Do you use the Hammer auto-save feature? I think it's turned on by default but you might want to check your options.
Aditya Gaddam wrote: > I actually don't see how a general overview could really help other than > maybe the first few steps. And with the source engine, those first few steps > are usually fairly easy to figure out anyway. But when you do figure those > steps out yourself, you find little trinkets of code and patterns that you > keep seeing and you remember them. Trudging through the code is not fun. I > have been doing it for the last 2 weeks for my mod. But you learn a lot more > by just going to a class and going willy nilly with the "Go to Definition" > and "Go to Declaration" features in visual studio (right click on a class or > variable name) than by looking at some overarching structure document (which > would eventually need its own documentation). > > One thing I would love to see improvements to, is Hammer. Mostly stability > wise. I am not a big fan of the program just quietly shutting down without > warning with changes unsaved. Sometimes hitting save crashes hammer - umm... > yes. > > But other than that - I like source. It is very hacky. But it is also very > very malleable. They have given us a giant chunk of code to mash around and > I thank them for it. > > Cheers, > Aditya > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Nuno Silva > <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> To me, the Source engine is a great engine, that's pretty obvious since it >> can produce great performance while keeping geometry and graphics detailed >> enough. >> >> However, the "public" access to the engine, Source SDK, could be much >> better >> if only there was documentation, as said previously. >> >> Documentation may seem like it's not worth it to some of you, but it can >> *really* make a difference. There's a reason i never make Mods. Not that >> it's "too hard", it's just that i dont have the time to spend weeks >> figuring >> out how stuff works. >> >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Acolyte Of the Milkman < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> from what I've seen, each year the source engine becomes more easily >>> >> usable >> >>> and feature rich. Valve takes the iterative process of asking "what do we >>> need for this game? is it going to benefit the game? and can the users on >>> lower end machines handle it?" when they're creating new features. >>> >> whereas >> >>> in the UT engine they have (literally) everything and the kitchen sink! >>> >> it >> >>> supports 3 different types of shadowing, dynamic shadow volumes, dynamic >>> shadow mapping (which source supports now), and light maps (source >>> >> supports >> >>> radiosity, which is a more realistic method of lighting a room >>> >> statically), >> >>> a whole slew of other graphical effects, and a in house scripting >>> >> language >> >>> it has an abundance of other features. >>> >>> the Unreal Engine is superior to source in every way possible. It's >>> >> easier >> >>> to develop for, very pretty, and has many more features than source. >>> >>> whoever said documentation isn't need must be completely crazy! >>> Documentation for an engine should never be left on the back burner, it's >>> an >>> absolute must! In the software development world it's much easier to sit >>> someone down and make them read documentation AND THEN fiddle with the >>> source code with a better understanding of how it works V.S making them >>> fiddle around with the engine till they understand exactly what the hell >>> >> is >> >>> going on. >>> >>> however, Source has much more potential for the future. Each year Valve >>> increases its feature set and makes it more easier to develop for. I just >>> hope their tools catch up as well. >>> >>> Hammer should become Open source, or at least gain the ability to have >>> plugins. A very large number of people in the Torque community use 3.4 >>> >> for >> >>> mapping and I can imagine they would like to extend what they can do in >>> it/get 4.0. >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Olly" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 8:32 AM >>> To: "Discussion of Half-Life Programming" < >>> >> [email protected] >> >>> Subject: Re: [hlcoders] Technical Design Document or Quick Reference >>> >> Guide? >> >>>> Microsoft already tried to compete with STEAM, it was called Games for >>>> windows - Live... and it sucked. Again they tried to charge a >>>> >>> subscription >>> >>>> which failed epicly. >>>> I much prefer engines that are written in C++, they are much MUCH more >>>> powerful than having to 1) Learn the syntax/structure of the in-house >>>> language 2) Hack your way round doing the simplest of things that you >>>> could >>>> do with open source C libraries. >>>> >>>> 2009/1/11 Nick <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I am not Valve, I do not work for Valve, but I like Valve, and like a >>>>> good friend I like to point out where I think they go wrong. >>>>> >>>>> There is no such technical design document for source, available to >>>>> the modders, but I suspect there is such a design document if you pay >>>>> for a license. >>>>> >>>>> Valve is a good company, and has excellent people. But the top games >>>>> released for source have been made exclusively by and for Valve. The >>>>> source engine is powerful and highly adaptable, if you work for Valve. >>>>> I think other engines are designed to be easier to understand because >>>>> the other major game engines are being used by people outside the >>>>> original company. Quake/id and Bioshock/ut3 and america's army/ut3 are >>>>> some examples I can think of here. >>>>> >>>>> Source engine is powerful if you know how to use it, Valve people are >>>>> the only ones who know how to use it properly. That isn't going to >>>>> change unless Valve invests heavily in making it more open or >>>>> documenting it more. ( not anytime within the next 3 years). >>>>> >>>>> UT3 engine is equally powerful, but epic games has gone to great >>>>> lengths to make it easier to use, and highly documented. Also actively >>>>> encourages scripting instead of forcing everyone to use c++ like valve >>>>> does. Bioshock/Americas Army/Gears of War 2. Look at the material >>>>> editor that comes with ue3 >>>>> http://hourences.com/book/tutorialsue3mated.htm includes shaders also >>>>> from almost one and half years ago! >>>>> http://www.unrealtechnology.com/features.php?ref=editor >>>>> >>>>> I hope valve seriously thinks about open sourcing the tools, formats, >>>>> and making the engine available on linux. Unless valve thinks it can >>>>> exist only by relying on steam sales/distribution. Eventually >>>>> microsoft will make steam obsolete(by creating a steamlike replacement >>>>> for windows7) or buy valve out entirely, which is probably bad for >>>>> most people working for valve, but good for the owners :P >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Walter Gray <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I want to preface this by saying I know it's probably a kind of >>>>>> >> silly >> >>>>>> thing to be asking for, but on the other hand I feel it would would >>>>>> >> be >> >>>>>> stupendously useful. >>>>>> I'm looking for something akin to a Technical Design Document >>>>>> >> for >> >>>>>> the source engine, or at least the parts of it which are distributed >>>>>> with the Source SDK. Really, any single document that lays out, in >>>>>> >> a >> >>>>>> concise fashion, the general structure of the most commonly used >>>>>> systems, what base classes they use, and enough about how they are >>>>>> supposed to work for someone to start messing with them. It seems >>>>>> >> to >> >>>>>> me >>>>>> that the general approach for mod developers has been to use the >>>>>> >> code >> >>>>>> itself as the documentation and ask the community or check the wiki >>>>>> >> if >> >>>>>> they find something they don't understand. This, unfortunately, >>>>>> >> means >> >>>>>> that there's no easy way to get new developers on a team familiar >>>>>> >> with >> >>>>>> the engine, which is what I'm aiming to do. I've looked around, and >>>>>> there doesn't seem to be anything like this. Am I missing >>>>>> >> something, >> >>>>>> or >>>>>> does it not exist, and if it doesn't, why not? It seems like it's >>>>>> >> the >> >>>>>> kind of thing that would cut down on a lot of confusion for new mod >>>>>> programmers and encourage 3rd party Source development in general. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
