Source vs Halflife 1 Created 18 years ago2006-03-14 19:22:14 UTC by Jobabob

After finally deciding to take the plunge and learn source while converting one of my most recent hl1 maps (theonlywayisup), i've come to the conclusion that despite looking rediculously good in comparison to what the original was capable of, source is so full of inconsistencies, ideosyncrasies and annoying watchamacallits that you can only learn through trial and error, that its many times harder to map for.

It could be that I knew practically everything about hl1 after mapping for it for 5 years, but god forbid the absolute mess that has been my introduction to Steam! I spent several hours today just realising that models need one line changed in the material files they use in order to work, joy of joys.

Still at least it brings back some of the joys of trying to get stuff to work that isnt supposed to work that made hl1 mapping such a fun challenge

oh and hi again, its been a year
(backpressure buildup)

Whoo, old-school! Welcome back, comrade.

I reckon it's harder to map for at an equivalent level of the engine's capabilities, whilst being, no doubt, much easier to map in Source at an HL level.

I've always thought half-life mapping's better than source mapping, just cause it's more fun. Source isn't.

And welcome back, long time no post.

Hey, I think I remember you...
I like Source because I just like updated things...If there was a HL3 i'd use it.

Holy crap, it's jobabob! <3

I only map for Source because I couldn't stand going back and mapping for HL1 after using Hammer 4 for over a year.

:<

ive been using it for over 4 days now, albiet 4 days almost non stop because im completely addicted to mapping again..

THIS is why I don't like to map for Source people.
Welcome back... you ARE jobabob arent you

I'd join your rank JobaBob if I could DL the SourceSDK...but sadly I cant

but welcome back

How could you not like SDK? The interface and mapping is so much more user friendly and easier to work with. The input/output system is so much better than the old target system. You must be feeling nostalgic for HL1, because SDK is better no matter what. (ONly thing I liked about HL1 mapping better than Source was setting up your game config and tools yourself. Made mapping feel more self-gratifying)

Jobabob

HL1 ftw.

I'm going to try my hand at Source again soon. Doubt it will go well

Here's my two bits. But first:

Holy shit, teh jobabob. Welcome back.

Anywho.

I've used the SourceSDK extensively when it came out and I've recently returned to Hammer 3.5 to map for a HL project. In my opinion, comparing Source to Goldsource is just petty. More than likely, you, as well as ZombieLoffe have gotten used to the way Hammer 3 runs, and mapping in general for Goldsource (which is actually extremly easy if you've been on Source for a while). As such, adjusting to a new engine that brings with it so much more complexities that Goldsource never had (props, physics, etc etc) is obviously going to pose more of a challenge and thus be more frustrating if you don't give yourself time to ease yourself in.

As for the SourceSDK system and Steam in general, its another petty arguement. Steam is a huge, HUGE platform, delievering content to God knows how many PC's. Can you realistically expect that it will work flawlessly on every single PC that its installed to? I think the fact that Valve constantly update it shows that at least they care (to some level) about their customers and are willing to invest time in a gradually improving piece of software. Personally, I've had absolutely no problems with Steam whatsoever: updates are easy to get, Hammer automatically configures itself, there's no extra downloading of bits and pieces to do, its all there and ready to use.

As for Hammer itself, I find myself missing the MANY improvements that Hammer 4 has over 3. Even simple things like transparent textures is something that I've grown to rely on.

Perhaps I got relatively lucky: I picked up Source mapping relatively quickly. But really, if you're gonna complain about silly things (not nessecarily you, jobabob, but some members of the mapping community) like the fact that you have to use prop models, then you're an idiot. Please explain to me how you would insert some decent detail into your maps, such as trees, little props, etc by using brushwork? Come on people, Source is a modern engine, you can't curse it because it wants to make an attempt at looking decent!

yes. i like goldsrc for its simplicity, but vhe 4 has so many improvements over it. source has nice things to make realistic mapping easier etc etc. props are needed because of PHYSICS! in the real world, everything has physics, so techniquelly everything is a prop! lol.

