• Source 2 has been announced
    371 replies, posted
[QUOTE=mastersrp;47277681]You can disagree all you want, but what I said remains true. A lot of games don't use that kind of stuff, and haven't for a long time. That doesn't mean that certain games don't utilize these mechanis. More games have started to pay attention to it in the past few years, but that's still, what, 5-8 years later?[/QUOTE] npc talks to you with slightly bland face animations you walk left and right and not even his face, not even his eyes follow you, even when you walk behind him that just is not cool to see
[QUOTE=mastersrp;47277681]You can disagree all you want, but what I said remains true. A lot of games don't use that kind of stuff, and haven't for a long time. That doesn't mean that certain games don't utilize these mechanis. More games have started to pay attention to it in the past few years, but that's still, what, 5-8 years later?[/QUOTE] Not really, crysis came out 3 years later and it has good eyes [thumb]http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4871/crysis64201101101234543.jpg[/thumb] What is so amazing about source's eyes anyway? the model is realistic and the reflection too but the lightning makes it look bad [thumb]http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/0/6153/328232-05.jpg[/thumb]
What CDPR uses for Witcher 3 surpasses what Valve did with HL2. [video=youtube;BivVXw-NLTw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BivVXw-NLTw&t=179[/video]
I'm pretty sure he's talking about how the eyes are controlled, not how they look. All engines use bones, but Source has a special system.
Source Used to be the only engine with good facial flexes. (Due to the use of vertex deformation rather than bones) Though there are games now that can finally surpass HL2 and TF2 in terms of facial expression. (Ryse, Advanced Warfare, UE4 demos of epic, to name a few) Source's system is still pretty great if you take the time to set it up right. Its materials and lighting system is showing its age though sadly.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;47278043]Its materials and lighting system is showing its age though sadly.[/QUOTE] And mapping.
[QUOTE=NassimO PotatO;47278207]And mapping.[/QUOTE] And pretty much everything else.
I still prefer source honestly I mean look at that witcher video, so much shit is thrown at you, bloom and a plethora of grass its a mess, my pc is crying internally. Simple is always better.
[QUOTE=spectator1;47278408]I still prefer source honestly I mean look at that witcher video, so much shit is thrown at you, bloom and a plethora of grass its a mess, my pc is crying internally. [B]Simple is always better.[/B][/QUOTE] Not always... [thumb]http://files.gamebanana.com/img/ss/maps/140998e.jpg[/thumb] [sp]Joke[/sp]
[QUOTE=acarvromvroom;47277897]Not really, crysis came out [b]3 years later[/b][/QUOTE] And that's why it doesn't count. Remember, for 2004, HL2 was absolutely fucking incredible. It took everyone else who didn't just license Source quite a while to come up to par with it. The fact that it's showing its age and doesn't look as good now isn't really relevant unless someone's trying to say Source 1 was literally the best engine ever even in 2015 (which nobody is). And I admit I have little experience with the GoldSrc era but from what I hear it pulled the same shit, though that's pretty hard to recognize these days if you have no memory of it (because GoldSrc was all "YO SKELETONS AND SHIT MOTHERFUCKER I'M A GRAPHICS GENIUS"). Based on that pattern, I can't wait to see what sort of shit Source 2's gonna pull off.
[QUOTE=lavacano;47279295]Based on that pattern, I can't wait to see what sort of shit Source 2's gonna pull off.[/QUOTE] They're focusing on giving content creators easy and powerful tools to make stuff. One of the more powerful tools is Hammer now, it's basically a mid-complexity 3d modelling package now, it even lets you [url=http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/07/z63-1425793057.webm]edit imported static meshes[/url].
It's pretty exciting when Valve manages to impress.
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;47278254]And pretty much everything else.[/QUOTE] Thank god we are getting Source 2.
[QUOTE=spectator1;47278408]I still prefer source honestly I mean look at that witcher video, so much shit is thrown at you, bloom and a plethora of grass its a mess, my pc is crying internally. Simple is always better.[/QUOTE] How about, get with the times.
If Hammer 2 isn't dynamic and still requires compiling to test things, it's instantly inferior to every engine out there.
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;47281237]If Hammer 2 isn't dynamic and still requires compiling to test things, it's instantly inferior to every engine out there.[/QUOTE] Every engine out there still requires compiling to test things. Not for everything, but lightning is one thing you can't just have be amazingly pixel perfect if you want the amazing lightning seen in UE4 (which is baked). The map format has changed though, but a lot of things do require compiling to test correctly. There just happens to be two kinds of tests these days. The "development environment" tests, which is just to ensure things work at all, and the "production environment" tests, which is to ensure that everything works in a as-reproducable-as-possible way.
