Half-Life and Portal series, general discussion (v6) - Games

"The cloud," as they seem to be presenting it, looks to be based on already-existing server infrastructure. If I have to be online for fucking physics in a video game to work I'm not going to be cool with this.

[QUOTE=Icy Fire;48820711]"The cloud," as they seem to be presenting it, looks to be based on already-existing server infrastructure. If I have to be online for fucking physics in a video game to work I'm not going to be cool with this.[/QUOTE] Part of me will honestly be surprised if Crackdown 3 ever releases. Part of me thinks it's a publicity stunt for MS to justify their weaker console, and that no commercial version of the game will ever ship.

[QUOTE=Tommyx50;48820689]Yes, but the cloud computation is to add a visual flair. There's no way fundamental latency-sensitive gameplay elements would be on the cloud. They'll use the cloud to add more fancy particles perhaps, but I doubt it's used to perform the actual stress calculations and the such. EDIT: Or perhaps I'm wrong... but surely that would force the game into being online-only? I just don't forsee cloud computation as being too justifiable most of the time. The latency to send the data back and forth seems like it'd be a lot more than just performing it on the local machine directly.[/QUOTE] If you watch the whole video, it's mentioned that the calculations are done on the Xbone, but are scaled onto the cloud when needed. I think MS has the direct intention to market a Physics-as-a-service to developers; and they'll likely reduce the price or something for Xbone exclusives. Titanfall's servers already run in Azure, I foresee this [paas] becoming more commonplace in console games, to supplement their performance weakness. As for technical problems, low-latency networking for games has existed for years, with some complex systems I can easily see physics done in the cloud (Especially if the game servers are in the same datacenter as the compute servers, which they are) and send to clients. [editline]3rd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Tommyx50;48820731]Part of me will honestly be surprised if Crackdown 3 ever releases. Part of me thinks it's a publicity stunt for MS to justify their weaker console, and that no commercial version of the game will ever ship.[/QUOTE] We'll see, I said the same thing about Titanfall's servers being ran in Azure, and they're running fine to this day so :trumpet:

[QUOTE=glitchvid;48820990]If you watch the whole video, it's mentioned that the calculations are done on the Xbone, but are scaled onto the cloud when needed. I think MS has the direct intention to market a Physics-as-a-service to developers; and they'll likely reduce the price or something for Xbone exclusives. Titanfall's servers already run in Azure, I foresee this [paas] becoming more commonplace in console games, to supplement their performance weakness. As for technical problems, low-latency networking for games has existed for years, with some complex systems I can easily see physics done in the cloud (Especially if the game servers are in the same datacenter as the compute servers, which they are) and send to clients. [editline]3rd October 2015[/editline] We'll see, I said the same thing about Titanfall's servers being ran in Azure, and they're running fine to this day so :trumpet:[/QUOTE] If it does release, I at least heavily suspect that the singleplayer mode (even when connected online) would be massively gimped. In a multiplayer mode the servers can easily get away with doing all the computations just once and then sending the same data to each client, but in singleplayer there's no such shortcut.

[QUOTE=Tommyx50;48825020]If it does release, I at least heavily suspect that the singleplayer mode (even when connected online) would be massively gimped. In a multiplayer mode the servers can easily get away with doing all the computations just once and then sending the same data to each client, but in singleplayer there's no such shortcut.[/QUOTE] in single-player there is also not as much going in with physics usually, so it'll probably end up about the same.

[QUOTE=Pigbear;48825042]in single-player there is also not as much going in with physics usually, so it'll probably end up about the same.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.gamespot.com/articles/crackdown-3-destruction-restricted-to-multiplayer-/1100-6429544/"]Turns out there's no destruction in the single-player mode.[/URL]

Fucking ridiculous. "Next-gen" my ass.

you guys know this is the half life and portal thread right

[QUOTE=Icy Fire;48826758]Fucking ridiculous. "Next-gen" my ass.[/QUOTE] How is it ridiculous? Do you even know how the destruction works? It's calculated by a bunch of daisy chained servers. Not even a fucking 2 grand PC could simulate on the scale this game is working at. Besides, that level of destruction in a campaign will cause all sorts of issues with mission design. In that, you sorta can't] even design a mission. I mean sure, there probably could be that destruction in SP if you connected to those servers, but then it'd be an always online game, and fuck those. [editline]4th October 2015[/editline] Also, probably the most important point on the matter made [QUOTE=Tommyx50;48825020]If it does release, I at least heavily suspect that the singleplayer mode (even when connected online) would be massively gimped. In a multiplayer mode the servers can easily get away with doing all the computations just once and then sending the same data to each client, but in singleplayer there's no such shortcut.[/QUOTE] I mean like damn, pick up the ball

[QUOTE=xalener;48827666]How is it ridiculous? Do you even know how the destruction works? It's calculated by a bunch of daisy chained servers. Not even a fucking 2 grand PC could simulate on the scale this game is working at. Besides, that level of destruction in a campaign will cause all sorts of issues with mission design. In that, you sorta can't] even design a mission. I mean sure, there probably could be that destruction in SP if you connected to those servers, but then it'd be an always online game, and fuck those. [editline]4th October 2015[/editline] Also, I mean like damn, just fucking think for a second[/QUOTE] Ever played [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICurOVsNv0"]Red Faction Guerilla[/URL]? That was on Xbox 360 and PS3.

