So it looks like Facepunch's next sandbox game (potentially Garrysmod 2) is gonna be in UE4 - Games

[QUOTE=Cmx;52653299]I really don't care what engine it's on, I just want a gmod replacement. I have been looking for a building game that can catch that spark that gmod had without the limitations that source has but none come close. I would preorder this shit the instant it hit the store earliest access or not.[/QUOTE]You should probably wait until it actually congeals into a game instead of a prototype before you start getting excited. Let's not create a No Garry's Sky situation here.

[QUOTE=The Kins;52653328]You should probably wait until it actually congeals into a game instead of a prototype before you start getting excited. Let's not create a No Garry's Sky situation here.[/QUOTE] It's always good to lower your expectations for stuff. NMS always looked interesting to me, and i wasn't really expecting more than Space Engine + random creatures from spore wandering about. And that's pretty much what we got, but a lot of people expected a whole lot more. The only annoyance imo was the ridiculous price tag. People shouldn't expect a straight up Garry's Mod 2 from this, as it probably will be pretty different in many ways. And on that note, I'm not sure it'd make sense to have "garry" in the name as many have suggested, as it's more of a team effort.

[QUOTE=IntenseBarney;52653309]S&box will only be truly superior if shitty DarkRP clones are banned.[/QUOTE] With a better scripting language, and an engine with fewer limitations, aswell as better shaders and easier map design, I can see Dark RP becomming nicer.

UE4 is ostensibly better than Source. The only good thing I'll say about Source is it's always been well optimized, and thus able to run on toaster PCs. UE4 is pretty much superior in every way from the SDK to the actual features of the engine. As pointed out earlier you can also make it look and feel like Source if you want it to.

But does it have as good a physics engine as Havok? Because honestly I've yet to see the gravity gun replicated as well on other engines.

[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;52653550]But does it have as good a physics engine as Havok? Because honestly I've yet to see the gravity gun replicated as well on other engines.[/QUOTE] Probably has more to do with the developer's attempts to recreate the gravity gun than the actual physics engine itself. PhysX 3.x is great, multithreaded and open source for UE4 devs. No reason it couldn't do what Source's Havok Physics implementation does identically. It's just that the gravity gun has a certain je ne sais quoi that modders don't usually try to emulate.

[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;52653550]But does it have as good a physics engine as Havok? Because honestly I've yet to see the gravity gun replicated as well on other engines.[/QUOTE] I think the main thing that frustrated me with Garry's Mod was the fact that it waited for the server-side to decide when the prop should move, so you always had this delay when you moved around with an object. On really laggy servers it'd feel like you're moving some really heavy object. I appreciate this is more of a netcode issue than a physics issue, though

[QUOTE=Loriborn;52653912]Probably has more to do with the developer's attempts to recreate the gravity gun than the actual physics engine itself. PhysX 3.x is great, multithreaded and open source for UE4 devs. No reason it couldn't do what Source's Havok Physics implementation does identically. It's just that the gravity gun has a certain je ne sais quoi that modders don't usually try to emulate.[/QUOTE] A lot of the feel with sources physics is how integrated it is within the game world. Props have material types, and those are used to calculate the friction, buoyancy, sounds, and particle effects. Drag a metal prop against a concrete wall and it'll spark. Drag something through a dirt floor and it kicks up dust, all while making sounds depending on how heavy and large the object is. It's not something that only Source can do, but it's one of the 'passive perks' of being on it. I don't think UE4 has that built in. Really, aside from Valve spinning in mud, there's a reason HL2 (and consequently Source) took so long to develop.

