rigidbody objects were (and will be for the foreseeable future) bog-standard, and to top it all off the game went absolutely apeshit when you put it all together. I've never had a single play session of Crysis 1 where something DIDN'T end up going through something else and start flapping into the stratosphere.
I would cite any Rage engine game (or anything that used Bullet, really) as having some of the tightest physics around. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Valve switched to Bullet. Speaking of, wasn't someone integrating Bullet into Source at one point? What happened to that? I can't find the thread anywhere.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;42761183][video=youtube;jdRgLDpRQmw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdRgLDpRQmw[/video]
Full disclosure: It was impressive that they made their physics engine from scratch but it's one of the worst I've seen, many people experimented with it doing "Mass Physics" videos and it's certainly impressive but you can also see how innacurate it is sometimes, you can do crazy things when the physics preset is set to "Low" and even so physical fighting between player and props can happen a lot even when set the physical presets to "Very High"
You can die to a soda can or running with your nanosuit over a physical-simulated wall.[/QUOTE]
I was mainly talking about the physics "destruction" and plant deformation. That's what I liked the most about Crysis 1.
Also Source has physics bugs too:
[video=youtube;ZwvO8R8sTYM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvO8R8sTYM[/video]
[video=youtube;VgCCIDVA18o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgCCIDVA18o[/video]
Dude, don't think for one damn second you can defend Cryengine 2's physics malfunctions with an example of another engine doing it. Especially when it's [I]Cryengine fucking 2.[/I]
There's the occasional fuck up, and then there's the whole thing consistently not working right ever.
This kind of shit happens to me every once and a while in source, and from understandable reasons too; a gib spawned inside of a wall, a ragdoll got smashed too hard, blah blah blah. This shit happens to me in Crysis every 15 minutes, and it's always from something that appears to be working fine then just suddenly doesn't, like punching a wall results in a barrel being lodged into your ass.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;42761608][video=youtube;ZwvO8R8sTYM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvO8R8sTYM[/video][/QUOTE]
This was for gameplay reasons so the cubes wouldn't move.
[QUOTE=xalener;42761209]The dead bodies don't fall like bodies.[/QUOTE]
I actually thought the ragdoll was pretty satisfying if you got one of the mods to reduce the force of bullets so enemies don't do 3 flips after being shot without a silencer. :/
And maybe I've just been lucky, but I've replayed Crysis a lot and the only recurring issues that have happened to me enough to be noticeable was the "dead bodies getting stuck in something" issue, or the occasional object getting stuck in a wall because I dropped it right up against it.
I also always assumed the running into something and dying was intentional, because it happens when you are at really high speeds/if you increase the speed values in the console.
[QUOTE=xalener;42761209]I would cite any Rage engine game (or anything that used Bullet, really) as having some of the tightest physics around. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Valve switched to Bullet. Speaking of, wasn't someone integrating Bullet into Source at one point? What happened to that? I can't find the thread anywhere.[/QUOTE]
There was a gmod module that replaced Havok with Bullet, but I don't think it ever fully panned out. As for Valve switching to bullet; I don't think that'd be the best solution right now, Havok Physics has done a lot of really awesome stuff recently that Bullet hasn't been able to catch up to yet: and Valve has the money to spend for a licensed physics engine.
[QUOTE=Drak_Thing;42757748]I'm hoping a move from BSP will be a priority.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.interlopers.net/articles/phil-co-interview[/url]
Q: Levels for the original Half-life consisted mostly of brush work and few models, today hardware is much more powerful and as a result levels are increasingly becoming more model based. Do you predict an end to brush built levels in future valve games?
A: I don't think brushes will be obsolete in the near future. They are just the quickest way to build levels and test gameplay. It might be true that more of the final art will be models, but to get us to that stage, we need brushes.
[QUOTE=Armageddon104;42762906][url]http://www.interlopers.net/articles/phil-co-interview[/url]
Q: Levels for the original Half-life consisted mostly of brush work and few models, today hardware is much more powerful and as a result levels are increasingly becoming more model based. Do you predict an end to brush built levels in future valve games?
