Why didn't you stay with the Source engine again?

shoester

I'm very confused. I just don't understand how the Source engine wasn't enough for NS2. It handles dynamic features and "fog". It's optimized and can support low end graphics very well.

You guys said it would take more time to recode everything and put it on the Source engine. But by the look of it, just trying to optimize this engine is going to be a real hurdle it may take even longer than you guys even anticipated.

Runteh

Locked.





























*I wish*

Karrde

Because source doesn't play nice with things that aren't really straight up FPS. It can be done but it's far more work than it should be. The SDK tools are also very limiting. In general, Source simply isn't as rigorous or open as it needs to be for high end development. Especially if you want to start adding in all kinds of weird effects and new ideas. You'd need source code access to do a lot of that. I work on Earths Special Forces, and what we do, for example, simply wouldn't be possible on source.

WhiteZero

<!--quoteo(post=1803589:date=Oct 28 2010, 05:14 PM:name=shoester)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shoester @ Oct 28 2010, 05:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803589"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm very confused. I just don't understand how the Source engine wasn't enough for NS2. It handles dynamic features and "fog". It's optimized and can support low end graphics very well.

You guys said it would take more time to recode everything and put it on the Source engine. But by the look of it, just trying to optimize this engine is going to be a real hurdle it may take even longer than you guys even anticipated.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the long run, it was the best idea to make their own engine.
Of course there is going to be growing pains at first.

Deadzone

<!--quoteo(post=1803589:date=Oct 28 2010, 05:14 PM:name=shoester)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shoester @ Oct 28 2010, 05:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803589"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm very confused. I just don't understand how the Source engine wasn't enough for NS2. It handles dynamic features and "fog". It's optimized and can support low end graphics very well.

You guys said it would take more time to recode everything and put it on the Source engine. But by the look of it, just trying to optimize this engine is going to be a real hurdle it may take even longer than you guys even anticipated.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Optimization + support for low-end graphics = important

Optimization + support for low-end graphics =/= good game

I'm also sure there are also just some things they want to do that you can't do on Source.

Hashashin

Because source is half-decade old junk. L4D2, while fun, has graphics far inferior to most new games.

Karba

<!--quoteo(post=1803610:date=Oct 29 2010, 01:12 AM:name=Hashashin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hashashin @ Oct 29 2010, 01:12 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because source is half-decade old junk. L4D2, while fun, has graphics far inferior to most new games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Right now, NS2 hasn't better graphics than HL2 IMHO and runs infinitely worse.

blackpiranha

<!--quoteo(post=1803616:date=Oct 28 2010, 06:29 PM:name=Karba)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Karba @ Oct 28 2010, 06:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803616"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Right now, NS2 hasn't better graphics than HL2 IMHO and runs infinitely worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This. NS2 Engine is already outdated and needs lots of improving while the source engine is very stable right now with equal to better graphics. However, the source engine has so much years of developement behind and is not the best choice for FPS, while ns2 is at the very beginning so fingers crossed...

Besides, it was a good choice cause UWE as independent devs have much more freedom with their own engine and no bindings

Dickbeard the Pirate

Source Engine is ######.

Years of refinement and Valve still haven't been able to release an FPS on it that doesn't feel clunky and play generally bad. I got HL2, L4D2, Garry's Mod, all that stuff on steam. Never really was able to get into it because of how badly the engine handles the whole runny-pointy-shooty thing compared to something like the Quake 3 engine.

The NS2 engine is still in development. I can't have been the only one who noticed how much better the game looked with this latest update. The textures are perfectly top-notch (blows New Vegas out of the water, that game is practically 8-bit) so it's just things like lighting and shaders and other processing/engine stuff that make the difference between what we see now and Crysis.

VeNeM

i mean serioulsy, you REALLY think source was playable in alpha? even the leaked beta was a goddamn mess.

Runteh

Despite all the other reasons why this thread is junk, the quality of the visuals on this engine are... awe inspiring. Play some L4D2 afterwards, and you'll notice how bare it looks.

Martin

<!--quoteo(post=1803626:date=Oct 29 2010, 12:05 AM:name=VeNeM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VeNeM @ Oct 29 2010, 12:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803626"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i mean serioulsy, you REALLY think source was playable in alpha? even the leaked beta was a goddamn mess.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


VeNeM that's the understatement of the year

shoester

You say L4D looks like ######, but the fact of the matter is....it's making a ton of money. You can have crappy graphics or scenery and still wrack in money if the game is fun. Look at Minecraft. The first day it pulled in 250,000 US dollars.

Your argument about Source "looking bad" is the sole reason why this game is taking 3 years to make. Id rather play with 100 FPS on a game that looks terrible, than a game that runs at 5 FPS and looks "awe inspiring". What a joke.

WhiteZero

<!--quoteo(post=1803626:date=Oct 28 2010, 07:05 PM:name=VeNeM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VeNeM @ Oct 28 2010, 07:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803626"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i mean serioulsy, you REALLY think source was playable in alpha? even the leaked beta was a goddamn mess.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still have that on a DVD somewhere. :D

Karba

<!--quoteo(post=1803626:date=Oct 29 2010, 02:05 AM:name=VeNeM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VeNeM @ Oct 29 2010, 02:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803626"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i mean serioulsy, you REALLY think source was playable in alpha? <!--sizeo:3--><span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>even the leaked beta was a goddamn mess.</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


my older gforce 1 64mb back in 2003 doesn't approves this sentence ;)

Runteh

<!--quoteo(post=1803629:date=Oct 29 2010, 01:15 AM:name=shoester)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shoester @ Oct 29 2010, 01:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You say L4D looks like ######, but the fact of the matter is....it's making a ton of money. You can have crappy graphics or scenery and still wrack in money if the game is fun. Look at Minecraft. The first day it pulled in 250,000 US dollars.

