how different from source is this
warlordcs
Join Date: 2009-06-12 Member: 67804Members
Join Date: 2009-06-12 Member: 67804Members
since this game has started on source but then ported over to its own engine, im wondering how different it really is.
are the maps still bsp?
are the new mapping tools going to be identicle to hammer (or do i have to learn a whole new program)
are textures still materials?
and if wew were to start mapping and making models/materials with the current source tools would the be able to port over without problems?<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />?
are the maps still bsp?
are the new mapping tools going to be identicle to hammer (or do i have to learn a whole new program)
are textures still materials?
and if wew were to start mapping and making models/materials with the current source tools would the be able to port over without problems?<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />?
Comments
I thought they might use a different system since they get rid of compiling and replace the leaf-vising-system with occlusion culling?
Anyway, I guess/hope you'll probably be able to somehow convert your map brushwork without texture information, at least by a devious route (hammer-> 3dapplication or whatever-> ns2 editor).
I thought they might use a different system since they get rid of compiling and replace the leaf-vising-system with occlusion culling?
Anyway, I guess/hope you'll probably be able to somehow convert your map brushwork without texture information, at least by a devious route (hammer-> 3dapplication or whatever-> ns2 editor).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
bsp means binary space partitioning. Lots of games use it.
In theory it should be possible to convert maps from one format to another; how easy that would be depends on how different (or similar) the NS2 map format is from the Source style map format. It should certainly be possible for someone to make a tool to do this for you. Maybe someone will even make a Source map -> NS bsp builder!
I know what it means and as far I understand this, using .bsp means there has to be some compile/processing time, which runs against what they say about their engine.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_space_partitioning" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_space_partitioning</a>
Who says? Yeah, you can do lots of stuff in real-time with NS2's engine, but lots of things still need compiling to be really usable. The "Tools" podcast video talks about how models should/need to go through compiling in order to be optimized for gameplay, for example.
Anyway, I hope the compiling part doesn't take that long even without the lighting part.
I only did one map for TF 2 so I cant say I know enough to join this discussion , but the maker of Veil and Eclipse mentioned the map tools closer to Radiant (Q2 / Q3 Editor ?) than Hammer.
"As many of you have probably seen
already, between Max's occlusion culling system and the dynamic lighting
system, there'll be no compile process to get levels into the game. No leaks,
no "void." No hour-plus lighting compiles just to see what your level
looks like."
you can probably compare that to running fast vis
in the manner that the entire level is drawn but you can still play it to see what it looks like, but the expence is a low fps. there might still need to be a compile to define visible parts (portals).
i think "portal flow" is where most people spend there compile time. which can be lowered greatly using optimization. but thats starting to get a little far off topic.
on another side note
ive read somewhere that they will be realeasing the source code to this game
<a href="http://www.naturalselection2.com/overview" target="_blank">http://www.naturalselection2.com/overview</a>
the Unlimited Variations part.
if you give out the source isnt that like giving hackers the keys to everything
in the manner that the entire level is drawn but you can still play it to see what it looks like, but the expence is a low fps. there might still need to be a compile to define visible parts (portals).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The engine uses occlusion culling, the mapper doesn't need to (and probably can't) define visible parts.
But I'm not a mapper, maybe you meant something else.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if you give out the source isnt that like giving hackers the keys to everything<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Security-relevant software is often open source.
Sure, there will be people looking for exploitable code, but on the other hand, others will publish patches.
The "hackers" don't have the HL1/HL2 source, and there's no shortage of cheats there. So no, that really doesn't effect the ability to find exploits or make cheats.
Please explain how having the source <b>doesn't</b> aid in the creating of hacks...
man, model compiling is a total different matter to map compiling. Model creation pipeline is totally not intersecting with mapping production: you model a mesh in 3D studio/maya/softimage and compile it, then a renderer (be it editor 3d view or game engine) can use it on the fly.
Map files are just text files with a lot of vertices and coordinates. I don't know how data is stored in a bsp, but don't be fooled by the dev-blog about vising: it's widely known that you can de-compile bsps, so in the worst case scenario they de-compiled the map in analysis and fed the raw data in the new engine that works on the fly.
From the little i know btw, dynamic engines "compile" the brush data on the fly (i remember the guys of Serious Sam 2 talking about this - don't remember the tech name for this), that is just coordinates of vertices and texture position on faces. Then culling and light calculations are done at run-time <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />