Source vs UE3

[Crusader]

Somebody is just trolling to create one

 

[Devilphish]

I see it is difficult to discuss Source here reasonably without people getting defensive and argumentative because they feel the half-life franchise is under attack, which was never the case. The subject was wether Source will be liscensed for future games. There is no reasont o get defensive here and start calling names.

Your confusing Half-Life2 with Valve's Source Engine that it runs on.

No, I'm not. He worded it so that it sounded like he was talking about a unified lighting system being added to hl2 through Steam, which will never happen. They may update Source with a unified lighting system(we don't know), but never hl2. He used the words "through Steam", so it sounds like thats what he meant.

I remember Valve saying that Half-Life3 would have DirectX9 as a minimum. They have also said that Source is a very modular design and components can quite easily be added or removed.

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we are talking about. I'm sure Valve can update Source with a unified lighting system if they wanted to. But it isn't updated RIGHT NOW. If you are liscensing a engine for a game in 2006/2007, you are liscensing the engine RIGHT NOW. Lightmaps will be obsolete and dead in 2006/2007, so who would you chose a lightmap based engine when there are other engines which will look killer in 2006/2007 with no or little updating. This is why I don't think Source wil lbe used very much, because there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to liscense the engine now for a game coming out in 2006/2007.

I think Epic revealed the new Unreal Tech this early, partly because they feel threatened by so many other game companies that are now easily able to rival or beat their newest tech. Unreal3 looks good but will be no better than the competition

No. They are showing it now because right now is the time developers need to liscense the tech if they are developing a game for the 2006/2007 timeframe. The engine is designed to run on hardware at that time, so they are pushing it to be liscensed by games that will come out at that time. because of that, Source and UE3 is on the same level in the eyes of a developer. You people say they are not comparable, you are wrong. A developer looking to liscense and engine for the 2006/2007 timeframe has to look at the conditions of the engines right now and what they will have to change to get it up-to-date for the projected release date. Source needs too much work it get it at UE3 level, and they have no incentive to use Source. Thats all I'm saying.

If the current Source engine is cheaper to license than the Unreal3 engine, and more flexible, then that will weigh heavily on who developers choose to lease from.

There is no reason to believe Source is more flexible than the UE3 or Doom3 tech. Cheaper by a couple hundred thousand is a small matter for a high budget title. These games cost tens of millions to develope. Doom3 is the most pricey of them all, yet it is liscensed more than the other engines already(that we know of, and you can be sure there are some Doom3 liscenses we don't know of as well). It's priced high for a reason, it will be in high demand in the coming years because it's a damn fine engine.

Games like Call of Duty are choosing 3 year old engines like the Quake3 Engine over the current Unreal Engine, and that was and is one the best selling games of 2003.

Quake3 and Unreal engines use similar lighting techniques, unlike the debate at hand where one engine(Source) is using a technique that in 2 years time will be obsolete. Besides that, Quake3 has dominated for so long for a good reason. It was built to. Carmack makes lasting technology, and he has again with Doom3. He says Doom3 tech will dominate for the next 5 years, I believe him.

I wouldn't be to sure about that.. source saves money for developers.. its a hybrid engine.. they can update the rendering engine with new modules and features instead of buying unreal engine 3 for 300.000 and having to buy unreal engine 4 for 300.000 if you want better graphics for the sequel.

All engines can be updated. Source doesn't hold a monopoly on updatable engines.

I think to much emphasis is put into the renderer. It's only about 15% of the final code base!

And it's only about the most important element to how the world is precieved by the player, which is only about the most important aspect of a game.

Whats the argument here? That Source's lighting is outdated and it won't be updated?

The argument here is that Source is no competition for other engines right now. Wether it will be updated to match other engines is not known, but developers liscensing engines for games in the 2006/2007 timeframe are liscensing engines RIGHT NOW and RIGHT NOW Source is too far behind for there to be any incentive to liscense it.

As I'm more of a gamer than a Techie I'll simply say this "HL2, U3 and Doom3 look good in their own regards and that'l be that"

Again, I'm not bringing the games into the argument. I'm just speculating on which engines will be the proper choice for future games, and Source engine doesn't stack up in it's current form. hl2 looks fine, but it wouldn't look fine if it was coming out late 2006. Thats the whole point.

 

[Styloid]

My point, Devilphish (if that is your real name), is that your whole argument that Source is an inferior engine is based on:
1. Real-time shadows is some sort of holy grail of graphics that few devs can dream of implementing
2. That Source cannot be updated to implement real-time shadows in the future when we have already seen both Quake1 and Unreal2 engines have been modded to include this feature.
Both of which are incorrect.

 

[Devilphish]

You still don't get it Styloid(if that is your real name). I am saying nothing of the sort.

1. Real-time shadows is some sort of holy grail of graphics that few devs can dream of implementing

My argument has nothing to do with this idea, which is not even mine. I'm not saying it is some secret trick that is over Valve's head. But the fact that any developer could impliment it doesn't change the fact that a unified lighting system is the most important step in putting graphics on the next level that we could possibly make at this time, and that it will be the standard for next generation games. Wether it is a revolution or not has nothing to do with how hard it is to impliment, or how common it is. I'm sure Valve is capable of putting in such a system. The point is they havn't. What they may or may not do in the future doesn't have much of a bearing on the subject at hand, and it is useless to speculate. The point is that at the present Source does not have this system and therefore is a poor candidate for developers looking to release a game in 2006/2007.

2. That Source cannot be updated to implement real-time shadows in the future when we have already seen both Quake1 and Unreal2 engines have been modded to include this feature.

I have never said anything like this either, nor have I ever suggested it. I have said already that I know very well Source could be modified to have a unified lighting system. But this has nothing to do with the argument I am putting forth and which you are having such a hard time grasping. If Valve puts in a unified lighting system in Source very soon, Source may have a chance competeing with UE3 engines and Doom3 technology for 2006/2007 titles. It depends on how well Valve impliments the system. But until they do, Source is not the ideal choice for future games. The whole point is that they havn't done it yet, and that there is no guarantee that they will. they havn't even mentioned doing it. the only updates they have mentioned is a few shader updates and highres texture packs for hl2. That is all. I'm positive they will put a unified lighting system in before hl3 comes out, but that has no bearing on developers who may want to liscense the engine now.

ATM, there is no incentive to liscense Source over UE3 or Doom3 technology for 2006/2007 titles. Thats all I'm saying. That may or may not change at some point in the future if Valve makes some heavy updates to Source, but speculating on that, or assuming they will before hl3, is useless. I suggest you go back and read my posts, as you seem to have no idea what I am saying at all.

Both of which are incorrect.

Incorrect, I agree. The problem is these are not my arguments, nor my beliefs, nor have I suggested such.

 

[Gorgon]

source with UE3.0 that is pointless.........?/|%^&*(

 

[Devilphish]

source with UE3.0 that is pointless.........?/|%^&*(

No, it isn't. If a developer wants to liscense an engine for a 2006/2007 game, he will have to look at Source AS IT IS NOW, and other engines such as UE3 as it is now, and decide. ATM Source is too far behind UE3 level engines that it can't compete, and there are no strong incentives to go with it. Developers looking to liscense and engine will indeed compare Source to UE3 in their current states and weigh how much work will have to be done to each engine to accomidate their game. Source needs a lot of work, in UE3 the updates are already done for them and the engine has been optimized for a unified lighting system.

 

[lans]

No, it isn't. If a developer wants to liscense an engine for a 2006/2007 game, he will have to look at Source AS IT IS NOW, and other engines such as UE3 as it is now, and decide. ATM Source is too far behind UE3 level engines that it can't compete, and there are no strong incentives to go with it. Developers looking to liscense and engine will indeed compare Source to UE3 in their current states and weigh how much work will have to be done to each engine to accomidate their game. Source needs a lot of work, in UE3 the updates are already done for them and the engine has been optimized for a unified lighting system.

But really - the two developers who have chosen the source engine (troika and arkane) are aiming to release the games which they'll make this or next year. I'm very sure that developers who'll make adventure or rpg games in the future will be more intrested in source's facial expression technology rather than dynamic lighting/shadows which just don't add that much to story or immersive gameplay. Agreed your argument is on source's lighting techniques, but it more than compensates for that in other fields.

