Jump to content

Talk:Source (game engine)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

OpenGL

the Playstation 3 version of TOB uses an OpenGL header. (According to Valve) --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to provide an actual source for that, rather than just saying "according to Valve". —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Most PS3 games don't use OpenGL, they use "libgcm". --90.227.243.216 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This presentation suggests that both LibGCM and OpenGL ES are options. Is there any way of working out which is actually used? --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
There isn't a way to tell aside from interviews with the developers. PSGL is not very common in commercial projects so it's an error to assume that it's used, which is most likely what the unsourced claim in the article does. It should be removed if no one can find a source. 71.109.111.213 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest Release

Do we really need the latest release field in the infobox? Steam makes it quite irrelevant, and its length pushes the columns all over the place. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Too much material deleted

Revision Source_%28game_engine%29&diff=226845168&oldid=226545835 deleted almost all what was in the Notable_technology paragraph, replacing it with very generic stuff. Although I think that there was too much in the previous version of this paragraph (and some of it looked a little POV too), there is not enough in the current version, and it could be deleted without problems as it does not say much about the engine. Just as an example, the comparison between dynamic lighting between versions of the engine is informative. Dynamic lighting in itself does not say much about a game capabilities, as every FPS has some. Also it is strange to explain in depth future evolutions of the engine, and say almost nothing of what is already in it (before my last change, there was nothing on HDR support in source !!!). Please note that I'm not POV here, I'm just thinking that the previous version, while a little POV, explained more about the engine capabilities than the current one. Hervegirod (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I did something about it in the Modularity chapter, but I think this is useful as it is. Hervegirod (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of this is necessary on Wikipedia. It's all documented far more precisely and reliably at the VDC wiki, and arguably isn't of interest to readers here. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I tried to add part of the previous edits (deleting a lot that was irrelevant I think). But I still think that giving a list of the major upgrades of the engine is useful, because it explains how its modularity has been used. Without this "modularity" would only have been a marketing term. However, maybe a table showing the name of the upgrade, its date, a very short text, and a link to VDS or other articles would be better. Hervegirod (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good. --Tom Edwards (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try to do that in a day or two. Hervegirod (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Hervegirod (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on Quake engine?

"Indeed given the fact that Source's 2003 code leak did not produce any such claims it can only be assumed that no incriminating evidence was to be found."

this is factual incorrect the 2003 source leak did have a lot of people going apeshit about how valve's "from scratch" claim was nothing more than some wierd marketing claim because the halflife2 source code still had a file called quakedef.h etc, nobody can find any "good" sources for this (because anybody who could qualify as a good source would never admit to getting a copy of the leak in the first place). but seriously what is it, if you look at the fact that valve never contradicted john carmack or if you go by erik johnson's comment, that's quoted in the article, he pretty much admits that the source engine is indeed a extremely modified fork of the quake-based goldsource engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.243.78 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The filename was the same but the contents were different, as I recall. Anyway, I think the article makes it quite clear that Source is indeed a fork from GoldSrc - read the quote. --Tom Edwards (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming improvements with Left 4 Dead

Feature Date of release First use Description
Post processing effects 18 November 2008 Left 4 Dead Dynamic color correction and filters like contrast, sharpening, film grain and vignetting. Used to draw the players attention, effect mood, or emulate a certain visual style.
Rendering and AI improvements 18 November 2008 Left 4 Dead Improvements to rendering and AI calculation to allow much larger number of characters to be rendered at once
Dynamic lighting and shadowing improvements 18 November 2008 Left 4 Dead Self Shadowed Normal mapping added to convey the tactile qualities of the surface (rough, smooth, gritty, etc) along with other improvements

I'll add in citations later, can anybody figure out ways to phrase these better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeith (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

my remarks below (mainly to remove past tense verbs):
  • "Improvements were added to rendering and AI calculation to allow much larger number of characters to be rendered at once" => "Improvements to rendering and AI calculation to allow much larger number of characters to be rendered at once"
  • "Self Shadowed Normal Mapping was added to convey the tactile qualities of the surface (rough, smooth, gritty, etc) along with other improvements" => "Self Shadowed Normal mapping added to convey the tactile qualities of the surface (rough, smooth, gritty, etc) along with other improvements". Also, what are the other improvements ?

