Interlopers.net Forum - Half-Life 2 News & Tutorials

oh hey I missed a post! I'm sorry its 6am and I can't slept I just want to see you using UDK, you could make such wonderful things...

Mr. Happy wrote:I really don't understand what people find wrong with the Source tools ... The reason there isn't an official one is that they license alot of stuff like 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...

I cannot think of a single financial reason why valve couldn't release better tools due to licensing. UDK, their main competitor for that stuff is free for non-commercial use. and that's an entire fucking standalone game engine.
As a 'whiner' who knows what that means, why its useful I'm telling you that UDK's advantages have nothing to do with it being next gen. What I'm arguing is that even if you took away the graphical fanciness, it wouldn't revert back to the horrible UnrealEd 2.5 GUI - it would still be a phenomenally useful development tool that laps source a hundred times.

Mr. Happy wrote: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 ... the basic Unreal BSP system is stupid ... Tediously model everything even if it would look just as good as brush geometry? ...

Sandbox is has some convoluted ways to get started on a map, but thats because its designed to let you get right in and change every little detail. I agree its too high end for this discussion - it has a lot smaller niche, so lets leave it out of this comparison. UDK (and it is UDK now, not unreal ed.) does have an unintuitive brush system, but most of a good looking level isn't brushes. Even making models as simple as brush geometry, you get alot more control over it as a model. You keep saying that people who complain need to 'Learn how to use the tools!' but you're big complaint over UDK stems from you not getting used to and learning the tools (which at the end of the day, are simpler.)

Mr. Happy wrote: If you think you can't make something as good looking in Source it's because of your OWN lack of skill and talent.

Source isn't designed to run well on most systems. It was designed to run well on good gaming PC's of the time when HL2 came out, Valve never saw the need to update drastically, because they didn't need a new engine. They ahve a bigger playerbase aiming for lower spec machines. That's fine, good graphics don't make a game - but the tools themselves are just as outdated.

Mr. Happy wrote: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.

Hammer is the most inefficient comercial engine to work in from the last five years. In UDK you wait ten seconds and you can play your level in the viewport.

Mr. Happy wrote: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.

I'm telling you, as someone who used source for years, and UDK for a month, UDK is a dream come true.

Mr. Happy wrote: 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.

We need integrated tool sets more than a studio does because we do everything ourselves.
We need integrated tool sets more than a studio does because we do everything ourselves.
We need integrated tool sets more than a studio does because we do everything ourselves.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT UDK IS AND THIS EXACTLY WHERE SOURCE FALLS ON ITS ARSE.

How anybody can argue that the tools provided to work with Source are in anyway completely superior to the UDK is beyond me.

We need integrated tool sets more than a studio does because we do everything ourselves.
We need integrated tool sets more than a studio does because we do everything ourselves.
We need integrated tool sets more than a studio does because we do everything ourselves.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT UDK IS AND THIS EXACTLY WHERE SOURCE FALLS ON ITS ARSE.

I both completely agree, and lol'd when I read this. Very well debated argument which resulted in a full-caps ending sentence that brings it straight to the point. Epic Win. lol

EDIT:

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.

AHAHAHAHHA!


However in all seriousness, If you guys where literally handed the Source SDK open source, or found your own way of developing an SDK for the Source engine. Would you work on creating it? and if finished and Valve had offered to purchase it, would you?

Psy wrote:How anybody can argue that the tools provided to work with Source are in anyway completely superior to the UDK is beyond me.

Well Hammer is easier than any other editor

Fully recognizing I've said some stupid things in this thread I still think that the Source SDK is not tedius, perhaps it is less tedius in some ways than in other engines, but those are more tedious than source in other ways as well! I do want the node based editors that UnrealED has. I don't think the difference is too huge though! The texture importing in unreal ed is simple and efficient, but the importing in source isn't BAD imho.

I think people make too great a use of models in unreal and too little use of them in source. Alot of stuff in unreal that could be modeled would look just as good done as brushwork. For example, Fearian recently posted this:



With the exception of the roof beams and horizontal tubes all of that could be brushwork and would be simpler to work with (in source at least) while looking just as good. This would also allow the section to be made have more instances of fewer meshes allowing even more flexibility while being less "modular." The reason I prefer building alot of stuff out of brushes rather than modeling it is that you save tremendously on texture budgets and workflow by using a few work textures on hundreds of brushes rather than 1 texture per 1-few models/u/vs, even if multiple models share a texture. The u/ving and texture process is far slower for meshes and so I feel you can more quickly iterate on complex architexture and geometry with brushwork. For example, building half-falling apart barn with many unique boards and structural elements is very fast in hammer simply by clone-dragging and then manipulating the pieces. For each unique section of the structure, if using meshes, you would have to create a new mesh rather than make a few simple alterations.

