Post your screenshots! WIP thread Created 16 years ago2007-12-16 00:58:58 UTC by doodle

oh yeah, I was looking for the raven city source code.. moddb took it down

Shit, that's right.

He never really open-sourced it. Fail on my part, lol. Well, I heard that if you politely ask him if you can use it he'll give it to ya. (Seeming as how many other mods have used the engine, unfortunately, after taking on the engine, the mods have died. Not a single mod with the engine has been released...)

heavily modified GoldSrc engine. New renderers (better than Source's),

You mean to tell me an engine that's over a decade old has been modified to display modern pixel shaders and is capable of rendering more detail than Source can handle in a single scene? (which is several thousand polys at minimum)

Keep in mind that Joebama thinks Vanilla Goldsource is "better than Source", so you might not be getting an entirely accurate description.

@ Rabid,

Yeah, pretty much. I've never mapped for it though, so I'm not sure about it supporting large areas.

But, if you seen his mod you'd probably like it.

Even source is a hyper version of goldsource. Hell goldsource is a upgraded version of the quake engine.

I can't imagine with the right experienced people it'd be hard to upgrade an engine.

I'm in doubt about how an engine that's that old is even capable of supporting such modern features. Does it do things like parallax mapping, specularity and realtime reflections? Can it support scenes on a grid larger than 4096x4096? (which is painfully tiny by modern standards, unless you want to build maps which are entirely vertical or have a million level changes?)

I'll believe it when I see it...the proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Edit: Source is indeed a modification of goldsrc in some regards, but you have to change a lot to get it to that point, and it has many new features which aren't simply a modification of the previous engine's code. I'm in doubt about how much a modder or even a team of modders could incorporate features like that; they're rather advanced and well beyond the scope of most people's skill sets.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/from-beneath1

Seems like this mod uses the enhanced renderer from Raven City, check out the video on the middle of the page, looks pretty nice...

That version is an old as hell version of the engine.

But yeah, still really nice.

I'll admit it's an improvement on goldsrc, but it's certainly nowhere near as powerful as Source, I don't even know how that could be argued...I don't even see any last-gen features like bumpmapping or specularity...Some features like the 'HD textures' and particle systems were modded into the engine ages ago, and the radiosity in the indoor scenes is pretty muddy and you can tell it's HL1-quality at a glance.

Admittedly the art assets in the mod itself aren't exactly helping, but still...it's a good demonstration of the extendability of the goldsrc engine, but it's certainly not pretty.

Hmm, according to this post: http://forum.hlamnesia.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5, the author of the engine apparently made it first and foremost for friends. I wonder, though, if one proves "worthy enough", if he'd consider letting more mods use it. I just think it's a waste that they go through all the hassle of working on enhanced lightning, effects etc. and then it may never end up in a finished mod anyway. Same goes for HLFX, some great possibilities there for modders, yet the creators seem persistent not to let anyone else use it... as far as I know, anyway.

I do like the idea of an old engine being taught new tricks though, but Rabid's right: there's no way it can beat Source.

Having said that, I wouldn't exactly call Source a brilliant engine.

well that brings up the point, that Source isn't being used to its full potential either.

Who knows what 5, 10 years will bring out of it.

I don't think that's the case, Don Punch. I think it's just a poorly written engine, particularly in comparison to what everyone else is doing at the moment. I mean, compare Unreal Engine 3 to Source and you can easily see the difference visually, let alone the technical superiority.

One thing to keep in mind is that Source is designed to run on any computer you throw at it, not just a gaming supercomputer. Sure, the polycounts could be higher, the textures more highres, but it is superior to other engines in a lot of ways; the physics engine, even with it's bugs, is still the most realistic out there when you take into account that it follows all the laws of physics, has differing mass for each model, and has sounds for every material they use. I have yet to see a game that has better facial animation than source ingame. And the animation, while starting to show it's age, is still very good as well. And Valve is always implementing new features and gameplay into their engines and games, which is more than a disturbingly high amount of other big-name companies can say.

Its rendering engine is the big thing that lets it down though. It's woefully under-optimised. Considering the maximum that the engine has to render, it should do it a hell of a lot better than it does.

@ Rabid,

well, as I said that engine version is old. There's newer, better coded version now. So, of course those pics are shitty, since it's an earlier build of the engine.

You're really rather missing the point, Joebama.

Joe: I'm sure the "new" screenshots of it aren't much better. Goldsource is an old and dead engine - stop trying to convince people that it isn't, because it's not working. (Also, that video is hilarious because the custom crowbar is so horribly bad)

Ant: Worst thing about Source is that it still uses freakin' BSPs. Also, the Source SDK is flaky at best - it is always breaking, never updated on time, etc. Could say that UE3 didn't even have an SDK before to counter this, but they released the UDK which basically fixed that problem.

Jeff: Running on ancient pile-of-crap PC's is not really a good thing, if you don't have a PC that at least matches the power of a current generation console (lets say 360 or PS3), your computer is rubbish and you shouldn't even bother trying to play new games.

