Expectations of HL3 engine

[Tiddalick]

my list of new features to implement with source engine
...
-actual wind instead of entities to simulate wind
...

this is all i can think of now. its so far away that its not worth contemplating

So, you have cpu cycles on the Earth Simulator do you?
Cause that is what it would take.

I am already amazed at what source seems able to do in reference to simulation. They must of had very clever engineers that programmed it to take as many shortcuts as possible and approximations and yet still produce a great experience.

 

[killahsin-[CE]]

Better shadows and parralax bump-mapping

parallax mapping is already supported in hl2. Don't comment on the shadows until you see them, is my advice.

 

[killahsin-[CE]]

Reason?
my reason is.. eh, i wanted to.. and.. it's true..
sure.. U3 has the "same" physics as Hl2.. but U3 has
a better shadow/light engine.. therefore.. it's better.

The day Valve.. or even IDsoftware submits to another engine...
it will be the end of the world.

U3 has better per pixel implmentation inside parallax maps and bump/nomal maps for radiosity effects. The shadow engine is basically the same precalculated vertex shadows. It's not real time i.e. inverted Z.

(and i apologise for the double post)

 

[The Brick]

I'd like to see more detailed physics. Like all materials will have their own real time deformation, so metal really can bend and all wood can break non scripted, so you can shoot little pieces of a wooden door or somethings like that.

EDIT: I'm not saying that I want every atom to be simulated.

 

[killahsin-[CE]]

I'd like to see more detailed physics. Like all materials will have their own real time deformation, so metal really can bend and all wood can break non scripted, so you can shoot little pieces of a wooden door or somethings like that.

EDIT: I'm not saying that I want every atom to be simulated.

This might be somthing every game will be capable of when 64 bit is standard, and if the GPU companies, get on the ball with seperate 'ppus' for physics on their cards.

 

[Black Mesa corp]

I think with the HL3 engine, there will be many new mechanics that fool the player even more into thinking thats its them playing.
a) a microphone that allows you to speak up to a thousand phrases in the game and you get up a thousand replys...
b) a special system that allows anything to be picked up and used for something
c) Finally, a mechnic that makes everything detachable and breakable...

 

[Ages120]

Whatever direct x of the time supports. Id, was the last hold out for a company that wasn't spoon fed graphics technology from microsoft.

 

[Kotik]

Oh so you played on both engines? Because you can't "experience" something without playing with it. And I obviously doubt you have played with the U3 engine.

1: The U3 Engine looks better than source!

2: Source is a bit outdated!

:thumbs:

 

[alan8325]

2: Source is a bit outdated!

Name one aspect of it besides shadows that is outdated.

 

[Mutley]

Seeing HL2 has the best physics I have seen yet in a game, I would expect huge things from HL3, possibly scary realistic physics, and awsome graphics, and textures... oh but, one thing I really really want, is another AWSOME story! Woo!

I just hope they don't bugger the story up, is HL3 the end?

 

[Ages120]

Unreal 3 engine will be outdated by the time it comes out. Every game usually stays within the effects the current release of direct x has at the begining of the development cycle. Hl2 has dx7-8 features. Doom3 also has dx7-8 features with more optimized versions using dx9 code and paths. Unreal 3 will have 9.0 with optimized code for dx X-11 whatever. Doesn't take much these days to create a game with amazing graphics. Mainly its about pluging in shader code to do most of it.

 

[Kotik]

Name one aspect of it besides shadows that is outdated.

I dunno. Very many textures seem to be low resolution.

 

[PvtRyan]

Better shadows and parralax bump-mapping

Source already has parallax mapping. (I think it was in the CS:S beta and testmap) If the engine can handle PS2.0, it can do parallax mapping/virtual displacement mapping/offset bumpmapping.

I dunno. Very many textures seem to be low resolution.

What does that have to do with the engine? Nothing.
And textures are not low res in HL2, better than any other game out there besides STALKER and maybe You are Empty.

What would I like to see in HL3 engine? Depends on when it releases. There's a lot more possible in 2008 than 2006.
But I'd like to see a unified lighting model with all shadows softshadowed (and not just one per character like in UE3 atm), SSS for some very realistic skins (it's already possible to do it in realtime on a X800) and some way to simulate caustics would be sweet :cheese:

 

[Kotik]

I think it has something to do with the engine how many textures it can display!

But I'm not an expert. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Mutley]

It doesn't matter, all you people moaning about which enigne is best, IT'S HALF-LIFE 2!!! Story kicks arse, and it still has an AWSOME engine.... and you call yourselfs Half-Life fans, bah.

 

[CyanEyed]

It doesn't matter, all you people moaning about which enigne is best, IT'S HALF-LIFE 2!!! Story kicks arse, and it still has an AWSOME engine.... and you call yourselfs Half-Life fans, bah.

This thread is full of constructive criticism because we want HL3 to be even better.