[QUOTE=PelPix123;48751685]The original model got lost a long time ago, that's just a reskinned HLDM citizen, one of the MP models I think (Portal had CTF and DM for a while, but they couldn't get it ping-stable, so they shelved the idea until P2). [editline]24th September 2015[/editline] One of my favorite cut features is that light goes through portals: [video=youtube;uRNdV9fzihQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRNdV9fzihQ[/video] Absolute garbage, barely works, but it's so fun to mess around with [editline]24th September 2015[/editline] this light portal code is so old it doesn't even use the newer basic simple-mesh portal renderer or the new link code, so it must be from 2006[/QUOTE] Bit late to this one but made some custom portals for my mod aswell: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgWbqGk1L9s&feature=youtu.be[/media]

Holy god damn m8, this looks so fucking polished. [QUOTE=Tommyx50;48827826]Ever played [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lICurOVsNv0"]Red Faction Guerilla[/URL]? That was on Xbox 360 and PS3.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and it was smaller buildings broken into less parts scattered further and wider across terrain. The chunks didn't stay long, and the actual physical simulation was extremely simplified and controlled. You didn't take out the support struts of a tower and have it topple over. Instead, it all falls straight down, not even colliding with its own parts. But I mean sure, yeah. It sure existed and there definitely was destruction in it, and those all the facts we need to dismiss crackdown 3's tech.

[QUOTE=xalener;48828979]Holy god damn m8, this looks so fucking polished. Yeah, and it was smaller buildings broken into less parts scattered further and wider across terrain. The chunks didn't stay long, and the actual physical simulation was extremely simplified and controlled. You didn't take out the support struts of a tower and have it topple over. Instead, it all falls straight down, not even colliding with its own parts. But I mean sure, yeah. It sure existed and there definitely was destruction in it, and those all the facts we need to dismiss crackdown 3's tech.[/QUOTE] I can say for a fact that's wrong. I've actually watched the GDC presentation on how the stress calculation in RFG is done, and I've played the game extensively - towers would topple over, there was just an optimization that makes debris disappear since they only had about 0.5 gb (split between GRAM and RAM) of memory to play with. You've gotta remember that Crackdown 3 is on a console which is literally more than an order of magnitude more powerful. 16 times as much RAM, a CPU which is probably around about the same increase of power (when you consider pipelining, branch prediction and etc as well as pure GHz and core count), better compilers for faster code, a massively more powerful GPU... I'm not saying that RFG is equivalent to Crackdown 3 in terms of the scale of the physics. I'm saying that RFG just goes to show how well optimized code can run on incredibly weak machines, and how fast physics and stress simulation can run. If something like RFG could exist last generation, then something an order of a magnitude increase of scale should definitely be possible on this gen... EDIT: Look, you could be 100% right and it wouldn't matter. I'm a programmer and I don't even care about the technical aspects in the end of things, because it's not going to affect whether I buy the game. An excuse about how cloud computation is needed isn't going to make me think, "oh, that's ok then" and go ahead and buy the game. An excuse won't give higher review scores. If the game pretty much markets itself completely on destruction and upon release it turns out that destruction isn't even included in the singleplayer mode, then I'm fully justified to be disappointed.

[QUOTE=Butthurter;48830107]huh one of the sounds when youre holding the barrel reminds me of the doom 3 plasma gun[/QUOTE] it's the 'springy' part of the reload sound [video=youtube;M-YMn6FCgHY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-YMn6FCgHY[/video] i know what you mean

[QUOTE=Butthurter;48830245]i dont mean that in a bad way the plasma gun was honestly my favorite doom 3 design, shame the new doom ditched its slim rectangle shape[/QUOTE] The whole glowing energy exhaust on the sides of the portalgun was inspired by the d3 plasma rifle,and mixed in that sound aswell for the prongs.

[QUOTE=Lamarr;48828463]Bit late to this one but made some custom portals for my mod aswell: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgWbqGk1L9s&feature=youtu.be[/media][/QUOTE] This looks fine and all, but what throws me off is that they [b]both[/b] make an orange glow when you shoot them. Not a big fan of that.

