Talk:Source (game engine)

Source based on Havoc Engine

Hey i edited the page to say that the source engine was based off of the Havoc Engine, but i dont have any pages cited for it (if someone could please find them, i dont know where to). Only thing is, im not sure if the entire Source Engine was based on the Havoc Engine or if just the physics part of the Source Engine was based off of Havoc. I never specified within the article which it is, but i created the impression that it was the entire engine.

This is exactly why you don't do things without sources. Havok is a physics engine, and it was used by Valve to build only a single part of Source. The engine in general most certainly isn't based off it. I've already reverted your edits, so don't worry about it. --Tom Edwards 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Allright thanks. --Jared Simmons 9:06, January 30 2007

UI

Methinks it would be a good idea to specify which "UI" it's referring to in the first paragraph of the Introductin, since just UI gives a disambiguation page, and, uh, call me unobservant but I honestly can't figure out which one it's referring to. ^^; --Yar Kramer 6 July 2005 04:10 (UTC)

can someone please tell me why it says that the source engine is on ps3?

nothing is cited, and i have never read this anywhere.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/halflife2episode2/news.html?sid=6156496 This article says that HL2 is to be released on the PS3 at the same time as the 360 version.

Additional comment to the "Looping Audio" section.

I was thinking about adding this but could not think of a way to word it correctly, but the comment "Because of the nature of DirectX, once the engine enters such a state it will remain on the screen unless the user can blindly terminate the program, or reboots their computer" is incorrect if the OS is running the Security System of Windows. You can verify this in WinXP Pro by turning off the "Use the Welcome Screen" option in the User Accounts menu in the control panel, then when you hit ctrl-alt-del it will bring up a standard NT style "Windows Security" dialog, which will interrupt any application, even when a DirectX application has locked up in the way listed. It's a failsafe to the Security system, one that sadly isn't enabled by default. --Vash63 9 May 2006.

That works in XP Home too. That will be a useful tip when a game next crashes, thanks! --Tom Edwards 12:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not relevant, but this crash has happened to me about a million times in Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike: Source, and Team Fortress 2. I've never played Episode 1, although I imagine it wouldn't be any better

Picture Change

Methinks the picture should be the source logo, rather than a hl2 screenshot, since it describes the capabilites (as far as I know) of the Havok engine; which should also be mentioned. Jackpot Den 22:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Control-section

I deleted the section "control", where someone complained about a problem concerning the handling of ladders. I deleted this section. Bugs in the control system are not engine bugs. --85.216.45.222 14:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

deleted "half life: deathmatch"

Is not half life deathmatch just part of the half life game? You do not see any other games' multiplayer components being listed as seperate games. Only Counter Strike Source deserves that distinction, since it was developed independently and essentially included as a bonus.

Cinematic physics "guess"

Tom Edwards: this must not have been clear. Although what I wrote about Cinematic Physics was a "guess" of sorts, the version you reverted back to is much more of a guess, and rather an absurd one at that. Saying that the Havok engine would interpolate between keyframes is.. well.. that's just not how keyframes work. The best reasonable guess is what I wrote: that keyframes are defined and Havok supplements. I've re-inserted my writing with an emphasis on the fact that this is mostly speculation. If you feel there's a better way to express that this is speculation, please do. :) --midkay 12:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Interpolated is your word...:-p

What we've got here is one of two options. Either physics does its stuff with keyframes as constraints and targets (see Endorphin (software) for a similar and slightly more complex system), or a relatively simple base animation is supplemented with physics-powered details. The latter could be achieved with small tweaks the current system, which makes me think that the former is more likely. But of course, we can't say either way right now. So how's this:

Cinematic Physics supports a keyframe system, but its exact nature is currently unclear. It could be that an animator creates a largely complete but low-detail sequence which then sees details added by the physics system, or it could be that an animator creates a handful of single-frame states which are then used as constraints and targets for the ensuing simulation (in a manner not dissimilar to the Endorphin NaturalMotion technology). Either method results in a drastic reduction of developer input, thus allowing the creation of far more complex scenes than before with the same budget. It is currently unclear both whether or not keyframes are strictly required, and what number are needed to create a scene as complex as the bridge collapse demonstration.

