i'm not happy with source. what happened to bump mapping, normal mapping, specular maps, gloss maps, and HDR bloom ?
i also heard vehicles can't be used for multiplayer either because their movement is calculated server side only and not client side like everything else has been for years which means there is a delay from your inputs before you see an effect and it's jerky which makes it impossible to drive vehicles without wanting to break your computer and blow up Valve.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited April 2005
Unreal 2004 kicks source engine? How so?
Has more crappy physics, cartoony graphics and art, no real novel technology introduced except for a very polished engine. Also it has awesome netcode. That's about all i can think of. IMO I don't think unreal engine in its current state can't pull of somewhat realistic looking characters, still to cartoony looking and always has been. Also nice vehicle support.
It isn't fair to compare source to unreal3 because that's a next-gen engine and still a long ways away. Of course it will be probably better than source.
EDIT: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i also heard vehicles can't be used for multiplayer either because their movement is calculated server side only and not client side like everything else has been for years which means there is a delay from your inputs before you see an effect and it's jerky which makes it impossible to drive vehicles without wanting to break your computer and blow up Valve. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vehicles do work, go into a game with sv_cheats 1 and spawn buggies. It just needs some work on the netcode. I thought the jeep drove fine in the game but the airboat had very bad control. Besides NS wouldn't have vehicles in it (besides maybe dropships) so this really isn't a problem. Source can do what it does best, indoor areas with lots of detail.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkFrost+Apr 16 2005, 06:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkFrost @ Apr 16 2005, 06:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yet, even Unreal Engine 2.5 kicks the arse of source, what will Unreal Engine 3 do?
*edit* - wrote 2x instead of 2.5 xD <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Unreal Engine2 kicks the arse of source? Since when?
Source has better physics than even Unreal3. Half-Life2 looks better than UT2004.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Apr 16 2005, 03:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Apr 16 2005, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Source has better physics than even Unreal3. Half-Life2 looks better than UT2004. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I dunno about the physics part, unreal engine 3 looks pretty impressive from what we've seen of it so far. Also it is compatible with those new PPUs.
Source had awesome physics and would have been groundbreaking if released back in sept 30th 2003. But over a year later it had been in other games and wasn't such a new thing so it lost a lot of its novelty.
Would NS really need to take advantage of tons of physics or would that alter the game to much? They could do something like CS:S where they just push you away (although i really hate that).
<!--QuoteBegin-ViPr+Apr 16 2005, 09:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ViPr @ Apr 16 2005, 09:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i'm not happy with source. what happened to bump mapping, normal mapping, specular maps, gloss maps, and HDR bloom ?
i also heard vehicles can't be used for multiplayer either because their movement is calculated server side only and not client side like everything else has been for years which means there is a delay from your inputs before you see an effect and it's jerky which makes it impossible to drive vehicles without wanting to break your computer and blow up Valve. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bump mapping, normal mapping and specular mapping are in. You just don't happen to see them in every texture/model in the game, unlike... other games <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
HDR will be added when they release The Lost Coast, which is a level for those guys with the ultra-mega-super-computers.
Vehicles CAN be used for multiplayer, they're just handled server-side. There's no prediction for it since they were developing a singleplayer game, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for a MP mod to use vehicles. Look at source racer... that's a released HL2 mods that uses airboats... you'll see what's the problem, but you'll also see that it's not impossible.
And, finally, why is this engine dicussion even happening? The reason to port to the source engine is becuase we don't have to start from scratch... The mappers can start with a straight port, then redesign the areas as they want, that way you can keep the sizes/layout and improve the visuals... It's a simple concept, and it's also the next logical step (HL engine -> HL2 engine, thinks work in a VERY similar way... etc), I don't think NS is going to switch to another engine if it isn't Source. Unless we get paid (lol), there's no reason to learn a new engine now.
*edit* - wrote 2x instead of 2.5 xD <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unreal Engine2 kicks the arse of source? Since when?
Source has better physics than even Unreal3. Half-Life2 looks better than UT2004. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Attach a physics library to unreal engine 2.5 then. =]
BreakthroughTexture Artist (ns_prometheus)Join Date: 2005-03-27Member: 46620Members, Constellation
IIRC, the Havok 2 physics engine (used in Source), is also used in Max Payne 2, which was released MUCH earlier. And yes, MP2 does have Ragdoll physics.
