Quake code in Half-Life 2? by John Carmack

[Mr Neutron]

what apos said. I don't know what you're on about. The 1/16th scale skyboxes are just a cheap way of displaying non-interactive areas (like the flats seen around the canal); the frequent map changes there had more to do with memory usage (people with <512mb) than it had to do with a fundamental limitation of the engine. I don't see what's stopping a Battlefiled like mod, except dont' expect to have detailed totally open areas without limiting the players' vis.

I'm going to put together a buggy map myself now and see how big I can make it.

 

[kirovman]

I don't think anyone here has access to the source code to make a good judgement about it. Only a 'feel' of the engine to speculate.

 

[ZeeM]

Dunno if someone already said this but I read somewhere (in a gabe interview?) that valve used the controls code from quake

 

[Mr Neutron]

Here's a demonstration of a very large map; certainly it's BF-sized. Now, how well Source renders such a map with actual stuff in it, I dont' know, but it can at least do the absolute area.

It seems the main error you get when doing a map like this is a 'material extent' error. This can be fixed by clipping the areas up...sort of. I still got the error when I expaned the long hall into a large box room. That's why there's two long halls instead of one big area. Maybe this can be fixed if I simply changed the material on the ground at some point. It seems there's some absolute limit of surface area a material can be visible on at one time. Or something like that. Let's ask Valve, shall we?


COMPILE WITH FAST VIS and NO RAD!!!!!

 

[SLH]

What's this funny little man under the bridge?

What is it with people who, when a (known) troll posts, feel that they have to point him/her out as if people who responded didn't realise it???
It's not like they're causing any harm (at least in this case), since the thread stayed on topic and only lasted a couple of posts.

It seemed like that was the end of it, until you posted that, which implies that the people who responded are idiots.


Anyway, i ddn't realise HL2 was developed literally using the HL1 engine as a base, thanks for the info.
Do you have a source for when Gabe (or other dev.) said this?

 

[wassup]

I have not seen the code (not a 3d programer) but in many parts there is only one way to code in programs.
Obviously the way we display to screen has to be the same and things like this; The forum is not specific!
Tell us what part's are the same?

 

[kupocake]

I've always wondered why they used skyboxes instead of actually making very large areas like in Battlefield 1942 or FarCry. I hope they do manage to fix this or other engines will pass up Source in no time. HL2 is a great game, but one of my biggest disappointments is the map sizes.

But FarCry and Battlefield (and the Unreal Engine Gen 2 for that matter) are surely nowhere near as detailed as a smaller HL2 environment is? I've always got the impression that terrain maps like those that these games use aren't really up to much. Indeed, i've never really seen anything that makes me go "woah" in the design of games that heavily use them. I reckon that Valve could have done environments as good as those in these games, but chose not to simply because it would have been a total visual comedown.

 

[Dagobert]

They didn't start with the HL1 code, they mearly used bits of it.

How do you know?

 

[Dagobert]

The URL/source of the article would be nice, but yeah i agree that early screenshots do look like a bit souped up HL1.

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/reviews/582864_20041110_screen025.jpg

 

[Dead-Inside]

My thoughts exactly.

Indeed. Now stop the BS.

 

[Dead-Inside]

I have not seen the code (not a 3d programer) but in many parts there is only one way to code in programs.
Obviously the way we display to screen has to be the same and things like this; The forum is not specific!
Tell us what part's are the same?

Uhm.. An engine is quite a bit different from your regular "programming". Better engines are written differently, thus optimizing performance (Being that Source is one of the absolutely best engines when it comes to performance on the market).

 

[The Mullinator]

If it works for what you are doing then you use it. Why spend your time and effort re-doing something when you could just pull it off of something you already used before? Its not like this is a new or unusual thing to do you know.

 

[SLH]

How do you know?

Sorry, i thought i read it in an interview, but it appears i was mistaken.

I can't get that link to work btw. any idea why (using FF)?

 

[SLH]

Here's an interview that indicates what i was saying:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6112889/p-3.html
Bottom paragraph.

"By the end of the summer it became clear that Valve would need a new game engine to pull off its ambitious goals. (Valve licensed id Software's Quake engine for the original Half-Life). While Valve looked at licensing an engine for the sequel--such as id's Quake III engine--the team concluded that no outside technology was a good match for Valve's ambitious plans. "Id's stuff is always cutting-edge, but this time we wanted to cut some different edges," says Valve cofounder Mike Harrington. Valve, it seemed, would have to build its own engine from scratch. So while Half-Life 2 may have started production in mid-1999, creating a new engine meant that the game would take at least three years to complete."

 

[azz0r]

Here's a demonstration of a very large map; certainly it's BF-sized. Now, how well Source renders such a map with actual stuff in it, I dont' know, but it can at least do the absolute area.

It seems the main error you get when doing a map like this is a 'material extent' error. This can be fixed by clipping the areas up...sort of. I still got the error when I expaned the long hall into a large box room. That's why there's two long halls instead of one big area. Maybe this can be fixed if I simply changed the material on the ground at some point. It seems there's some absolute limit of surface area a material can be visible on at one time. Or something like that. Let's ask Valve, shall we?


COMPILE WITH FAST VIS and NO RAD!!!!!

and with an area portal it runs twice as fast, excellent stuff.

 

[Mr Neutron]

and with an area portal it runs twice as fast, excellent stuff.

Are you sure about this? Bisecting an open area with an area portal gets you no where.

Oh, do you mean the little connecting hall? LOL, except I didn't have any performance problems: I think ~300-500fps is enough, thank you.

 

[FictiousWill]

What is it with people who, when a (known) troll posts, feel that they have to point him/her out as if people who responded didn't realise it???

What's that supposed to mean? First you crap on apos for calling me a troll, then call me one too. Screw you, buddy.

Anyhow, I stick with my analysis of the source engine, and Mr Neutron's shenannigans to get a large area working are more than enough proof.

 

[MjM]

Well seeing as Source is to be used in an MMO, i would have to imagine that any issues regarding draw distance and map size are something that can be overcome.

Its kinda a ridiculous argument in the first place, i mean devs are gonna redisign parts of any engine to fit a requirment, of course there will be trade-offs.

I would love to see Blizzard Entertainment rip into Source, with the animation system and overall look of the Source maps, it would be a sight to behold im sure. Diablo3 anyone?

 

[Mountain Man]

I'm almost certain the 3D skybox technique was employed only for performance reasons. It's an inexpensive way to make the map look bigger. If Valve wanted they could have probably created maps that were as big as the 3D skybox makes them appear, but the decreased performance was no doubt undesirable.