Source 2 vs Unreal Engine

s&box
#1

This topic is here for my curiosity as I have been doing lots of googling on the internet and found not much information on the benefits and disadvantages of using source 2 over unreal engine.

Was wondering if you guys could provide me with your opinion’s or even a list of the advantages and disadvantages of using both engines and what you would prefer to use if Source 2 eventually becomes released to the public?

I know @Crayz has made a video regarding this, but I would like to find out what you guys think.

1 Like
#2

In Source 2 you can optimize spaces in more detail.
Otherwise, I think Source 2 is inferior to UE4, if I’m wrong then write why.

#3

No sure by what you mean by optimize spaces, could you ellaborate?

#4

I haven’t yet tinkered with Source 2 so I can’t really speak for it, but if it uses the same networking model as Source 1 did, then pretty much everything networking related is a lot more convenient to use in Source. UE4’s networking model on the other hand is kind of twisted in the sense that all replication and RPCs have to work through some actors (entities) with a whole bunch of limitations involving the actor’s net owners. No point in diving into details, but it’s an inflexible mess that only caters to a very specific networking model, which is also harder and slower to develop with, and will make you rip out hairs whenever you’re trying to do something different the Epic guys didn’t intend for. You could go about redoing it at the cost of time and effort.

Additionally, from experience, C++ development in UE4 is hell, despite the rare few that claim differently - anyone who’s done a big project enough C++ project in UE4 will confirm this. 75% of the time it’ll feel like the framework is backwards and oddly constrained.

If I had to pick one engine over the other for a new first person shooter, it’d be Source 2, just because Valve has exceptional standards targeting a very specific goal (which is very much aligned towards first person shooters), while UE4 feels like a clumsy hack of modules stitched together.

4 Likes
#5

Source 1 but better works for me

9 Likes
#6

For sure thankyou for that information, what do you think about the graphical capabilities regarding both engines?

#7

I enjoyed C++ until I had the wonderful pleasure of using it in the UE4 space.

#8

Both are capable of some pretty spectacular graphics. I don’t think it’s worth judging them based on that.

#9

Wish there was water in source 2 though…

#10

UE4 is flashy, it’ll throw epic speculars and float point bloom textures and per pixel motion blur at you. Don’t get me wrong, it can certainly look great. I don’t know much about Source 2, but looking at footage it seems like they have a beast of a render pipeline that’s more conservative yet elegant, and that makes it all the more attractive for me personally. I think a lot of it is up to preference

2 Likes
#11

That’s true I guess it comes down to personal preference and which workflow works the best.

#12

Considering that we very likely wouldn’t have been able to use Niagara or any other of the ue editor tools anyways, I’m pretty happy with the swap to source 2.

#13

If I remember right my comparisons boiled down to Source 2 being available at a seemingly unknown date, in-house engine that is probably a bit convoluted, and UE being tried & tested for general use, readily available, and no shortage of modern tech.

But the video was intended to be controversial, it was a hot topic at the time.

Way I see it now: Unity (despite being a trainwreck atm) is my bread and butter, if UE is somehow better I’ll still use Unity because it’s best for my creative workflow. If Source 2 brings out the creative juices and passion + joy that’s the way to go.

1 Like
#14

At the end the engine is only as good as the user using it

and when the engine is opensource (or if the user has source access) then everything can be changed anyways