I think Source works well for the room and corridor kind of engine but if you want anything more "outdoors" you need to look at another engine really.
Of course, I often find myself sitting on the fence - I *am* a Valve fanboy at heart but some stuff just makes me groan. The one thing I don't like is that since Source a lot of stock "tools" have been locked down - source not released citing "license" issues, etc. Case in point - I hear the source to StudioMDL can't be released due to the Perforce integration code. I would rather see the StudioMDL code *minus* the Perforce libs/C++ bits because the rest in itself is USEFUL to use as tool developers. Likewise HLMV - it's based on HLMV 1.22 and uses the most ancient GUI API on the planet. Release us the source/API to the 3D window rendered! I did actually start making a JHLMV for Source back when HL2 came out but the fact that Valve update HLMV which broke it, and then took forever to update/remove the source from the SDK killed that project. I'm sorry but I just *do not get* the Valve toolset. It may work well for you guys to have some hacky-held-together-with-duct-tape tools in house but if your selling an engine license I can't believe your crappy toolset is actually helping you sell engine licenses. I've lost count of how many Source engine licensee's have asked me (in respect of my software license) for permission to use my tools for their game production. Seriously Valve - get serious about your tool set. Great engine, but it feels like your content creation pipeline tools are from the stoneage. As yourself this - why do people like myself and Nem make the tools you do? Maybe it's because your own are so deficient... and I *know* your using some of my stuff in-house. - Jed 2009/7/23 Matt Hoffman <[email protected]>: >>> If I can write a bloody GUI to StudioMDL, why can't Valve? > > Because you already wrote it. Why would they need to duplicate your work? > Why pay paid developers to do something the modding community does for free? > ;) > > I do wish Hammer was open-source, or atleast had a plugin-system (Maybe > written in Lua or C++ or such), so that even if Valve didn't take the time > to make their tools more user-friendly, the users could. > > What Source lacks in high-end graphics, and ultra precise physics and so on, > I do think that they make up for it in Gameplay. You still see huge gaming > communities playing CSS, CS, DOD:S, TF2, L4D, etc. These games are years > old, yet people still play them daily. > > And yeah, content creation is way too much of a fight. Un-descriptive > errors, illogical errors, etc. While the CLI doesn't bother me, having > learned to use it, I could see how it could be an issue for a new user. > (Keep in mind I'm only 16) And alot of the stuff isn't documented which irks > me. Also not having the model sources for more complex things really annoys > me, because it's left the modders to try and figure it out on their own. > Things like MDLDecompiler aren't a terrible help with the new stuff because > it isn't even put into the qcs or models, so we have NO clue if some of the > commands even exist. > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Adam Donovan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I agree that gameplay options are great in hammer..its more some of the >> oldschool stuff in hammer that could use an update..as for the spelling >> comments I dont care Im employed as an artist not a public relations >> officer >> ot spelling bee judge. >> nava >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