Your argument about Source "looking bad" is the sole reason why this game is taking 3 years to make. Id rather play with 100 FPS on a game that looks terrible, than a game that runs at 5 FPS and looks "awe inspiring". What a joke.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You don't think I am getting that as well? I am... But the best games build the engines around what they want to achieve. Like completely dynamic lighting environments, dynamic infestation, etc, etc... They obviously changed over because they knew they would just be bodging an existing game to work around their own plans.

Mate, if people could print money they would. Plus, it no doubt looks great on the CV.

At what point did you not realise you were buying into an Alpha. Grow up.

Dalin Seivewright

In addition to everything that has been stated, Spark is THEIR engine... it doesn't belong to another company. It is being developed by and for UWE. Once all the kinks are out of it they will be able to use the engine for all of their titles as well as be able to license their own engine to other companies, independent or otherwise. I don't know how Source licensing works, but its safe to say that if they have to pay Valve for every game they make on the Source engine, the flow of cash won't be very high. Spark ensures (once it is actually operational) that cash will flow directly to the company (and its investors) and UWE won't have to deal with any middle-men.

If they did choose to go with the Source engine, even before they started Spark, then much of their time right now even, would be spent trying to implement their ideas into the Source engine codebase. This would require learning almost every facet of the engine itself which takes time, and certain bugs in the engine may not be able to be fixed by UWE themselves.

Spark is a good thing. Growing pains are to be expected, and once the engine is complete, further development of NS2 will go faster and their next title, whatever that may be, will also benefit from this "growing up" stage in the development life cycle.

Hugh

1. Source costs money. What, do you think UWE gets it for free?
2. Why doesn't every game just use Source. I mean, it looks ok right?
3. Source requires pre-compiling, Spark does not, which do you think is faster for a small team to work in?
4. Source relies on pre-compiled static lighting. NS2 Gameplay involves lighting changes.
5. Source does not handle RTS.
6. Why didn't UWE just use UT3? Or any other pre-built engine?
7. Did I mention Source costs money?
8. Countless other reasons why this thread needs to stop being bumped and die.

Wheeee

personally i love the fact that they went with their own engine. sure, it's hard to wait for the optimizations. but they will come, and i would rather wait an extra 2-3 years for something that is much better than just another source mod.

Revi.uk

One of these threads pops up almost every week it seems.

VonDoom

Because every source game freeze up when you alt-tab.

TychoCelchuuu

I'll tell you what, you make NS2 in the Source engine because it's a much better idea, and we'll compare it to UWE's NS2 and see which is better.

TrC

I always thought it was for the modability, easier (own) tools and a base for future UWE games.

I still do not agree, delay is unbearable I hope it blossoms someday but it doesnt look too promising.

Rehnquist

<!--quoteo(post=1803652:date=Oct 28 2010, 08:07 PM:name=VonDoom)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VonDoom @ Oct 28 2010, 08:07 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803652"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because every source game freeze up when you alt-tab.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

+windowed +noborder

Put that in your Source game's launch parameters. Mind=blown.

Kouji_San

<!--quoteo(post=1803655:date=Oct 29 2010, 02:19 AM:name=TrC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TrC @ Oct 29 2010, 02:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803655"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I always thought it was for the modability, easier (own) tools and a base for future UWE games.

I still do not agree, delay is unbearable I hope it blossoms someday but it doesnt look too promising.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The game is what, 2 maybe 3 years in real development... That is still a very short time, especially since they are a small team...

kabab

Source would have been a bad choice since they have very little control of the direction of its developments.. It's also pretty old and clunky..

The problems we are seeing now are not the end of the world and they will be solved..

samurai_jeff

If they were still using Source i doubt they'd be at the stage where they had an Alpha to release. They were literally taking steps backwards trying to get it doing what they wanted.

WhiteZero

<!--quoteo(post=1803669:date=Oct 28 2010, 10:52 PM:name=Rehnquist)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rehnquist @ Oct 28 2010, 10:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803669"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->+windowed +noborder

Put that in your Source game's launch parameters. Mind=blown.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
THIS is part of why I love source.

devicenull

<!--quoteo(post=1803669:date=Oct 28 2010, 11:52 PM:name=Rehnquist)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rehnquist @ Oct 28 2010, 11:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803669"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->+windowed +noborder

Put that in your Source game's launch parameters. Mind=blown.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Technically it's -windowed -noborder, but close enough

Zek

Getting NS1 working in the Half-Life engine was a nightmare for them. They didn't want to do it again in Source, especially with even more fancy features like dynamic lighting. I do think they probably underestimated the amount of work a new engine would be though(see Fall '09). Who knows if it was the right decision or not in the end, but what's done is done.

dux

Source from a mapping standpoint is a pain in the ass. Having to compile and having no realtime lighting view is a major downside. The only thing I like about source is it's radiosity and hammers brush tools.