--Tom Edwards 12:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I still don't believe the Endorphin-type method to be very likely (Havok already has constraints, and their product for 3ds max which uses the same engine doesn't do anything like the Endorphin stuff), that's a perfectly clear way to put it. :) As long as the first speculation about the "physics engine interpolating between the keyframes" isn't what we're suggesting.. --midkay 19:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rendering

It should be included that HDR isnt included in HL2, or at least it isnt fully included. Also, I don't think VALVe will update the source engine for HL2. Or am I totally wrong?

And the Sin Episodes version does not include HDR in any form, though its using the Source engine.

Hl2, EP1 has something called "color correction", anything to add?

Cybesystem 23:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Game-level stuff belongs in game articles. Color Correction is already present under the Cinematic effects heading. --Tom Edwards 07:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rating

Who rated this article, and why on earth is it only Start-class? Where is its entry on Essential articles? --Tom Edwards 07:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

History here says PresN did that yesterday. Is there a problem with this? I still consider myself a bit new to Wikipedia. --Gamer007 08:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't rate an article whenever you feel like it. ;-) It goes through comitee and other such things. None of which have happened here. --Tom Edwards 08:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, anyone can rate the article whatever they feel like. I'd rate it a B class myself, change it if you want. It's only a general guideline, you have to deal with the bureaucratic crap if you want it rated as a Good Article, A Class or FA (I think). - Hahnchen 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Two votes is good enough for me! I've rated it a Low priority, because although I often see the article referenced by people discussing Source or future Source games, it's not all that useful in regards to gaming in general. Something on its impact would be, but that's a retrospective job that won't happen for several years at least. --Tom Edwards 15:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Source and GoldSrc Example picture

This is in reference to this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Csbombcompare.jpg

This is a pretty terrible comparison, don't you think? Even though CS:Source is far from the best use of the Source engine, I can understand wanting to compare similar images. But still there has to be better examples than this low resolution, grainy picture of the ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.35.168.137 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 17 September 2006.

I agree, the most noticeable difference is that the C4 was remodeled, which isn't representative of the changes between GoldSrc and Source. --Mrwojo 16:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... considering that maps have been remade for CS:S, a direct comparison would be easy. --203.206.183.160 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The comparison would be much better if there were actually something in the pictures, like a terrorist model in GoldSrc, and one in Src, to show that Source allows for higher quality 3D models. --Dark Jirachi 03:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

HDR

I'm fairly sure I saw HDR in a HL2 gameplay video several months prior to release. If anyone knows more about this, it probably deserves a mention in the HDR section. Some media to back it up would be great, too. --203.206.183.160 22:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That was the first revision, which was canned because it wasn't compatible with AA. The current version of HDR is the forth or fifth rewrite I think. --Tom Edwards 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Origins

This session description on this page heavily implies that Source originated from GoldSrc -- there's no other way it could have been "eight years in development [and] based on a single-threaded code base several years older than that [which would be Quake]". The only question is who wrote the text? --85.189.119.185 14:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite accurate

The article says: "It debuted in November 2004 with Counter-Strike: Source and Half-Life 2." This is technically incorrect as CS:S officially came out on October 7th, 2004. So I changed the month and dropped the mention of HL2. 72.49.117.53 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC) dethtoll

Leak

The Episode Two Particle Engine has been leaked <.< >.> -ApocalypX 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A long time ago. gracz54 08:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Prime

Has anyone confirmed the existence of the game called Prime?

