| Page 5 of 16 |
|
|
 Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 01:50 Post subject: |
|
 |
The lightning system will be upgraded with Episode2, and I never ran into any sound stuttering problems. My guess would be that the majority of people doesn't run into those problems.
And it's not like every engine EXCEPT the source engine is flawless, every engine has its flaws. Instead of comparing source with UE3 and what it is "supposed to be captable of" lets compare it to other engines of roughly the same age.
Doom3 engine? Had small levels aswell and had absolutely sucky performance in outdoor areas, shadows were overdone and everything looked like wet plastic.
UE2? Rather small levels aswell, low polygons etc etc.
And the source engine still receives updates and upgrades as opposed to the former two.
Comparing source with engines yet-to-come is absolutely pointless in itself.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 02:04 Post subject: |
|
|
| Xenthalon wrote: | The lightning system will be upgraded with Episode2, and I never ran into any sound stuttering problems. My guess would be that the majority of people doesn't run into those problems.
And it's not like every engine EXCEPT the source engine is flawless, every engine has its flaws. Instead of comparing source with UE3 and what it is "supposed to be captable of" lets compare it to other engines of roughly the same age.
Doom3 engine? Had small levels aswell and had absolutely sucky performance in outdoor areas, shadows were overdone and everything looked like wet plastic.
UE2? Rather small levels aswell, low polygons etc etc.
And the source engine still receives updates and upgrades as opposed to the former two.
Comparing source with engines yet-to-come is absolutely pointless in itself. |
The Doom 3 engine has been modified, like in quake 3 where it had no problem with large outdoor areas. I think that just about any engine can be modified to do everything failrly well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 02:09 Post subject: |
|
|
| panzieman wrote: | | Xenthalon wrote: | The lightning system will be upgraded with Episode2, and I never ran into any sound stuttering problems. My guess would be that the majority of people doesn't run into those problems.
And it's not like every engine EXCEPT the source engine is flawless, every engine has its flaws. Instead of comparing source with UE3 and what it is "supposed to be captable of" lets compare it to other engines of roughly the same age.
Doom3 engine? Had small levels aswell and had absolutely sucky performance in outdoor areas, shadows were overdone and everything looked like wet plastic.
UE2? Rather small levels aswell, low polygons etc etc.
And the source engine still receives updates and upgrades as opposed to the former two.
Comparing source with engines yet-to-come is absolutely pointless in itself. |
The Doom 3 engine has been modified, like in quake 3 where it had no problem with large outdoor areas. I think that just about any engine can be modified to do everything failrly well. |
you mean quake 4? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 10:57 Post subject: |
|
|
| Xenthalon wrote: | | UE2? Rather small levels aswell |
| Xenthalon wrote: | | Doom3 engine? Had small levels aswell and had absolutely sucky performance in outdoor areas, shadows were overdone and everything looked like wet plastic. |
You should see Prey and QW before you speak about the D3 engine.
| Xenthalon wrote: | | Comparing source with engines yet-to-come is absolutely pointless in itself. |
If it aims to compete with them, it isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 11:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| Xenthalon wrote: | | Doom3 engine? Had small levels aswell and had absolutely sucky performance in outdoor areas, shadows were overdone and everything looked like wet plastic. |
Performance was great in-door as well as out-door. The unified lighting systems in the Doom3engine was nothing short of sweet in Doom3, Quake4, and Prey, even though it only works in-doors. Yes, some objects/models looked "plastic", but far from everything. I agree that the engine's shortcoming is that its the support for out-door environments is absolutely horrible.
| Quote: | | UE2? Rather small levels aswell, low polygons etc etc. |
Both UT2003 (based on UE2) and UT2004 (based on UE2.5) had fairly large levels. Lineage 2, which uses UE2x, is an MMO, and has very large levels. Heck, even the Splinter Cell series uses UE2 (with a custom rendered, and various other custom components), and has levels that are larger than "small".
Low polygons? Take into consideration that UE2 is from 2002 and before, while Source is from 2004.
| Quote: | | And the source engine still receives updates and upgrades as opposed to the former two. |
UE2 is no longer updated, true, but then again it is no longer needed, with UE3 being completed and continuously worked on.
