Half-Life 2: Enhancement Mod (V5) - Games

[QUOTE=CrystalGamma;43656768]My point was that the existing mods all use DX. Do you remember how both versions were based on DirectX and how they were supposed to be an improvement of the older revision and not a new engine? (as, if the rumors I hear are right, this will be?) EDIT: What I really meant is that they should get rid of all the legacy cruft code and build a clean new engine, in addition to keeping the old one available.[/QUOTE] You're saying this about a developer who's current engine is based off of Quake 1. They might edit a bunch, but there's no way they're just going to ditch it all and start from scratch. [editline]24th January 2014[/editline] I mean, look at Titanfall. That game's based off of a modified Source and(I personally think) it's beautiful.

[QUOTE=gk99;43658851]I mean, look at Titanfall. That game's based off of a modified Source and(I personally think) it's beautiful.[/QUOTE] No one said (at least I didn't) that you can't build good or good-looking games with Source Engine. What I am saying is that it might just lower the barrier of entry if you ditch all the ballast. Also it helps code maintainability.

[QUOTE=CrystalGamma;43659010]No one said (at least I didn't) that you can't build good or good-looking games with Source Engine. What I am saying is that it might just lower the barrier of entry if you ditch all the ballast. Also it helps code maintainability.[/QUOTE] What "barrier of entry?" With even a quarter-decent computer you can run Source games.

[QUOTE]What I really meant is that they should get rid of all the legacy cruft code and build a clean new engine, in addition to keeping the old one available. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Mod compatibility with an older engine is probably the last thing one should think about if they try to do something new (add new features like level and asset streaming, throw out old cruft like lightmaps etc. etc.). And considering that Source2 primarily targets OpenGL, it's also next to impossible anyway since the shaders for Source1 are all DirectX HLSL.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but you obviously don't know shit about Source or even gaming engines in general. Game engines are rarely built from scratch because it's insanely difficult and costs money, even your shitty little COD engine is an updated version of Quake. Next, Lightmaps are not crappy just because they are old. Even the best engines like UE3 and Frostbite use lightmaps because engines cannot do 100% real time lighting. That's also why cubemaps are still used, because there isn't enough computing power to do 100% real time reflections. Source Engine is so old, you'd have to have the shittiest computer in the world to not be able to run it; so backwards compatibility is not an issue. If you can't run Source, get a real pc instead of your mom's laptop

[QUOTE=gk99;43658851]You're saying this about a developer who's current engine is based off of Quake 1. They might edit a bunch, but there's no way they're just going to ditch it all and start from scratch. [editline]24th January 2014[/editline] I mean, look at Titanfall. That game's based off of a modified Source and(I personally think) it's beautiful.[/QUOTE] they can most certainly and plausibly start the renderer from scratch even black ops 2 (and also titanfall! lol) had a rewritten renderer and source's performance sucks ass at anything outside of its pile of limitations [t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1157653/work/IvansSecrets/is_source.jpg[/t] 50fps - puts it right down there with Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2

[QUOTE=Juniez;43659521]they can most certainly and plausibly start the renderer from scratch[/QUOTE] The renderer, sure. I already knew Titanfall had a rewritten renderer, anyone can figure that out by looking at some screenshots. He's talking about removing everything and building a new engine. Frankly, if all they did was re-write the renderer and update all the tools, I would be perfectly okay with that as the new engine, because assets from it might possibly still work with minimal decompiling and fixing in the current engine.

[QUOTE=gk99;43659796]The renderer, sure. I already knew Titanfall had a rewritten renderer, anyone can figure that out by looking at some screenshots. He's talking about removing everything and building a new engine. Frankly, if all they did was re-write the renderer and update all the tools, I would be perfectly okay with that as the new engine, because assets from it might possibly still work with minimal decompiling and fixing in the current engine.[/QUOTE] when you gut out the bsp and the renderer and the toolset you might as well call it from scratch tbh cause there's no point in linking it to its predecessors

[QUOTE=Juniez;43659819]when you gut out the bsp and the renderer and the toolset you might as well call it from scratch tbh cause there's no point in linking it to its predecessors[/QUOTE] Never said anything about gutting bsp. And I never said anything about gutting vmts/vtfs either