I dont really see the 'steam is big and valve cant cater for everyone argument', if they made it less draconian and intrusive to your pc it probably would work as well as halflife 1 did. I mean its pretty stupid that the most recent update literally DISABLED garrys mod, thats a pretty big bug considering the popularity of gmod.

Prop modelling is 'ok' for me, i was already used to using basic models for complicated parts of maps, albiet small ones as hl1 didnt light models properly. However the convoluted system to actually get them into your map wasted about 4 hours of my time yesterday, whoever thought it would be fun to make it so that prop materials had to, for no fucking reason, have a single line changed at the top so they worked instead of say DOING IT DYNAMICALLY needs a good boot up the arse.

As for transparent textures, they're really trouble disguised as a blessing, its rather hard to align stuff when you have a giant yellow NODRAW stickout out through both sides because it doesnt render properly.

The engines powerful, its relitively well designed all the SDK, but its still hopeleslly complicated compared to hl1 when you slap the whole steam mess on top of it. I'm sure i'll get used to it, itll just take another few years..

garrys mod works for me... played it online 1 hr ago...

I'm sure that when people first started out with Goldsource they thought it was incredibly complex too, and hardly anyone scratched at the engine then. Valve have given more access more quickly to its new engine than it did with Goldsource, which is why you seem to be inundated with different things.

Yes, some of those things are fairly major, but I've yet to see a major bug that hasn't been resolved in a short amount of time. I'm sure there's a million games where the devs simply let the bugs ruin the game for everyone...

HL1 mapping ftw.

Hammer 4 is buggy and requires far too many resources to run.... It shouldnt be any more CPU conssuming than Hammer 3.5, but hey. It is.

Hammer 4

Lols at strikethrough

lol.

Hammer 4 has higher resolution textures, higher poly models, etc than Hammer 3.5, and due to other additions it takes up more CPU.

Oh, and Hammer 4 isn't buggy anymore. I haven't had a crash for ages, and nothing seems wrong to me...

shrugs
Sometimes I wonder whether you know what you're talking about, Mr. Hunter.

The Hunter, that's a pretty stupid comment to make.

okay, hammer 4.0 was buggy. notice the WAS
ever since the sdk update (the major one, was it jan/early feb?) hammer has grown in stability. ive only had to use the autosaves after a blackout (i.e. no crashing)

so:

hammer 4.0
hammer 4.1

end of story.....

It's not known as Hammer 4.1 though (as far as I know) - and besides, we're talking about Hammer 4! Hammer 4.0, Hammer 4.1, ITS STILL HAMMER 4, eh?

I think penguinboy wanted to try out strikethrough. - Ant

tell me hammer is the same as the original, I dont remember having to wait upto 20 seconds for the window to refresh itself every time I restore it from minimised! (yes I do know why it does this)

gmod IS broken, this post on official forums
http://forums.facepunchstudios.com/showthread.php?t=115980
most people have applied the limited temp fix for the time being, it fixes the completely show-stopping bugs (read- game didnt work at all) that were introduced yesterday but its still very buggy

Yes, it happens. And it gets fixed. I see absolutely no problem with this. As for the refreshing, what's your specs? Keep in mind how much it's rendering too?

If you dont have a good PC, then dont bother mapping for Source.

How can anyone not like Source mapping over HL1? I thought that when I saw how props, static, detailed, etc and all the other new things added were so much different then 3.4. If you give it time, you will come to find that EVERY aspect of source mapping is easier and greater than 3.4. Living in the past is kind of dumb....... I agree that the nostalgic feeling of HL1 is nice, but seriously get with the times!

That's where modelling comes in. I learned it back in the HL days and it serves me well for Source mapping.

For me, Source is better - it allows more and is more challenging. Not only the technical difficulties but also the additional things you learn to value, like the planning stage and such. Inspiring stuff.
Then again, I'm not the kind of person that goes with the default stuff - I'd create my own models and materials when possible. Takes more time but it's rewarding as well.

I really like mapping for source more, it's easier and source has more possibilities. Source mapping itself is easier, creating a map in the source editor is more time comsuming and way harder because of the many possiblities thought, it's harder to make the map look good.
I mean, you can fill a map with props, but does that make a map look good? No, it doesn't.