 

[Devilphish]

RPGs are a whole new topic, I'm arguing for FPS. RPGs obviously have needs that differ from common FPS. Source's facial expression system is nice, but it is all Source has going for it when compared to other engines. I really don't think it's a major thing unless you are doing a game like bloodlines where you have a ton of NPC conversations going on. Graphics have never been a major aspect of immersion for an RPG, it is designed to immerse through story and NPC interaction. For a FPS it is different.

But those developers have been working on their game for quite a while now, and as you said they are due out in a years time. I'm talking about games just for which technology is just now being liscensed for and later. For a game not due out for 2 or 3 years, even an FPRPG, I don't see any incentive to go with Source even with it's facial animation system.

 

[fido]

No. They are showing it now because right now is the time developers need to liscense the tech if they are developing a game for the 2006/2007 timeframe. The engine is designed to run on hardware at that time, so they are pushing it to be liscensed by games that will come out at that time. because of that, Source and UE3 is on the same level in the eyes of a developer. You people say they are not comparable, you are wrong. A developer looking to liscense and engine for the 2006/2007 timeframe has to look at the conditions of the engines right now and what they will have to change to get it up-to-date for the projected release date. Source needs too much work it get it at UE3 level, and they have no incentive to use Source. Thats all I'm saying.
There is no reason to believe Source is more flexible than the UE3 or Doom3 tech. Cheaper by a couple hundred thousand is a small matter for a high budget title. These games cost tens of millions to develope. Doom3 is the most pricey of them all, yet it is liscensed more than the other engines already(that we know of, and you can be sure there are some Doom3 liscenses we don't know of as well). It's priced high for a reason, it will be in high demand in the coming years because it's a damn fine engine.

Actually a developer will probably first look at the kind of hardware people will have to run their game in 2006. It's my guess that for PC games, Unreal3 engine has overestimated people's willingness to upgrade. The next major upgrade for consumers may be for games coming out around the time of Half-Life2 and Doom3, and most of these people will not upgrade for the next 3 years . We'll have to wait and see the specs for the next generation consoles, to see if they can run Unreal3 properly. If you have to turn down all the features to run the game, then it's wasted effort.

Source needs too much work to get it at UE3 level.

Most of the things demonstrated for Unreal3 are already implemented in Source, and nobody knows how much work Valve will have to do to outmatch the Unreal3 engine. For all we know they have an updated version of Source sitting in the Fridge that blows Unreal3 engine away :thumbs:

 

[Styloid]

Oh, so we are talking about NOW as in the present where the majority of people (including me) still have mid-range computers and where pretty graphics comes with a price in performance and in amount of other features (AI, physics, etc) the dev wants to add in. I thought we were talking about the future where hardware limitations will hardly be an issue. Nevermind then.

 

[Devilphish]

This whole discussion must have just gone way over your head Styloid, I don't think your any closer to catching on.

 

[Lanthanide]

Devilphish - I think you're generally quite correct, however you need to take into consideration the state of the engines and how easy they will be to work with.

Source right now is apparently finished, so if someone were to start developing a game, they could have a fairly detailed long-range design. There may be some updates from Valve along the way, but Valve would probably keep the developers up to date on when to expect updates and what'll be in it.

Whereas the U3 engine is still under development, so a company using it now wouldn't be as able to make long-term plans, and some features may drop out or be significantly altered over the course of development, would could hurt the developer's ability to, well, develop.


I guess if what you're saying about the complexity of changing from lightmaps to a unified lighting system is correct, though, anyone who started developing on Source right now would have a big hurdle to jump when/if valve implemented a ULS, whereas if they used the D3 or U3 engine as-is they would not have this (specific) problem.


Having said that, though - there's no reason to use Source over Doom 3 (from a pure graphics/rendering stand-point), because the D3 engine -is- finished.

 

[^Ben]

I think source engine is the next Q3 engine in terms of licensing.

Why?

Because it runs great on older hardware is hella flexible in what you want game the developer would want to create. And apart from the lighting technologies used which would honestly would not take more then probably half a year to a year to implement. It can do everything the UE3.0 engine can do.