Hervegirod (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

SS-Bumps were used in Ep2, and TF2, it was not introduced in L4D. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
As Left 4 Dead is released now, I added Skeith proposal. I still think that some Normal mapping improvements were added, but however I put a [citation needed] tag for the new rows. Hervegirod (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
But Left 4 Dead did not introduce SS-Bumps. The Orange Box Did. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.viddyou.com/viddstream?videoid=41607 I don't think we can cite videos so I'm looking for a text transcript of this. But this is Gabe specifically talking about SSNM and how they are a L4D feature. Skeith (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
They were introduced in the Orange Box. See this. --Tom Edwards (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm wrong or not, all I have to go off of is Valves say so. His exact quote from the video "lighting is very important in this game, so we did some work with normal mapping to introduce something called self shadowed normal mapping". I know that normal mapping is an extension of bump mapping and from what I can tell SSNM is an extension of SSBM. I've found a few interviews that specifically talk about it in L4D http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=194147 and www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2008/GameFest08_ArtInSource.pdf (pdf) Skeith (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find he was talking his company's work up a little. --Tom Edwards (talk) 13:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
SSBM = SSNM, Normal maps are a method of Bump mapping, but the two terms are used interchangably. This was added in the Orange Box, you can read a paper on the SSBM/SSNM technique on Valve's publications page. Therefore the above box should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.189.236 (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Features section

Since this is now apparently a mid-importance article, I think it's time to look again at the Modularity and notable upgrades section. It's full of technical details that don't belong in the article: do we really care that "Landscape and flora rendering" was added on October 10, 2007? This is the kind of detail that should stay on VDC. I'm also certain that Left 4 Dead's director is something that has been created specifically for the game and isn't a part of the engine itself.

I think the important updates are:

  • HDR
  • Particle system
  • Hardware facial animation (teetering on the edge of notability)
  • Multiprocessor support

The others are all run of the mill developments that could have been made to any engine with the same ease. --Tom Edwards (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

maybe also Dynamic lighting and shadowing, Physics-animation blending, and Rendering and AI improvements ? Hervegirod (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No, not at all for the reasons I gave. I'm going to implement the changes now since nobody has complained. --Tom Edwards (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it is necessary to mention, but the dynamic light(and shadow) stock code is extremely limited. Besides being full of bugs and poorly optimized, it can only support one env_projectedtexture(Dynamic shadow casting light. i.e. flashlights) in game at once, any more then the feature ceases to function properly. Just pointing it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.201.95 (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The engine supports any number of shadow maps. It's up to a particular game to define how many it needs. The same goes for the bugs I presume you're talking about: they are in the env_projectedtexture entity, not the engine. --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Licensed games section

Now that there's a template on the page performing the same job, I reckon this section is dead wood. --Tom Edwards (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

AI Director in SDK

The Modularity and notable upgrades paragraph states that The Valve have stated an intent to move Left 4 Dead's AI Director technology into the engine proper, and even of releasing it to modders as part of the Source SDK. However, neither change has yet taken place. I think that this last sentence is false or outdated. The Source wiki is full of parameters to control how the director will work. For example:

There's a whole index for Left 4 Dead Level creation. Hervegirod (talk) 16:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - Left 4 Dead level creation. It's (currently) specific to that game, and no more a feature of the engine than Striders or Pyros. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh right, I see what you mean now. By "releasing it to modders" I was thinking of releasing the source code, but I guess the interview is ambiguous on whether Doug was referring to doing that or just to "releasing" support for map editing. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As of Swarm SDK release director is available. I don't know how much of the source is available though, so someone else would probably need to look into it. Alien Swarm is the latest SDK available of the Source SDK platform. I think it probably lies inbetween Left4Dead and Left4Dead2 in terms of technology, but that's just a rough guess. 118.209.166.136 (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Upgrade ease

For last sentence. Are there any examples where a Source update move worked better than e.g. an Unreal update move?

