[QUOTE=paul simon;43700201]You guys seem to have something against baked lighting for some reason. I'd prefer if that still was an option, as baked lighting will for many years to come still be the best looking option there it.[/QUOTE]
This always happens when we talk about the source engine.
I am not sure why, since the only game that doesn't use any kind of baked lightning is UE4 and that is yet to be released and requires stupid hardware.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;43700389]euphoria isn't a physics engine, havok is whats used in most games with euphoria/natural motion tech, its more of an ai platform that selects a (usually) premade animation with the ability to react to things in the environment, but it isn't a different type of ragdoll or physics engine
par example, in gta4, when a character falls, and they do that wobbly leg thing in the air, that is a premade animation, but it reacts to some select variables like the amount of time off the ground, speed of movement, and when it impacts, the animation seamlessly stops into a static ragdoll[/QUOTE]
You're not entirely right, I'd recommend you to read up on it first.
[QUOTE=paul simon;43700201]You guys seem to have something against baked lighting for some reason. I'd prefer if that still was an option, as baked lighting will for many years to come still be the best looking option there it.[/QUOTE]
a mixture of baked and dynamic lighting is a good solution. it's what CS:GO uses.
[editline]28th January 2014[/editline]
(as well as Unity)
I'm going full prophet mode right now.
We're going to see a game on Source 2 in this year's 4th quarter.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to be wrong though.
One can at least hope that the engine is rebuilt from the ground up.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43700588]a mixture of baked and dynamic lighting is a good solution. it's what CS:GO uses.
[editline]28th January 2014[/editline]
(as well as Unity)[/QUOTE]
Mirrors Edge is a prime example of this.
[QUOTE=paul simon;43700681]Mirrors Edge is a prime example of this.[/QUOTE]
But mirrors edge only looks good in stills
Kind of ruins the look for me when I see for example shadows cast by npcs not lining up with those in the environment
[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;43692780]appid 244670 has nothing on SteamDB, not even changes.
Perhaps they're not uploading to Steam just yet, as singleplayer games are tested offline, whereas the early TF2 was on the servers under 440 at some point[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;43692623]
[QUOTE]Redesigned Tools & Workflow
-Powerful GUI front end for content authoring.
-Can be easily extended with custom and pre-game assets
-Browser for quickly finding, managing, editing assets
-Simple, automatic compiling of content[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs[/url] because "rules"
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/F5zM4Vr.png[/IMG]
[B][U][I]game/HL-FUCKING-3[/I][/U][/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;43692714]
[QUOTE=MacD11;43691712]If TF2 is really updated to Source 2 that would be awesome.
However, like I said in the Valve thread, i'm remaining skeptical about this announcement until official word comes out.
Doesn't mean i cant be excited at the prospect of it being true though.[/QUOTE]
It could be like the TF1.5 update in TFC: TF2.5
This....could work[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Stopper;43700317]I know that Facepunch is basically Valve jack-off central, but these screenshots, even for 2011 are disappointing as absolute shit. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks more like Source 1.5 and not Source 2.[/QUOTE]
Well you know technically anything that doesn't beat Crysis is disappointing by 6-7 years, so I'd say that it's already game over when it comes to graphics.
[QUOTE=paul simon;43700681]Mirrors Edge is a prime example of this.[/QUOTE]
I hope you where being sarcastic.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/fG3lk4n.png[/img]
This screenshot was taken with everything maxed.
The few dynamic shadows that are used, players/npc's/birds/birds stencils completely ignore the environmental illumination levels, they ignore all envrioment lights and spots.
Like seriously, the dynamic shadow (stencil hack) actually always points in the same direction and there is never more then 1.
When it comes to shadows, its somewhat equal to what we had in HL2, and A LOT worse then what we have in Episode 2 or higher, or in CS:GO atm.
Also idk why the model casting a shadow on itself is really fucked for some reason.