A: I don't think brushes will be obsolete in the near future. They are just the quickest way to build levels and test gameplay. It might be true that more of the final art will be models, but to get us to that stage, we need brushes.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that too. But I mean mainly, like, precomputed visibility. You can still have CSG geometry, and not use BSP.
[QUOTE=Uberslug;42760776]Well they can still lead the way in the physics department. Video games have been relatively stagnant in that area pretty much since HL2 came out.[/QUOTE]
In some cases, things have downgraded. If you shoot a can with a pistol in COD, it acts like you've just thrown the fucking thing.
(^ One of the many reasons why I hate COD.)
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;42764648]In some cases, things have downgraded. If you shoot a can with a pistol in COD, it acts like you've just thrown the fucking thing.
(^ One of the many reasons why I hate COD.)[/QUOTE]
Odd reason to hate CoD.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;42764648]In some cases, things have downgraded. If you shoot a can with a pistol in COD, it acts like you've just thrown the fucking thing.
(^ One of the many reasons why I hate COD.)[/QUOTE]
Doesn't the same thing happen in most games, including Source games?
[editline]5th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;42761608]I was mainly talking about the physics "destruction" and plant deformation. That's what I liked the most about Crysis 1.
Also Source has physics bugs too:
[video=youtube;ZwvO8R8sTYM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvO8R8sTYM[/video]
[video=youtube;VgCCIDVA18o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgCCIDVA18o[/video][/QUOTE]
Wow, you practically just came here to troll on Source.
Your video is wrong however: [B]The video showing physics glitches is on the OLD HL2 build and it could just be the collision model[/B]
[QUOTE=Uberslug;42759780]I think most people consider "brand new" to mean an engine with numerous drastic changes made since the last iteration.[/QUOTE]
thank you
of course they might not have to rewrite absolutely everything from the simplest algorithm, but we can be sure it will more thant just "Source with some added bloat" considering what gabe admitted
HL1 = GoldSrc | HL2 = Source | HL3 = Source 2 ?
[QUOTE=nicolasx21;42766839]HL1 = GoldSrc | HL2 = Source | HL3 = Source 2 ?[/QUOTE]
Wasn't CSS the first Source game?
[editline]5th November 2013[/editline]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_(game_engine)]Yes it was.[/url]
I fully expect the first Source 2 game to be not HL(ep)3.
On the topic of next gen physics, I want to see the gravity gun's abilities greatly expanded upon. Like, picking up all the little shards of a destroyed drawer and shooting them off like flechettes.
I want to be able to pick up a tub, dip it into a pool of oil and spill it on the ground and make combine slip on it.
I'd also like to see valve do something like Euphoria and combine animations with physics to make shooting people more satisfying. If I shoot a guy on a high ledge with a railing I want him to grab the railing and fall over. More physics-based destruction in levels would be nice too.
Also small objects like cans and such should become physically embedded in enemy skulls if you launch them at enemies with the gravity gun at close range.
[QUOTE=xalener;42769336]I fully expect the first Source 2 game to be not HL(ep)3.
On the topic of next gen physics, I want to see the gravity gun's abilities greatly expanded upon. Like, picking up all the little shards of a destroyed drawer and shooting them off like flechettes.[/QUOTE]
It'd be cool if you aim the gravity gun at some snow, and it creates a giant snowball.
[QUOTE=Bloodshot12;42769549]
Also small objects like cans and such should become physically embedded in enemy skulls if you launch them at enemies with the gravity gun at close range.[/QUOTE]
[t]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111123103648/batman/images/9/92/Penguin-character.png[/t]
[QUOTE=xalener;42778573][t]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111123103648/batman/images/9/92/Penguin-character.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Oh so that [I]is[/I] a glass bottle. How'd that even get there?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;42778665]Oh so that [I]is[/I] a glass bottle. How'd that even get there?[/QUOTE]
I think it's his replacement for his monocle
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
