Unreal vs Source.

Having to use a text editor to make a visual thing is like modelling a cube using notepad, how would you feel about that? It is not a valid option. Its completely prehistoric and it is far from userfriendly. You need to see stuff change instantly, not after a recompile, restart or whatever else but real time in a viewport.

Oh I forgot a good one, Lighting preview in Source. It doesnt has it yet it is the most modern and simple editor out there ?

Unreal has fully realtime previewing since 1998. Source still hasnt managed to catch up and youre calling it modern?...

4000: There are a 100 studios using Unreal for their games or other projects. I took the average of 40 developers per studio = ....

Since you are working with the engine, you have access to UDN. On the main UDN page click on Recent changes and then All changes. Now go count how many different studios you see in that list. It may not be a 100 but it prolly isnt far off either.

Source relies on its community to keep the whole thing running. It relies on its huge playerbase to provide user made tools and tutorials. Unreal relies on other stuff to keep itself running, it doesnt neccy requires its community to provide tutorials and all, although its of course never a bad thing if they help out.

Quote from hessi

carving a room is 1 click in unreal

making a house from the outside is (close to) 1 click in source

Regardless of how many clicks, will or will you not end up with 6 different brushes for the house in source? Because if you do, and if you will have to modify it later on, youll lose more time adjusting it in source than in Unreal.

Tomato's / tomatoes.

I think maybe Zajoman is onto something here..

BUT, I think GOW proved that if you want darker and more grittier stuff, UE3 is the way to go. I might be wrong though, but I can't seem to find a good setting for my env when creating night time maps i source...

Quote from Zajoman

So youre saying that having to construct a single room of 6 seperate brushes is "much smarter and faster" ?> What are you talking about? Be more specific, please.

If you ask me, itd be far simple to just add a cube, and substract a smaller cube out of it. Done.

> Or just draw a box and press Ctrl+H.

I also heard of leaks in Quake/HL? BSP stuff not closing in well. Doesn't sound very user friendly to me...

> This is a human error, not CSG itself. You should make your maps right, not leaky.

The actual tools aside, the entire additive system is just slow if you ask me and overly complex for simple actions.

> UE3 have both approaches, subtractive and additive. Take a guess which one is preferred nowadays... Additive, you got it.

How long have you worked with Source/HL BSP ?

> 7 years.

And mind you, I have only encountered a BSP error just once in Unreal Engine 3, and that was because some other guy found it funny to substract 60 sided cylinders of bigger clinders and all off the grid.

> Working with UE3, I suppose you have the access to the UDN. So log in and look for CSG topics. You'll find that Epic discourages from using it at all.

Display More

The 6 brushes argument: See what I just replied to hessi. Regardless of how many clicks it takes, having to end up with 6 different brushes for just a room is kind of stupid. Why not just 2 brushes?

Leaking: I can use the exact same argument for UT and therefore counter yours. If you make stuff correctly in UT there are no BSP errors either, yet you are complaing about those.

Moreover, stuff cant leak in UT, even if youd create messy BSP. Sure other stuff can go wrong, but it cant leak like in HL.

Additive: I am pointing to the HL approach of requiring multiple brushes for something simple. I know the naming is not entirely correct but from an historic pov it is easiest for me to classify both approaches like this.

7 Years of HL: So tell me this, the first three years of your HL experience, were those enough to fully, 100 percent, understand how BSP in HL works, how to work around problems and the dos and dont dos?

UDN: There is nothing wrong with BSP and epic does not discourage it. The situation is a tiny little bit more complex than just "dont use it". Also, there are plenty of things that are stated incorrectly on UDN. It is not because UDN says so that it is true. Simple example, open some GOW maps and see if there happens to be BSP around.

I have been working with Unreal looong before there ever was such thing like UDN. I know BSP and I know what it can do and what it cant.

Hammer crashes less.

I win.

=)

Quote from Hourences

Regardless of how many clicks, will or will you not end up with 6 different brushes for the house in source? Because if you do, and if you will have to modify it later on, youll lose more time adjusting it in source than in Unreal.

i can build a simple house with 1 brush in source.

I can build a complex underground WW2 bunker with half a brush in unreal

Because you intersect like we say in Unreal? Eg merge multiple brushes to one? Or just keep extruding faces, the model program way?

Any drawbacks to doing so?

create a box -> split the top face in the middle and push up the new edge. that's a basic house.

/\


[]

It needs an inside.

We can hold a contest. Make a number of pre defined shapes in the smallest time possible and record a little video of it, any editor. Gives an overview benchmark of all. Quake is going to beat unreal with curves for example, HL2 might do so too.

*grabs a bag of popcorn and watches the pointless battle of comparison rage on*

Is it really about what engine/community/whatever is better? You'll grow used to one or the other, and will believe that when learning a second one after that the other is still superior. I won't deny it, I'll take Unreal over Source any day, but that doesn't mean it actually is superior...

Quote from Hourences

The 6 brushes argument: See what I just replied to hessi. Regardless of how many clicks it takes, having to end up with 6 different brushes for just a room is kind of stupid. Why not just 2 brushes?

I see absolutely no problem with it.

Quote from Hourences

Leaking: I can use the exact same argument for UT and therefore counter yours. If you make stuff correctly in UT there are no BSP errors either, yet you are complaing about those.Moreover, stuff cant leak in UT, even if youd create messy BSP. Sure other stuff can go wrong, but it cant leak like in HL.