[QUOTE=nVidia;43698267]Unreal 3 has bsp, but that doesn't mean you have to only make closed spaces. You still can totally use models and huge terrains.[/QUOTE]
But the entire level format in UE3 isn't limited by BSP like Valve's is. It's an additional feature, much like in CryEngine 3; though I would say their implementation is even better, because it's CSG. Unreal still uses BSP-style culling which is unfortunate, but UE3 is old anyway so who cares.
[QUOTE=paul simon;43700681]Mirrors Edge is a prime example of this.[/QUOTE]
Actually, no, not really.
Mirror's Edge is all baked, but their baking solution was extremely well-engineered and tweaked for the artistic direction they took.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43701555]Actually, no, not really.
Mirror's Edge is all baked, but their baking solution was extremely well-engineered and tweaked for the artistic direction they took.[/QUOTE]
It has the best looking baked lighting I've seen in any game, is what I'm saying.
Sure it doesn't look that good when you go up close to it, but that's a simple resolution problem.(increasing the baked lighting resolution would solve that)
[img]http://puu.sh/6ByiJ.png[/img]
I loved the look of Mirrors Edge, suppose it's mainly the artistic direction they chose. But it would not look the same without the amazing baked lighting.
I would be 100% fine with Valve's next game engine not being bleeding edge if it means we get to see more games from them and a new set of tools to play with on our own.
[QUOTE=Swilly;43700282]Plus, deferred rendering has pretty much ruined any sort of not jaggy outlines.[/QUOTE]
uh u could just use any standard post aa technique.
or better yet, supersample aa
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;43697140]Isn't BSP a very outdated format? If they made it better I guess but idk[/QUOTE]
Call of Duty is still BSP, which astounds me how they pulled origins off for Black Ops 2, let alone Tranzit
[QUOTE=paul simon;43702039]It has the best looking baked lighting I've seen in any game, is what I'm saying.
Sure it doesn't look that good when you go up close to it, but that's a simple resolution problem.(increasing the baked lighting resolution would solve that)
[img]http://puu.sh/6ByiJ.png[/img]
I loved the look of Mirrors Edge, suppose it's mainly the artistic direction they chose. But it would not look the same without the amazing baked lighting.[/QUOTE]
indirect illumination with voxel based cone tracing looks just as nice imo, possibly even better under some circumstances due to not needing lightmaps which might vary in resolution or be low res overall. plus it has tons of benefits like no waiting for bakes, no lightmap uvs (freeing up a uv channel), no storage or memory used up by lightmaps, etc. it also plays a lot better with shaders, allowing us to have more consistent results when lighting and lets us get closer to physical plausibility which is a massive step forward for both photorealism and stylized art.
basically why would you ever want lightmaps? the only reason they exist is because it used to be too expensive to do anything better.
I wonder if this is why Valve hasn't had any big retail releases? Last one was.. Portal 2? I know CS:GO and Dota 2 are big, but they were both digital releases.
[QUOTE=paul simon;43700201]You guys seem to have something against baked lighting for some reason. I'd prefer if that still was an option, as baked lighting will for many years to come still be the best looking option there it.[/QUOTE]
Its main downfall is when you use it with scenes that have a lot going on
-snip-
[QUOTE=GameDev;43702923]Call of Duty is still BSP, which astounds me how they pulled origins off for Black Ops 2, let alone Tranzit[/QUOTE]
Call Of Duty doesn't use BSP anymore after IW 3.0...
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;43703060]indirect illumination with voxel based cone tracing looks just as nice imo, possibly even better under some circumstances due to not needing lightmaps which might vary in resolution or be low res overall. plus it has tons of benefits like no waiting for bakes, no lightmap uvs (freeing up a uv channel), no storage or memory used up by lightmaps, etc. it also plays a lot better with shaders, allowing us to have more consistent results when lighting and lets us get closer to physical plausibility which is a massive step forward for both photorealism and stylized art.
basically why would you ever want lightmaps? the only reason they exist is because it used to be too expensive to do anything better.[/QUOTE]
Real time radiosity has been around for many years now, but now since we have new the console generation and tech developing, I believe we'll start to see it actually implemented into game engines.