[QUOTE=Stimich;48831469]This looks fine and all, but what throws me off is that they [b]both[/b] make an orange glow when you shoot them. Not a big fan of that.[/QUOTE] Actually I've been considering changing that so the blue emits a bright green glow or an alternative where both glow a deeper red.

[QUOTE=Lamarr;48831550]Actually I've been considering changing that so the blue emits a bright green glow or an alternative where both glow a deeper red.[/QUOTE] I would go for a different color for each portal and perhaps go with a lighter blue (or any kind of blue) glow for the blue portal, since it's blue, and yellow to deep red for orange, not the same for both. Mainly because it may fool people into thinking they shot the wrong portal, which they did or didn't depending on the situation.

I think it looks really neat for them both to use the same color. If this were a machinima or something, that is. Gameplay def does come first. I appreciate the idea and I can get behind it, but stimich is right that it'll fuck people up (like me) really badly in tense moments

Alright, updated: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpHaxKCwu50[/media]

[QUOTE=Lamarr;48834868]Alright, updated: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpHaxKCwu50[/media][/QUOTE] You're selling this mod, right? Because I can't wait to buy it.

[QUOTE=Lamarr;48834868]Alright, updated: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpHaxKCwu50[/media][/QUOTE] :wow: This looks way better. It's super clear which portal you're shooting, which is super important for a game/mod including portals that you can shoot. What the hell happened with the physics of that drum? :v:

[QUOTE=onebit;48839433]Can you make the particles expand from the center? Maybe a start particle -> idle particle?[/QUOTE] I'll try to figure that out today. [editline]6th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=TheRealRudy;48839508]That looks absolutely incredible, your mod is of such high quality, I'd buy it if you sold it. I do want to point out though that at some times the borders of the portals look a bit odd; [IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/qk0Mev4.png[/IMG_thumb] [IMG_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/UpVHgFS.png[/IMG_thumb] It looks like those particles are sticking half-way into the ground, causing them to look a bit cutoff and not so smooth, unless that effect was intended. Obviously this is all still heavily WIP so everythig is subject to change, but I just wanted to point it out.[/QUOTE] This aswell, I'll have a shot at it but won't bother too much with it since it's already a kind of nitpicky thing. Keep in mind it's still Source we're talking about here.Raising the glow might help but too much will look detached and bad, apparently Source doesn't handle soft particles well even tho I enabled them on that effect... It's already way beyond anything I expected to create given how lacking the entire particle editor documentation is.(which portal 2 doesn't even have)

[QUOTE=Lamarr;48839562]This aswell, I'll have a shot at it but won't bother too much with it since it's already a kind of nitpicky thing. Keep in mind it's still Source we're talking about here.Raising the glow might help but too much will look detached and bad, apparently Source doesn't handle soft particles well even tho I enabled them on that effect... It's already way beyond anything I expected to create given how lacking the entire particle editor documentation is.(which portal 2 doesn't even have)[/QUOTE] IIRC has to do with the low depth z-buffer, not much you can do without source code access.

[QUOTE=Lamarr;48839562]This aswell, I'll have a shot at it but won't bother too much with it since it's already a kind of nitpicky thing. Keep in mind it's still Source we're talking about here.Raising the glow might help but too much will look detached and bad, apparently Source doesn't handle soft particles well even tho I enabled them on that effect... It's already way beyond anything I expected to create given how lacking the entire particle editor documentation is.(which portal 2 doesn't even have)[/QUOTE] Could you try setting the material to $ignorez?

[QUOTE=Karmal Khan;48848738]Could you try setting the material to $ignorez?[/QUOTE] I've been thinking about that just today.

[URL="https://920ce22dc653ea86a35d1ee5c54442f7c07e4704.googledrive.com/host/0ByaAWFPszJf5YUdDZ2tTRXJ4ZFE/index2.html"]there has been 8 years since half life 2 episode 2 was released[/URL]

I give them to beat DNFs record before I really loss hope.

[QUOTE=Trixil;48853527][URL="https://920ce22dc653ea86a35d1ee5c54442f7c07e4704.googledrive.com/host/0ByaAWFPszJf5YUdDZ2tTRXJ4ZFE/index2.html"]there has been 8 years since half life 2 episode 2 was released[/URL][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/wLBnrjc.png[/IMG] tell that to valve in other news, [URL="http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=520179169"]missing information was greenlit on steam[/URL]

[QUOTE=Trixil;48860814][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/wLBnrjc.png[/IMG] tell that to valve[/QUOTE] no we're telling it to you because the same information was posted a few pages before you [editline]8th October 2015[/editline] anyways its cool MI is greenlit, that might boost development (maybe)