Actually I'm going to have to revise my opinion of physx, I gave it a go again in UE4 and it seems significantly more stable than the last time I tried it, bring on the spacebuild.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52654669]A lot of the feel with sources physics is how integrated it is within the game world. Props have material types, and those are used to calculate the friction, buoyancy, sounds, and particle effects. Drag a metal prop against a concrete wall and it'll spark. Drag something through a dirt floor and it kicks up dust, all while making sounds depending on how heavy and large the object is. It's not something that only Source can do, but it's one of the 'passive perks' of being on it. I don't think UE4 has that built in. Really, aside from Valve spinning in mud, there's a reason HL2 (and consequently Source) took so long to develop.[/QUOTE] The core concept of physics material is built into UE4, though it's up to devs to expand that a bit to add things like buoyancy. UE4 has a built in system for attributing functions like sounds and particle effects to materials. This also handles things like density of the material, friction, and functions. Everything Source can do and more. [url]https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Physics/PhysicalMaterials/PhysMatUserGuide/[/url] Source doesn't have that over UE4, it's just that UE4 devs have not chosen to make a game that takes advantage of these aspects in a sandbox way. Untapped power in UE4 has left the community, including Facepunch, seeing it as a flashy engine, when there's far more going on under the hood than titles like PUBG might lead you to believe.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52654669]A lot of the feel with sources physics is how integrated it is within the game world. Props have material types, and those are used to calculate the friction, buoyancy, sounds, and particle effects. Drag a metal prop against a concrete wall and it'll spark. Drag something through a dirt floor and it kicks up dust, all while making sounds depending on how heavy and large the object is. It's not something that only Source can do, but it's one of the 'passive perks' of being on it. I don't think UE4 has that built in. Really, aside from Valve spinning in mud, there's a reason HL2 (and consequently Source) took so long to develop.[/QUOTE] It's really not a common thing to have something like that built in, as it's usually up to the game team to define stuff like that to their tastes. There's no doubt that you can recreate it 1-to-1 in UE4.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;52655003]The core concept of physics material is built into UE4, though it's up to devs to expand that a bit to add things like buoyancy. UE4 has a built in system for attributing functions like sounds and particle effects to materials. This also handles things like density of the material, friction, and functions. Everything Source can do and more. [url]https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Physics/PhysicalMaterials/PhysMatUserGuide/[/url] Source doesn't have that over UE4, it's just that UE4 devs have not chosen to make a game that takes advantage of these aspects in a sandbox way. Untapped power in UE4 has left the community, including Facepunch, seeing it as a flashy engine, when there's far more going on under the hood than titles like PUBG might lead you to believe.[/QUOTE] Good to know. I've used UE4 a bit, I'm not a programmer at all, so I'm generally stuck with more or less what the base engine gives me, and as such haven't run into any great physics systems for it. This gives me more faith that this will end up being a satisfying game. [editline]6th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Chryseus;52654883]Actually I'm going to have to revise my opinion of physx, I gave it a go again in UE4 and it seems significantly more stable than the last time I tried it, bring on the spacebuild.[/QUOTE] The real question is are constraint systems nearly stable enough? This was something Valve (and all early realtime physics engines) struggled with, and is still a problem if you trade performance for accuracy, or have a less reliable contact solving solution. In constraint systems in source, the engine lets you manually set the sub-tick computations per physics constraint.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52655330]Good to know. I've used UE4 a bit, I'm not a programmer at all, so I'm generally stuck with more or less what the base engine gives me, and as such haven't run into any great physics systems for it. This gives me more faith that this will end up being a satisfying game. [editline]6th September 2017[/editline] The real question is are constraint systems nearly stable enough? This was something Valve (and all early realtime physics engines) struggled with, and is still a problem if you trade performance for accuracy, or have a less reliable contact solving solution. In constraint systems in source, the engine lets you manually set the sub-tick computations per physics constraint.[/QUOTE] Physics materials are available in the editor out of the box, even without delving into the C++ side of things. [img]https://i.imgur.com/4jeQfzt.png[/img] Additional settings regarding properties like mass are tied to the mesh itself as well, though that can be manually adjusted of course. Buoyancy is the only big outlier, and that's mostly due to the fact that UE4 has no in-built "water" concept like Source does, but really, it's not that difficult to create a BP that consists of a box that has a water texture like source, gives the water overlay and affects movement to the player when they enter it. Then you can code some simple physics calculations to derive buoyancy from surface material and mass. As for the physics constraints, they're as serviceable as Source's out of the box, though you can tweak this at the expense of performance; with access to the UE4 source code, you can of course do far more. There's also nothing stopping you from actually merging multiple static meshes into a single mesh, improving performance greatly and removing any need for physical constraints, assuming you're talking about "welds" particularly. [editline]6th September 2017[/editline] Source is old, so not much of its feature set is unique to it anymore. It doesn't really "do" anything better than the competition because its core is drastically older. Even if some of UE4's physics implementations aren't as expanded as Source, that's mostly to do with Epic assuming the developer's can code things like water and buoyancy, since those concepts are so intrinsically tied to the individual's game, and aren't really game agnostic, like gravity is; an RTS and racing game won't have buoyancy or water, or if they do, they'll do these elements very differently than an FPS sandbox game, but all games will likely have lighting, AI movement nav meshes, and so on. The lack of buoyancy is due more to UE4 not needing it, rather than it not being capable of emulating Source's simple implementation.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52655330]The real question is are constraint systems nearly stable enough? This was something Valve (and all early realtime physics engines) struggled with, and is still a problem if you trade performance for accuracy, or have a less reliable contact solving solution. In constraint systems in source, the engine lets you manually set the sub-tick computations per physics constraint.[/QUOTE] The constraint system seems robust enough to me at least for a moderate number of them, I've not done any large scale tests but I suspect it'll perform equal or better than source in this regard, but this is a problem that effects all physics engines.

[QUOTE=Chryseus;52655738]The constraint system seems robust enough to me at least for a moderate number of them, I've not done any large scale tests but I suspect it'll perform equal or better than source in this regard, but this is a problem that effects all physics engines.[/QUOTE] The trick is to limit "true" physics calculations as much as possible. As mentioned above, creating "welds" between physical meshes isn't an ideal solution; merging two meshes into a single mesh is a superior solution that saves on performance. I believe the PolyWeld addon did this, although with some issues of course. In UE4 that function comes out of the box, though source access means you can of course expand this in different ways to different "types" of physics constraints.