For gaming, i'd choose half-life..

Source is easier? I do agree with you about models and props seeming to much like valve. Thats why I am learning modeling so I can create unique looking levels. Your brushwork should distinguish your map, models arnt everything you know. I would say if someone was serious about mapping, source is more demanding. All HL1 is about is brushwork. Thats fine, but if your going to complain about repititious models, learn to make them yourself.

Indeed, source is more demanding, that's why it's harder.
But source mapping itself is easier considering the I/O system.

Hello..
I am.. Daubster.. And I have... deep breath never tried mapping for HL2! sob sob sob pause.. Because I own.. a.. a.. a.. sniff Cracked version.. of.. HL2!! SOB
applause from the others at the anonymous HL1 mappers meeting

Anyways - I have never tried mapping for HL2 and I don't expect doing that soon, cause the legit ver. costs way too much, considering my current financial state. (~20$ of allowance a week and I usually spend it all)

Welcome back, Jobabob.

"Every HL map can be equally made with the Source engine, but not every Source engine map can be done with HL. "

For example, I started some sort of remake of my map Tinnos in Source. I had to make textures bigger and added bumpmaps, water etc. The Source map looks better, no doubt. It needs an extra effort, but it looks extra nice.

Another one of my maps: Kaufmann House. Two years ago, the possibility of making that map (and looking anything like the real place) was just a wild dream. Does anyone want to remake that for HL1...? I thought so.

And finally, let's not forget about:
-Displacement surfaces! Are you sick of working with triangles that slow down the VIS process? This is for you!!
-Lightmap grid: Do you want shadows to look good without having to lower the texture resolution? Here's your chance!!
-Func_details: How many portal leafs does your map really need?
-Shaders: Water finally looks like... water!!!

The list goes on and on

Kaufmann house.. In HL1?

Impossible.

Dauby, get a proper version!

Basically, certain aspects of mapping for Source are easier than Goldsource. However, the effort it takes to produce an extremly good looking map that uses the existing props properly (yes, its possibly) is a lot higher.

Yay, I'm busy modelling some props for dm_mudanchee again!

Thanks for the inspiring thread, people. One of the things that finally got me going with this map again after 2 or 3 months...

//CP prepares for test-run...

[2 cents]

I think the biggest problem I have with Source over Goldsource is mostly the unrealistic expectations I had for it. It took so long for it to come out, and it's so huge compared to the original, I just thought it would be much more amazing than it is.

I can remember my first reaction to playing HL2 at a LAN party on a higher cost, VIP machine--so all the settings were turned up. My first thought was WT...F... I was totally blown away that it didn't seem very different at all from the original. High-res textures and a physics engine, and not much else imo.

Take into condsideration with these comments that my machine doesn't handle HL2 very well, so that's the primary reason I don't explore it further. So by no means have I given it a "fair chance", and I plan to check it out more when I get a new machine.

Hopefully by then it will be even better with updates and such, just as the Goldsource engine did...

[/2 cents]

Yes, it happens. And it gets fixed. I see absolutely no problem with this. As for the refreshing, what's your specs? Keep in mind how much it's rendering too?

If they broke Counterstrike for more than 5 seconds can you imagine the chaos?

My system is more than good enough to run source, doom3, whatever you throw at it. Hammer reloads all its resources every time you restore the window from minimised, it allows you to change content without reloading hammer but the delay is rather annoying.

How can anyone not like Source mapping over HL1? I thought that when I saw how props, static, detailed, etc and all the other new things added were so much different then 3.4. If you give it time, you will come to find that EVERY aspect of source mapping is easier and greater than 3.4. Living in the past is kind of dumb....... I agree that the nostalgic feeling of HL1 is nice, but seriously get with the times!

I mapped for 5 years, its hard to shake that much experience on a whim, obviously with time I will. Yes its fun having all the new bells and whistles, though quite a few ive found so far need some considerable prodding to do half of what you want. Still, thats all the fun of spending another 5 years to become as proficient again!

