• Source 2 has been announced
    371 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Juniez;47288879]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[/QUOTE] If that's the case, I wonder if it would be possible to create level geometry through brushes, save selected brushes as a mesh, then re-insert said mesh into the level? Or would that just be retarded?
[QUOTE=Juniez;47288879]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[/QUOTE] It goes both ways though. You can re-export the mesh directly from hammer into a an instanced model
[QUOTE=Marcolade;47289073]If that's the case, I wonder if it would be possible to create level geometry through brushes, save selected brushes as a mesh, then re-insert said mesh into the level? Or would that just be retarded?[/QUOTE] Brushes in their source 1 form don't exist anymore. Everything is a mesh. I think there is built-in obj exporting or something, but I don't know what happens to UVW coordinates when you re-export models
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;47289274]It goes both ways though. You can re-export the mesh directly from hammer into a an instanced model[/QUOTE] You would likely want to export and rebuild the model though, since I'm sure editing it as a mesh is probably slightly destructive; primarily since S2 doesn't have any UVW editing. Import: [img]http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/09/MS3-1425934521.png[/img] Export: [img]http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/09/2M7-1425934542.png[/img] And as Stiffy360 said, you can make the mesh a model again: [t]http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/09/mM4-1425934615.png[/t] That can be opened in the model viewer, I'm fairly sure you can also export it specially "as a model", but my S2 crashed before I could try.
[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] You're like my Mom when it comes to gaming. And by that I mean she can't play games that aren't 2D platformers because she doesn't understand 3D.
[QUOTE=gk99;47289807]You're like my Mom when it comes to gaming. And by that I mean she can't play games that aren't 2D platformers because she doesn't understand 3D.[/QUOTE] He sounded more like a die hard NES fan or something like that, even though i like nes.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;47287030]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] Now THAT is cool
Question to those who fiddled around with the Worskhop Tools. Based on that, what are the expectations for proper S2? Will it be at least competent as far as features and tools go, or will U5 and UE4 still destroy it?
[QUOTE=glitchvid;47287030]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] Holy moly, as someone who was never able to get into modelling this is gonna be ridiculously helpful.
[QUOTE=jazzpunk;47293208]Question to those who fiddled around with the Worskhop Tools. Based on that, what are the expectations for proper S2? Will it be at least competent as far as features and tools go, or will U5 and UE4 still destroy it?[/QUOTE] I had recently done an analysis of the workshop tools in the mappers WIP thread. You can see the post here: [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1446288&p=47293193&viewfull=1#post47293193[/url] As for my expectations on future versions of it? I'd like to see bounce lighting a la Unreal Engine 4, as well as PBR shader support. Being that I haven't used UE4 SDK, I don't know how well the mapping workflow goes, but for the workshop tools, they are incredibly expedient. I do expect to see the ability to assign a sky as well as being able to run around in first person, and to collide with the geometry on a per-vertex basis.
[t]http://marlamin.com/lister//valvevr/image384.png[/t][t]http://marlamin.com/u/croppdf.png[/t] Images converted from PDF, but I still think it's lookin' good. [url=http://alex.vlachos.com/graphics/Alex_Vlachos_Advanced_VR_Rendering_GDC2015.pdf]Source[/url].
[QUOTE=Marlamin;47293701][t]http://marlamin.com/lister//valvevr/image384.png[/t][t]http://marlamin.com/u/croppdf.png[/t] Images converted from PDF, but I still think it's lookin' good. [url=http://alex.vlachos.com/graphics/Alex_Vlachos_Advanced_VR_Rendering_GDC2015.pdf]Source[/url].[/QUOTE] Nothing feels reflective, or has any shaders in that image, which makes it look a lot like source 1 with high-poly models.
Those are taken from slides of a VR demo. Might look bland here, but it's a totally different experience in VR.
Those screenshots killed any hype I had. It's just so 2008.
[QUOTE=Marlamin;47293701][t]http://marlamin.com/lister//valvevr/image384.png[/t][t]http://marlamin.com/u/croppdf.png[/t] Images converted from PDF, but I still think it's lookin' good. [url=http://alex.vlachos.com/graphics/Alex_Vlachos_Advanced_VR_Rendering_GDC2015.pdf]Source[/url].[/QUOTE] Am I the only one who thinks this looks like TF2 Source Engine with a little CSGO Source Engine sprinkled in?
[QUOTE=Theuaredead;47294456]Am I the only one who thinks this looks like TF2 Source Engine with a little CSGO Source Engine sprinkled in?[/QUOTE] the only real difference between the two engines was an art style and one had csm. [editline]10th March 2015[/editline] also is this screenshot really the best way to judge the graphics of S2 considering its not a graphics showcase. we haven't even seen the stuff they actually put a lot of effort in, such as the teardown of atlas
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;47294468]the only real difference between the two engines was an art style and one had csm. [editline]10th March 2015[/editline] also is this screenshot really the best way to judge the graphics of S2 considering its not a graphics showcase. we haven't even seen the stuff they actually put a lot of effort in, such as the teardown of atlas[/QUOTE] Exactly. The graphical fidelity is not the point of the screenshots. They were from VR experiments, so they're unlikely to be very impressive when viewed outside of context. [editline]10th March 2015[/editline] Especially in still format.