Shaders? Check!
Displacment Mapping? Well it's just a shader so that's a check!
HDR? Check!
All those pretty effects in the UE3.0 techdemo vid? Shaders again Check!
As it stands at the moment better phys engine implementation then UE3.0 Check!
Large Terrains? Check!
Vehciles? Check!
Tools? Check!
Better performance on past hardware? Check!
Xbox 1 support? Check!
And a whole bunch of other things? Check!

And probably the most important aspect that a developer would consider. Is the engine complete? Check!

All games that have used a unified lighting system have mainly been indoors afairs with tricks for when they go outside. Because the power it takes when the player goes outside is tremendous on the cpu and GPU.

Ok tired NN.

 

[Devilphish]

I think source engine is the next Q3 engine in terms of licensing.

That would be the Doom3 engine. Source is liscensed to 2 RPGs so far. The only reason those two are interested is because they are RPGs and would benefit from the lip-synch. Doom3 is already liscensed to 5 titles, both major SP titles and MP titles. Doom3 will dominate until Carmack's next engine.

 

[Crusader]

Yeah, just like Quake 3 did

Not!

 

[acme420]

wow

what does a new engine in development not due for another 3-4 years have over an engine developed 4-6 years ago?


hmmmm i wonder.


what a dumbass thread.

 

[Shuzer]

wow

what does a new engine in development not due for another 3-4 years have over an engine developed 4-6 years ago?


hmmmm i wonder.


what a dumbass thread.

Source is an ongoing project, it wasn't developed 6 years ago...
Anyhow, you going to create another thread now? "what mouse sensitivity will you use in hl2!!!? me i won't use a mouse because i have a life"

No, but seriously, don't flame a topic just because your short-sighted views block you from seeing the good in any such thread.

 

[Agent.M]

Doom3 will dominate until Carmack's next engine.

Doubt that but it will be a good engine.

 

[Devilphish]

Then what do you think will dominate? There isn't any engine out there better suited to dominate as we move into the next generation. I doubt UE3 will be any more popular with developers than Unreal2 engine was, and the only reason it got liscensed as much as it did is because by the time Unreal2 came out the Quake3 engine was starting to show it's age. Source isn't really up to the task in it's current form, and I doubt it will undergoe any major updates for quite a while(late 2005/early2006 most likely). And by the time it does it will be even further behind Doom3 technology as it is updated. I think some people are under the impression that Doom3 the game is Doom3 the engine in all it's glory, this isn't so. Alot was cut out of Doom3 the game because of hardware limitations, such as fuzzy shadows and a more robust ambient lighting system, and the texture resolution is somewhat low.

 

[Kazuki_Fuse]

Alot was cut out of Doom3 the game because of hardware limitations, such as fuzzy shadows and a more robust ambient lighting system, and the texture resolution is somewhat low.

Correct me if I'm wrong. but doesn't the Source already support "fuzzy" shadows? I believe that the doom 3 engine hasn't shown all it's power though. look at Star Trek: Elite Force 2 compared to the original Q3Arena... I don't think you've seen the best from source's capabilities either, and in my opinion, HL2 already looks better than doom 3...

 

[Neutrino]

Correct me if I'm wrong. but doesn't the Source already support "fuzzy" shadows? I believe that the doom 3 engine hasn't shown all it's power though. look at Star Trek: Elite Force 2 compared to the original Q3Arena... I don't think you've seen the best from source's capabilities either, and in my opinion, HL2 already looks better than doom 3...

Ya, source has soft shadowing because it uses precalculated light maps. D3 does not have soft shadows because it uses fully dynamic stencil shadows, although it can have soft projected shadows. (Not true shadows, but one's projected as an image)

Now UE3 does have dynamic soft shadows, but it's still not really true soft shadows. They said in the latest video that they have two light maps one not blurred and the other very blurred and then interpolate between the two based on distance to get the effect.

 

[Devilphish]

Correct me if I'm wrong. but doesn't the Source already support "fuzzy" shadows?

Yes, but Source's shadowing system is very primitive and flawed, and riddled with drawbacks. Doom3 shadows are on a whole new level.

HL2 already looks better than doom 3...

In what ways?

