Dev'ing for Source is tedious

[Psy]

I'm honestly convinced that Valve use a separate set of tools for in-house development. There's simply no way a large studio would use tools which are this absurdly awful.

Well this is - creator of Goldrush, Pipeline, Badwater - Dario Casali's setup.



So, hmm.

[Major Banter]

I think I'll try Spark out and compare it to Source at some point.

Marks has me fully interested in it.

[Chopium]

LOL TOKYO TOPLESS

[YokaI]

Slightly offtopic, YokaI any progress on the tutorials you said you're making?

I'm working on a few video tutorials about switching to the UDK engine from the source engine or other BSP based editors.

Not done yet, I'm trying to find a good way to start.

[Major Banter]

I thought you laughed because you were suggesting Vista was the better of them for it's simplicity.

I know this is horrendously hypocritical of me to digress, but...

WHAT?

[YokaI]

I'm honestly convinced that Valve use a separate set of tools for in-house development. There's simply no way a large studio would use tools which are this absurdly awful.

Well this is - creator of Goldrush, Pipeline, Badwater - Dario Casali's setup.

So, hmm.

He's not talking about valve hammer itself, but the other things such as implementing models / particles / other things. For example, valve probably doesn't need to start up TF2 with the -tools set, they probably just have a generic hl2 .exe style launcher that launches a basic particle editor. As for modeling, they probably let the modelers make the models and send them out to a few intern programmers who work on the qc files / other compiling tediousness that is the Source engine when it comes to this thing.


Valve hammers biggest problem, and I always say this, is the command prompt-style asset integration and a lack of a UDK style content browser that's straight forward.

Source SDK should have the following launch options:
- Valve Hammer SDK (For Level Design Etc)
- Valve "Proper" [for a lack of a better name] (For Model previewing / importing, preferably GUI based with many options)
- Valve Particle SDK (For Particle related development, that runs a simplified HL2.EXE and uses the content from whatever specified mod you are working in.)
- Valve Texture Tools (Obviously VMF / VMT easy integration, though it's not that hard now it could be even more simple. It would be nice to have a UDK style material editor though)

And then they should have the links as usual with the SDK...

I mean, it's obviously easier for me to say they should do this then for them to actually do it, and seeing as the source engine is slowly aging (but still progressing) they probably should just keep all of this in mind for the next SDK development of the next HL3 engine. It would probably even make their own lives easier to have less shoddy tools.

UDK is nice, but something about valve hammer is still appealing as a level design. Even UDK users know that there's a lot of things really nice about the BSP format and BSP style mapping, and that's why epic included the additive options in the Unreal 3 Engine.

[Jangalomph]

I love source tools, and every thing they got, i just wish there was a way to make awesome fire trails in the particle editor.. valve will not reply to me about how to make them. Like, chunks of things flying in the air with a smoke trail affected by gravity, and creates that epic smoke arch. Other than that, i love hammers mapping style, cry engine mapping sucks, UDK is just too dang complicated.. i took a look at it, and got angry. Only downside to hammer is you can't "jump" in game instantly. Other wise its amazing, and i love it, I wouldn't pick any other editor.

[source-maps]

UDK is just too dang complicated.. i took a look at it, and got angry..

oh I hear from allot of people it only takes about a week to adjust ?

well maybe that's a bit ridiculous when I think about it, but it's not super hard to adjust?

[Mr. Happy]

I really don't understand what people find wrong with the Source tools, sure there is command line stuff but so what? There are plenty of GUI wrappers for those programs. The reason there isn't an official one is that they license alot of stuff like that, for example the tech that makes their in-house distributed compiling system work. There are many other tools as well I'm sure, for example did you know that Valve has an in-house tool that let's them change the LOD and mip-map settings on models and textures while in game? Of course most of the whiners probably don't know what that even means, they just want "omg next-gen my map is yellow and gray lawl."

Honestly, I'm sick of people talking about Sandbox and UnrealED as if they are perfect. Sandbox is useless as Crysis can't be run on any computer in a pretty state, and UnrealED might have tons of bells and whistles but it's core functionality is absolute CRAP. Try making a brush, it takes 10000000 more clicks than in Hammer, try moving the camera, it's retarded (iirc). Hell, even the basic Unreal BSP system is stupid, carve out your level instead of building it? Tediously model everything even if it would look just as good as brush geometry? And don't get me started on the terrain editor. Besides that, there aren't any FUN Unreal games that have an SDK (except Roboblitz).