Yes it was used in MP2, and also in thief Deadly shadows... which funilly enough runs on UE2.5, but ofcourse that engine ONLY does cartoony graphics and has no physics, huh
I didn't say unreal 2004 now did I. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't know what version 2.5 would be
so i just used the closest example since its a closer comparison.
Also like men said its a natural transition to source and a lot of the stuff would be a somewhat smooth move. It's a lot easier to go to half-life2 than say doom3 engine (which would be neat but not really) or unreal engine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IIRC, the Havok 2 physics engine (used in Source), is also used in Max Payne 2, which was released MUCH earlier. And yes, MP2 does have Ragdoll physics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think they started with the Havoc physics and heavily modified it to suit half-life 2. Havoc 2 has a few more options like soft physics etc that arn't used in half-life2 physics.
<!--QuoteBegin-aeroripper+Apr 16 2005, 10:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (aeroripper @ Apr 16 2005, 10:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IIRC, the Havok 2 physics engine (used in Source), is also used in Max Payne 2, which was released MUCH earlier. And yes, MP2 does have Ragdoll physics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think they started with the Havoc physics and heavily modified it to suit half-life 2. Havoc 2 has a few more options like soft physics etc that arn't used in half-life2 physics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They don't modify it, they use the parts they need and no more.
Edit - Using an entire physics library would kill all (probably) home systems, they are very intensive on CPUs. There is, or there is talk of PPUs (Physics Proccessing Units) which will be able to make use of most, if not all of the physics librarys.
Edit2 - Yea The doom 3 engine would make an excelent NS game platform, It is probably the best and most modable graphics engine since quake was released, but its a powerhungry beast, its a god send that it scales itself so well so 640x480 still looks beautiful.
Ugh....NS on Doom3 or UT engines....That would kind of suck for me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I get 30-60 AVG fps in Source games on medium-high settings...and Doom 3, I have to turn EVERYTHING down to the lowest possible settings to get 30 fps D: That's why I shall always say that Source > * engines. Runs best for my machine <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CyberPitz+Apr 16 2005, 11:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CyberPitz @ Apr 16 2005, 11:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ugh....NS on Doom3 or UT engines....That would kind of suck for me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I get 30-60 AVG fps in Source games on medium-high settings...and Doom 3, I have to turn EVERYTHING down to the lowest possible settings to get 30 fps D: That's why I shall always say that Source > * engines. Runs best for my machine <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Thats odd =/
Doom 3 runs fine on my Quadro FX 600 (not even a gaming card D:), XP 2800, 1024mb ram, where HL2 runs *ok*.
Unreal Engine games Scream along...
Have you tried some of the config tweaks for HL2? They _should_ get you some more FPS out of it.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I dunno, if they ported NS to doom3 instead they would probably hafta rework all the levels completely and everything would get much, much darker. Marines would all get flashlights and hafta switch back over to a weapon when they see a alien :-P
Doom 3 runs fine on my Quadro FX 600 (not even a gaming card D:), XP 2800, 1024mb ram, where HL2 runs *ok*.
Unreal Engine games Scream along...
Have you tried some of the config tweaks for HL2? They _should_ get you some more FPS out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I've got NO problems with HL2, so tweaks for it are unneeded <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Doom 3.....whew...that thing hates my 512 meg PC2100 ram. and my 9600XT isn't that great for it either so lawls. And I wish I could put some more money into this beast, but my RX-7 needs it more <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm a P4 3.1 ghz...so im sure its ram/video card holding me up. But the thing is though, Source engine gives me awesome frame rates in comparison to the others....
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I think doom3 would work better for natural selection if you could have more lights in a area without a major performance drop. The NS world is very colorful and has lots and lots of lights in it, which the doom3 engine just isn't able to handle with dynamic lighting.
As for NS, they could write even their own shaders for certain things. Like windows could look dirty and add depth to infestation texures.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited April 2005
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The NS world is very colorful and has lots and lots of lights in it, which the doom3 engine just isn't able to handle with dynamic lighting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's what i said in full and makes more sense with the context. Wasn't sure if you were trying to quote just part of it to make a joke.