Im not really going anywhere with this, just don't say I have a bad system as people say it so often its cliche or say that i'm 'living in the past!' when i'm posting my thoughts on the first few days with source after 5 years with 'goldsource' (rubbish name)

It may be a rubbish name, but that's the name of the engine.

Obviously you'll get used to it over time, I just don't see the point in complaining about it.

complaining! i'm merely posting my thoughts as both a return to the community as I thought people might be interested in my fresh perspective on source, else I wouldve said 'steam is shit, source doesnt work, I dont like textures, vis takes too long, you young whippersnappers, i'll show you a leaf saw into leaf you bastards! chicken soup underpants cucumber relish etc'

Hahaha.

Well, I respect your opinion nonetheless. Just give it time.

Even though maps and lightmap grids are more complicated in Source, the optimizing techniques (such as using func_detail, making terrain with displacements etc) enable a much easier compile. Let's imagine for a moment that Ant could port his "de_venetia" map into Hammer 3.5 and compile it. I bet it would take much, much longer.

Yeah, that'd be suicide, Kasperg.

its not 'get with the times', its just goldsrc games are dying.
whether ppl want to admit it or not, games using the hl1 engine are dying.
or dead.
of course, some people will still play them, but the number of people playing will reduce significantly.
switching to source ensures that the maximum number of people possible will play your map.

and for the record:
steam is brilliant. i am a huge supporter of steam. i have never had a problem with steam, and its dynamic updates are really awsome. and there is mention of mods being distributed and updated through steam as well. that would be even more awsome.
source is also brilliant.
end of story.

well with an argument like that who could disagree, the problem with steam is...

(many hours of typing later)
... and everything valve touches does indeed turn to precious, precious gold!

I dont want this to turn into one of the debates about steam, its been done and it ends up with people who love it or hate it, like mmm delicious marmite.

How long have the respective members of this er thread, mapped for hl and source (independently)?

Goldsource since and before I arrived here in 2003, and Source as soon as it came out.

hl1 for about 2 or 3 years - never serious tho
hl2 for about 6 months

having a masters degree in the way, the lack of interesting mods to map for and the death of the TFC communities I were mapping for, having to re-learn everything and my absolute dissolutionment with valve delayed my start a little

its funny that I actually continued mapping for hl1, I even created a map they used in the rediculous mod 'brainbread' despite source being out for quite a while

Go download the Mechmod alpha and make a map for that, nobody plays the mod but its a cool looking one.

Nowadays, it takes more work to make games fun. HL2 is possibly the most fun game i've ever played in my life! Yet mapping for it is itchy at the moment since we have to deal with physics, grpahics, shaders, materials, and all of that.

HL1 stuff (is of course) easier. But we as mappers DO THIS FOR FUN. If you were payed to map for source to produce a game to make money, that is a little different.

People are attracted to fun and easy naturally, as i see this subject.

thats an argument that applies to the industry as well, its becoming rediculously expensive to produce games now as engines become ever more photo-realistic, to the point where the only way you'll create anything realistic is to render what actually exists

Mapping for both games is fun if you like mapping. But let's get one thing straight:
Making a simple map is easier in Source than it is with HL1, that's a fact.
Making a complicated map is also easier to do in Source.
So, when it comes to doing the exact same thing, the Source engine is superior. I havent seen a rule anywhere that forbids people from doing brush-based-only maps for HL2 and not using props.
The only complaints I have with Source is the need of an internet connection to load the SDK. The maps also take longer to load ingame because of the much greater amount of data. But that's not a valid point for a discussion. We could say that MineSweeper is a better game than HL1 because it takes less to load...

From another point of view, I think a mapper is someone who has imagination and needs to translate his thoughts into gameplay arenas. Source has less restrictions for your imagination. I dont think so much about r_speeds as I did with HL1 maps.

*I've been mapping for HL1 5 years, and mapping for Source for 1 year and a half. I have made 12 HL1 maps since Source came out, and 8 Source maps. I have two other Source maps in progress.

Mapped for HL, well, when I joined here.

What's with the avatar, jobby? Rather a change, from a guy clutching three drinks to a carefully-groomed a suited gentleman.

that picture represented me being a student, now im trying to get a job