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