Anyway I would like to see
-Better fragmenting wood & glass effects
-Better simulated wind
-Shadows (if not fixed)
-Temperature based effects (ex. the water can freeze/ice can melt on its own, hotter days cause precipitation, etc)
-Better Water physics: The effects are great but not the physics. All the water seems to follow a constant pattern of ripples, the splashing around in the binks didn't affect the water's ripple pattern. Also, can the water boil? Probably not. The splashes are pretty lame too if you ask me.

I know some of these are impossible now due to hardware limitations, but this is what I would like when HL3 comes out, when we won't have to worry about the hardware (as much).

 

[The Brick]

I know some of these are impossible now due to hardware limitations, but this is what I would like when HL3 comes out, when we won't have to worry about the hardware (as much).

Well, if you want fluid dynamics, you do have to worry. We won't be seeing avanced fluid dynamics until quantum cpu's (if they will ever exist) are standard in pc's, and that won't be for another 15 years... (I guess)

 

[Gorgon]

I have no idea what valve going to add in HL3'S E.

I hop its going to be something Cool just like UE3.0...

 

[pingu]

U3 engine makes the source look like hl1

 

[Varsity]

Source will be incrementally updated as time goes on. There won't be a HL3 engine.

 

[Juggernaut]

My first post

Now. Is Source Better than Unreal 3.0?

Yes and here is why.

Source is an Engine that supports DirectX (DX) 7 - 9. With the versatility it gives all its gamers it even those on ticker-tape Computers should get something...

Also Source can Evolve. Many times Gabe has mentioned some get features of DX9 that were removed from Source because they aren't ready yet, but insists they will be in the future. Thses include many of Unreal 3.0's features.

Also Source already has alot of Unreal 3.0 features, but in some places has disabled them because it makes low end users suffer.

Doom3's engine, is a DX8 - DX9 engine, which cuts out the low end users, but allows it to focus on neater features to give it an edge in the competitive market, however Doom3 has made the mistake of using low quality models and textures for DX8 and because there is no system or Card that can truly appreciate some of the DX9 stuff implemented it doesnt look that great. Doom3 requires a 512 meg vid card afterall to get max performance in the uber detail which no card supports.

Unreal 3.0 on the other hand is a DX9 only Engine. This has basically cut out 60% of the PCgaming community at the moment, but then the reason for it, is because there will not be a title on the Unreal3.0 engine for a few years, which is what it is aiming for.

By then (to speculate) Source will probably have implemented alot more DX9 features too and with Steam allowing easier means to update peoples engine and also get real time feedback regarding bugs, it should also be well grounded and stable.

Doom3 will have gone the way of the dodo with only a few updates for Quake4 before a new engine is made.

and the Edge Unreal3.0 has now, will be a hell of alot smaller.

 

[Kotik]

I really doubt you can update the source engine this far:

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/p_beast.jpg
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/p_embry1.jpg

:upstare:

Really!

 

[Wildhound]

I really doubt you can update the source engine this far:

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/p_beast.jpg
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/p_embry1.jpg

:upstare:

Really!

You wouldn't have to update it at all. You just dump in a model with a high resolution normal map. Source could do this right now. For the first one anyway.

The second one is just a lot of geometry and a lot of shaders. Again, Source could do this. It would just run terribly on today's hardware.

The only thing lacking in Source is the lighting. Which could be implimented later.

 

[Dead-Inside]

What do you expect (or want) in the HL3 engine wise. (Assuming it's a brand new engine). I'm sure valve wanted to put things in HL2 but didn't for performance or time reasons. There is a good chance they would put those features in HL3. So tell me what you think and don't take this too seriously. I expect some people to be very unrealistic but thats part of the fun.

It's NOT a new engine.

You wouldn't have to update it at all. You just dump in a model with a high resolution normal map. Source could do this right now. For the first one anyway.

The second one is just a lot of geometry and a lot of shaders. Again, Source could do this. It would just run terribly on today's hardware.

The only thing lacking in Source is the lighting. Which could be implimented later.

While that may all be true, additions to the engine will be needed to match it when it does come out.

 

[NeptuneUK]

if a game sucks... throw in some pr0n and no1 will notice how bad it is!
it worked for duke nukem....

 

[clarky003]

pointless blabbing the lot of ya, the engines are years apart for starter's

and its all about the feel, and at the moment I know Source feel's and looks like the most life like simulation in fps gaming. The facial animation and character's give this game the most potential, If you wanted , just using the character's and no weapon's you could make this a fun, and emotional experiance if you did it right.

I cant really comment on U3 havnt seen to much other than tech demo's, but it looks stunning.

 

[Ames]

Doom3's engine, is a DX8 - DX9 engine.

Ahoy, outstanding post laddie, evrything me mouth was going to say, but 'tis engine uses OpenGL.

Welcome to the forums, laddie

 

[Wildhound]

The amount of people on this thread so far that have claimed Doom3 is a DX engine. It's quite funny. It shows the sheer lack of a clue that so many people have and yet they still post...

