Page 7 of 13

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:34 am
by windlab
Dionysos wrote:...
This is all futile of course since nothing will ever change, at all. (Isn't this some kind of natural law?)
Don't be so sure of that! Valve is more than just a blind entity dedicated to selling games.
I was unaware of a feedback request on Valve's part, but I'm willing to believe it, and evidently they do listen.

I quote the TF2 Team from 10th August:
TF2 Blog wrote:We ask for feedback on our tools all the time, and everyone's much too nice to tell us directly that they're like a "beautiful ornate chair with a spike carved into the seat".

That being in response to a statement made by Larolaro in an interview at Ubercharged.net
Full quote:
You initially designed the Homewrecker. How long did the Homewrecker, from idea to realization, roughly take?

Larolaro: I created the homewrecker roughly a year before I submitted it to valve through their contribute page. So, embarrassingly, the homewrecker was just a bit of tooling-around practice, as I just did it for fun and never intended for it to be a serious submission. The concept took me 5 minutes and the model and texture was complete in about 2 hours. However, the compiling and such took an age, the source engine really isn’t noob-friendly. I see the source engine as a beautiful ornate chair with a spike carved into the seat; It looks great, it’s solid and it will last for a long time, it’s just a pain in the ass to use.

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:17 am
by Terr
Having dabbled in tool development for a while, I want people to come forward with bugs and annoyances that they encounter.

Any problems that occur are going to be in that second part of the conversation, when I say something like "Not now" or "That works as intended" or "I'll see, but I can't promise much", or "I need more detail" or "already fixed in the next version".

Raising issues is good. It's when people make it all too personal or get too attached to specific issues that problems occur.

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:58 am
by Plague
Dionysos wrote:Strictly speaking Linux isnt a different story just because it's an OS, open source is open source. Also, Valve isn't selling Hammer and the SDK tools. Licensing the engine is of course a different matter.

This is all futile of course since nothing will ever change, at all. (Isn't this some kind of natural law?)


I would imagine that part of the licensee deal is access to SDK tool code and Hammer's Source Code....

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:03 am
by city14
I don't know... I've always wanted to know, but there is very little information available...

Maybe I should just email them.

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 4:37 am
by Plague
Its all discussed under NDA, if they do it is probably not very public.

I had a fear which if true is even worse.
If Valve does not give Source code for Hammer and other SDK tools, it would mean they are keeping it as their own.
If that is the case then it means they don't want people to have the source code, even if they pay for the Source Engine code.
Somehow I doubt that, as if someone wanted to implement a feature for, say working engine view viewport, they would probably have to modify Hammer.

Edit:
open source is open source...
These guys would tear you apart....
http://www.opensource.org/

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:06 am
by marks
Plague wrote:Its all discussed under NDA, if they do it is probably not very public.


This. It isn't exactly something you publically talk about.

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:47 am
by BattleGrunt
So the Sept 1st submission date for the letter has passed. What's the status on it? :)

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 1:18 am
by omnicoder
You mentioned that you want Hammer plugins... with an injected DLL I could add menu items and possibly manipulate simple map stuff... what kind of plugins are you looking for?

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 2:58 am
by MáØ
omnicoder wrote:You mentioned that you want Hammer plugins... with an injected DLL I could add menu items and possibly manipulate simple map stuff... what kind of plugins are you looking for?


Better displacement support, being able to turn the grid 15/30/45/etc/etc degrees for more interesting mapping, an in-editor I/O flow for keeping complex systems organized, ability to move individual grid windows on their own maybe, work flow improvements.

Things like that should in theory be possible with plug-ins.

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:02 am
by omnicoder
I can do workflow improvement for importing materials and possibly in-editor IO flow with an injected dll. The others are a bit too much for a hacked in dll.

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:17 am
by projectleet
Hey guys, you probably don't know me but I am a long time lurker.

I was representing a game site with my media badge and had set up a showing for Portal 2 PAX West

While everyone was walking out I ran into a level designer working in the L4D DLC cabal I believe, I had about 3 other valve guys show up mid-way through the conversation. I was curious if they were aware of "the petition going on about a more friendly SDK" He asked which site I saw it in because apparently valve hits up a few places a lot, and I said interlopers and he made an affirming nod and said he knows the site.

He looked over to 2 valve guys and nodded and said that he promises he will look further into it and contact the "higher - ups" and said they they were aware of a "few' petitions circling around about the SDK and said he he understood the problem and made it seem like he was aware of this exact petition.

Did what I could guys... I didn't wanna read all the previous posts so maybe Valve already knew but I bugged them at PAX about it.

TLDR; I saw valve at PAX, yelled at them for SDK and they basically said "We know" :P and got called a douche from everyone for having a media showing appointment for Portal 2 instead of waiting 4 hours to see it -_-

/VanishesFromForums

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:23 am
by Saxon
If this is true, then good job that man!

Lurk less and post more ;)

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:42 am
by YokaI
Ultimately, the nature of the BSP state of valve's games will mean that Valve hammer is *always* going to be one step behind in terms of fluidity and workflow. However, if valve simply makes model importing something that doesn't take ages to get correct, and adds basic features like model scaling (that scales the collision model and also controls well) and model viewers that aren't made by some Swedish guy, then my life would be *so* much easier.

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:23 am
by Vilham
I dont think its the BSP nature that holds hammer back. Hammer has probably the best BSP tools out there, they are FAR superior to unreals/radients BSP tools in terms of usability. However I agree with the rest.

Re: Source Modding Community SDK Petition

PostPosted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:57 am
by Phott
YokaI wrote:model viewers that aren't made by some Swedish guy

What's that supposed to mean?