[QUOTE=acarvromvroom;47277657]I disagree: [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=acarvromvroom;47277897]Not really, crysis came out 3 years later and it has good eyes What is so amazing about source's eyes anyway? the model is realistic and the reflection too but the lightning makes it look bad ][/QUOTE] he said "A lot of games" not "All games" he's right, a lot of games do do eyes AND face very well, but not all games are terrible, they just have emotionless characters and emotionless eyes. [editline]8th March 2015[/editline] also that crysis image looks awful it looks like he is all greasy and shit in the eyes why are his eyes so greasy? they should take a shower
[QUOTE=mastersrp;47281261]Every engine out there still requires compiling to test things. Not for everything, but lightning is one thing you can't just have be amazingly pixel perfect if you want the amazing lightning seen in UE4 (which is baked). The map format has changed though, but a lot of things do require compiling to test correctly. There just happens to be two kinds of tests these days. The "development environment" tests, which is just to ensure things work at all, and the "production environment" tests, which is to ensure that everything works in a as-reproducable-as-possible way.[/QUOTE] I know everything requires some form of compiling but I wasn't really referring to lighting because that's a bit different (but you can still get an idea for it while in-editor in UE4) I was referring to the other stuff like making scripts and so forth - if every time I want to see what something looks like (or if it works) I have to compile, wait for the game's .exe to load, wait 15 seconds to load the map and then see if it works that's not going to make anyone want to use it.
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;47281282]I know everything requires some form of compiling but I wasn't really referring to lighting because that's a bit different (but you can still get an idea for it while in-editor in UE4) I was referring to the other stuff like making scripts and so forth - if every time I want to see what something looks like (or if it works) I have to compile, wait for the game's .exe to load, wait 15 seconds to load the map and then see if it works that's not going to make anyone want to use it.[/QUOTE] I agree that it'd be great to have everything be completely dynamic and instantanious, but there's only two solutions to this problem the way I see it: Automatically compile everything based on a dependency graph that is continously updated every time the user edits some context (CRUD-like), which in itself can take up a lot of computing power of RAM if not done VERY well or Have the editing tools be extremely smooth and work on basically anything, HOWEVER requiring the game or the editor to compile what it needs based on the above, without automatically doing this on every change. It depends on what you want. Do you want something that works everywhere, or something that requires high end equipment to function? Pick any one thing, and people will be unhappy. You can't really have both, if you also want to use technologies that don't function as well. There's a few attempts to solve the problem, one is streaming the required data when needed, but if this is done without keeping the dependency graph(s) updated (in turn requiring the entire filesystem of the project to be constantly monitored), then it creates problems that can only be solved by cleaning everything and re-doing the compilation steps from buttom up again. A different solution is to discard existing data models and optimize them for streaming instead, so that no part of the data needs to know about the others. Creating an editor that supports this probably isn't simple or easy, but would (probably) solve the problem entirely. Nothing that I know of solves this issue.
[QUOTE=mastersrp;47281749]I agree that it'd be great to have everything be completely dynamic and instantanious, but there's only two solutions to this problem the way I see it: Automatically compile everything based on a dependency graph that is continously updated every time the user edits some context (CRUD-like), which in itself can take up a lot of computing power of RAM if not done VERY well or Have the editing tools be extremely smooth and work on basically anything, HOWEVER requiring the game or the editor to compile what it needs based on the above, without automatically doing this on every change. It depends on what you want. Do you want something that works everywhere, or something that requires high end equipment to function? Pick any one thing, and people will be unhappy. You can't really have both, if you also want to use technologies that don't function as well. There's a few attempts to solve the problem, one is streaming the required data when needed, but if this is done without keeping the dependency graph(s) updated (in turn requiring the entire filesystem of the project to be constantly monitored), then it creates problems that can only be solved by cleaning everything and re-doing the compilation steps from buttom up again. A different solution is to discard existing data models and optimize them for streaming instead, so that no part of the data needs to know about the others. Creating an editor that supports this probably isn't simple or easy, but would (probably) solve the problem entirely. Nothing that I know of solves this issue.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;MOvfn1p92_8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8[/video] Skip to 4:45 As you can see it's superior to waiting 30secs to test it.