The point is, I'm not switching to source. And I'm not exactly trying to convince people that GoldSource is better anyway.

No matter how hard you try.

Wait, why wouldn't you switch to Source?

Because I dislike the engine greatly.

How come? It feels pretty much like Goldsource to me.

Feels pretty much like shit to me.

Anyway, I'm done, as PB is probably going to bring out the hammer.

...

Joebama: We wouldn't bring out the hammer for having an opinion. Even if we don't get it.

JeffMOD: While it's true they do add some pretty nice features to every iteration, they're still neglecting a lot of things. Things that matter.

They're adding some admittedly nice tech to a terribly dated base, which is a pretty bad way of trying to stay current.

And don't get me started on the horrible workflow of the SDK. =(

Joe: Got a better reason other than "it's shit"? Because that reason...is shit.

I don't like that idea that I have to be on steam just to map, code, etc. And the tools you use are subject to change at any time which makes your WIP become RIP

You all are missing the point.

I play for the storyline.

I agree on the necessity of being on Steam constantly to map. As for the tools, it's one of the side effects of having a system that allows the devs to constantly tweak and update the game. I guarantee you that the amount of support the SDK and the engine has received so far is way above what Goldsource got.

I enjoy the Half-Life 2 games immensely and I have absolutely nothing against the Source engine, but I'd much rather map for Goldsource. Why, you ask?... Good question. Maybe I just prefer the simplicity.

I prefer mapping for GoldSource currently because I hate the way the source engine over complicates things.

Say I want to make a single player mod based in modern day London.

Right away I'm going to need a prop modeller or 2, a texture artist and everything else that goes along with getting a model in game and working properly.

Hell, even if I want to make a City 17 related mod, just adding custom speech means recording the sound, loading it into FacePoser to do the lip synching and facial expressions and fuck knows what else.

I can create a fairly unique environment in GoldSource with Hammer, Milkshape and my mic in a day or 2.

In Source, it would take a team of 5 about a week to get the same result.

That said, The Core is my last GoldSource project. I really need to get with the times... It won't be easy, but the first few years of GoldSource weren't either.

Again, somewhat valid points, but what do you expect? Everyone here loves seeing high level graphics in other games. This is how you get them if you're modding. There's really no other way to get high quality visuals without putting in the effort.

I might also add that the age of Goldsource total conversions really only started fairly late in its life. Prior to that, pretty much every 'high level' mod was rooted firmly in the Half-Life universe. I'm sure that people back then realised that there was a fair amount of work involved in doing something that broke the Half-Life mould, which is pretty much how you legacy mappers are looking at Source today.

I guess my reason for preferring GoldSource to Source is quite simple, if we disregard Steam and Source SDK's tendency to break... I don't like the "feel" of Half-Life 2 and Source games in general. There's just something about the movement and combat I find very unsatisfying. While GoldSource, on the other hand, is much closer to the movement and "feel" of Quake, which it was build upon. Quake, in turn, is one of my favorite games, much so because of the immensely satisfying feeling of movement and control over maneuverability. Also the weapons and combat are awesome.

@Ant; Well put...

TCs require much more work to be completed in any relatively modern game engine; but there's no limit to how creative people can be with stock game assets in Source games if you think outside the box abit. If you look, you can find plenty of custom Source maps that barely use any custom content (aside from the maps themselves)...anything completely different from the base game is going to require new content anyway; HL just had a much wider range of materials to work with than HL2 (which still has a lot; they're all just..purpose-built, basically)

As games look better the gap between environment art and level design is getting smaller as well; pretty soon there will barely be a distinction; many games' environment art and level design are simply done in 3D tools already. There are still options for level design using brushes and more...traditional tools, but it's becoming a very obsolete method of content creation despite it's simplicity.

Not arguing that the time required is drastically different to achieve quality results, but anything good takes time.

Feels pretty much like shit to me.

it's becoming a very obsolete method of content creation despite it's simplicity.

One of the reasons I prefer source is because it uses brush-based environments. You don't have to learn a modeling program to get stuff ingame, and frankly it takes more skill to do it right. Any half-decent modeler can make something that looks nice, but it takes a real artist to get something looking great using brushes and such a relatively small amount of props. Look at Fallout3/NV's gamebreyo engine; Everything ingame is either a model, or terrain. If you can't make any new models, or don't know how to make terrain efficiently (Which is, at least for me, due to the lack of documentation on the subject) you can't do squat. It gives you all these options to create things, but you can't use them. In source, everything's changeable, and you usually don't need modeling software to do it. (or code, in some cases) Want a new environment? done. Want the metrocops to have pink helmets? Go ahead and reskin it. Source's beauty is in it's simplicity, which far too many people mistake for being outdated. Look at the Dear Esther remake, or Black Mesa, and tell me you can't make anything good looking in source. It just takes the right amount of elbow grease, time and skill.