Valve's games might not be as sexy, but that's because they are designed to run well on ALL systems. Source is just as powerful. Not even the PS3 can run the unreal engine with proper anti-aliasing. If you think you can't make something as good looking in Source it's because of your OWN lack of skill and talent.

Hammer is extremely efficient and easy to use, and who cares if there's no instant jump into game, a properly made map takes ten minutes to compile with full rad and you can alt-tab to a minimized windowed game window.

Maybe it's just that I've been using these tools for ten years, but I find unrealED slow, cumbersome, poorly designed, and just plain bad. If you think it's easier to use that's just because you don't know what your doing. Hammer has tons of keyboard shortcuts and there are tons of tricks and tools that when levereged properly make mapping a snap. Instead of complaining about the SDK, LEARN TO USE IT. No ones going to play your crappy GoW maps anyway.

We should also remember that a big studio has more teammembers and people doing specialized work than your typical modder. We are all-in-oner's. We need integrated tool sets more than a studio does because we do everything ourselves. A texture artist at a studio can make a thousand textures and then batch import them while the level designer does his work without worrying about that stuff, we do it one at a time and all ourselves.

I know I'm not alone here, in fact another Interloper who works in the game industry, using UnrealED, tells me he much prefers Hammer.

[Jike]

you the man. my opinion, he just made it sound nice lol.

[Phott]

I love you Mr. Happy.

[YokaI]

Honestly, I'm sick of people talking about Sandbox and UnrealED as if they are perfect. Sandbox is useless as Crysis can't be run on any computer in a pretty state, and UnrealED might have tons of bells and whistles but it's core functionality is absolute CRAP. Try making a brush, it takes 10000000 more clicks than in Hammer, try moving the camera, it's retarded (iirc). Hell, even the basic Unreal BSP system is stupid, carve out your level instead of building it? Tediously model everything even if it would look just as good as brush geometry? And don't get me started on the terrain editor. Besides that, there aren't any FUN Unreal games that have an SDK (except Roboblitz).

I'm sorry but the Unreal ED part just isn't true! Sure, making a brush is a pain, but Unreal mapping -Isn't about brushes- it's about using modular modeled content. If you open up a UDK map that comes with the package, you can hide all the meshes and you'll see that there's really only 10 - 20 brushes in a single map, if not less! I will give you the comment on the terrain editor though, that was a piece of shit. But there's a lot of things UDK does that you should and aught to acknowledge as being better than the source engine, regardless if you like the source engine more (like I do.)

Also, Unreal has been additive for a long time now, I don't know what rock you're living in.

The reason there isn't an official one is that they license alot of stuff like that, for example the tech that makes their in-house distributed compiling system work. There are many other tools as well I'm sure, for example did you know that Valve has an in-house tool that let's them change the LOD and mip-map settings on models and textures while in game?

Valve hasn't liscensed a single third party game. Well, from what I can remember they licensed 1 or 2, but they didn't turn out so well. Valve so far are just about the ONLY ones who use the source engine or continue to use it. The platform as a middle ware has definitely failed, and the lack of a streamlined content importation system is the reasoning many developers don't want to use the engine. It's also why many people who looked into the engine for license (i.e. Unknown Worlds) dropped those plans because it didn't easily allow developers to get their content in and out for changes. Why do you think so many mods have glitchy animations and controls? It's not really just the modders fault, but it's also the fault of the tedious content importing system.

Valve's games might not be as sexy, but that's because they are designed to run well on ALL systems. Source is just as powerful. Not even the PS3 can run the unreal engine with proper anti-aliasing.

Clearly you haven't play HL2 on the PS3.

Hammer is extremely efficient and easy to use, and who cares if there's no instant jump into game, a properly made map takes ten minutes to compile with full rad and you can alt-tab to a minimized windowed game window.

I would say that is an exaggeration on your part, either that or valve maps aren't properly made.

Maybe it's just that I've been using these tools for ten years, but I find unrealED slow, cumbersome, poorly designed, and just plain bad. If you think it's easier to use that's just because you don't know what your doing. Hammer has tons of keyboard shortcuts and there are tons of tricks and tools that when levereged properly make mapping a snap. Instead of complaining about the SDK, LEARN TO USE IT. No ones going to play your crappy GoW maps anyway.

Maybe I just like to be a bit critical, but I think just because the source sdk is GOOD doesn't mean it can't be better. Control wise, UDK isn't that much worse, I think your exaggerating again.

We should also remember that a big studio has more teammembers and people doing specialized work than your typical modder. We are all-in-oner's. We need integrated tool sets more than a studio does because we do everything ourselves. A texture artist at a studio can make a thousand textures and then batch import them while the level designer does his work without worrying about that stuff, we do it one at a time and all ourselves.

