I think DirectCompute will be more successful than OpenCL
From what I’ve seen from the Gears 3 beta (and that’s not much) the ragdolls are a lot better.
Alright, so I have more stuff to correct;
It’s a heavily modified version of Havok, everything’s much more realistic. And while physX is realistic with soft body physics, I don’t think it’s perfected yet.
Also, prop_statics don’t use physics at all, so you can’t say that the physics are bad because a prop_static was used.
I take offense at that. Level designers aren’t modelers, there’s a huge difference. Also, BM is a serious game, and the level designers are using brushes very well and to a huge extent. And it looks very good.
The wait time between episode 2 and episode 3 has more to do with the amount of content/work they’re putting into the game, not the engine at all, methinks.
I have experience with Ued, and it’s texture system has quite a learning curve. (Although that may have improved since I stopped using Ued)
It’s basically building a space station (a map in a void) rather than carving out a cave (map in a huge block of solid matter)
It also means that brushwork is more flexible, and if you get a leak, you’re not fucked over because the editor corrupted your map; if a leak happens in subtractive space, it’s not usually the designers fault, but it’s also not fixable.
Well, you’re saying that the engine is outdated. I’d generally expect someone to know about what it is they’re discussing, especially if they’re saying it’s bad. (which is untrue)
You think Portal 2 is average, do you? If that’s the case, you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to quality.
Besides, nobody’s holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play Valve games. If you don’t enjoy them, (which you obviously don’t, since you’re saying they’re so bad) don’t play them. And don’t come here, to a community build around a source engine mod, and talk shit about an engine that’s perfectly fine.
It’s not perfect, but no engine is, and Source is by far the most well rounded and well designed for the genre (and subgenre) it was created for.
And I would like to point out, I have experience with Unreal, Source, Goldsource, and Gamebreyo. I’m by no means someone who has only used a single engine.
Guys when you hate Source why are you trolling and waiting for this mod ?
That’s just like saying “I hate black people” and later saying “I have a lot of dark skinned friends”
:hmph:
A game is not made by the engine. A game is improved by the engine. A bad engine will hurt a game, but a great game can still be made on the engine. Now stop being stupid.
Also still the best smiley ever.
Also I wasn’t aware a leak could happen in subtractive space.
God damn is this Dotard guy an idiot.
Perhaps leak isn’t the correct term; it’s been a while since I used Unreal Editor. But I remember anomalies appearing that completely fucked up the map, due to nothing I did. (Which I know because I playtest my maps extremely frequently, and all I did was place a static mesh)
Also, nobody can seriously say that the 2008 Havok system is superior to HL2’s version, or that HL2’s is simply vanilla Havok. Fallout 3 uses the 2008 version, and it’s full of physics bugs, such as NPCs rocketing into the sky, ragdolls stretching and flying, and buses exploding then the debris floating right where it was spawned.
Dont be so offensive … that was not meant to hurt dark skinned people it was just an example … and watch your grammar …
“God damn is this Dotard guy an idiot ?” Is this what you meant ?
I said you were an idiot because your analogy and everything you have said in this thread has been so deeply flawed. Perhaps I have been a little to harsh, but you really don’t know what you are talking about.
And I’m pretty sure my sentence was grammatically correct as is but it may be slang or something.
Dotard is and idiot. What could be wrong with that?
Also, all insults on the internet should be considered exaggeration unless proven otherwise. Just sayin’.
Oh shit I do that one a lot. :retard: Typo not bad grammar.
Enough please 
I have free will … I just said what I thought was right … is that wrong ? And who said you are right ? Unless someone from Black Mesa developers will said to me that Source is shit I will not listen to you … yes, you! Everyone saying that Source is bad.
To back up a sec, I’ve had this happen a few times with Source. Place a normal brush in normal circumstances, everything goes to hell. I think occasional glitchiness a general feature of engines.
So, do you think Portal 2 is well optimized?
That’s important as well.
I thought so.
I ran it on high graphic settings, and it ran wayyy smoother than I had expected. Super smooth. Boner smooth.
Portal 2’s graphics are not outdated when it can make my friends watching the game “ooh and ahh” continuously at the lighting affects and details put in the game.