Doom3 is still being updated though. The latest addition being the megatexture technology, to mention one thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 12:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| liansk wrote: | | Who gives a crap? most people wont be able to tell the difference. |
So you admit the Source engine is for people who can't tell a difference between jack shit, or what?
| LeoNatan wrote: | | It was certainly not outdated in 2004 and it will be upgraded in episode 2. |
It was outdated even at launch in 2004. Static lighting/precomputed lighting, no normal mapping on models, and heavy use of BSP was old tech in 2004. Even UE2 switched to static meshes long before, and Doom3engine that was launched the very same year as Half-Life 2 even a fully dynamic lighting system. So outdated in so many ways.
| Quote: | | Back in 2004 i've had a pretty average pc and even on it most loadings were unnoticeable (made in the background). |
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but Source engine does not support streaming of levels or otherwise. Certainly the levels were small and the level loading times huge, as with the original Half-Life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Freudian
Posts: 364
Location: Din mamma!
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 13:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| LeoNatan wrote: |
You should see Prey and QW before you speak about the D3 engine.
|
I've played QW quite a lot actually and I'll keep it simple, just as you guys like it.
D3 engine sucks. Fact.
Fact: D3 engine sucks.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 13:45 Post subject: |
|
|
 no u |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 14:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| Parallax_ wrote: | | Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but Source engine does not support streaming of levels or otherwise. Certainly the levels were small and the level loading times huge, as with the original Half-Life. |
That's just not true! Huge loading times? What the hell are you talking about? Loading times were a few seconds at most on an average pc. Now remember the long ass loading times Doom 3 or Quake 4 had on an average pc (average pc back then did not mean 2 gb of ram, even tho today that might be average). I bet if you take loading times per m² of map that Source wins hands down. And even if not, I'd take split second loading times over coffee break level switches anytime.
And to keep this halfway on topic: RWS made a thoughtful choice by switching to Source, there must have been some advantages, as I imagine switching from UE2 to UE3 would prolly have been less work. Now since they try to create an open city environment (if thats what they try to do, like in Postal 2), it would clearly be a good choice to switch to Source, since it would eliminate those huge loading times we saw in Postal 2 (oh yeah, Unreal Engine loading times)?
Again, I'd rather have more short loading times just like HL2 had, especially in an open environment such as the Postal 2 (and probably Postal 3) world. I think they made the right choice, even if the HDR effect isn't technically 100% perfect (omg call the presses). I don't care so much about GFX, Source is pretty enough. I just hope they will have time to spend on models and AI since these departments were seriously lacking in Postal 2 (imo) instead of wrestling with an engine that is unfit to match the game's premise.
Last edited by Fabs on Tue, 17th Jul 2007 14:37; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 14:36 Post subject: |
|
|
Both Doom3, Quake4, and Prey has far shorter loading times than Source. Half-Life2 has one of the longest loading times of all first-person shooters.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 14:41 Post subject: |
|
|
Well maybe on ur PC, but ive seen those games run on a couple of machines and I can say that Source games and HL1 had way shorter loading times. If you wanna keep discussing this why dont you open a thread somewhere including a poll, because A: this is way offtopic and B: a poll would show an average of many machines and not just your opinion vs. another.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 14:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| Fabs wrote: | | Well maybe on ur PC, but ive seen those games run on a couple of machines and I can say that Source games and HL1 had way shorter loading times. |
I'm not talking about one of my PCs, but in general. If you start up a level from for instance Quake4 and Half-Life2 on the same PC, loading times are way shorter in the former.
| Quote: | | If you wanna keep discussing this why dont you open a thread somewhere including a poll, because A: this is way offtopic and B: a poll would show an average of many machines and not just your opinion vs. another. |
No thank you. This has been the discussion for the last page or so. If you wanna swing the discussion back to Postal3, why don't you post something about it instead of preaching false facts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poullou
Posts: 1746
Location: Internet Express
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 15:45 Post subject: |
|
|
| poullou wrote: | | I think they picked source because it's cheaper than U3. Ok, U3 looks and may work better but you have tocheck your bank account if you can license it. |
I don't know the exact licensing costs of neither Source nor UE3 (it's all probably under NDAs anyway), however unlike other engines, UE3 does not have a static price point - it is licensed on a per-case basis. I think unlike other engines, it can be extremely cheap (in more ways than just licensing costs), depending on the scope of the project and whatnot criterias Epic has. This is why you see smaller games running on UE3, for instance several Live Arcade games.