For this we'd need to find a developer who moved their game from UE2 to UE3, like Irrational (or rather 2K whatever-they're-called-now). I don't know if they've ever talked about the experience though. There aren't many developers who have made the leap precisely because it's so much work! --Tom Edwards (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Programming

Unless someone sources this section, I'm going to remove it. Several statements read as OR or personal opinion, and zero sources exist. For example, the statement that the C++ plugin interface for source is "bulky", "insecure" or lacks "access to core systems" without any explanation or source as to why. The fact that some mods have chosen to implement LUA does not inherently show criticism. The one source that existed was for L4D2 gaining Squirrel support, which didn't support the section's position as a Criticism and was moved into the notable upgrades section. ferret (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. Much of the section is poorly written and doesn't make sense anyway. Alphathon™ (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Done ferret (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

On the removal of Left 4 Dead as a FPS

As I wrote in the undo comment, please discuss it before removal. There are already been a lengthy discussion about where to classify this game, the point of contention being that some thought it belong in the Survival Horror genre, some not. Nobody seemed to object that the game could be classified as a FPS (some valid sources did classify it as FPS). I'm not against removing it, but we should back it by valid sources, and this should be transfered also to the Left 4 Dead discussion, where the classification (the result of a discussion) put it as a FPS and Survival Horror. Hervegirod (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You might want to re-read the edit summary of the previous edit. It doesn't say that it isn't an FPS, but rather that the list is of non-FPS games, so L4D shouldn't be on it. This isn't explicitly stated in the article, but is implied by each of the games being listed along with their genre.
I'm not saying I agree with the position (I don't really care either way TBH), just pointing out that its classification as an FPS was never brought into question.
Alphathon™ (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
(Beaten by Alphathon!) This is an article about a game engine. The visual/narrative genre of L4D is irrelevant: what we should be demonstrating is the range of technical applications that Source has been put to. Every other title in the list justifies its presence with its description as an MMO, beat-em-up, etc, but L4D is just an FPS like HL2 and CSS. It could perhaps be included if the AI director became a key ability of the engine, but at the moment it seems to be game-specific. --Tom Edwards (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Toolset criticism

Again another section with non sourced OR content or non valid sources (mainly discussions on forums or mailing lists). I think it should be properly sourced, or deleted. Hervegirod (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If statements from commercial and academic users of the tools are not good sources, what on earth is? --Tom Edwards (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
My point of view is that who edited this had a preconception, and looked where he could to find something validating what he already thought, even if these sources were invalid. I'm sure it was done in good faith, but it's still invalid IMO:
  1. "The interface of Valve's Hammer Editor, the SDK's world-creation tool, has not changed significantly since its initial release for GoldSrc and the original Half-Life in 1998.": unsourced;
  2. "Third-party tools provide GUIs, but are not supported by Valve": the source is a list of third party tools listed in the developer wiki (!!), not only GUI tools, and I really don't know how the fact that third party tools are not supported by Valve can be a valid critic, because it is the same for any software developer;
  3. "The Source SDK tools are criticised for being outdated and difficult to use.": the second source is a message in the hlcoders mailing list by an individual, it can not be considered valid. The first source date from 2006, from a diary, itself from a game developer which web site does not exist any more, and for which we have no idea if it is reliable, or a valid source, or not. It can very much be only one individual which had created its own software company at the time.
  4. The only valid source is the one from the University of London, but the post itself does not talk at all about "obtuseness", but mention the fact that "the requirement to create 'qc' files and compile models before even reaching the engine puts time constraints on the process that make it laborious for architectural models to be visualised".
Which is the reason why I don't think the section is valid as it is. I'm not against critics on the Source engine, there sure are some valid critics on the web, but these one are not based on anything solid IMO. The only text that could be salvaged here is the one mentioning the Univesity of London project, but again I would like to see more that this one post, and the text in the paragraph says more than the text says Hervegirod (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The section was initially written by myself and AFAIK has not changed much since then. I'm an experienced Source developer and am capable of using all its tools without issue, which could bias me either way I suppose. The sources are simply the ones that I have come across over the years.
  1. Hammer's UI not changing is easily sourced: This page contains a screenshot from 2000. Going further back should be a matter of finding an old enough release of the Half-Life SDK!
  2. This is merely an addendum to the criticism that Valve's tools are non-GUI.
  3. The individual is Jed, a respected community leader whose replacement development tools are used by everyone up to and including commercial engine licensees. The mailing list is Valve's own, read by the people who make the engine and tools. It is a reputable person commenting in a reliable place. These two things certainly ought to be explained. The company was indeed an independent developer, but as the content on their site shows a completely serious one. I don't think the fact that they didn't survive makes them any less reliable.
  4. Perhaps "obtuse" should be replaced by "laborious"?
Given the subject matter, I think these are acceptable sources. We aren't going to find anything in the NY Times! --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I regret what I wrote at the beginning of my answer, because I know you are not that kind of person, and I painted yourself in a bad light, which you did not deserve, but I my concerns remain. I don't have the time to answer now (it's late in France), but I will tomorrow. Hervegirod (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