Of course, with propper (which I need to look into more) you can simply export brushes as a smd and tighten up their graphics a bit.

Beyond any thing else I've mentioned I feel like UnrealED's interface is somehow clumsy and cumbersome...something about it annoys me, too many dialogs and clicks and clutter. Honestly I'd rather have seperate programs for alot of things

I will admit I'm not as familiar with unreal ed as I would like to be, but that's because the gamespy/win live bullshit they put in ut3 locked me out with an infinite loop of password recovery sites that did nothing so piss on them

Also, no disrespect to unknown worlds

Psy wrote:How anybody can argue that the tools provided to work with Source are in anyway completely superior to the UDK is beyond me.

It's because I'm completely insane that I am able to defy reality so successfully on a day-to-day basis.

I think NS2's Spark is already the best editor I've used. While I'm not keen on the Sketchup style building interface, the fact it's so damn intuitive is pretty awesome.

On top of that, real time ACTUAL-IN GAME lighting (caps was necessary) that doesn't need building, a halfway house between Unreal and Source interfaces and the tightest, bug free interface I've ever used makes it rather nice.

Although Source suffers greatly in terms of being modern and el rapido, I feel that things like the texture browser and VMTs lend a speed to the interface, and a lot of power to it as well. UDK's texture base is a complete bitch, and the IO system equally so. And the model browser? Don't get me started. It's a mess, as it always has been; I worked with UnrealEd for GOTY and 2004.

Source is good, UDK is good and Spark is great. Personally, I really don't see the point getting hung up about it. Learn them all and know which is best for you.

Now, now, Banter. The UDK's content browser is something of beauty that is well above the horridness that was the previous content browser and Kismet is an excellent tool as it allows you to visualise how all entities in a system interact with each other all at the same time.

Kismet has been nothing but pure failiure for me. Damn thing never works. The trigger system is still borked as well.

Sigh. Maybe it's me doing it wrong, but I just don't like using entities over brush triggers.

Your probably doing it wrong, I've done some pretty major things with Kismet that you would normally need solid programming to accomplish. It's like Hammer's entity based trigger system tenfold.

Kismet is an awesome interface, but does it actually bring about more power? I suspect the unreal engine simply has more I/O paths on it's entities in general. That is an engine, not an editor feature.

I remember severely disliking the content browsers in unreal and don't see any problem with the ones in source. You can search for your model texture and use filters. What more could you want? You can't drag models into the scene sure, but that's not really any more useful than placing the entity in hammer and then search for it. In the one hand you search first, then drag, on the other you click then search. Either way you have to fine-tune the placement anyway. And if you are working with alot of props then each time you click the next one the model property is already highlighted in the property editor, which you've already got open and to the side right? Especially useful with clone dragging and copy-pasting. The content importion (drag in) does sound nice, but really all we need is for the photoshop vtf plugin to generate (if you desire) simple stock vmt's with correctly references paths. Indeed, if vtf edit's vmt stuff was integrated into the photoshop plugin then I don't see how source's system could be improved at all. You've got the raw command line for highly advanced stuff that the gui's don't support, the material editor for complex shaders you want to preview, various gui's for various stuff, and then just photoshops Ctrl+S for the tenthousand basic worldtextures that all share the same vmt structure.

Mr. Happy wrote:Kismet is an awesome interface, but does it actually bring about more power? I suspect the unreal engine simply has more I/O paths on it's entities in general. That is an engine, not an editor feature.

If you wanted to, you could program an entire game through the kismet system. Through doing so, problems arise, but it is a feasible possibility, more so than any source engine I/O work.

Mr. Happy wrote:I think people make too great a use of models in unreal and too little use of them in source. Alot of stuff in unreal that could be modeled would look just as good done as brushwork.

Mr. Happy, I suggest you read this article which explains many of the good and bad parts of modular mapping.

Sure one could do that with regular brushes, but it's important to note that brushes are rendered differently than models. You can duplicate the same model over and over with hardly any performance impact, similarly to the way 2d sprites worked in the old NES / SNES days of level design.

Major Banter wrote:I think NS2's Spark is already the best editor I've used.

Agreed, the only reason I don't use it is because I'm not sure on how limited it will be...

Jeez guys don't even bother. If you don't think Source is the most awesomest best engine ever, its because youre a) bad b) doing it wrong c) a moron who knows nothing. Arguing with Mr. Happy = repeatedly smashing your face against a wall.

marks wrote:Jeez guys don't even bother. If you don't think Source is the most awesomest best engine ever, its because youre a) bad b) doing it wrong c) a moron who knows nothing. Arguing with Mr. Happy = repeatedly smashing your face against a wall.

so how come your studio uses source? i've been meaning to ask this for a while...

He just said it:

marks wrote:Source is the most awesomest best engine ever