[QUOTE=hakanefe43;43654096]What do you think guys? valve is gonna port the orange box games on the source 2 ?[/QUOTE] "the source 2"

[QUOTE=gk99;43661986]Never said anything about gutting bsp. And I never said anything about gutting vmts/vtfs either[/QUOTE] well they should!! cause theyre bad

Maybe I have high expectations, but if Source 2 is even halfway to what I'm hoping for, porting would require a [I]lot[/I] of effort and resources. And Valve's track record of porting things to another version of the same engine is bad. Like really bad. There are problems with HL2 that still aren't fixed, little details here and there that were broken and no longer show up. One that comes to mind are the APC's driving around the bridges during Route Canal.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43663381]Maybe I have high expectations, but if Source 2 is even halfway to what I'm hoping for, porting would require a [I]lot[/I] of effort and resources. And Valve's track record of porting things to another version of the same engine is bad. Like really bad. There are problems with HL2 that still aren't fixed, little details here and there that were broken and no longer show up. One that comes to mind are the APC's driving around the bridges during Route Canal.[/QUOTE] Mainly I'd like to see them just add more features, and have them be much less hacky then when the community adds them. I've usually been a big fan of the Source networking model, but replacing it with a dedicated version of what Bungie used for Reach (with a lot more client settings) would be awesome. Past that, I'm looking into getting experience in another engine; but I'm not really keen on any of the engine out there (UDK, Unity, CryEngine). I'd love to work with Metro, Frostbite, or another cool engine.

[QUOTE=SimplePlanz69;43659197]If you can't run Source, get a real pc instead of your mom's laptop[/QUOTE] Huh, and I thought I had an octocore CPU / AMD Tahiti-LE GPU PC that could easily play any Source game at hundreds of FPS ... [QUOTE=glitchvid;43663417]Mainly I'd like to see them just add more features, and have them be much less hacky then when the community adds them.[/QUOTE] That's what I meant ... but I think this hackyness is because some features have been in the code for too long ... [QUOTE=gk99;43659177]What "barrier of entry?" With even a quarter-decent computer you can run Source games.[/QUOTE] The barrier to developing mods or games with it. EDIT: before anyone says the dev tools will be as freely available as the Source ones, I meant it in terms of stuff you have to do to get anything out of the engine (what is called "boilerplate code" in programming). [QUOTE=SimplePlanz69;43659197]even your shitty little COD engine is an updated version of Quake.[/QUOTE] I'll try not taking this too personally, having not touched any COD in my life.

[QUOTE=CrystalGamma;43663631]The barrier to developing mods or games with it. EDIT: before anyone says the dev tools will be as freely available as the Source ones, I meant it in terms of stuff you have to do to get anything out of the engine (what is called "boilerplate code" in programming).[/QUOTE] You know, I'm not even so sure about that. HL1's mod support was great, HL2's was superb, and Source 2007, etc. But then comes Left 4 Dead and it's sequel, and Portal 2, where despite demand, mod tools were very slow to come out, and overall less capable.

[URL="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=217425629"][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JmY7GpV.png[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=217425629"]Vote for us![/URL]

I know it's quite early for Greenlight, but because Greenlight is going away soon so I published it.

[QUOTE=Ken Chan;43664485]I know it's quite early for Greenlight, but because Greenlight is going away soon so I published it.[/QUOTE] Huh, what do you mean Greenlight is going away soon?

[QUOTE=aussiedropbear;43664545]Huh, what do you mean Greenlight is going away soon?[/QUOTE] All I can see is an interview from a Jan 2013 where Gabe mentioned they were going to close greenlight because it wasn't working [editline]25th January 2014[/editline] I still think it's way too early for a greenlight campaign, the trailer shows practically nothing but weapon particles