 

[Shuzer]

I just realized Devilphish is EvilEwok's "new disguise!"
High five for me! :thumbs:

 

[The Terminator]

source pwns

Maybe the fact that the D3 engine is gonna be a resource hog and that source can scale to all systems? That seems like a reason it might dominate. Vast outdoor areas in D3 engine? BAM, nope. Source is more versitile and with the way Valve supports current software and how they say they will support source makes me believe that source will pwn all engines for the next 2 years.

 

[Neutrino]

Vast outdoor areas in D3 engine? BAM, nope.

How do you know that? I know a lot of people assume that, but I've never read anything that shows that that is true. If you have a link then great, but if not then let's just wait till we see what it can do when it comes out. You may very well be right of course, but I'm betting it can do reasonably large outdoor areas.

 

[Devilphish]

Maybe the fact that the D3 engine is gonna be a resource hog and that source can scale to all systems? That seems like a reason it might dominate. Vast outdoor areas in D3 engine? BAM, nope. Source is more versitile and with the way Valve supports current software and how they say they will support source makes me believe that source will pwn all engines for the next 2 years.

Except for your comment on outdoor areas, those are reasonable arguments if we are talking about games coming out now. But we aren't, we are talking about the years to come. In 2005/2006/2007 the argument that Doom3 engine is too demanding no longer holds any weight.

EDIT: And yes, Doom3 engine can infact do large outdoor areas when Doom3 will be released.

 

[blahblahblah]

How do you know that? I know a lot of people assume that, but I've never read anything that shows that that is true. If you have a link then great, but if not then let's just wait till we see what it can do when it comes out. You may very well be right of course, but I'm betting it can do reasonably large outdoor areas.

I've heard it is quite possible, but the lighting was supposedly an issue (ie any area with a shadow was pitch black, global illumination problems). I remember reading that Carmack created some type of work around. I wish I could remember where I read that. :|

 

[Styloid]

What is over my head exactly?
First you said that Source would not be useful in the future the reason being it does not use real-time shadows. Then, when it was pointed out to you that real-time shadows could very possibly be added into Source in the future (like what other engines have been modded to do), you said Source is not useful in the present; when real-time shadows still are ugly and are a huge resource hog limiting other features.

In between you followed troll protocol exactly by pretending to be unbiased, calling other people wrong, then calling other people fanboys and posting more than anyone else as if you had something important to say. I assume you've had plenty of practise.

 

[DrJones]

Since the Source engine is modular doesn't that mean that it will be really easy to add new nextgen stuff later on?

 

[Devilphish]

Styloid, I don't understand why it is so hard for you to follow this discussion. I never said Source wasn't usefull in the present, I said the exact opposite. That it still has use for games coming out this year and in 2005. And I never said Source couldn't be added to. I said the exact opposite multiple times, that I know very well it can be added to, but we have no information on what those additions might be aside from superficial modifications such as new shader support when it is available. IIRC I called no one a fanboy or said any particular person was flat out wrong. If your going to debate this you will have to pull your head out of your ass for 2 minutes and actually pay attention to what has been said. All of your posts up to this point have been nothing but misrepresentations of my arguments. You argue against points that I havn't even made or suggested in my posts. If my posts are too hard for you to follow maybe you should consider lurking until you have a firm grasp on the concept of conversing in written form.

Amazing

 

[Lanthanide]

Styloid - I'm completely on Devilphish's side on this one, all of your replies have showen a lack of comprehension about what he has -actually- been saying, which, all along, has been that in 2006/2007, the source engine as it is in it's current state will look like crap, and that for a developer to pick an engine right now in order to deliver a game in 2006/2007, there's no reason to choose source over U3 or D3.

 

[Sparta]

No offense DevilPhish, but i'd prefer to play a game where the bad guys dont look and shine like action figure's.

 

[Lanthanide]

Avoid farcry then

 

[EVIL]

No, I'm not. He worded it so that it sounded like he was talking about a unified lighting system being added to hl2 through Steam, which will never happen. They may update Source with a unified lighting system(we don't know), but never hl2. He used the words "through Steam", so it sounds like thats what he meant.



This doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we are talking about. I'm sure Valve can update Source with a unified lighting system if they wanted to. But it isn't updated RIGHT NOW. If you are liscensing a engine for a game in 2006/2007, you are liscensing the engine RIGHT NOW. Lightmaps will be obsolete and dead in 2006/2007, so who would you chose a lightmap based engine when there are other engines which will look killer in 2006/2007 with no or little updating. This is why I don't think Source wil lbe used very much, because there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to liscense the engine now for a game coming out in 2006/2007.



No. They are showing it now because right now is the time developers need to liscense the tech if they are developing a game for the 2006/2007 timeframe. The engine is designed to run on hardware at that time, so they are pushing it to be liscensed by games that will come out at that time. because of that, Source and UE3 is on the same level in the eyes of a developer. You people say they are not comparable, you are wrong. A developer looking to liscense and engine for the 2006/2007 timeframe has to look at the conditions of the engines right now and what they will have to change to get it up-to-date for the projected release date. Source needs too much work it get it at UE3 level, and they have no incentive to use Source. Thats all I'm saying.




There is no reason to believe Source is more flexible than the UE3 or Doom3 tech. Cheaper by a couple hundred thousand is a small matter for a high budget title. These games cost tens of millions to develope. Doom3 is the most pricey of them all, yet it is liscensed more than the other engines already(that we know of, and you can be sure there are some Doom3 liscenses we don't know of as well). It's priced high for a reason, it will be in high demand in the coming years because it's a damn fine engine.




Quake3 and Unreal engines use similar lighting techniques, unlike the debate at hand where one engine(Source) is using a technique that in 2 years time will be obsolete. Besides that, Quake3 has dominated for so long for a good reason. It was built to. Carmack makes lasting technology, and he has again with Doom3. He says Doom3 tech will dominate for the next 5 years, I believe him.



All engines can be updated. Source doesn't hold a monopoly on updatable engines.



And it's only about the most important element to how the world is precieved by the player, which is only about the most important aspect of a game.



The argument here is that Source is no competition for other engines right now. Wether it will be updated to match other engines is not known, but developers liscensing engines for games in the 2006/2007 timeframe are liscensing engines RIGHT NOW and RIGHT NOW Source is too far behind for there to be any incentive to liscense it.



Again, I'm not bringing the games into the argument. I'm just speculating on which engines will be the proper choice for future games, and Source engine doesn't stack up in it's current form. hl2 looks fine, but it wouldn't look fine if it was coming out late 2006. Thats the whole point.

Fan boy VS fanboys Who will WIN!!!

 

[Devilphish]

Styloid - I'm completely on Devilphish's side on this one, all of your replies have showen a lack of comprehension about what he has -actually- been saying, which, all along, has been that in 2006/2007, the source engine as it is in it's current state will look like crap, and that for a developer to pick an engine right now in order to deliver a game in 2006/2007, there's no reason to choose source over U3 or D3.

YES! Finally some back up on that! I couldn't figure out what was going on with the guy. I think he just assumes I'm a troll with no valid point so he doesn't read my posts and assumes he knows what I'm saying. meh..

Sparta, I don't see it. Post a screen to demonstrate. I see it in Farcry, not so much in Doom3.

EDIT: What am I a fanboy of exactly? I havn't shown bias for any particular game. I'm not even talking games, I'm talking technology. I don't favor any particular game(we havn't even played them yet ;o ) or technology, I'm just being realistic.

 

[brink's]

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/doom3/screens.html?page=80
looks like plastic to me.

 

[Devilphish]

I don't see any plastic. Which surfaces in particular look off to you in that screen?

 

[Lanthanide]

Yes, it's sad that whenever someone shows some actual knowledge, thought and sense and decide to show this in a well-thought-out and well-written manner, that they are accused of being a "fanboy".

The chest area of that skeleton 'thing' does look a little plastic-y.

 

[brink's]

The main skulldude in that pic in my opinion looks plastic. But seriously of HL2 and Doom3s graphics are do diverse and "special" in there own way you can't compare and say this looks better without going nowhere.

 

[Neutrino]

About the complaint that D3 looks like "plastic"....it looks to me like this is due to the diffuse maps being a bit too uniform and the spec maps being to exagerated. However, I highly doubt this will be that noticable in game once the action starts.