Unreal vs Source.

[hessi]

basically i agree. btw wasnt this discussion finished already?

[Sa74n]

[Psy]

I really would like to know why they got rid of the logic view.

[hessi]

as soon as somebody working at valve joins mapcore we might tell you

[Defrag]

Commandline tools are necessary and useful, but a GUI extension wouldn't go amiss. It helps newbies no ends, plus there are certain things that are just really monotonous to do by hand. E.g. writing qcs is really, really goddamn annoying. Once you have them done, fine, it's easy to compile them again and again using commandline tools (I personally set up a batch file to compile it and pause before exiting), but it'd be so much easier for people to just open a GUI, choose "new model compile", browse to the appropriate destination folder, select the smd, choose the options they want (staticprop etc), whether to create LODs, whether it has multiple textures, animations, whether to convert the smd's source textures to vtf and so on. Even two+ years on, I still find it a real chore to create a new QC, create a batch file etc.

There's room for both ways. I personally like GUIs when setting stuff up and then commandline tools once everything is set up and I don't need to change anything, just recompile repeatedly.

[ifO]

Hmm GUI is always best. That quick repeat build functionality could be built into a GUI too.

I seriously thought Valve were kidding with a lot of their SDK tools, or they were temporary and going to be replaced, such a pile of balls, and I have to be logged into Steam to use them... (GRR!)

Tools aside, Hammer still has graphical glitches I have not experienced in any other game or 3D application. My card isn't shit (6600gt) and I have updated my graphics card drivers several times and no luck...

[Sindwiller]

Apropos Patches in Source: http://www.violator.eclipse.co.uk/disped/

[Defrag]

I tried that application, but I found it awkward to control and difficult to make any kind of shape beyond simple curves

[Zeta]

When lighting preview gets turned on in hammer i'll pretty much giggle like a school girl.

[Rick_D]

how can you have a lighting preview that is anywhere near the final version? It's just not how it works..

[Psy]

If the lighting preview will be anything like lights in the 3D viewport of MAX.

I'll be happy with it.

[Zajoman]

I've worked with both, Source and UE3 for a few years now. Here are my thoughts about one and the other, in short.

+ Positive.

| Neutral.

- Negative.

UE3

+ Material editor. You can easily achieve stunning material effects, just after a few days playing with it.

+ UnrealScript. A Java/C# like programming language, easy to learn, good IDE, safe sand-box compiling. You can create/change almost every aspect of the game/mod. It's here where you create or modify entities, their behavior/communication, etc. The code itself is not documented well, so it's up to you to go down to the roots to learn what does what.

+ Fast and reliable engine. Good actor architecture. Good support for AI (very solid base to build upon).

+ Instancing, archetyping, prefabs. This is a very useful thing, but currently quite unstable. We all believe it will work some day.

+ Package system.

+ On-the-fly playtesting. You can run your map directly from the editor. No need for compiling.

| Kismet. Kismet is a scripting system for high-level level-object based scripting. While in HL2 all your logic making objects like triggers lie directly in the map, in UE3 you control the objects via Kismet, which is a big canvas where you place references to the objects. You have many boxes with inputs/outputs/variables that you connect with cables. This is very simple and useful for beginners or games with very light scripting. The problem is that the canvas gets utterly littered when heavy scripting comes in, and the 'code' is unreadable. I personally prefer clasiccal coding style before this visualization style.

| Epic support. Sometimes, you get a fast and useful response, sometimes, you get nothing of a use.

- Editor. Interface is really terrible in some aspects. Weird key shortcuts.

- Engine undone. Many of the engine's features are undone or currently in reworking progress. The frequent changes in the engine source code can cause many troubles to your project.

- CSG/BSP. If you are familiar with Quake/Half like static-world building/editing, you will get annoyed in a minute using this. Even freeware editors have better user interface for building primitive blocks of your geometry. CSG in UE3 is becoming more and more obsolete and unsupported, thus unstable and generally not usable. So you have to build your worlds in tools like 3DS Max, which we pretty good understand is a suffering.

- Physics. Forget the ease of creating physical puzzles in HL2. If you are familiar with HL2, this is a nightmare. Even though, with a hard work, you can achieve some results, but it really needs a full-time focus/learning.