[QUOTE=acarvromvroom;47282573][video=youtube;MOvfn1p92_8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8[/video] Skip to 4:45 As you can see it's superior to waiting 30secs to test it.[/QUOTE] 9:55 You still need to compile certain things, and if you're doing light mapped (highest static quality) lighting, that needs to be baked too. There's a lot of trade offs that need to be made when creating content that runs at real time, most of that trade off is in compile times. Not to say "We shouldn't be doing real-time editing", it's nice wherever we can have it; but for that to be the sole "goal" for an engine is narrow minded imo.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that Source 2 needs to include a realtime editor with realtime previewing. It's absolutely ridiculous whenever jumping back into Hammer and realizing you can't see what your lighting or anything else looks like without compiling everything and waiting for your game to launch.
[QUOTE=srobins;47282719]I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that Source 2 needs to include a realtime editor with realtime previewing. It's absolutely ridiculous whenever jumping back into Hammer and realizing you can't see what your lighting or anything else looks like without compiling everything and waiting for your game to launch.[/QUOTE] If anything it will be similar to the vein of UE4.
[QUOTE=Grindigo;47280649]How about, get with the times.[/QUOTE] Depends on what you mean with that, so far the only engine that has impressed me was UE4 and that's pretty steep since it still throws an abundance of bloom at you, when real life Lightning doesn't even look like that, and it has the capability of amazing texture quality.
[QUOTE=spectator1;47282844]Depends on what you mean with that, so far the only engine that has impressed me was UE4 and that's pretty steep since it still throws an abundance of bloom at you, when real life Lightning doesn't even look like that, and it has the capability of amazing texture quality.[/QUOTE] The reason we have bloom is because monitors cannot display even close the dynamic range eyes can, so we have to add bloom to "trick" the eye it is seeing something really bright; because your eye actually has internal scattering for things that are "superbright"; A good example is when the sun reflects off of a car, the actual "area" of the sun is fairly small, but the light scatters internally when it hits your eye, brighter lights scatter "more", meaning they look more bloomed. Good read: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_rendering[/url]
[QUOTE=mastersrp;47281749]I agree that it'd be great to have everything be completely dynamic and instantanious, but there's only two solutions to this problem the way I see it:[/QUOTE] modern engines will let you jump into gameplay with minimal compiling almost immediately to test and iterate non final features
[QUOTE=Juniez;47285795]modern engines will let you jump into gameplay with minimal compiling almost immediately to test and iterate non final features[/QUOTE] Yes, that is true. Most of this is because of the solution #2 I posted about though, as you cannot ever do away with any sort of compilation, even if it's just serialization of byte streams. Maps, audio compression, scripting languages, all need to be compiled to some form of IR at one point or another, or in the very least compiled to file(s) that load fast and perform great. The issue with this though is that this is rarely a fast process, unless the editor PC is fast enough to handle it. Try running UE4 on a netbook. It just won't do. Now if we moved the testing part out of the editor, it would never be a problem. That's the problem I'm talking about here. Surely modern engines, and even certain very old ones too, could do amazing playtesting systems and dynamic compilation and serialization of byte streams in a very efficient manner on computers that support such speeds and levels of optimization, but for systems that don't, you'd have to go even further than that to archieve great speeds.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;47279736]They're focusing on giving content creators easy and powerful tools to make stuff. One of the more powerful tools is Hammer now, it's basically a mid-complexity 3d modelling package now, it even lets you [url=http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/07/z63-1425793057.webm]edit imported static meshes[/url].[/QUOTE] Am I understanding this correctly? You can edit models in Hammer? Like [I]prop_physics.mdl[/I]* models? *Just an example, I know the model format has changed.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47286587]Am I understanding this correctly? You can edit models in Hammer? Like [I]prop_physics.mdl[/I]* models? *Just an example, I know the model format has changed.[/QUOTE] Yes, you can convert models into "editable" meshes, S2 hammer acts very much like a model editor: [img]http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/09/xt6-1425929213.png[/img] This allows you to do some cool stuff: [t]http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/09/k03-1425929729.png[/t] After editing: [t]http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/09/LB2-1425930318.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;47286587]Am I understanding this correctly? You can edit models in Hammer? Like [I]prop_physics.mdl[/I]* models? *Just an example, I know the model format has changed.[/QUOTE] it will rebuild the geometry in a hammer-specific format so you can edit it as if it were made inside hammer but it will no longer be a model
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.