But baked lightmaps can still be quite useful if used in conjunction with realtime radiosity for far away stuff that then fades into real time for closer objects. Much like how dual lightmapping works in unity.
[QUOTE=Legend286;43701501]But the entire level format in UE3 isn't limited by BSP like Valve's is. It's an additional feature, much like in CryEngine 3; though I would say their implementation is even better, because it's CSG. Unreal still uses BSP-style culling which is unfortunate, but UE3 is old anyway so who cares.[/QUOTE]
no udk uses dynamic occlusion now
[url]http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/VisibilityCulling.html[/url]
[editline]28th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;43703060]indirect illumination with voxel based cone tracing looks just as nice imo, possibly even better under some circumstances due to not needing lightmaps which might vary in resolution or be low res overall. plus it has tons of benefits like no waiting for bakes, no lightmap uvs (freeing up a uv channel), no storage or memory used up by lightmaps, etc. it also plays a lot better with shaders, allowing us to have more consistent results when lighting and lets us get closer to physical plausibility which is a massive step forward for both photorealism and stylized art.
basically why would you ever want lightmaps? the only reason they exist is because it used to be too expensive to do anything better.[/QUOTE]
er you do know what voxels are right? atm SVOGI are definitely going to be at a loooowww resolution compared to traditional lightmaps anyways due to its heavy ass performance
[editline]28th January 2014[/editline]
god damn i love the visuals of mirrors edge
[QUOTE=lavacano;43703309]Its main downfall is when you use it with scenes that have a lot going on[/QUOTE]
Yep, you can have these nice high quality baked light maps, but if any of the geometry changes the light doesn't.
Even with purely static geometry, it can't take props and such into account.
If valve wants source 2 to be ground breaking, they should add things like dynamic water and truly destructible environments, oh and making hammer a little more average joe friendly.
Not a massive difference from Portal 2 to be honest. I've seen better looking games in the last few years, wouldn't be surprised if they were still hanging onto DX9...
[QUOTE=spectator1;43704557]If valve wants source 2 to be ground breaking, they should add things like dynamic water and truly destructible environments, oh and making hammer a little more average joe friendly.[/QUOTE]
Hammer is about as friendly as game development tools get. While I do prefer UDK and such things, Hammer has simplicity down.
[QUOTE=paul simon;43700257]Maybe you don't know what that is then?
Take a look again, it's pretty damn clearly there.
Heck, wasn't it even a part of Source 1's light baking? Why would they remove it?[/QUOTE]
Apologies, I confused myself a bit with my terminology. It's been ages since I was into this stuff.
What I meant was [I]real time[/I] radiosity, or global illumination. Source 1 has pre-baked GI, yes, but given that the vast majority of games today use real time direct illumination (which is a horrendously limited, binary 'object is illuminated/object is not illuminated' system and looks horrible if not used with ambient occlusion and HDR), and given how old baked radiosity lightmaps are as a technology, I would have expected something better. Real time GI solutions have existed for a while now and I'm just amazed that nobody has been using them at all. I thought initially that Mirror's Edge did and I was disappointed to find out it was baked.
[video=youtube;lB5_x2BVRH0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB5_x2BVRH0[/video]
Anyway, to me, it doesn't look like this tech is in these screens. Just the usual DI with HDR and some pretty shaders.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;43705128]VRAD uses Beast as well lmao[/QUOTE]
yeah but valve's implementation doesn't take into account light source sizes with point lights
and then you cant get specular lighting with texture lights
I don't think vrad takes texture detail into account for bounced lighting, only an average colour (vtfedit lets you change it), and you also have the previously mentioned issue of lights not having sizes (So the shadows are wrong)
Edit: Like the Mirrors Edge picture posted earlier where half the wall is green and half is whiteish, to do that in Source you'd have to separate them into two separate textures, otherwise it'd just use an average of the colours for bounces.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.