 

[Mutley]

The amount of people on this thread so far that have claimed Doom3 is a DX engine. It's quite funny. It shows the sheer lack of a clue that so many people have and yet they still post...

Agreed.

I'm sure the engine for HL3 will be alot better than the HL2 version, and will be once again one of the best.

 

[Lemonking]

I dont understand what u guys have with Shadows i dont think they are important i always turn em off I think detailed Charakters are more important and Gameplay of course which I think HL2 will have best Gameplay next to Farcry and Nolf 1 and 2

 

[Juggernaut]

The amount of people on this thread so far that have claimed Doom3 is a DX engine. It's quite funny. It shows the sheer lack of a clue that so many people have and yet they still post...

Doom3 IS a DirectX engine, its supports it, therefore it is and Doom3 supports DX8 - DX9.

OpenGL cannot match anything like DirectX9 at the moment and Half-Life2 is also using a DirectX engine.

Therefore in this argument since Doom3, Source and Unreal 3.0 are the leading FPS engines at the moment and all support DX its quite valid to use it in the example.

If Doom3 was made to draw upon Glide over DirectX then its losing the battle already.

and like stated. Unreal 3.0's pretty asthetics are due to DirectX9, and what makes them models looks soo good is the high polygons, multi-layered skins with opactiy values and great texture and lighting.

Half-Life2 models have multi-layered skins and different opacity levels already and Vampire the Masquea...whatever, uses Nvidia's new Shaders and also some of the lighting and shadow effects which unreal 3.0 is boasting.

 

[PvtRyan]

I really doubt you can update the source engine this far:

http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/p_beast.jpg
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/screens/p_embry1.jpg

:upstare:

Really!

No problem.

HDR is already in Source, normal mapping is supported by Source and textures up to 2048x2048 are supported by Source (what this model probably uses), per pixel lighting is supported by source, and there you have your model.

It's nothing special, just crank up the poly counts and the texture resolution.

 

[Brian Damage]

Doom 3 may use DirectX sound and other stuff, but the graphics code is pure OpenGL... Carmack's rather notorious for sticking completely to OpenGL... I've even heard someone make the joke that the use of OpenGl in games will only continue to the point of Carmack's retirement...

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Doom3 IS a DirectX engine, its supports it, therefore it is and Doom3 supports DX8 - DX9.

Doom 3 uses DirectX for sound and input. Not the renderer, which is 100% OpenGL

OpenGL cannot match anything like DirectX9 at the moment and Half-Life2 is also using a DirectX engine.

Yes it can. It can do anything that DirectX can.

Therefore in this argument since Doom3, Source and Unreal 3.0 are the leading FPS engines at the moment and all support DX its quite valid to use it in the example.

Unreal 3.0 is not a "leading" engine at all. No games are currently available that are using it. Source is in a similar position.

If Doom3 was made to draw upon Glide over DirectX then its losing the battle already.

OpenGL is nothing to do with GLide. GLide was an API specifically for 3DFX cards. If you meant OpenGL, then see my comments above.

and like stated. Unreal 3.0's pretty asthetics are due to DirectX9, and what makes them models looks soo good is the high polygons, multi-layered skins with opactiy values and great texture and lighting.

No, that's down to the hardware's ability to use those features. The same features that appear in OpenGL, coincidentally.

Half-Life2 models have multi-layered skins and different opacity levels already and Vampire the Masquea...whatever, uses Nvidia's new Shaders and also some of the lighting and shadow effects which unreal 3.0 is boasting.

All of which they could do just as well under OpenGL.

 

[Lateralus]

why? UT3 engine sucks compared to source...

mate.... i don't think you've seen the Unreal3 engine

Try and find the video of it, it's phenomenal!

 

[bobvodka]

D3D and OpenGL are just interfaces to the same hardware, both are can the samething given the same hardware, its a matter of programmer skill and API knowledge.

I really wish the screen shots to the v-tales engine were still publicaly availble,it would blow your mind and prove to the doubters OpenGL can produce visual quality as good any D3D app, those who think otherwise are just crazy, even the D3D and OpenGL programmers have now settled their differences and agree that both are capible APIs.

 

[Daiceman9]

This might be somthing every game will be capable of when 64 bit is standard, and if the GPU companies, get on the ball with seperate 'ppus' for physics on their cards.

I woudn't be supprised if seprate "physics cards" came out, kinda like how vid cards first got started, they were getting too intense for the cpu to handle and needed something else to calculate them.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

That's something I've been wondering about recently. The problem there though is the bus - you couldn't really throw it on a graphics card. Maybe the advent of PCI-E will bring it closer to being a possibility.

 

[bobvodka]

Duel/quad core CPUs will be the answer for better physics, offloading to yet another board really wouldnt help imo, but being able to spawn a thread or two to parrallelise the work would certainly help things along

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I'll remind you of that next year, when you have to code it in.