The hard-stenciled shadows cross eachother when there are lots of lights in an area and doesn't look that great. With the amount of lights used in NS in a level doom3 could PROBABLY do it, but it would be 5+ years before everybody could handle it performance wise. Honestly i don't think it would look very good either because of the method they used (hard blacker than black shadows rather than soft shadows)
I guess i shouldn't say it CAN'T handle it but computers can't handle it for a few more years to have that many dynamic lights. Even if they could the shadows start to overlap and look crappy.
Although unreal engine 3 looks like it can do well lit, outdoor scenes fairly nicely and it looks great too.
Since half-life2 pre-bakes all the shadows and radiosity you can have a lot better looking lighting with good performance. Source has dynamic lights but honestly i don't think they look that great.
The Unreal Warfare engine is still mighty impressive. The physical code database is very organized.
You have games like Pariah...then you have games like Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. As far as graphical capability--that is up for debate. It all changes based on what type of game you are wanting to develop.
Havok can and has been implemented into the warfare engine itself. The library is again, very open to developers to change.
Also, it should at this point be a static fact that D3 uses a dynamic overpass technique on dynamic and amb. light formations. Therefore mappers must rely on budget tools to get the best lighting possible out of a minimum level of lights.
The future of NS[CLASSIC]--at this point...seems to be only pointing towards Source. The contrast of development around any other engine looks rather pointless. The features and ideals behind NS can still be wrapped inside of Source, only with a nice sugar coating for the new engine.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have faith in Flayra and the team behind NS. However, to this date I havn't seen a game make a better flow movement control then HL1 and 2. This includes all of its mod--still bound to these rules.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the movement in half-life2 is nice... although they would probably take out sprinting for NS. When it goes to source i think the movement will be a lot more fluid instead of the half-lifey feel to it. It still has that but seems more refined.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<span style='color:red'>***I added new pictures of stuff on the front page <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->***</span>
We're all well aware of the effects HL2 can support. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 17 2005, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 17 2005, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We're all well aware of the effects HL2 can support. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It has an awesome way of "throwing" hitboxes, if a model is moving the hitbox will move infront of him by about 3 feet, its magic!
<i> If NS:Source does get produced, before any graphical enhancements, we're looking at getting the existing content (models, maps) onto Source before any cosmetical enhancements. That said, converting with existing content could take anywhere from 3-6 months and that's <b> without</b> the enhancements.</i>
well I have actually ported a model to source and really there are two ways you can go budget or the full works.
for instance you can port the textures straight across or redo them completely. You can also just port the models straight across but there not ragdoll and there collision boxes can be ****. Or once again redo the whole model.
Could i just show ou how cool NS Cloacking could look (Scroll down a bit) <a href='http://forum.neotokyohq.com/viewtopic.php?t=348&sid=fc453461800ca5f2b02608db23370d03' target='_blank'>Clickeh</a>
Sooooo sexy
I realyl would like to see some of the NS:S textures people were working on posted on this thread.... maybe the community can get behind this, and kinda source things to make development in NS:S easier for the powers that be, making this a sort of unnoficial concept + speculation thread...
Damnit, Dbl post... oh well might as well use it to post this: A Shading Tutorial by Valve<a href='http://www2.ati.com/developer/gdc/D3DTutorial10_Half-Life2_Shading.pdf' target='_blank'>Shading + Lighting</a>
May be an interesting read to some of you...Just shows the power of valves engine
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I really think NS textures looked great when released but to keep that same level of quality they should actually model the texture in 3d and create the normal map out of that instead of faking it
Comments
i also heard vehicles can't be used for multiplayer either because their movement is calculated server side only and not client side like everything else has been for years which means there is a delay from your inputs before you see an effect and it's jerky which makes it impossible to drive vehicles without wanting to break your computer and blow up Valve.
Has more crappy physics, cartoony graphics and art, no real novel technology introduced except for a very polished engine. Also it has awesome netcode. That's about all i can think of. IMO I don't think unreal engine in its current state can't pull of somewhat realistic looking characters, still to cartoony looking and always has been. Also nice vehicle support.
