• Source 2 has been announced
    371 replies, posted
[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;47253232]...and FP will make a TF2C build before the TF Team can port Hat Simulator 2 over.[/QUOTE] The sad thing is that this is true not because it's unlikely that the TF Team would, but because TF2's coding right now is an absolute mess because the original coding wasn't meant to be patched as much as it has been. Want to know why something seems to break every time TF2 is updated to fix something else? It's because the literally-hundreds of patches have become so conflicting and convoluted that the way that [i]other patches[/i] function is broken just by causing something in a new patch to make the game behave differently than when the patch that breaks was applied. Sure, I suppose that works if you add new patches to fix the breaking of the old ones but that would be absolute hell to put in a new engine. It's honestly more reasonable at this point for them to start from scratch and reimplement everything than it probably is to actually port over TF2's current code.
[QUOTE=Holt!;47253446]Larger maps please[/QUOTE] Can we please have plant/tree planting that doesn't require all the migrant workers of South America to do in a timely fashion?
[QUOTE=TheDrunkenOne;47253315] Remember the SFM tutorial series? Yeah well we've been stuck for 2 years waiting for part 3 of the pose-to-pose animation tutorial.[/QUOTE] part 3. of course. will it never end, valve?
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;47253768]I'll give a rundown of why it's difference at a very basic level: Old shaders would use: Diffuse Specular Normalmap PBR (can) use: Albedo/Diffuse Roughness, gloss or microsurface Specularity Metalness The way they're handled is slightly different, PBR diffuse doesn't contain any light information and most of the details for the textures are found within the roughness map instead of the diffuse. So to elaborate on the previous point - it's not a simple case of drag and drop - the entire material system needs to be converted, it's possible - but not worth the effort - especially when the assets in HL2 are getting quite dated now.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Stiffy360;47253832]I should mention that an albedo is way different from a diffuse Diffuse is basically ambient lighting on a surface + whatever else you stick on it. Albedo is pure color information. No lighting or anything. [t]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dy8nl2PxnYU/UmEBVnx5aCI/AAAAAAAABZ0/lX2jnbnC3E0/s1600/Untitled-2.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Oh jeez. I know even less about PBR than I thought. Where does the normalmap go? Where does the dark depth information go if it isn't in the albedo? Does it rely on the engine to make the cracks dark? How long does it take to make a PBR material compared to what source currently has? How hard is it to convert a photograph of a wall (where light is going to be in the texture) into an albedo?
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;47254011]Can we please have plant/tree planting that doesn't require all the migrant workers of South America to do in a timely fashion?[/QUOTE] Hammer's DOTA 2 has a new way to paint foliage. Is a "foliage brush", like the one in Warcraft III's map editor. It's pretty obvious they're going to include a similar tool for non-DOTA 2 SDKs.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;47254011]Can we please have plant/tree planting that doesn't require all the migrant workers of South America to do in a timely fashion?[/QUOTE] Configurable "clutter brushes" would be amazing. With the ability to set up our own list of models it pulls from, the probability weights of each model, the random-rotation constraints for each model, the "brush size" and the "spacing range". I'd be really excited for a feature like that.
The main advantage of using Source 2 will be, for me, the assets. I've tried Unity and UE4 and, while their workflow is better and the engine is way more up to date, they simply don't have the volume of art assets that Source does. I still prefer Source 1 to Unity or UE4 simply because I can just design and make levels without having to learn how to texture or model.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;47254181]Oh jeez. I know even less about PBR than I thought. Where does the normalmap go? Where does the dark depth information go if it isn't in the albedo? Does it rely on the engine to make the cracks dark? How long does it take to make a PBR material compared to what source currently has? How hard is it to convert a photograph of a wall (where light is going to be in the texture) into an albedo?[/QUOTE] Nearly all the detail is in the normal map and the new "roughness" map. You can add subtle AO to the diffuse (can break pbr though) and some engines like unreal have a specific slot for AO. As for as the maps go, Albedo is the map that contains color info Normal has stayed pretty much the same Roughness determines how "rough" a material is per texel which affects how glossy and reflective a material is. PBR conserves energy, AKA a surface can't reflect more than it recieves, and if tuned right looks photorealistic.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;47254181]Oh jeez. I know even less about PBR than I thought. Where does the normalmap go? Where does the dark depth information go if it isn't in the albedo? Does it rely on the engine to make the cracks dark? How long does it take to make a PBR material compared to what source currently has? How hard is it to convert a photograph of a wall (where light is going to be in the texture) into an albedo?[/QUOTE] Sébastien Lagarde does a great job breaking things down, he's the one who is working at DICE to implement their PBR system. [url]https://seblagarde.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/feeding-a-physical-based-lighting-mode/[/url]