PS3 Support in Modularity and notable upgrades?

With the Portal 2 release a month or so away, shouldn't there be a section on PS3 support under Modularity and notable upgrades? --Powerlord (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A good question. It depends on how they did it. If it's like the Xbox and you can port simply by recompiling your code then yes, but if it's a separate branch then it isn't much different to "normal" engine platform support IMO. --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
PS3 support isn't a new feature of the Source engine that comes with Portal 2. HL2 and several other games are already released on the PS3 and the engine is already described as supporting PS3. For example the second line of "notable technology" includes a note that OpenGL is used by the Source engine on PS3. Are you thinking about the Steam functionality? That IS new, but would be in the Steam article, not this one. ferret (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The previous version was a port by EA, was not available to licensees, and was crap. Portal 2 is a brand new attempt. --Tom Edwards (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Linux

There have long been rumours that Postal III will be released on Linux with a ported Source engine. There are several reasons why I don't think this should be in the article yet:

  1. It isn't out yet.
  2. The latest news is that the developers have "no immediate plans" to release a Linux version of the game.
  3. It would seem that any Linux port of Postal 3 which might exist is the work of a development team in Russia, not Valve. This means that the port is highly unlikely to ever be offered to Source licensees (i.e. officially become part of the engine).

--Tom Edwards (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To add to that, Phoronix remains the sole source of information, with no other reliable sources to back it up. Every article found on various other sites have directly referenced a Phoronix post as their source as well. I'd also like to point out that the Phoronix article most recently used for this states that this would have occurred in May, a date that has clearly passed without a release or any other announcements from other sources, which would again indicate the article is speculation.
Until Valve does an OFFICIAL port of the engine, then it doesn't exist. ferret (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Linux again, Phoronix remains the only source with all other sources citing Phoronix. Please also see related talk at Talk:Steam (software)#Steam Linux Client -- ferret (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Email from Gabe citing Steam for Linux release. I've sent the email to Phoronix, they should run the story soon. 82.15.67.221 (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ageing/Aging