It isn't fair to compare source to unreal3 because that's a next-gen engine and still a long ways away. Of course it will be probably better than source.
EDIT: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->i also heard vehicles can't be used for multiplayer either because their movement is calculated server side only and not client side like everything else has been for years which means there is a delay from your inputs before you see an effect and it's jerky which makes it impossible to drive vehicles without wanting to break your computer and blow up Valve. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Vehicles do work, go into a game with sv_cheats 1 and spawn buggies. It just needs some work on the netcode. I thought the jeep drove fine in the game but the airboat had very bad control. Besides NS wouldn't have vehicles in it (besides maybe dropships) so this really isn't a problem. Source can do what it does best, indoor areas with lots of detail.
*edit* - wrote 2x instead of 2.5 xD <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unreal Engine2 kicks the arse of source? Since when?
Source has better physics than even Unreal3. Half-Life2 looks better than UT2004.
I dunno about the physics part, unreal engine 3 looks pretty impressive from what we've seen of it so far. Also it is compatible with those new PPUs.
Source had awesome physics and would have been groundbreaking if released back in sept 30th 2003. But over a year later it had been in other games and wasn't such a new thing so it lost a lot of its novelty.
Would NS really need to take advantage of tons of physics or would that alter the game to much? They could do something like CS:S where they just push you away (although i really hate that).
i also heard vehicles can't be used for multiplayer either because their movement is calculated server side only and not client side like everything else has been for years which means there is a delay from your inputs before you see an effect and it's jerky which makes it impossible to drive vehicles without wanting to break your computer and blow up Valve. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bump mapping, normal mapping and specular mapping are in. You just don't happen to see them in every texture/model in the game, unlike... other games <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
HDR will be added when they release The Lost Coast, which is a level for those guys with the ultra-mega-super-computers.
Vehicles CAN be used for multiplayer, they're just handled server-side. There's no prediction for it since they were developing a singleplayer game, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible for a MP mod to use vehicles. Look at source racer... that's a released HL2 mods that uses airboats... you'll see what's the problem, but you'll also see that it's not impossible.
And, finally, why is this engine dicussion even happening? The reason to port to the source engine is becuase we don't have to start from scratch... The mappers can start with a straight port, then redesign the areas as they want, that way you can keep the sizes/layout and improve the visuals... It's a simple concept, and it's also the next logical step (HL engine -> HL2 engine, thinks work in a VERY similar way... etc), I don't think NS is going to switch to another engine if it isn't Source. Unless we get paid (lol), there's no reason to learn a new engine now.
*edit* - wrote 2x instead of 2.5 xD <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unreal Engine2 kicks the arse of source? Since when?
Source has better physics than even Unreal3. Half-Life2 looks better than UT2004. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Attach a physics library to unreal engine 2.5 then. =]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Unreal 2004 kicks source engine? How so?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say unreal 2004 now did I.
Unreal 2004 kicks source engine? How so?
I didn't say unreal 2004 now did I. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't know what version 2.5 would be
so i just used the closest example since its a closer comparison.
Also like men said its a natural transition to source and a lot of the stuff would be a somewhat smooth move. It's a lot easier to go to half-life2 than say doom3 engine (which would be neat but not really) or unreal engine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IIRC, the Havok 2 physics engine (used in Source), is also used in Max Payne 2, which was released MUCH earlier. And yes, MP2 does have Ragdoll physics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think they started with the Havoc physics and heavily modified it to suit half-life 2. Havoc 2 has a few more options like soft physics etc that arn't used in half-life2 physics.
They don't modify it, they use the parts they need and no more.
Edit - Using an entire physics library would kill all (probably) home systems, they are very intensive on CPUs. There is, or there is talk of PPUs (Physics Proccessing Units) which will be able to make use of most, if not all of the physics librarys.
Edit2 - Yea The doom 3 engine would make an excelent NS game platform, It is probably the best and most modable graphics engine since quake was released, but its a powerhungry beast, its a god send that it scales itself so well so 640x480 still looks beautiful.