[QUOTE=James xX;52653412]With a better scripting language, and an engine with fewer limitations, aswell as better shaders and easier map design, I can see Dark RP becomming nicer.[/QUOTE] darkrp's issues mostly revolve around poor gameplay design and a truly god awful community, a new engine won't do anything to fix those problems [editline]7th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Loriborn;52655900]The trick is to limit "true" physics calculations as much as possible. As mentioned above, creating "welds" between physical meshes isn't an ideal solution; merging two meshes into a single mesh is a superior solution that saves on performance. I believe the PolyWeld addon did this, although with some issues of course. In UE4 that function comes out of the box, though source access means you can of course expand this in different ways to different "types" of physics constraints.[/QUOTE] parenting is what your looking for, if you mesh merge everything you're just going to give yourself (and your computer) a terrible headache

[QUOTE=IntenseBarney;52653309]S&box will only be truly superior if shitty DarkRP clones are banned.[/QUOTE] or just a well designed server UI that doesn't let people fill it up with 'dark rp 2' and 'dark rp 4' bullshit, no idea how you'd go around making something like that though. maybe you have to register gamemode names?

[QUOTE=Soren;52656516]or just a well designed server UI that doesn't let people fill it up with 'dark rp 2' and 'dark rp 4' bullshit, no idea how you'd go around making something like that though. maybe you have to register gamemode names?[/QUOTE] How about not incentivizing that behavior in the first place and having a Source styled server browser.

[QUOTE=Ott;52656567]How about not incentivizing that behavior in the first place and having a Source styled server browser.[/QUOTE] Maybe more like rust? [editline]7th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=IntenseBarney;52653309]S&box will only be truly superior if shitty DarkRP clones are banned.[/QUOTE] Let people enjoy what they enjoy [editline]7th September 2017[/editline] and yeah whatever the fuck happens, 4600 hours on gmod, you bet i'm ordering the spiritual successsor

[QUOTE=343N;52656625] and yeah whatever the fuck happens, 4600 hours on gmod, you bet i'm ordering the spiritual successsor[/QUOTE] [url=https://steamcommunity.com/id/eliashogstvedt]where the fuck is capsadmin[/url] [img]https://i.imgur.com/3IowzND.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Joeyl10;52656670][url=https://steamcommunity.com/id/eliashogstvedt]where the fuck is capsadmin[/url] [img]https://i.imgur.com/3IowzND.png[/img][/QUOTE] Jesus fuck that's over 4 years.

I remember playing only once GMOD at a cyber here in Argentina There was this server where you had to build some boats inside of some sort of canal. And then after a couple of minutes water would fill in the area. But this was toxic water. So you had to shoot the shit out of other people boats in order to make them sink. Some dude had his boat plated with the posterior part of the can machine, copypasted multiple times. Fucking Dreadnought I tell you. The only other time that I laughed so much I had hiccups was in ARMA/DayZ. So instabuying this the moment it hits STEAM.

Server synced development?

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;52656762]I remember playing only once GMOD at a cyber here in Argentina There was this server where you had to build some boats inside of some sort of canal. And then after a couple of minutes water would fill in the area. But this was toxic water. So you had to shoot the shit out of other people boats in order to make them sink. Some dude had his boat plated with the posterior part of the can machine, copypasted multiple times. Fucking Dreadnought I tell you. The only other time that I laughed so much I had hiccups was in ARMA/DayZ. So instabuying this the moment it hits STEAM.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I really hope flood gets ported over. If not, I'm making it myself!

[QUOTE=Soren;52656516]or just a well designed server UI that doesn't let people fill it up with 'dark rp 2' and 'dark rp 4' bullshit, no idea how you'd go around making something like that though. maybe you have to register gamemode names?[/QUOTE] the legacy browser already does this everything is thrown into the same page by default and it's up to the user to choose what criteria they sort by rather than always being locked into sorting by gamemode

If I won't be able to force a ragdoll halfway through a wall, create shit ton of dust particles and murder my framerate, it's not Gmod. The end. For realsies tho, I'm kinda excited to see what it'll look like.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;52656762]So instabuying this the moment it hits STEAM.[/QUOTE][I]If[/I] it hits Steam and doesn't just end up as an internal tool.

[QUOTE=The Kins;52657149][I]If[/I] it hits Steam and doesn't just end up as an internal tool.[/QUOTE] Many people would be angry if it wasn't honestly

[QUOTE=Oicani Gonzales;52653203]guys take your rose colored glasses off and think about what matters ue4 will allow for decent-scale spacebuild no longer will planets be 100m away from each other no longer will the game lag like fuck after 2 players spawn 1.3 props this is the future[/QUOTE] as amazing as the idea of spacebuild on the new engine sounds, i get the feeling that things won't change and that most players will still only be interested in bashing five nights at freddy's ragdolls into eachother with the physics gun :v:

Are you guys planning VR support? I remember you guys made this neat VR level editor last year. [video=youtube;4Cro1HdCoP0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cro1HdCoP0[/video]