I haven't stated anything about CSG errors anywhere. I said that it's becoming obsolete.

Quote from Hourences

Additive: I am pointing to the HL approach of requiring multiple brushes for something simple. I know the naming is not entirely correct but from an historic pov it is easiest for me to classify both approaches like this.

The same, I see no problem in this.

Quote from Hourences

7 Years of HL: So tell me this, the first three years of your HL experience, were those enough to fully, 100 percent, understand how BSP in HL works, how to work around problems and the dos and dont dos?

Well, it took time, that's for sure.

Quote from Hourences

UDN: There is nothing wrong with BSP and epic does not discourage it. The situation is a tiny little bit more complex than just "dont use it". Also, there are plenty of things that are stated incorrectly on UDN. It is not because UDN says so that it is true. Simple example, open some GOW maps and see if there happens to be BSP around.I have been working with Unreal looong before there ever was such thing like UDN. I know BSP and I know what it can do and what it cant.

Me too.

After all, I'm tired of this neverending debate. It is very likely that none of us both will change his opinions based on this debate. I understand your point of view. I don't say: "Never use UE3, it's crap!" I just say: "I personally like Srouce much better." I really don't want to flame. I won't reply to this anymore. You know, I'm just know designing a level for a game, so I don't like spending so much uncreative time around here. Nonetheless, thank you for your comments.

Good bye and have a nice day.

Quote

Is it really about what engine/community/whatever is better? You'll grow used to one or the other, and will believe that when learning a second one after that the other is still superior. I won't deny it, I'll take Unreal over Source any day, but that doesn't mean it actually is superior...

Sure, I never said it sucked or owned either. There are a 100 things that could have been done better in Unreal. But saying a program/engine that requires notepad for basic functionality and cant even preview lighting or other effects is modern and simpler is just sheer insanity. No matter how much you like Source, now matter how well it may do this or that, you cant possibly say of a program that it is modern if it cant even preview lighting.

Which was what I countered. Unreal IS better with things like previewing lighting/materials and all. Some other features Source prolly is better at.

As to Zajoman:

-6 Brushes for a room makes it overly complex for no reason. I believe you were the one who called source more simple? Strange logic you have there.

-CSG, youve stated that Source' BSP is more stable, therefore you implicate that Unreal is less stable than Source, BSP wise. I countered that by reusing your own argument of "if you use it right, there is no problem".

-Time, you just said it took time to master Source/HL1 BSP, then how can you expect to fully understand a different system in just 3 years time and only one and a half year pro? It takes time, youre just not used to it.

What kind of structures have you build with BSP in Unreal? Anything more than just cubes and basic stuff? For all I know youve never made extensive use of Unreal BSP yet (thousands of brushes in one level).

I understand your POV too, if I were to have to work with source, I would prolly kill my co worker within a month of frustration. If you switch an engine there is always going to be stuff that just sucks or is entirely different to what youre used, the latter does not neccy mean its complete crap or inferior, you do sound like that when talking about BSP for example.

Writing is creative, so youre still spending youre time in a creative way:P

Im still all for an Engine Benchmark, like those massive CPU comparison charts

I think its a good discussion but I think the core of Hourences argument is that Source has some very serious flaws and I would agree.

However even just with the next Valve games, realtime lighting preview and other features will make their way into Source. When they do, Source mappers will get a disproportionately large amount of assistance from the huge community.

I would also agree that more professionals are working with Unreal, thats hardly debatable. I do think Source has some specific advantages, though.

One advantage UE3 has over Source is that the normal mapping doesn't look completely rubbish. Although personally I prefer Hammer to Ued - I found it far easier to start with and now I'm just more used to it.

-snip-

Race cars are far too different from games.

It is not about pretty GUIs, it is about user friendlyness and workflow, and IMO those two words are exactly what should describe any modern tool.

The last 3ish years, gamedevelopment has become really complex and time consuming, game development needs a good workflow and good tools if it wants to remain financially profitable.

Mind you, that was the whole point, not which program has the coolest GUI.

I do think Unreal and Unreal Editor are better. Yet I prefer working with Source and Hammer.

Why? The toolset annoys me sometimes, but Hammer does what its supposed to and the Source user base is in my opinion larger. I don't care how long it takes me to make something, or how much it annoys me, but if more people will potentially play it than I'm sold.

Mind you, this is speaking as an amateur designer, professionally Unreal has the upper hand here. It also depends on if you would go professional with Source, how much support from Valve you would get to speed up your workflow and knowledge of the engine.

To me its pretty much a tie to be honest. Like with most things in the computer world, both have their ad- and disadvantages.

Quote from ShaDoW

.. and the Source user base is in my opinion larger.

That's probably more of a fact, though.

Unreal hasn't really changed much over the years either I don't think. Now, I haven't touched UE3 yet to see how far the tools have come, but up until now the editor has been pretty much the same since UT1. Which is the same scenario as Hammer save for some engine specific stuff with Source. The core of these tools really hasn't changed at all. It's just a matter of Unreal Ed having always sort of been ahead of the pack when it came to down to features/functionality. And for the longest time it's only really been the lighting preview that's pushed it ahead in my opinion. The rest is preference.