My only wish for updates to the tools is to update Faceposer to work fully with Vista. Currently it is not possible to do auto-generation of the lip-synch data in Vista, and furthermore another dev and I both had trouble on his XP machine locating a working link to the Speech SDK that Faceposer requires, all the MS links were 404, etc.
I will just say that doing the lip synch data yourself is extremely lemons, not to mention that I am a coder not an artiste :D Chris -----Original Message----- From: hlcoders-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com [mailto:hlcoders-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Harry Pidcock Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 9:32 PM To: Discussion of Half-Life Programming Subject: Re: [hlcoders] whats happening with this engine Whitespace should be easy to embed in the engine if you create a wrapper that works with the feature I presented before. Whitespace is a very visual language that is great for particle effects and shaders(it is then translated into complex hlsl). -------------------------------------------------- From: "Harry Jeffery" <harry101jeff...@googlemail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 4:40 AM To: "Discussion of Half-Life Programming" <hlcoders@list.valvesoftware.com> Subject: Re: [hlcoders] whats happening with this engine > I thought it looked so clean and easy, then I selected the whitespace. =[ > > 2009/7/25 Spencer 'voogru' MacDonald <voo...@voogru.com>: >> I like this one better. >> >> http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/whitespace/ >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: hlcoders-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com >> [mailto:hlcoders-boun...@list.valvesoftware.com] On Behalf Of Olly >> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:54 AM >> To: Discussion of Half-Life Programming >> Subject: Re: [hlcoders] whats happening with this engine >> >> Its a good job you used tinyurl, otherwise it wouldn't have fit on my >> screen!... >> >> 2009/7/25 Harry Pidcock <haz...@tpg.com.au> >> >>> Valve contacted me yesterday to tell me they have successfully >>> implemented >>> a >>> new feature. >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/4f6mt >>> >>> I hope to see more of these innovations in the future. >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Andrew Ritchie" <gotta...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:21 AM >>> To: "Discussion of Half-Life Programming" >>> <hlcoders@list.valvesoftware.com >>> > >>> Subject: Re: [hlcoders] whats happening with this engine >>> >>> > Surely this topic could be split into several different points. >>> Personally >>> > I >>> > see 4 different ones here. >>> > >>> > 1) Engine features >>> > 2) Tools Capabilities >>> > 3) Tools Availability >>> > 4) Tools Presentation >>> > >>> > The first is ignorable, Valve is clearly only going to add new >>> > features >>> or >>> > change things, like BSP and displacement maps, when they think it's >>> > important. It's their engine and it needs to do what their games need >>> > doing. If you choose to use Source then you have to accept you are >>> > modding >>> > their engine. Sure TF, CS, DoD etc.. all were mods that made Valve a >> lot >>> > of >>> > money and brought huge success but they were also developed around the >>> > constraints of the engine rather than the engine being built FOR these >>> > mods >>> > to be made. If a technical limitation is big enough to warrent an >> engine >>> > change then do so rather than hanging about wanting Valve to add the >>> > feature, as big as the previous mentioned mods are you'd need to >>> > really >>> > prove you're up to their popularity before Valve would make a drastic >>> > change >>> > for you. So either accept the engine's features before you get >>> > underway >>> > or >>> > be prepared to encounter the fact you can't do certain things without >>> > a >>> > lot >>> > of work, if not at all. >>> > >>> > The Tools Capabilities I think is what Jed was really getting at, I >> don't >>> > mean like adding features to hammer and stuff but specifically >>> > allowing >>> > the >>> > chance for modders to by pass say model exporting to smd and just use >>> > a >>> > common format. The tool would need to have the importer and converter >>> > written but I personally think that approaching Valve with a specific >> and >>> > industry accepted intermediate format might be a good cause. >>> > Especially >>> if >>> > it makes life easier for getting the raw assets into a format that the >>> > tool >>> > can then use. >>> > >>> > With the availability of tools, I mean those asking that they be open >>> > source. Specifically referring to a comment about hammer, look at >>> > Worldcraft and BSP ( Yahn's editor iirc ) they were originally >>> > personal >>> > projects. So you could take a leaf and have a bash at your own editor >>> and >>> > open source it, you never know might turn out to be a better designed >>> > tool. >>> > However just having