Jeff: Running on ancient pile-of-crap PC's is not really a good thing

I beg to differ. If your normal PC is in the shop, not with you, etc, you can still play your source games. You can play them at work, although you'd probably get fired. I once saw a guy running portal on one of the crappy school computers. And it does increase Valve's market by a bit, which is why they designed the engine that way when they made HL2.

As computers are increasing in power, they're adding things that they previously overlooked in favor of serving a larger fanbase. I look forward to finally having full dynamic lighting in Portal 2, and I hope they keep adding stuff until Source is once again at the top of the field like it was when it debuted.

The problem with Source is all these additions are made to an engine that was poor to start with. It's like trying to soup up a car from the 70s: sure, it'll run better than it did originally, but there's only so much you can do until the underlying chassis gives out.

Brush-based mapping cannot, in any way, replicate the amount of detail you can get out of a model. Plain and simple. Games are moving closer towards CGI-based films in terms of rendering prowess and detail, neither of which are in Source's favour.

Valve kept the format to keep things simple for them. Considering they hadn't shipped anything major since Half-Life, imagine if the team had to learn everything from scratch when it came time to start Half-Life 2. The advantage is that the rather large Goldsource modding community also had a nice head start when Source came along because they're, by and large, the same thing.

Valve's paying for their initial decision to stay in the brush-based realm. Nearly every engine that's come out since Source eclipses it in some way. Look at Uncharted 2 for the PS3: it's light years ahead of what Source can do, and that's an engine built specifically for a console. Look at CryEngine 2 as well: massive landscapes with an obscene amount of graphical detail.

People like Goldsource and Source because they stick with conventions that they're all used to. Goldsource modding is virtually identical to Quake and Source follows on from that too.

Besides, if anyone knows the most about this, it's Rabid: he's been wrestling with the darn engine for years.

Look at CryEngine 2 as well: massive landscapes with an obscene amount of graphical detail.

The CryEngine2 Sandbox gives you the ability to map with brushes also. Yes, there are plenty of models, prefabricates and stuff like that. But what do you do if you want to build, say, a power plant? Not much, other than using world brushes and the given models(if you aren't able make 3D models) combined with some tricks to give the impression of a big facility.

But then look at Metro 2033: a modern FPS, concentrated more on closed environments rather than open ones(although it displays them successfully).
How would one be able to map such closed environments without brush-based mapping?

One of the reasons I prefer source is because it uses brush-based environments. You don't have to learn a modeling program to get stuff ingame, and frankly it takes more skill to do it right. Any half-decent modeler can make something that looks nice, but it takes a real artist to get something looking great using brushes and such a relatively small amount of props. Look at Fallout3/NV's gamebreyo engine; Everything ingame is either a model, or terrain. If you can't make any new models, or don't know how to make terrain efficiently (Which is, at least for me, due to the lack of documentation on the subject) you can't do squat. It gives you all these options to create things, but you can't use them. In source, everything's changeable, and you usually don't need modeling software to do it. (or code, in some cases) Want a new environment? done. Want the metrocops to have pink helmets? Go ahead and reskin it. Source's beauty is in it's simplicity, which far too many people mistake for being outdated. Look at the Dear Esther remake, or Black Mesa, and tell me you can't make anything good looking in source. It just takes the right amount of elbow grease, time and skill.

This is a fair point, I am very used to brush-based mapping, but I really have to learn modelling to go anywhere new and unique. Dear Esther is full of new models. It simply wouldn't look nearly as good as it does without lots and lots of modelling. Might not have been the best example in favour of Source and brush-heavy mapping.

Also, on the topic of Portal 2. I'm not seeing any evidence of full dynamic lighting, it looks like the same kind of thing Alien Swarm is using. One rough projected texture on screen at a time, everything else is just standard radiosity. It does however look like it's taking a big step towards model-heavy mapping.

Explanation of my point:

I don't actually dislike the Source engine, It's just when people call GoldSource shit and spread lies about Source (Not mentioning names). That's when I start hate the engine, and that's why I won't move over since there is a terrible community for it as I have seen.

What possible lies have people spread about Source? Examples, please.

That Huntey has haaaaaaaaaaaaair!!!!

What possible lies have people spread about Source? Examples, please.

"Source is state of the art!"

Oh ho ho.

Strider how dare you!

@ Huntey

Oh please, you're telling me you haven't spread some yourself?

Yes? I am. Still waiting for those examples.

And this coming from a person who continually tries to convince people that Goldsource is "better" than Source, without using any examples or, indeed, sense.
It's fine to simply prefer Goldsource, but you genuinely seem to think it's a better engine - an opinion somewhat removed from reality.

I like it better because it's simpler to use and I can get my maps to work a lot faster than Source. Besides my SDK is broken, and judging by what I have seen in the Source community, It's complete shit. Everyone seems to be a dickhead of extreme measures.

Therefore, I "prefer" goldsource and think it is "better" than source.

You should become a politician. Absolutely unparalleled in the skill of avoiding questions. (Still waiting)

Guys, guys! guys.... calm down guys, forget about it, it doesn't matter.

whatever then