Source engine, meh.

Ender01

Ender01

Newbie
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
386
Reaction score
0
My friend was messin around in teh Unreal Engine, and he found a way to make barrels and almost anything act the way they should when hit with a rocket or whatever, sure makes the source enginelook not as impressive, dont get me wrong its amazing, but its not as innovating as i thought before. I did this level btw.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    72.2 KB · Views: 809
maybe someone will host the level for people to try out?
 

Attachments

  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 670
The Karma physic engine is really quite good. it already has support for ragdolls and asuch, and has quite neice lighting.

Only hardly anybody plays / has ut2k3
 
can you put the level up somewhere? maybe a blahplanet hosted site? or a place like Mapped for the original UT, I'd like to try it out, looks great

edit:

what happened to our post counts... first HL2 forums go down and I lose 100 posts and now they're only in profile : / oh well ... meh
 
how big is it? you might be able to zip it and just stuff it onto a geocities account
 
uh, good job? theres other maps that have been around forever for ut2k3 that show off the karma physics using barrels and other such crap, i dont see the big deal?
 
All you see in the "barrels moving" thingy is the ragdoll feature in the Karma engine.In the source you can have all sorts of deforming objects, and deforming environments, and everything has its unique properties. you can effectively have different items touching each other and reacting to one another in a proper way.

However its probably going to be difficult to bend the ut2k3 engine into doing that sort of stuff.
 
I think the Karma engine does support much deeper physics simulation than you normally see in ut2k3, but they disabled most of it due to problems (this is my opinion, not official). Before UT2K3 a lot of extra physics stuff was promised that never appeared in the end. Also, take a look (but don't look for long) at the horrible 'wind-tunnel' physics in Devastation - that used Karma too AFAIK. I don't think Karma is all that hot.

Source seems to me the first engine that's actually got it right.
 
erm.... who really g.a.f about other games being better than hl2 when you haven't really played with it yet, i mean, come on. its just wrong :(
 
ut2k3 preforms pretty crappy... and has a cluttered netcode from hell
 
The Karma engine can deform objects, however it is not directly built in and less used than in hl2. Source engine isn't that impressive compared to A LOT of things; people just don't understand them and act as if this is a new concept. I admit it's at a higher level and Hl2 will be great and a field day for mod makers who now have an easier and better engine to work with in a more popular game. The sad truth is Ut2k3 is not popular and thus, people won't take advantage of all its engine has to offer. Personally I love working in Lightwave and UnrealEd but I will soon find myself mastering the Source engine because with Hl2 already popular, mods will take off with almost no problem. Still you have to love the novelty of the two, or...three (Karma) engines, and it's not always whats the new concept just the better useage of them. I love Unreal and Half life both still.


Nice map Mike
 
remember, HL2 does not use a base form of Havok, Valve has played around with it and changed quite a few things in it
 
bleh... ut2003 has no ps2.0, no dx9 features, just nice physics.. the rest is gayness:cool: hehe i wasnt really impressed by it. i felt it was poorely optimized and just a step above q3.

hl2 is much more advanced
 
hl2 is much more advanced
Click to expand...

I totally agree, im just sayin its not as innovative as i thought before. Shooting barrels in the tech demo is laughable now.
 
Shooting barrels next to pretty watter with bouyancy(sp?) and refraction isn't that laugthable...
 
agreed. the bouyancy, as well as distorted objects under water is impressive... valve's engine can do it all.. now all i wish it had were dynamic shadows.. static= :(
 
If you guys thought box physics, ragdoll physics, and barrels are new.... You obviously haven't seen Trespasser, and that came out 5 years ago. And it runs pretty damn good. Shitty game though.
 
bouyancy is possible in the Unreal Engine

Refraction, no. But refraction is a graphical effect, wich we all know that the source is graphicaly more powerful, all im saying is these physics in the tech demo all are possible in the Unreal Engine, teh only problem is the properites have to be entered in sepratley, not like every piece of wood has the same properties (bouyancy, ect.) Like i said earlier, DONT GET ME WRONG, the source kicks ass, but barrel physics, and wood physics are, yes, LAUGHABLE, people have just seemed to overlooked the fact that floating barrels and falling barrels have been done before.
 
lol omfg tresspasser..

what a disaster of a game.. the physics tried to be great.. but were horrible.. boxes were lubed with so much ky you couldnt stack them.. it didnt run on ANY machine at the time... wouldnt run smoothly on a 450mhz system (and that was top of the line at the time)

wacky physics causing animals to stand on their tails, rocks, guns, sticks floating in space, you couldnt pick anything up no matter how hard you tried... nothing behaved like it should in real life.. etc. etc. and to top it off it demanded so much cpu power from the gay physics it would bring any machine to its knees.. not to mention the graphics were pretty bad even for a game of its time. dithering city...

good idea, but way ahead of its time.

the only good thing about that game is if you looked down you could see your tits:afro:
 
Originally posted by jAkUp
agreed. the bouyancy, as well as distorted objects under water is impressive... valve's engine can do it all.. now all i wish it had were dynamic shadows.. static= :(
Click to expand...

Uhh, HL2 has dynamic lighting, and therefor it has dynamic shadows, so what are you wishing for again?
 
dynamic shadows... in other words.. doom 3... real time shadowing effects that can cant on other objects, move when a light source moves.. etc.

sadly dynamic lighting and dynamic shadowing are not the same things.
 
Hl2 has some dynamic shadows as well, and for the record, i've seen Doom 3 dynamic shadows, they aren't that great
 
the lighting's pretty good, but the shadows are overrated

they completely black out any texture they fall on, no matter the backlighting

they are RAZOR sharp, again no matter the backlighting

for something so processor intensive, i expected something a little more realistic
 
yea the shadows were kinda razor sharp... and the only other problem i had with it was the very low resolution textures for the most part... (the bumpmapping made up for it somewhat)

but overall i found it pretty impressive
 
I saw the ut2004 video, it's going to have vehicals, it seems to be bf1942 with futuristic weapons.(it looks quite good to me) Can ut2004's engine beat source engine, since ut2004 will come out later than hl2?
 
Originally posted by gamevoodoo
I saw the ut2004 video, it's going to have vehicals, it seems to be bf1942 with futuristic weapons.(it looks quite good to me) Can ut2004's engine beat source engine, since ut2004 will come out later than hl2?
Click to expand...

Neither games are out yet, so don't ask stupid questions.
 
Originally posted by nw909
Neither games are out yet, so don't ask stupid questions.
Click to expand...

Neither games are out yet, but both engine is done already. I'm not asking which game is better, i'm asking which engine is better. read my question before u give a stupid answer.
 
Once again I have to agree with Ender, like I said before these concepts like buoyancy are not that novel (included with unreal engine), we KNOW Source is BETTER but we are responding to NEW concepts as opposed to old and overlooked ones...
 
Originally posted by Ender01
I totally agree, im just sayin its not as innovative as i thought before. Shooting barrels in the tech demo is laughable now.
Click to expand...

No game is truly innovative, im sure you can find multiple games with multiple simlarities in their engines for as long as games have been created
 
Originally posted by jAkUp
lol omfg tresspasser..

what a disaster of a game.. the physics tried to be great.. but were horrible.. boxes were lubed with so much ky you couldnt stack them.. it didnt run on ANY machine at the time... wouldnt run smoothly on a 450mhz system (and that was top of the line at the time)

wacky physics causing animals to stand on their tails, rocks, guns, sticks floating in space, you couldnt pick anything up no matter how hard you tried... nothing behaved like it should in real life.. etc. etc. and to top it off it demanded so much cpu power from the gay physics it would bring any machine to its knees.. not to mention the graphics were pretty bad even for a game of its time. dithering city...

good idea, but way ahead of its time.

the only good thing about that game is if you looked down you could see your tits:afro:
Click to expand...

lol, I've never heard of this game before coming to these forums, and I always have considered myself "in the know" when it came to computer games. Sounds like it's better that I've never played it before.

Basically, from what I've read of others posts, it sounds like although Source isn't as innovative as some would like to believe with regards to physics, it integrates the physics more into the gameplay than previous titles.
 
I saw the ut2004 video, it's going to have vehicals, it seems to be bf1942 with futuristic weapons.(it looks quite good to me) Can ut2004's engine beat source engine, since ut2004 will come out later than hl2?
Click to expand...

Well, the Unreal engine hasn't changed since the 1st Unreal it's just always added to maximizing performace of the games that use it (ut2003, postal, splinter's cell, raven shield, ext) It's a good question and being a hl and Unreal fan I think they well both have their ups and downs. Ut2004 is more original than most games so, I can only hope it will be popular enough for people to see the true beauty of the engine.
 
No game is truly innovative, im sure you can find multiple games with multiple simlarities in their engines for as long as games have been created
Click to expand...

Well, of course.

BUT, people see a few barrels roll, and everybody goes " OMFG!!!! THE SOURCE ENGINE RULES ALL!!!!! Have'nt you heard? Its so 1337"


ugh.

also, everything else, like graphic effects are and will become a standard, much like lense flare did a few years back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
B
The leaked maps of the Half-Life 2 episodes - Part 2
Replies
0
Views
9K
Barnz
B
USB λ
Two Is A Coincidence, Three Is A Pattern
Replies
3
Views
2K
Sidedraft
Sidedraft
Back
Top