the source code to hammer, I doubt would be of any >>> > benefit, you'd have dozens of versions of the tool floating around and >> do >>> > you really think you could add something useful to it? It may have >>> > bugs >>> > but >>> > if you advocate open source then why not take the initiative and lead >>> > by >>> > example? >>> > >>> > The last one, has been brought up in regards to wrapping a tool with a >> UI >>> > or >>> > removing the need for QC files. With this I think the issue is >> balancing >>> > the technical knowledge and the capabilities of a tool. However I >>> > feel >>> it >>> > again falls back to a situation where Valve are happy to use it the >>> > way >>> it >>> > is, they understand it and can get any of their tools to do what they >>> > need. >>> > It's the new, non technical, or perhaps slightly lazy people who would >>> > need >>> > that more complex aspects automated for them. I'd refer this back to >>> > Hammer, the early days of mapping could often mean rooting around in a >>> hex >>> > or text editor and as things progressed and art started needing the >>> > technical requirements to be simplified you found map editors hiding >> away >>> > the old formats. Worldcraft and Hammer essentially sit between the >>> > user >>> > and >>> > the BSP, VIS, RAD etc.. compilers. The format they accept might be, >>> > at >>> > this >>> > stage, more heavily tied into hammer but it's still a front end for >>> those. >>> > Again perhaps Worldcraft was a special case with Valve gobbling it up, >>> > HLMV >>> > too, but I think if the community is adamant enough about simplifying >> and >>> > unifying the tool chain then perhaps a bit of proactive development >> could >>> > lead the way or at least prove to Valve that everyone is serious about >>> > rethinking the way we interact with the SDK. >>> > >>> > Ok, sorry bit of a ramble but mainly what I wanted to share was that >>> > specific things like adding FBX to the formats studiomdl can accept >> would >>> > be >>> > good ventures as they are specific and have an immediately obvious >>> reason. >>> > The other stuff like creating a unified system might be something that >> is >>> > best approached with good old community spirit. If you're serious >> enough >>> > about wanting to use the engine but can genuinely improve the way >>> > users >>> > develop for it then get organized and see if it's a viable thing to >>> > tackle. >>> > Even if it's just to prove you were right. I know the later is a bit >>> > of >>> a >>> > cop out but Jed, Nem and NS2 (prior to dropping Source ) are examples >>> > of >>> > those who have gone out of their way to do so with tools and Garrys >>> > mod >>> is >>> > a >>> > prime example of taking what is available game code wise and adding >>> > the >>> > extensions (Specifically scriptint) you want. Plus it beats just >>> > falling >>> > back to the "Valve Needs to Support Mods" and "Valve do whats best for >>> > Valve >>> > games and mods need to deal with it" arguments that go no where. >>> > >>> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Ben Mears <benmea...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> As a 3D modeller, animator, and mapper, (and not a coder) I agree >>> >> with >>> >> what >>> >> Jed said 100%. >>> >> >>> >> Jed, can you please just go work for Valve? >>> >> >>> >> great, thanks! >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Jed <j...@wunderboy.org> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > No I wasn't advocating an 3D app -> MDL path. Simply adding support >>> >> > for a more common/cross platform 3D format to those that StudioMDL >>> >> > supports. >>> >> > >>> >> > The problem with the SMD format is that it's an old format from and >>> >> > old engine and requires plug-ins to be written for 3D apps to >>> >> > support >>> >> > it. This leaves it down to Valve to write them. >>> >> > >>> >> > Take Max for example - a plug-in for one version does not >>> >> > automatically work with another, it needs to be recompiled against >> the >>> >> > new versions SDK. A shop like Valve is probably only going to have >> one >>> >> > version and not upgrade every time a new one comes along. Therefore >>> >> > SMD plug-ins for other versions are going to have to be made by the >> 3D >>> >> > app users themselves. >>> >> > >>> >> > Now there are plenty of suitable cross-app 3D formats such as DAE, >>> >> > FBX, etc. that Valve could add support for to the StudioMDL >>> >> > compiler >>> >> > (and I've vocally expressed this to Valve many times) in *addition* >> to >>> >> > the SMD, OBJ and MRM formats it already supports. >>> >> > >>> >> > So why should they do it? >>> >> > >>> >> > - Common file format means more 3D apps that can produce content >>> >> > out-of-the-box or via publisher made plug-ins. For example DAE/FBX >>> >> > is >>> >> > supported by XSI, Maya, Max, Blender, Milkshape3D, etc, etc. >>> >> > - Gives modders/studios/licensees choice to use the 3D app of their >>> >> > choice to create content. >>> >> > - Valve doesn't need to produce plug-ins for apps, just support the >>> >> > format in the compiler. >>> >> > >>> >> > Simply put SMD format is binding end users to the few apps that >>> >> > write >>> >> > it and the generosity of community users such as myself, Prall, et >> al. >>> >> > to write these plug-ins for the 3D apps we want to use. >>> >> > >>> >> > Interesting case in point - a Canadian studio approached me once >>> >> > asking me when my plug-ins would be available for 3DS Max 2009 >> because >>> >> > that was their in-shop 3D content creation tool and they had >>> >> > invested >>> >> > a lot of money in software and training and didn't want to have to >>> >> > move to something else. Their apparent decision to purchase a >>> >> > Source >>> >> > license for their title was hanging on the availability of plug-ins >>> >> > for Max. >>> >> > >>> >> > My main issue with some of the SDK tool is that that it feels like >>> >> > Valve aren't being smart about it. Good tools means wider adoption >>> >> > which might result in more licensees and from a modders >>> >> > perspective, >>> >> > more people getting into it and maybe making the next >>> >> > CSS/TF2/Portal >>> >> > that Valve can snap up as their IP. I think Valve should have a >>> >> > dedicated tool guy (not me) turning out polished useful tools - not >>> >> > this rehashed crap that's hung over from Half-Life 1. >>> >> > >>> >> > - Start over with StudioMDL - make it a GUI app from the start (and >>> >> > adding batch/scripting to it wouldn't be hard) >>> >> > - Make HLMV a proper MFC of WPF app and get rid of the old buggy >>> >> > mxtk >>> >> > GUI from Mete's HLMV. >>> >> > - Add support form more 3D modern file formats and eventually phase >>> >> > out SMD, etc. >>> >> > - If for license/NDA reasons you can't release all the source code >> for >>> >> > apps, at least release parts of it. A lot can be learned from even >>> >> > partial code that could help us as modders make our own apps. >>> >> > - Add some SDK tool API stuff - for example code to render a 3D >> window >>> >> > like in HLMV. It can still require steam but make it accessible so >>> >> > that developers can add support for model rendering in other apps. >>> >> > - Polished tools will make the SDK/Engine more attractive to end >>> >> > users. Modding shouldn't be a right of passage but a warm welcoming >>> >> > experience to inspire the next great ideas. >>> >> > >>> >> > I could go on but you get the general idea... >>> >> > >>> >> > - Jed >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > 2009/7/24 Jorge Rodriguez <bs.v...@gmail.com>: >>> >> > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Minh <minh...@telus.net> wrote: >>> >> > > >>> >> > >> The .smd format is extremely robust the way accomodates >>> >> > >> reference >>> >> > meshes, >>> >> > >> AND skeletal animation. So you want a method to go straight from >> 3d >>> >> > model / >>> >> > >> animation -> .mdl ? >>> >> > >> How is that going to work with parametric animation? where you >>> >> > >> can >>> >> > combine >>> >> > >> multiple .smds to make an animation? >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > Minh, while the capabilities of the studio compiler are >>> >> > > formidable, >>> >> > > it >>> >> > still >>> >> > > leaves much to be desired in terms of file format and syntax. >>> >> > > Don't >>> >> tell >>> >> > me >>> >> > > you've never struggled with the qc format. I am constantly having >>> >> > problems >>> >> > > with its limitations. It's a rather robust system that allows for >>> >> > combining >>> >> > > animations in many interesting ways, but the syntax still pisses >>> >> > > me >>> >> > > off >>> >> > > quite a bit, and the technicality of it leaves it out of reach of >>> >> > > most >>> >> > > artists. I hear Valve wrote some simple tools around it, but I'm >>> >> > surprised >>> >> > > they haven't replaced it entirely. >>> >> > > >>> >> > > The SMD format is perhaps a bit clunky, but I don't have too many >>> >> > problems >>> >> > > with it, because it does exactly what is needed, even if it does >>> >> > > it >>> >> > > in >>> >> a >>> >> > bit >>> >> > > of a backwards way. >>> >> > >>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list >> archives, >>> >> > please visit: >>> >> > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list >>> >> archives, >>> >> please visit: >>> >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders >>> >> >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>> > please visit: >>> > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > No virus found in this incoming message. >>> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.28/2259 - Release Date: >>> 07/24/09 >>> > 18:24:00 >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>> please visit: >>> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from Olly's SEGA Game Gear >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.30/2262 - Release Date: 07/25/09 > 18:01:00 > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