You went from best physics EVAR, to not so bad ?;f Im just saying they dont stand out from other games, no procedural destruction ala red faction, no real materials ala force unleashed, no procedural animation ala euforia and so on.
Level designers are modelers, just on a higher scale, with more research that has to be put into it. Bm isnt exactly pushing the graphics envelope, even when we are talking about source mods.
We will see soon, e3 better not disappoint.
I dont need to be a mechanic to see if a car is new or old, and i dont have to be a source modder to see if half life games look good or not. And who is to get the most of the engine than the people who created it ? If valve cant show that source is amazing, nobody can.
Yeah the graphics are average, the game itself is amazing. But we are only talking about the visual side of it.
But i like most of valve games, wtf is wrong with you. I obviusly bought them all for a reason. I only hated episode 1 and 2, and i still think they are a ripoff. Also this community is based around big fans of the oryginal half life game, and a group of modders who put a lot of work in remaking it, not around source as an engine.
And im pretty sure that if we would to ask, bm team would have most problems with it, considering they have to work with it all the time.
By the amount of other companies licensing it, i would say the industry dosnt share your opinion.
Good for you, so which one is better, just a simple anwser. Source or UE if you owned a big team and had to make a game with it ?
Oh yeah and before you start with more of this " you dont know grpahics, derp" stuff, i know zbrush, 3d coat, mudbox, max, maya, modo, blender, bit of xsi, xnormal, ps and other 2d aps, and the whole next gen normal map pipeline, i used unreal engine and cryengine, mostly to show of my crap in real time, i never bothered to built whole maps, since i can barely stand max interface, yet alone anything in engine for modeling and uv maping. Modo is the only way for me. So source is worthless for me in that mater.
This guy cant be for real can he, he cant be this stupid ?
Pls stop trolling the thread.
No, I’m saying you can’t judge a game’s physics engine in places where it wasn’t used. It may not have any ‘wow’ feature, but it’s by far the most stable, well rounded, and realistic system I’ve come across, and by Dota 2, we’ll finally have soft-body and cloth physics.
That’s just the thing, we’re not modelers. On unreal, on gamebreyo, it’s mostly placing models that other people have made. Everything is already pre-built, and you’re just placing predetermined set pieces. I’ll agree that you can’t use brushwork to make props more complicated than signs in Source, but have you ever taken a look at the buildings in HL2? Most of those were brushwork. Everything but the skybox buildings. Not models, part of the actual BSP file itself. And brushwork in Source lets you make unique areas with little to no external tools outside of Hammer, where you’d have to get out XSI and an image editing tool, and make all the verts, and UV map it, and compile the model, and put the model in the correct directory, and then use it in the map. You see how that’s more complex, and takes more time?
And if you don’t find that BM looks good, then you really have no place judging games. It may not be Crysis, but it’s art style, enviroments, and lighting are astoundingly good.
But source IS amazing. If you can’t see that, it’s because you’re holding everything up against Crysis, or some other game that tries to be realistic so hard that it has no art style, and will thus flop when a game with better graphics comes along.
You’re saying the entire engine is outdated. :hmph:
No, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have any more problems with it than I do.
If I was making an SP FPS? (Which I would be) I’d use Source. It’s additive space, is a solid, stable engine, has full facial animation, nearly glitch-free physics, it’s fast to push stuff out of the pipeline and get it ingame [regardless of compile times, you guys that keep complaining about that need to either turn off RAD or use the cordon tool when testing your maps. 
]
Frankly, I may the odd one out, but I hold all of those features, storyline, and gameplay over graphics, and with just a little effort, Source shines. Sure, I’d add more stuff to the engine if I were to license it for a game, but it would mostly be personal tastes more than anything else, such as a global weather system.
It’s nice that you know a lot of modeling software, but that doesn’t mean you know anything about game engines, and you really need to stop holding everything up to the games with the highest graphics. Source isn’t outdated, it just concentrates on personality over looks.
Really, if you want to say an engine is outdated, go find out what they call the engine Activision and Treyarch use for Call of Duty games. Because that engine concentrates on graphics, but it doesn’t even do that right.
Yes I’m stupid
So what does that mean Ram ?
You’re missing a key point through all of this: An engine is more than just what the gamer sees. You are not qualified to judge an engine good if all you’ve seen is a game made by its developers.