RWS used UE2 for Postal2, so why they picked Source instead of for instance UE3 is beyond me. Maybe someone will ask them, it seems like RWS is the kind of guys that gives very straight-in-your-face answers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 16:33 Post subject: |
|
|
| Parallax_ wrote: | | Both Doom3, Quake4, and Prey has far shorter loading times than Source. Half-Life2 has one of the longest loading times of all first-person shooters. |
It's not only that. When you load a level in D3 or Q4 or Prey, you have a LEVEL, that will keep you busy for 20-30 minutes. It doesn't hitch one bit every time you move from room to corridor to room. Source on the other hand will break that same level to 5-6 very small chunks with longer loading times () and hitch every time you move to new area. Oh yeah, must be my E6600, 8800GTX, 2GB machine that is to blame, sure...
| Hellbeans wrote: | | What in the world? that was so fanboy 1337 of you. |
Fanboi of what, ffs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poullou
Posts: 1746
Location: Internet Express
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 16:37 Post subject: |
|
|
Loading times are said to vastly be improved after the addition of steam defragment tool. However, I have not try a single player game since the addition and, they should improve the way the engine loads a level likewise other engines do.
Ἢ τὰν ἢ ἐπὶ τᾶς - Μολὼν λαβέ
Today is a gift. That's why it's called the present.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 17:35 Post subject: |
|
|
I stick to my opinion that Source is the best multi-use engine since 2004 and until the release of UE3. If you can think of any engine that came close to it i would be happy to hear you out.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parallax_
VIP Member
Posts: 6422
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 17:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| liansk wrote: | | I stick to my opinion that Source is the best multi-use engine since 2004 and until the release of UE3. |
UE3 is out. What do you want, the SDK? The engine is alive and kicking, and will be even much more this fall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 19:14 Post subject: |
|
|
| liansk wrote: | | I stick to my opinion that Source is the best multi-use engine since 2004 and until the release of UE3. If you can think of any engine that came close to it i would be happy to hear you out. |
Actually I like UT2 better when it comes to level designing tools and overall ease of use. Never like the tools of D3 or Source (except the face animation tool). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 17th Jul 2007 20:33 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm wondering what makes some of you people think that you are able to judge about the major game engines like that?
If an engine sucks or not is mainly determinded by licensing and developement costs and of the project is is licensed for.
All the engines named here have advantages and drawbacks at certain tasks and in the end it's the developer who failed to use it correctly or choose the correct engine for his project, not the engine itself AND we should fucking wait for the final product before judging about that, don't we?
Postal 3 will be great because of it's humour, it doesn't need the graphic quality of an UT3.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 18th Jul 2007 00:25 Post subject: |
|
|
fuck the stupid texan humor. haven't laughed a single time when playing P2.
"Only one country can destroy NATO in 40 minutes - it's Russia"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 27th Jul 2007 23:44 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 28th Jul 2007 00:48 Post subject: |
|
|
That portable beast-thingy looks quite cool, but hopefully they'll tweak those physics, it looks like the npc's need a second to register the bullet impact before they start flying around.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chiv
Posts: 27530
Location: Behind You...
|
| Posted: Sat, 28th Jul 2007 01:23 Post subject: |
|
|
well i must say that video did not blow me away, even if its far from finished. totally agree, i hope those physics havent really been worked on yet, otherwise thats pretty bad.. but the whole thing didnt really wow me...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 20th Feb 2008 23:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Wed, 20th Feb 2008 23:10 Post subject: |
|
|
Lulz, dx8 source engine in 2009. That should be interesting.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mutantius
VIP Member
Posts: 18594
Location: In Elektro looking for beans
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 5 of 16 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
) but whenever I watch some crysis pics and vids, I know I can enjoy games better on source because of their performance. I don't care about fake HDR if it looks nice. Remember lost coast wows back then when we first saw HDR(besides 1.3 in far cry).