Thats odd =/
Doom 3 runs fine on my Quadro FX 600 (not even a gaming card D:), XP 2800, 1024mb ram, where HL2 runs *ok*.
Unreal Engine games Scream along...
Have you tried some of the config tweaks for HL2? They _should_ get you some more FPS out of it.
Doom 3 runs fine on my Quadro FX 600 (not even a gaming card D:), XP 2800, 1024mb ram, where HL2 runs *ok*.
Unreal Engine games Scream along...
Have you tried some of the config tweaks for HL2? They _should_ get you some more FPS out of it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've got NO problems with HL2, so tweaks for it are unneeded <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Doom 3.....whew...that thing hates my 512 meg PC2100 ram. and my 9600XT isn't that great for it either so lawls. And I wish I could put some more money into this beast, but my RX-7 needs it more <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm a P4 3.1 ghz...so im sure its ram/video card holding me up. But the thing is though, Source engine gives me awesome frame rates in comparison to the others....
As for NS, they could write even their own shaders for certain things. Like windows could look dirty and add depth to infestation texures.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your sure of this?
I'm genuinely asking, I never heard this limitation before.
That's what i said in full and makes more sense with the context. Wasn't sure if you were trying to quote just part of it to make a joke.
The hard-stenciled shadows cross eachother when there are lots of lights in an area and doesn't look that great. With the amount of lights used in NS in a level doom3 could PROBABLY do it, but it would be 5+ years before everybody could handle it performance wise. Honestly i don't think it would look very good either because of the method they used (hard blacker than black shadows rather than soft shadows)
I guess i shouldn't say it CAN'T handle it but computers can't handle it for a few more years to have that many dynamic lights. Even if they could the shadows start to overlap and look crappy.
Although unreal engine 3 looks like it can do well lit, outdoor scenes fairly nicely and it looks great too.
Since half-life2 pre-bakes all the shadows and radiosity you can have a lot better looking lighting with good performance. Source has dynamic lights but honestly i don't think they look that great.
The Unreal Warfare engine is still mighty impressive. The physical code database is very organized.
You have games like Pariah...then you have games like Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. As far as graphical capability--that is up for debate. It all changes based on what type of game you are wanting to develop.
Havok can and has been implemented into the warfare engine itself. The library is again, very open to developers to change.
Also, it should at this point be a static fact that D3 uses a dynamic overpass technique on dynamic and amb. light formations. Therefore mappers must rely on budget tools to get the best lighting possible out of a minimum level of lights.
The future of NS[CLASSIC]--at this point...seems to be only pointing towards Source. The contrast of development around any other engine looks rather pointless. The features and ideals behind NS can still be wrapped inside of Source, only with a nice sugar coating for the new engine.
I think the movement in half-life2 is nice... although they would probably take out sprinting for NS. When it goes to source i think the movement will be a lot more fluid instead of the half-lifey feel to it. It still has that but seems more refined.
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=91852' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....showtopic=91852</a>
shut up, no-one cares =D
It has an awesome way of "throwing" hitboxes, if a model is moving the hitbox will move infront of him by about 3 feet, its magic!
<i> If NS:Source does get produced, before any graphical enhancements, we're looking at getting the existing content (models, maps) onto Source before any cosmetical enhancements. That said, converting with existing content could take anywhere from 3-6 months and that's <b> without</b> the enhancements.</i>
for instance you can port the textures straight across or redo them completely. You can also just port the models straight across but there not ragdoll and there collision boxes can be ****. Or once again redo the whole model.
<a href='http://forum.neotokyohq.com/viewtopic.php?t=348&sid=fc453461800ca5f2b02608db23370d03' target='_blank'>Clickeh</a>
Sooooo sexy
I realyl would like to see some of the NS:S textures people were working on posted on this thread.... maybe the community can get behind this, and kinda source things to make development in NS:S easier for the powers that be, making this a sort of unnoficial concept + speculation thread...
A Shading Tutorial by Valve<a href='http://www2.ati.com/developer/gdc/D3DTutorial10_Half-Life2_Shading.pdf' target='_blank'>Shading + Lighting</a>
May be an interesting read to some of you...Just shows the power of valves engine