Ageing is British, Aging is American. As Steam and Valve are American companies and none of the rest of the article to my knowledge follows any particular British conventions, it'd probably be best to just go with Aging, as random IPs (Probably US) are going to continuously revert it. ferret (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether IPs are going to keep editing it back (that seems to be giving in to editors who are potentially disobeying the policy against changing articles to their preferred form of English… I forget what it's called/where it is so can't link it), it would seem that WP:TIES applies for the reasons you gave. As such, I'd say use "aging". Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It's also relevant to note that I believe it was originally "aging" until Tom changed it a month or two ago. ferret (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It's also relevant to note my memory was faulty, a month ago was when an IP user changed it to aging and Tom changed it back. ferret (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, when I searched Google for "aging" I must have had the filter set to UK sites only. I only saw ageing so concluded that it was a spelling error. --Tom Edwards (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hang on: Aging redirects to Ageing. Policy is that there is no preference between UK/US English, but also that there should be "consistency within articles"...but what about when the actual article for a term clashes with the one used? --Tom Edwards (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Whenever I wan to check something like that my first port of call is usually Wiktionary (although any info there has the same potential problems as here, so take it with a pinch of salt). It carries pretty much all forms of English, and usually gives alternative forms used in other regions. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the variety of English that a particular article uses has any bearing (policy-wise) on whether that form is used within articles - that is determined by the articles themselves. There are plenty of articles in British English that link to American English articles and vice-versa. As far as I can tell, the policy on the form of English to use is basically:
  1. Does the article have specific ties to a particular English-speaking nation?
    • If yes, use that form per WP:TIES.
    • Else, go to 2
  2. Is it already in a single, standardised form of English?
    • If yes, leave it as it is per WP:RETAIN
    • Else, go to 3
  3. When the article was created, did the creator use a specific form?
    • If yes, use that form.
    • Else, go to 4
  4. Standardise to any format you choose.
... while using as much common language/spellings as possible per WP:COMMONALITY.
Valve is a US company, so WP:TIES would seem to apply. There is nothing in the MOS that I can find that refers to choosing a form of English based on the form that articles about a word/concept use in their articles.
Believe me, I'd much rather use British English (and so "ageing") but WP:TIES seems to apply.
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noted that just because the article ageing uses en-GB, doesn't mean the Wikipedia "prefers" that spelling; the article has to use some form of English, and the redirect is simply per point 2 under WP:COMMONALITY. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I have changed it with WP:TIES as the rational. In addition, I'd like to note that my Firefox spell check flags "Ageing" as a spelling error, which is an interesting issue. I would suspect this would lead to many conflicts in many articles as American users are making edits, see ageing with a red squiggly, so change it, without considering the context of the English form the article is written in. ferret (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
You probably have a US dictionary installed then (for Firefox there isn't one installed by default AFAIK). I use both US and GB dictionaries and switch between them depending on the circumstances. (I also have a German one and one for (English) scientific/medical terms.) Once you have 2+ installed you can switch from the right-click menu. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Source an unusual game engine

In the opening paragraph of this page on the Source engine:

"Unusually for a game engine, Source has been designed to receive constant incremental updates and does not have a meaningful version numbering scheme.[1]"

Where reference 1 is:

"^ a b Crossley, Rob (12th May 2011). "Valve on Source and studio culture". Develop Magazine. Retrieved 14 August 2011. "We have as many people working on our tools as we have working on a single project. So, about twenty to thirty core people."

I cannot find in the article anything that supports the statement in this page's opening paragraph. I don't believe it to be unusual for game engines to be as modular as possible, and receiving of regular updates. Also, the comment that the Source engine does not have any meaningful version numbering scheme, well, "Stable release Build 4932 / 2012" pretty much is the same thing isn't it? It seems to me as though this is trying to make the Source engine sound more unique than it actually is; at the very least the claims aren't evidenced properly.

Kiwi Man (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, Source Engine 2 has begun to surface. -- ferret (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I added the original statement ("updates to Source are not released in discrete packages with version numbers") and later mangled it and added the bad reference. The sentence is meant to describe how Valve treat Source as one contiguous product instead of splitting it up into separately-licensed versions like their competitors do (Epic, CryTek, arguably Unity). The fact that it has a build number and even a version number (40 in Dota 2) doesn't mean anything at all. Source 2 might signal a change, but it remains to be seen whether the name change is driven by tech/licensing or by PR. --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Does not have meaningful version numbers"

This isn't actually true. The SDK's have the meaningful numbers. I learned this reading about Black Mesa: Source coming out in a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.254.233 (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Source Engine 2

I have doubts about this rumored engine, even though I've seen the actual files myself. Has someone actually checked each source? -017Bluefield (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't check every source, because it's really not necessary. The statement is linkbombed as is. I checked joystik and gamespy, both RS's, and that's what they report. -- ferret (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit

I removed the copyedit tag from the front after doing a copyedit. Is my edit not enough or should the whole thing be rewritten entirely? BlueRoll18 (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Source_(game_engine)/Archive_2&oldid=1145710851"