this is hilarious. Oh how I love a good internet battle.
Kllrnohj wrote:

Right, because comments like "the old game event manager interface, don't use it." really scream vital to the game, right?


The argument is not whether they make up a large percentage of the code and are used in every way possible, but that they contain it.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Then either you or visual studio is lying, as there is no such comment anywhere within the SDK.


And I quote: "the old game event manager interface". You've seen these comments, and pay attention to them.

Kllrnohj wrote:

In fact, a search for goldsrc turned up very few results, and involve things like "GoldSrc style animations" - most likely for the ported version of HL1: Source (which you seem to have forgotten about). An old game using old code? Say it isn't so! Rolling Eyes


I happen to own said game. But wouldn't that be a prime example of my case? Valve didn't code it all over again!

Kllrnohj wrote:

BSP, for example, is a data structure combined with an algorithm. It is not a piece of code.


But the algorithm doesn't need to be recoded every time you need to add something to the BSP format.

Kllrnohj wrote:

So pretty much your entire argument is that algorithms have only ever been coded once and just re-used by all games.


My entire argument is that games re-use code. There is no need to recode every last bit of an algorithm (in the BSP case) just because you want to add something to it.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Keep reading


"The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or simply GPL) is a widely used free software license, originally written by Richard Stallman for the GNU project. The GPL is the most popular and well-known example of the type of strong copyleft license that requires derived works to be available under the same copyleft."

"Copyleft is a play on the word copyright to describe the practice of using copyright law to remove restrictions on distributing copies and modified versions of a work for others and requiring that the same freedoms be preserved in modified versions."

You can use it and modify it, but you have to let other people do the same if you release. Doesn't this aid my case?

If I've got something wrong, please tell me. Or yell at me if you want to. This is fun. Smile

Kllrnohj wrote:

Yes, it does, but the GNU GPL is not freeware.


The article you linked to begs to differ.

Kllrnohj wrote:
Quote:
So using the exact same name for a piece of code with the exact same purpose isn't copyright infringement?


Correct.

Regardless, it is the *ALGORITHM* that is named, not the block of code. Hence the link to algorithms.


Regardless, it would be the same with a block of code. If you make something that does the same things as something else, and you name it the same thing, you're going to get sued for copyright infringement.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Modifying code can often be more difficult than scraping it and starting over. Regardless, most games do *not* start out with a derivative of an id tech engine, so there is nothing to modify.


You're the experience coder here, so I think you're right about that.
However, I think it would only apply to small or medium amounts of code. What you're saying is most games make an entirely different engine every time they release.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Completely false. While a map could have brushes in it, the first thing an engine will do when it loads it up is convert it to a polygon mesh. Engines do not use brushes. Not only that, but most often the editor will convert things like brushes to polygon meshes (or a triangle strip or fan if it can) during the export process.


Having them stored as a polygon mesh in the first place would be more efficient, no?

Kllrnohj wrote:

Oh, and if you truly mapped for Source games for a long time as you claim, then you would know that you can export your map into XSI and that it is ALL POLYGONS.


It is not all polygons. I don't work much with import/exporting to XSI, but I've done it before. The polygons that were grouped as a brush stay grouped as an object.

I assume the conversion would be made in the smd importer written for XSI. XSI doesn't even import the BSP, it imports the VMF, the file that holds only the location of a brush and it's dimensions.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Again, no, they don't. They never have. Also, brushes are built out of polygons. How the hell do you use a collection of polygons to specify where a polygon should be drawn? That doesn't even make any sense.


You said yourself that an engine uses the information from a brush to tell the renderer where to draw a surface.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Brushes and models are the same thing, a collection of polygons. To the engine they are no different, other than models can have extra information like a skeleton, animations, etc...


And they can be concave. Smile
--
These posts are getting longer and longer. Is there a limit?
Sigfig wrote:
The argument is not whether they make up a large percentage of the code and are used in every way possible, but that they contain it.


No, actually, the argument is that code reuse is a reason why C++ is used. If the code isn't used, then obviously code reuse isn't the reason C++ is chosen for games (and again, code reuse is not why C++ is used, and never was. C++ is used because its *FAST*)

Quote:
And I quote: "the old game event manager interface". You've seen these comments, and pay attention to them.


That *ISN'T USED*. Your argument of code reuse isn't bolstered by comments saying "Don't use this - its old".

Quote:
I happen to own said game. But wouldn't that be a prime example of my case? Valve didn't code it all over again!


No, it isn't. Your argument is that new games use old code. HL1: Source is not a new game. It is an old game using old code. Of course valve didn't recode it, nothing changed.

Quote:
But the algorithm doesn't need to be recoded every time you need to add something to the BSP format.


There are two things called BSP. BSP the data structure + algorithm that most games use. The code for this is *NOT* shared between most games since it is often proprietary(eg, deep inside the engine itself, crucial to its rendering).

The BSP file format is something completely different, and only used by Quake and quake based games (including HL and COD 1). You are thinking of the BSP file format. That is *NOT* the BSP I was talking about.