I know the guys making it. Obviously that's not verifiable, but unless you have a specific reason for the entry to be removed... --Tom Edwards 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Existence of Quake Code

This seems to be a widely disputed issue, and the page here says that the Leak contained no proof that the engine was derived from Quake. However, the leak contains files such as 'glquake.h/.cpp', 'quakedef.h/.cpp' and 'winquake.h'. There are all vintage Quake Engine files - they still use the old qboolean data type, and the header for winquake.h even says: // winquake.h: Win32-specific Quake header file.
Personally, I think thats proof enough. Anyone else? 61.9.140.251 16:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The article says that there's no proof the engine contains significant portions of Quake code, not that it wasn't derived from Quake -- which it clearly was. The files prove the latter but not the former. Even without the actual code we can be certain that glquake isn't relevant any more as Source is purely Direct3D (OpenGL on the PS3, yes, but that separate codebase a) is very recent and b) would never be in the Windows SDK). It's totally possible that the other two are cruft as well, or are files (probably bootstapping ones going by the names) that have been gutted but retain their original names. Even if they were the same, they hardly suggest a wider dependency on the older engine. --Tom Edwards 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The article says that 'Although Valve has explicitly stated that the Source engine has been built internally from the ground up, rumors and myths persist that it is instead merely derived from the original Quake codebase via Valve's GoldSrc offshoot... There remains no solid proof that Source is derived from the GoldSrc codebase — and indeed, given the fact that the 2003 code leak did not produce any such claims it can only be assumed that no incriminating evidence was to be found.' I think that the existence of those Quake headers are are proof enough that the engine wasn't written from the ground up. There aren't any siginficant portions of Quake code in the engine, but if you're an experienced programmer writing an engine from the ground up, why use filenames like 'quakedef.h'? To me, this points more to the fact it was built off GoldSrc (which was built off Quake) but core file and header names haven't changed for simplicitys sake. The content of them isn't the same as Quake, in fact they contain a bunch of Valve's code, but they are still there. My guess is for the sake of structure. 61.9.140.251 09:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I think. Serves me right for not checking the text. :-p --Tom Edwards 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.quakesrc.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5301 this should raise some points about. It's still pretty much Quake, with fancy middleware stuck on it (they didn't make the physics, mixer or the face tech) Leileilol 07:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced claims from a curmudgeonly forum poster are hardly suitable for Wikipedia. I don't know what a mixer is, but the face tech is entirely internal and the physics, while licensed originally, have been completely gutted and network-enabled. --Tom Edwards 09:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a interview with gabe newell with CVG where newell states that John Carmack pretty much just gave the newly born valve the Quake source code and told them to go make a game, and seeing that Source was the other branch from thier source-tree when HL1 went gold, its not hard to assume there is some code left over. 81.179.160.206 16:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Lighting and Shadowing system comparison" Correction

Ok under the area of "Lighting and Shadowing system comparison" theres some corrections that need to be made..of course I currently don't have the sources so if someone wants to dig around and correct 'em go ahead.

"Dynamic shadows in a map always react dynamically to every light source. (unconfirmed)" In an interview somewhere...it says that only special lighting, such as Flashlights, Vortigaunt lighting bolt thingys, or a probably a special light ent can cast dynamic shadows. Also in some gameplay trailers you can see normal lights don't cast shadows.

"Dynamic shadows are more unified with static shadows and don't cast through models. (unconfirmed)" This can be seen in the current gameplay trailers. Unless I'm just an idiot and thinking of something else :P

"Any object can cast multiple dynamic soft shadows. (unconfirmed)" I've heard somewhere that it can cast up to four dynamic soft shadows not sure where though....

So yeah, these are just corrections that "may" be true if someone wants to find the sources go ahead, I'm currently a bit too busy atm to correct 'em.

Fair use rationale for Image:Source engine logo.svg

Image:Source engine logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Image-based rendering

The description given here describes existing techniques: Imposters and billboard sprites/billboarding. These are not new or cutting edge technology, nor should they be referred to by the name (neologism?) "Image-based rendering". If this instead refers to IBMR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image-based_modeling_and_rendering), then the description should be re-written to be less ambiguous.

Does anyone know which technique he's talking about? Maybe some novel mix of both, or a new approach to using imposters/billboarding? 131.107.0.73 01:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Kavika