[QUOTE=ColossalSoft;47294444]Those screenshots killed any hype I had. It's just so 2008.[/QUOTE] It's a [B]demo[/B] level. For [I]VR[/I].
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;47294351]Nothing feels reflective, or has any shaders in that image, which makes it look a lot like source 1 with high-poly models.[/QUOTE] Yes, because in real world everything is shiny and reflective. Maybe it's just more subtle ;) I mean, look at right side of the window frame... it looks like reflection to me. Anyway. Those screens were made with a bit of the delay, so I made a little (3 frame) gif and you can see models animations: [IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1745437/vr_portal_demo_GIF.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;47294831]It's a [B]demo[/B] level. For [I]VR[/I].[/QUOTE] I think the screenshots might just be degrading it, it looks better from the video.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;47294351]Nothing feels reflective, or has any shaders in that image, which makes it look a lot like source 1 with high-poly models.[/QUOTE] Yeah, it seems really toned down from the live VR demo. It looks like it's missing the fancy metal shaders and dynamic lighting. Of course it's pretty hard to tell since all we have so far are super compressed images from slides and handheld footage :v:
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;47294351]Nothing feels reflective, or has any shaders in that image, which makes it look a lot like source 1 with high-poly models.[/QUOTE] Everything is reflective in that scene, I'm fairly sure the shader is physically accurate, but it's using the (less accurate) "[I]Specular exponent range is 1-16,384 and is a modified[/I] [B][I]Blinn-Phong[/I][/B] [I]with anisotropy[/I]..." method, instead of something more "fotoreal" like GGX, which is a shame tbh. But yeah, this is the roughness output for that scene (As the slides say, it's more than just the roughness, but it gets the idea across): [t]http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/10/783-1426021110.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Marlamin;47293701][t]http://marlamin.com/lister//valvevr/image384.png[/t][t]http://marlamin.com/u/croppdf.png[/t] Images converted from PDF, but I still think it's lookin' good. [url=http://alex.vlachos.com/graphics/Alex_Vlachos_Advanced_VR_Rendering_GDC2015.pdf]Source[/url].[/QUOTE] Even ignoring Atlas it looks exactly like Portal 2. [QUOTE=Antimuffin;47294831]It's a [B]demo[/B] level. For [I]VR[/I].[/QUOTE] Then stop getting so hype? It's not showcasing what it's actually about - it's an image, with no VR in it. If they're making a tech demo, don't you think they'd have it up to scratch with the rest of their other stuff? It's a small room - they wouldn't just ignore the materials like that.
There are parts of the image that look very convincing. For instance, the wall to the left on the first screenshot is very realistically rendered with a very high resolution texture (is that cross stitch linen?) and both the metallic window frame and telephone cable look great. But there are parts of the image that just seem out of place or flat. The atlas on the table comes to mind, I'm not quite sure where the light source of that intensity is coming from, but he seems very out of place against his surroundings. To add to it and as other have also said some surfaces seem to be lacking reflectivity where it would otherwise be expected, but we do not know the context behind this so it isn't really worth making judgements quite yet. Despite this, determining from the bits and pieces that do shine, source 2 could be capable of some pretty impressive scenes.
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;47297002]Even ignoring Atlas it looks exactly like Portal 2. [/QUOTE] I'd hope it looks like Portal 2, since it's supposed to be the same art style :v: That said, all those assets are new; and they look considerably better than Portal 2: [t]http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/10/Ac9-1426023952.png[/t] [t]http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/03/10/vD6-1426024025.png[/t] [QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;47297002] Then stop getting so hype? It's not showcasing what it's actually about - it's an image, with no VR in it. If they're making a tech demo, don't you think they'd have it up to scratch with the rest of their other stuff? It's a small room - they wouldn't just ignore the materials like that.[/QUOTE] We're just talking about how it looks, and the technical details behind it: it being a technical demo is a potential excuse for having just "programmer" art, since we [I]know[/I] it's source 2 already. Also, note on that 2nd picture in the demo (taller one), how the light on the machine to the left has really accurate shadows, and how the smaller yellow monitors appear to be emitting very subtle light.
snip
I think there is no point to discuss Source 2 graphics until we actually get a complete game made on the new engine. (Not Dota 2, it's just a port)
Remember, they to render this twice, keep it clean as possible, use 4x or 8x MSAA on it, and lock it at 90hz.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.