[QUOTE=Ken Chan;43664410][URL="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=217425629"][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JmY7GpV.png[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=217425629"]Vote for us![/URL][/QUOTE] Eeehh, should have kept it private until we actually have more content to show. They're basically voting for HL2 on the Alien Swarm Engine at the moment.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43664118]You know, I'm not even so sure about that. HL1's mod support was great, HL2's was superb, and Source 2007, etc. But then comes Left 4 Dead and it's sequel, and Portal 2, where despite demand, mod tools were very slow to come out, and overall less capable.[/QUOTE] Exactly my point. I think that that was because the codebase was aging, which is why I hope for a thorough deprecation pass for Source 2. Anyway, this is probably not the right thread to discuss this. :D

[QUOTE=kaze4159;43664598]All I can see is an interview from a Jan 2013 where Gabe mentioned they were going to close greenlight because it wasn't working[/QUOTE] It wasn't working yes, but they're replacing Greenlight with a more streamlined system for developers.

[QUOTE=Juniez;43663337]well they should!! cause theyre bad[/QUOTE] If the process for making maps remains nearly the same and I can import my old vmfs into the new map-editing tool, I'll be okay with gutting .bsp in favor of something better. But the thing is, I like VMTs/VTFs. Unless they do something to make your textures update in-game without having to close and reopen, I'd like to stick with them. I see no real reason to remove them unless we're switching to a more compatible file format that can be edited in practically any editor without an extra plugin. [sp]MDLs and the process for making them can go jump off a cliff, though.[/sp]

[QUOTE=Ken Chan;43664410][URL="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=217425629"][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JmY7GpV.png[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=217425629"]Vote for us![/URL][/QUOTE] No offense, but pretty much all the mod has to show at this point are fancy lighting and particles. Even if it closes, you don't need greenlight, look at how many mods are famous without it. Just wait till it's presentable

What I would really like to see is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDP_hole_punching]UDP-hole-punching[/url] based multiplayer so that I can host source (2) games without having to go into my router and forward ports every time I want to play a little pickup game of DM/CS:GO/<insert source 2 multiplayer game here>. Portal 2 does it so obviously the code is already in their codebase somewhere.

Going back to them closing Greenlight; I'm pretty sure they said they would [i]gradually replace it[/i], not just delete the entire thing.

[QUOTE=CrystalGamma;43663631]Huh, and I thought I had an octocore CPU / AMD Tahiti-LE GPU PC that could easily play any Source game at hundreds of FPS ...[/quote] You do know that the source engine or hell any other engine to date cannot use all those cores, or even efficiently, right?

[IMG]http://puu.sh/6xP2u.png[/IMG] this caught my eye

[QUOTE=Sally;43667446]You do know that the source engine or hell any other engine to date cannot use all those cores, or even efficiently, right?[/QUOTE] Well, for Source Engine there's this: [url]http://valvesoftware.com/publications/2007/GDC2007_SourceMulticore.pdf[/url] from '07. It says they made Source able to scale to arbitrarily many processors (to some degree). Generally though, I guess you're right. But the reason I wrote that was to respond to his assumptions about me not having good hardware. Not that I wanted to talk about hardware in the first place. Quite the opposite in fact, I was talking about (missing) simplicity in software. Also, thank you vBulletin for having me write this reply three times because the quick reply doesn't work and I have to write this again.

[QUOTE=gk99;43665802]If the process for making maps remains nearly the same and I can import my old vmfs into the new map-editing tool, I'll be okay with gutting .bsp in favor of something better. But the thing is, I like VMTs/VTFs. Unless they do something to make your textures update in-game without having to close and reopen, I'd like to stick with them. I see no real reason to remove them unless we're switching to a more compatible file format that can be edited in practically any editor without an extra plugin. [sp]MDLs and the process for making them can go jump off a cliff, though.[/sp][/QUOTE] or an import process that doesn't rely on you hacking together text files like every other decent engine [editline]25th January 2014[/editline] god dang source!! catch up

[QUOTE=gk99;43665802]But the thing is, I like VMTs/VTFs. Unless they do something to make your textures update in-game without having to close and reopen, I'd like to stick with them. I see no real reason to remove them unless we're switching to a more compatible file format that can be edited in practically any editor without an extra plugin.[/QUOTE] VMTs suck in comparison to the better trend of flowgraph/node-based material editing like what unity and unreal have [img]http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/rsrc/Three/MaterialsTutorial/jwmt06.jpg[/img] way more intuitive and versatile