Allegorthmic's PBR Guide is a very good read. [URL]https://www.allegorithmic.com/pbr-guide[/URL] Marmoset's PBR Guide is also pretty quick and dirty [URL]http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/pbr-practice[/URL] [quote] [U]Before we get started, it’s important to cover common questions that usually pop up when people talk about PBR[/U] [B]- I don’t know how to use a PBR system, will I need to re-learn how to create art content? [/B]In most cases, no. If you have experience with previous generation shaders which use dynamic per-pixel lighting you already possess much of the knowledge necessary to create content for a PBR system. Terminology tends to be one of the biggest stumbling blocks for artists, so I have written a section on various terms and translations below. Most of the concepts here are simple and easy to pick up. If your experience lies mostly with hand painted/mobile work, learning the new techniques and workflows outlined here may be more of a challenge. However, likely not more difficult than picking up a traditional normal map based workflow. [B]- Will artists need to capture photographic reference with a polarized camera system for every material they wish to create? [/B]No, generally you will be provided with reference for common materials by your studio. Alternatively, you can find known values from various 3rd party sources, like [URL="http://www.quixel.se/megascans/"]Quixel’s Megascans[/URL] service. Creating your own scan data is a very technical and time consuming process, and in most cases not necessary. [B]- If I use a PBR shader does that mean my artwork is physically accurate? [/B]Not necessarily; simply using a PBR shader does not make your artwork physically accurate. A PBR system is a combination of physically accurate lighting, shading, and properly calibrated art content. [B]- Do I need to use a metalness map for it to be PBR? [/B]No, a metalness map is just one method of determining reflectivity and is generally not more or less physically accurate than using a specular color/intensity map. [B]- Do I need to use index of refraction (IOR) for it to be PBR? [/B]No, similar to the metalness map input, IOR is simply an alternate method to define reflectivity. [B]- Is specular no longer a thing?[/B] Not quite. Specular reflection intensity, or reflectivity is still a very important parameter in PBR systems. You may not have a map to directly set reflectivity (e.g. with a metalness workflow) but it is still required in a PBR system. [B]- Do gloss maps replace specular maps? [/B]No, gloss or roughness maps define the microsurface of the material (how rough or smooth it is), and do not replace a specular intensity map. However, if you’re not used to working with gloss maps, it may be somewhat of an adjustment to put certain detail in the gloss map that you would otherwise add to the specular map. [B]- Can a PBR system be used to create stylized art? [/B]Yes, absolutely. If your goal is to create a fantastical, stylized world, having accurate material definition is still very important. Even if you’re creating a unicorn that farts rainbows, you still generally want that unicorn to obey the physics of light and matter. A great example of this is Pixar’s work, which is very stylized, yet often on the cutting edge of material accuracy. Here is a great article about PBR in [I]Monsters University[/I]: [URL="http://www.fxguide.com/featured/monsters-university-rendering-physically-based-monsters/"]fxguide feature on Monsters University[/URL] [/quote] From the Marmoset page
Maybe I'm secretly masochistic, but I've always found something intangibly appealing about working in the source engine, will definitely check out the SDK if they release it under a similar model as Unity/Unreal
Source could not compete with UE3 or even UE2 in the commercial market and Source 2 will not be able to compete with UE4 or even Unity in the commercial market; the only niche source used to fill (user access) has now been taken by both UE4 and Unity while valve was busy harnessing community labor for their own games. Knowing valve's current trends it'll probably be free*** whilst locking down its distribution to only greenlight / steam
[QUOTE=Juniez;47254694]Source could not compete with UE3 or even UE2 in the commercial market and Source 2 will not be able to compete with UE4 or even Unity in the commercial market; the only niche source used to fill (user access) has now been taken by both UE4 and Unity while valve was busy harnessing community labor for their own games. Knowing valve's current trends it'll probably be free*** whilst locking down its distribution to only greenlight / steam[/QUOTE] I don't think valve honestly wants to license their engine out. I mean hell, they cut the ability to purchase it years back and from what i've heard they have good support and help to devs, but it takes longer than it could for responses and real time help. UE4 and Unity on the other hand are activily advertising both with those points in mind. I don't think Valve wants to deal with all that and so it's going to stay a modders tool. I could be completely wrong though, and I wouldn't mind being wrong.
