Yusuf M. Veteran Posted June 18, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 18, 2009 The Source engine is impressive, no doubt. However, I don't think it's as advanced as Unreal Engine 3. So far it's the only game engine that has blown me away in terms of image quality and performance. Unlike CryEngine 2, it offers amazing graphics at amazing performance. Then again, the Source engine is just as good if not better due to its modular design and flexibility. The network code alone in Source is something that is, in my opinion, yet to be surpassed. Unfortunately, it's an ageing engine. We're approaching the 6-year mark since the debut of Source in Half-Life 2. Anyway, I hope Valve is secretly hard at work on improving the Source engine. I think the next logical step is to add DX10 support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted June 18, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 18, 2009 I'd like to see higher quality motion blur, dynamic soft shadows, and real-time depth of field rendering. The last part may seem impractical but it definitely looks good in Valve's Day of Defeat: Source trailers. A good example is the Colmar Trailer. Don't let the video fool you. It wasn't run in real-time. The trailer made use of non real-time effects (vector motion blur & image-space depth of field).... Yeah, the stuff is still there (It's used in the TF2 videos), but it's still nowhere near fast enough to do in real time, to do proper DoF you have to render the same frame multiple times (like 30 times per frame) and blur them together, At the moment we've got games breaking 40 fps on new systems, nowhere near the 400fps or so they need to be able to render at. Now faking it can get you good speeds (like faked radiosity and faked motion blur), but of course quality goes downhill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted June 18, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 18, 2009 Yeah, the stuff is still there (It's used in the TF2 videos), but it's still nowhere near fast enough to do in real time, to do proper DoF you have to render the same frame multiple times (like 30 times per frame) and blur them together, At the moment we've got games breaking 40 fps on new systems, nowhere near the 400fps or so they need to be able to render at.Now faking it can get you good speeds (like faked radiosity and faked motion blur), but of course quality goes downhill. Aye, that's a shame. I'm curious to see what Valve would do if they were to add DX10 support to the Source engine. I'm sure we'd see more realistic lighting and reflections. Perhaps even better implementations of motion blur with the use of geometry shaders. What I'm most excited about is advanced physics computation for effects such as smoke and fire. Remember the trailer for Half-Life 2: Episode Two that showed a Strider's warp cannon ripping through a barn house? It'd definitely be awesome if that was possible in real-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carmatic Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Yeah, the stuff is still there (It's used in the TF2 videos), but it's still nowhere near fast enough to do in real time, to do proper DoF you have to render the same frame multiple times (like 30 times per frame) and blur them together, At the moment we've got games breaking 40 fps on new systems, nowhere near the 400fps or so they need to be able to render at.Now faking it can get you good speeds (like faked radiosity and faked motion blur), but of course quality goes downhill. there are better ways than brute force methods to handle things like depth of field... its going to be more expensive than not doing it at all, but it is entirely possible to do it without having to 'fake' it, as in without having to compromise how the rendered image looks... Thanks to its modular nature, adding such an effect shouldn't be hard. The real hard part is whether current hardware can run it in real-time or not. why isnt there an option to turn on the advanced effects for machines which are capable of doing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted June 20, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 20, 2009 why isnt there an option to turn on the advanced effects for machines which are capable of doing them? I don't understand your question. What advanced effects? :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorlag Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Half-life episode 2 is just too short... I liked Half-life episode 1 more and it was really worth the purchase :) Companys should try not to rush out short games just to make some fast dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealMySoda Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 To be honest I think they'd be better off waiting for DX11, then adding support for that. Rather than adding support for DX10 now, with DX11 just around the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted June 21, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 21, 2009 Aye, that's a shame. I'm curious to see what Valve would do if they were to add DX10 support to the Source engine. I'm sure we'd see more realistic lighting and reflections. Perhaps even better implementations of motion blur with the use of geometry shaders. What I'm most excited about is advanced physics computation for effects such as smoke and fire. Remember the trailer for Half-Life 2: Episode Two that showed a Strider's warp cannon ripping through a barn house? It'd definitely be awesome if that was possible in real-time. Well, the lighting is fairly realistic, it's full blown pre-baked radiosity (of course it could still do with some work, but it's pretty good as it is) And the cinematic physics is pre-baked as well, but that's nice in that you can link it to map events (when a house in EP2 is destroyed, it triggers changes to the guy on the intercom, and stations for getting health/busters) And of course pre-baking it means you're pretty much unlimited in what you can do (The bridge tearing apart in EP2 is only like 4-5 animated models, much lighter on CPU and looks better as a result) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantpotato Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Half-life episode 2 is just too short... I liked Half-life episode 1 more and it was really worth the purchase :) Companys should try not to rush out short games just to make some fast dollars. Episode 2 was 2-3 times longer than episode 1. Episode 1 only had 4-5 hours of playtime. IMO episode 2 was much more interesting than episode 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Yeah episode 2 was longer and better than ep 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts