Source mapping: Better or worse? Created 18 years ago2005-06-16 05:22:07 UTC by Kasperg

I have seen some forum threads regarding HL1 vs. HL2, and many people complaining about hl2 mapping and why they prefer to map for Hl1.

I'm going to make a list of some good and bad things regarding mapping for both games. People can add to the list and maybe some popular doubts about source mapping will be cleared.

What's good about Source mapping
-High resolution textures
-Selecting a reference brush when making a new one (automatically allows you make a brush just as tall/wide as the selected one)
-Detail brushes that give shadows but dont complicate leafthreading
-Shader effects (cubemaps, real-time reflections)
-Huge collection of props and decals/overlays to dress up the map
-Advanced trigger system (very advanced in fact)
-Sound library built into Hammer for easier access.

What's not so good about source mapping
-You need to logon to Steam, and load Source SDK...
-Occassional random hammer crashes
-General system slowdown (high memory usage)
-The amount of detail possible makes mapping much more time-consuming, sometimes forcing you to place props and more props...
-Default textures and props always end up in maps looking very similar, very "HLl2ish"
-Absence of an intuitive SDK program for creating materials
-Default skies seem to dictate how the light_enviroment has to be, making other light angles and colors look weird.

What's good about HL1 mapping
-Hammer 3.4 loads fast
-Textures, although not high res, can be placed next to each other and usually look right.
-Since detail is not the most important thing, making a nice and fun map is not a matter of years...
-At the same time, making a detailed hl1 map is much more of a feat than doing so with Source
-WAD files. Wally. A huge freedom for creating custom textures.

What's bad about HL1 mapping
-Less Hammer features
-Absence of displacements makes irregular terrain a much harder thing to do, either with VM of using Gensurf
-In SP mapping, it takes a lot of work to prevent a map from feeling empty (not so important in HLDM)
-No entity hierarchy (think about a brush rotating around its center as it's part of another rotating brush)
-Very poor and cryptic trigger system. (Hard to find mistakes)

Okay, I'm sure I left out many other things, so feel free to contribute to this thread

HL2 is better i think... But its much Harder. In hl1 you could map a room and maybe put a chair table and a painting and it was nice. But in hl2 you must use so much pyshics. if you dont use the physics. its ugly. :

Heh if you make a brush physic object like a table it might look rubbish :S

I find HL1 better, although ive never really used source mapping

Hl2 is better by far. Yes, It's a pain in the arse but I can do some much more with HL2. Sure Halflfe1 mapping has good points but Halflife2 makes up for it with the Terrian forming. The props. The handy tools like player clip. No need to tie it to entity. Tool textures so you don't have to use "AAAAAAAAAA" all the time. Physics. I never really do come into problems with Hammer. It more Steam really, don't forget, even hammer has some kind of reflections on drink machines and water. You can easily tell what things are when looking at the grid views because it says example "npc_gman" next to the sqaure. Halflife 2 is better by Far.

Definately hl1, i can make good looking terrain quikly in hl1, though the displacements are fine in hl2, i just cant lose the hl2 feeling when mapping with it. Au contrait wiht hl1, in wich you can create a enviroment wich doesnt look like hl with the textures.

@drmapper, if you made a map yourselve you know what each entinity does. No need for names.

@zeg, making a good map is much more then "just putting a table and poster in a room".

True, I don 't really like the terrain toolset more than VM terrain. (I have the exclusive right to say that, I've been working on displacement maps for 4 months >=[ )

Yeah, im pretty fast and handy with vming my terrain in hammer 3.5.