- Accessibility. As far as I know, you have no chance to get a glimpse of what UE3 is and how it works for free.

Source

+ Support. The best support of all the engines out there, best community, best tutorials, etc.

+ Hammer. Do I need to say more?

+ Direct in-tools support for creating mods.

+ Clean code base.

+ Graphics. Many people say UE3 is an engine capable of rendering the best looking scenes. I don't quite agree. Look for yourselves.

- Need for compiling maps before run, slower tweaking, etc.

- No scripting language built in. You cannot change behaviors or create entities with ease.

I hope this will be useful at least a bit.

[FMPONE]

I've worked with both, Source and UE3 for a few years now. Here are my thoughts about one and the other, in short.

+ Positive.

| Neutral.

- Negative.

UE3

+ Material editor. You can easily achieve stunning material effects, just after a few days playing with it.

+ UnrealScript. A Java/C# like programming language, easy to learn, good IDE, safe sand-box compiling. You can create/change almost every aspect of the game/mod. It's here where you create or modify entities, their behavior/communication, etc. The code itself is not documented well, so it's up to you to go down to the roots to learn what does what.

+ Fast and reliable engine. Good actor architecture. Good support for AI (very solid base to build upon).

+ Instancing, archetyping, prefabs. This is a very useful thing, but currently quite unstable. We all believe it will work some day.

+ Package system.

+ On-the-fly playtesting. You can run your map directly from the editor. No need for compiling.

| Kismet. Kismet is a scripting system for high-level level-object based scripting. While in HL2 all your logic making objects like triggers lie directly in the map, in UE3 you control the objects via Kismet, which is a big canvas where you place references to the objects. You have many boxes with inputs/outputs/variables that you connect with cables. This is very simple and useful for beginners or games with very light scripting. The problem is that the canvas gets utterly littered when heavy scripting comes in, and the 'code' is unreadable. I personally prefer clasiccal coding style before this visualization style.

| Epic support. Sometimes, you get a fast and useful response, sometimes, you get nothing of a use.

- Editor. Interface is really terrible in some aspects. Weird key shortcuts.

- Engine undone. Many of the engine's features are undone or currently in reworking progress. The frequent changes in the engine source code can cause many troubles to your project.

- CSG/BSP. If you are familiar with Quake/Half like static-world building/editing, you will get annoyed in a minute using this. Even freeware editors have better user interface for building primitive blocks of your geometry. CSG in UE3 is becoming more and more obsolete and unsupported, thus unstable and generally not usable. So you have to build your worlds in tools like 3DS Max, which we pretty good understand is a suffering.

- Physics. Forget the ease of creating physical puzzles in HL2. If you are familiar with HL2, this is a nightmare. Even though, with a hard work, you can achieve some results, but it really needs a full-time focus/learning.

- Accessibility. As far as I know, you have no chance to get a glimpse of what UE3 is and how it works for free.

Source

+ Support. The best support of all the engines out there, best community, best tutorials, etc.

+ Hammer. Do I need to say more?

+ Direct in-tools support for creating mods.

+ Clean code base.

+ Graphics. Many people say UE3 is an engine capable of rendering the best looking scenes. I don't quite agree. Look for yourselves.

- Need for compiling maps before run, slower tweaking, etc.

- No scripting language built in. You cannot change behaviors or create entities with ease.

I hope this will be useful at least a bit.

fascinating post, where are you working with UE3?

[Zajoman]

fascinating post, where are you working with UE3?

Sorry, I won't say.

[Hourences]

Your correct on most things but:

-BSP: If used to the BSP system in UE it is by far faster than anything else. This is purely subjective and you are clearly not used to it. Others are.

-Accessibility: People can get Roboblitz. UT3 and GOW will be released in just months time. This is an unfair comparison. The public didnt had access to HL2 and source when it was still in development either right? Oh wait, it got leaked:P

-Source support and community: Again, you cant compare. Source' community is years old. UE3 community doesnt even exist yet because the games havent been released yet. If you want to compare these two at all, you should compare them in 3 years time.

And UE had a system similar to Source' entities at first, but was later replaced with Kismet because entities are nice, but you will seriously lose the overview, just as much as Kismet. Both approaches can result in an utter mess, only Kismet handles it a little better.