Yes, but it's important to realize that if it's faster for 1 person to do all that alone, it's even faster for a team to get work done.

I think you need more experience in UDK, I think your comments are a rather trigger happy. If you think the source sdk is the PERFECT sdk, you are mistaken, and this is what the topic is about. Again, I'll end it with this:

Valve hammers biggest problem, and I always say this, is the command prompt-style asset integration and a lack of a UDK style content browser that's straight forward.

Source SDK should have the following launch options:
- Valve Hammer SDK (For Level Design Etc)
- Valve "Proper" [for a lack of a better name] (For Model previewing / importing, preferably GUI based with many options)
- Valve Particle SDK (For Particle related development, that runs a simplified HL2.EXE and uses the content from whatever specified mod you are working in.)
- Valve Texture Tools (Obviously VMF / VMT easy integration, though it's not that hard now it could be even more simple. It would be nice to have a UDK style material editor though)
....
UDK is nice, but something about valve hammer is still appealing as a level design. Even UDK users know that there's a lot of things really nice about the BSP format and BSP style mapping, and that's why epic included the additive options in the Unreal 3 Engine.

[Jike]

pah

[Mr. Happy]

Also, Unreal has been additive for a long time now, I don't know what rock you're living in.

A very, very VERY heavy one with glittery metal bits in it! And I suppose I am wrong about the camera controls too.

I stand by what I say about the Unreal Engine being no more powerful than Source. Technically it can render more polygons and a few more complex shaders, but unreal models have more polygons than you can even see!

I don't like the modular nature of unreal tech either. While you do have the ability to resize models in editor, that doesn't make up for the, well, modular nature. It is much more difficult to make quick changes and iterations to areas that have been detailed or partially detailed in UnrealED, or at least it seems that way to me. And many things I'd rather build from brushes so I don't have to U/V them. Stairs for example, unless of course you are making super-hi-tech 100000 poly stairs. The brush based system in Source for blocky detail is simply more efficient when it comes to texture use and workflow!! Building unique non-modular areas and levels means much more tedium I would think.

It's true I need more experience in UnrealED to make a fair comparison, but the problem is that there isn't a single fun game with an SDK on unreal ed!! (except Roboblitz) Maybe bulletstorm will have an SDK since it's being made by People Can Fly.

Source has been licensed for: SiN Episodes (now dead), that vampire game, Zeno Clash, the Crossing (where'd that go?) and I think one or two others. Also, we should acknowledge that valve didn't "make" Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress, or Left 4 Dead. They acquired the teams and properties and continued to develop them...that's kind of like licensing. As for Unknown World's it was my understanding that they switched to their own engine because 1. They couldn't figure out how to make dynamic infestation on Source (i.e. their coders were newb) and they 2. Made their own level editor because their mappers couldn't figure out how to use Hammer (i.e. their mappers were newb) at any rate natural selection sucks anyway

I've never looked at a commercial license of the source engine nor talked to anyone who had one so I really don't know what it includes, but I assume that there are better workflow/asset stream/whatever tools. And like I said, there are tons of third party tools that solve 90% of those complaints.

I don't know if there's anything wrong with the particle editor, but you can make a desktop shortcut with -tools, problem solved! Unreal's node based material editor is nice, but with 90% of textures it's still faster to write a simple vmt than to use any editor. My workflow goes like this: save from photoshop as vtf (with nem's plugin), open notepad, type a few lines, save. All in all it takes 2-5 minutes per texture. Of course it would be nice to have tools to make batch changes to 100 vmt's at once, but I've only needed to do that for a couple projects, and there are third party tools. As for models, I've only compiled a few prop_static's without any special requirements but I just use the same basic QC over and over again, just need to make a few changes for each model's name! And there are qui wrappers too, and iirc you can use wildcards and automate it with batch files.

Of course the SDK could be better, but it is not tedius, difficult, or behind the times. All one needs is a little knowledge and a few third-party tools!!!

And no, Valve's maps aren't properly made!!!!!!! Probably because they let artists touch them.

[Fearian]

Mr Happy, you are a goddamn genius with Hammer editor, but this must be the most absolute wrong thing you have written in your life. I would argue the exact opposite of nearly EVERY point you made.

I stand by what I say about the Unreal Engine being no more powerful than Source. Technically it can render more polygons and a few more complex shaders, but unreal models have more polygons than you can even see!

Unreal engine is not just more powerful by brute force, it is superior in nearly every aspect of its workflow. The way it stores assets, the way it handles lighting, the intuitive nature of materials, the scope of what you can do. Unreal models don't have insane polycounts by any standard. Most unreal models could be brought into source. They would just loose alot of detail from the materials.

I don't like the modular nature of unreal tech either... The brush based system in Source for blocky detail is simply more efficient when it comes to texture use and workflow!!

Learn to model. The best looking source stuff is model heavy, and the same goes for unreal. I'll admit, making and using bsp brushes in source is easier on many levels, but bsp brushes should only ever be the foundation of a level, not the brick and mortar. The modular nature of unreal mapping is entirely optional, but there's a reason its the done thing - its fast, it cuts down on a ton of work, and it doesn't compromise on quality.

It's true I need more experience in UnrealED to make a fair comparison, but the problem is that there isn't a single fun game with an SDK on unreal ed!! (except Roboblitz) Maybe bulletstorm will have an SDK since it's being made by People Can Fly.

This is true, you do need more time with it, and there's nothing for single player games quite like Half Life 2 in UDK, but if you're working on a mod, or just a good looking environment, there's no reason not to use UDK.

1. They couldn't figure out how to make dynamic infestation on Source (i.e. their coders were newb) and they 2. Made their own level editor because their mappers couldn't figure out how to use Hammer (i.e. their mappers were newb) at any rate natural selection sucks anyway

This is the dumbest thing I ever read. (I kid!) the guy leading NS2 is actually an Engine Coder, making games engines was his job long before he began NS2. He was able to look at all the hoops they would have to jump through in source to get an aproximation of what they wanted, and knew that NS2 would not happen in source. Also NS is the greatest game ever

I've never looked at a commercial license of the source engine nor talked to anyone who had one so I really don't know what it includes, but I assume that there are better workflow/asset stream/whatever tools. And like I said, there are tons of third party tools that solve 90% of those complaints.

probably, and yeah there are a ton of fantastic community plugins... but with UDK, you don't need a ton of plugins to do the simplest task. It just works.

I don't know if there's anythingUnreal's node based material editor is nice, but with 90% of textures it's still faster to write a simple vmt than to use any editor. My workflow goes like this: save from photoshop as vtf (with nem's plugin), open notepad, type a few lines, save. All in all it takes 2-5 minutes per texture. Of course it would be nice to have tools to make batch changes to 100 vmt's at once, but I've only needed to do that for a couple projects, and there are third party tools. As for models, I've only compiled a few prop_static's without any special requirements but I just use the same basic QC over and over again, just need to make a few changes for each model's name! And there are qui wrappers too, and iirc you can use wildcards and automate it with batch files.

THIS IS WHERE YOU REALLY LOOSE IT
I know this is a wall of text, so I wanted to point this bit out. Because this is why source sucks. I love it but it sucks, because it is insane. Heres my workfrow for making a texture in UDK: save from photoshop as just about whatever I want. open it in UDK. done. thats it. I dont export, download a plugin, write out vmt's, get lost trying to find location errors, have to put things in valves INSANE file structure... it. just. fucking. works. You want a normal map on that? open the normal map, and click drag from the normal map to the texture in node view. Please don't tell me typing a vmt is quicker than click dragging, that's a lie.

I made a model today, and stuck it in unreal. I just saved as an .ase, and opened it in UDK. I changed the model in 3ds max to make it better, went in UDK, and clicked on the 'reimport model' option and it updated automatically to my new save. Because everything is so quick and easy, I can keep going back and forth changing things willy nilly and I never even have to run the fucking game. UDK shows all this crazy magical happiness in the editor viewport.

Of course the SDK could be better, but it is not tedius, difficult, or behind the times. All one needs is a little knowledge and a few third-party tools!!!

Source is incredibly tedious, its is amazingly convoluted and it is years behind the times. You need 'a little' knowledge of outdated plugins tools and nonsense file structres to even get somethign close to a workflow. You're only problem (and its less of a problem and more skill!) Is that you are so aware of the ins and outs of source, you don't notice them.

I used source for years, I fell in love with mapping using hammer for Half-Life 1. I bought UT3 special edition to get all the video tutorials and learn the editor... but I never did, because I had source and its great. Source is the partner that kept beating me and I would keep coming back and tell my friends I walked into a door or something. And when I got to grips with UDK, I felt like I wasted years. I had this conversation with a friend and we both said the same thing - why did we stick with source when Unreal was right there? Even when UDK came out?

Don't make my mistakes. Try UDK today.

ps. I didnt ever mean to sound harsh, but to be fair you did diss Natural selection so c'mon man your asking for it!