Here are some photos showing off what it looks like. [t]http://wallpapernesia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/forest_background_03.jpg[/t] [t]http://o.homedsgn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NYC-Andrew-Mace-29.jpg[/t] [t]http://miriadna.com/desctopwalls/images/max/Rambling-in-winter-forest.jpg[/t] Notice the advertising of real world companies to add an extra layer of immersion.
[QUOTE=surfur;47254728]I don't think valve honestly wants to license their engine out. I mean hell, they cut the ability to purchase it years back and from what i've heard they have good support and help to devs, but it takes longer than it could for responses and real time help. UE4 and Unity on the other hand are activily advertising both with those points in mind. I don't think Valve wants to deal with all that and so it's going to stay a modders tool. I could be completely wrong though, and I wouldn't mind being wrong.[/QUOTE] i'd hate to use source 1 as an example of a modder's tool because it sucks dick as a modder's tool even on the rare occasions when valve [I]hasn't[/I] broken it accidentally [editline]4th March 2015[/editline] i'd make a joke about the engine being Built By The Community but UE4 beat them to it
Speaking of Source 2, I remembered this awful quality video from a while back: [video=youtube;_Fl4s9T79n0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fl4s9T79n0[/video] If you skip ahead to 6:14, Gabe says they've been working on source 2 and have been "waiting for a game to launch it with". Now, this seems pretty fucking obvious. Duh. But, with the official announcement, I'd expect to see some sort of game news. I'm not saying Half-Life, but I'd expect it to be something more than just a Dota2 port or L4D2 port.
[QUOTE=revan740;47254834]Speaking of Source 2, I remembered this awful quality video from a while back: [video=youtube;_Fl4s9T79n0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fl4s9T79n0[/video] If you skip ahead to 6:14, Gabe says they've been working on source 2 and have been "waiting for a game to launch it with". Now, this seems pretty fucking obvious. Duh. But, with the official announcement, I'd expect to see some sort of game news. I'm not saying Half-Life, but I'd expect it to be something more than just a Dota2 port or L4D2 port.[/QUOTE] probably most definitely L4D3 because pretty much all signs have been pointing to it
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;47255081]probably most definitely L4D3 because pretty much all signs have been pointing to it[/QUOTE] whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
GDC > The engine E3 > Valve's game to be released on the engine [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-toot.gif[/IMG] Also Steam Link really has been something i wanted for quite some time, i could not be bothered to get myself some old machine and install Steam OS on it just for game streaming. Also it being 50$ is pretty fucking awesome
[QUOTE=darth-veger;47255171]GDC > The engine E3 > Valve's game to be released on the engine [IMG]http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-toot.gif[/IMG] Also Steam Link really has been something i wanted for quite some time, i could not be bothered to get myself some old machine and install Steam OS on it just for game streaming. Also it being 50$ is pretty fucking awesome[/QUOTE] valve doesn't like e3
[QUOTE=gangleider;47255169]whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy[/QUOTE] Increased immersion/Presence really lends itself to the horror, the head sensors on the Vive could feed the AI director, and the Steam Controller still wants to prove it can play shooters way better than conventional game controllers. Seems like a pretty good fit to me.
[QUOTE=Bumrang;47255182]valve doesn't like e3[/QUOTE] could people stop saying this as if they actually know what valve's internal corporate opinion is on the biggest game event ever
[QUOTE=Bumrang;47255182]valve doesn't like e3[/QUOTE] Yet pretty much all their most recent titles have been announced at E3.
[QUOTE=mac338;47255252]Yet pretty much all their most recent titles have been announced at E3.[/QUOTE] Portal was announced via an ARG and confirmed at GDC. Dota 2 was announced on Game Informer. CSGO was posted on reddit by some playtesters and confirmed by Valve the same day.
[QUOTE=Stiffy360;47253129]Can't wait for the community to create HL3![/QUOTE] They should make an announcement like Microsoft did with Conker to make sure every last fan starts hating them. [url]http://youtu.be/1t_Co0gfj18[/url]
when do you think we'll see HL3?
next year with l4d3 hitting the shelves later this year
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;47255081]probably most definitely L4D3 because pretty much all signs have been pointing to it[/QUOTE]I'm a bit out of the loop, what are these signs you're speaking of?
[QUOTE=Flubbman;47255329]I'm a bit out of the loop, what are these signs you're speaking of?[/QUOTE] L4D3 has been in development since 2011/2012 based on the powerpoint presentation from a few months back, so there's that. Also the fact that some L4D2 files are found within the core files of S2 in dota's workshop tools. It's mostly entries about particles and such, but hey fingers crossed
left 4 dead is also the perfect arcade game in terms of remake potential
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.