Quote:
My entire argument is that games re-use code. There is no need to recode every last bit of an algorithm (in the BSP case) just because you want to add something to it.


Only if you assume that games only add things. They most certainly do *NOT*. You cannot simply take Quake I and add pretty to it - that doesn't work. The engine needs to be rebuilt from basically the ground up to take advantage of new features and to *REMOVE* old limitations. You can't just add things.

Quote:
The GPL is the most popular and well-known example of the type of strong copyleft license that requires derived works to be available under the same copyleft."

You can use it and modify it, but you have to let other people do the same if you release. Doesn't this aid my case?


No. If what you claim is true and games use idtech 1 code, then all those games would be legally required to be under the GNU GPL themselves (or have paid for a license, which very few companies actually have). Since they aren't, your assertion is clearly false.

Quote:
The article you linked to begs to differ.


No, it doesn't. The GNU GPL means free as in "free speech", *NOT* free as in "free beer". Freeware means the latter, but *NOT* the former. The two are entirely different types of free software. GNU GPL does *NOT* necessarily mean free as in "free beer", as it is fully within the GNU GPL to charge for the software.

Quote:
Regardless, it would be the same with a block of code. If you make something that does the same things as something else, and you name it the same thing, you're going to get sued for copyright infringement.


No, not at all. Just because a block of code does the same overall function doesn't mean it is implemented the same way. So two blocks of code that do the same overall thing (like BSP traversal) are *NOT* the same block of code. They have the same *FUNCTION*, but you can't copyright that. You also can't copyright an idea. What you are thinking of are software patents, and even then that is a bit of a gray area.

Quote:
You're the experience coder here, so I think you're right about that.
However, I think it would only apply to small or medium amounts of code. What you're saying is most games make an entirely different engine every time they release.


Engines tend to be reused within the same generation, but not outside of that. Also, engines have to be either licensed or created internally. Most games use internally developed engines. It is also very difficult to make an engine that can cater to all game types, so cross genre engines are also exceedingly rare (and tend to not work very well)

Quote:
Having them stored as a polygon mesh in the first place would be more efficient, no?


Which is why they usually are stored as polygon meshes. Things like Hammer use brushes purely for the level designers. It is *NOT* a technical limitation or reason.

Quote:
You said yourself that an engine uses the information from a brush to tell the renderer where to draw a surface.


No I didn't. I said brushes are a collection of polygons. Polygons are what are drawn.

Quote:
And they can be concave. Smile


Concave and convex have no real meaning to a game engine. Polygons can't be either - they can only be flat.

Quote:
These posts are getting longer and longer. Is there a limit?


No
Kllrnohj wrote:

No, actually, the argument is that code reuse is a reason why C++ is used. If the code isn't used, then obviously code reuse isn't the reason C++ is chosen for games (and again, code reuse is not why C++ is used, and never was. C++ is used because its *FAST*)


The argument was started when you said that games are usually coded from scratch.

Kllrnohj wrote:

That *ISN'T USED*. Your argument of code reuse isn't bolstered by comments saying "Don't use this - its old".


The fact that hey contain it means they didn't start from scratch.

Kllrnohj wrote:

No, it isn't. Your argument is that new games use old code. HL1: Source is not a new game. It is an old game using old code. Of course valve didn't recode it, nothing changed.


If it's being brought over to a new engine, you're saying they would want to code it all over again. They obviously didn't.

Kllrnohj wrote:

There are two things called BSP. BSP the data structure + algorithm that most games use. The code for this is *NOT* shared between most games since it is often proprietary(eg, deep inside the engine itself, crucial to its rendering).

The BSP file format is something completely different, and only used by Quake and quake based games (including HL and COD 1). You are thinking of the BSP file format. That is *NOT* the BSP I was talking about.


Then why did you refer to it? I was obviously talking about the file format that is shared between the games. I used it is support to my argument. Valve didn't make their own file format, so logically it's legacy from id tech 1.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Only if you assume that games only add things. They most certainly do *NOT*. You cannot simply take Quake I and add pretty to it - that doesn't work. The engine needs to be rebuilt from basically the ground up to take advantage of new features and to *REMOVE* old limitations. You can't just add things.


There is this wonderful new thing we call "modding". Have you heard of it? A lot of games even start out by calling themselves mods.

Kllrnohj wrote:

No. If what you claim is true and games use idtech 1 code, then all those games would be legally required to be under the GNU GPL themselves (or have paid for a license, which very few companies actually have). Since they aren't, your assertion is clearly false.


Half-Life was released in 1998. Doom's source code was put under the GPL in 1999. This means Valve had some sort of agreement with id to use the code. Most companies are actually going to pay for a licenses if they're actually going to make a full game out of it.

Kllrnohj wrote:

No, it doesn't. The GNU GPL means free as in "free speech", *NOT* free as in "free beer". Freeware means the latter, but *NOT* the former. The two are entirely different types of free software. GNU GPL does *NOT* necessarily mean free as in "free beer", as it is fully within the GNU GPL to charge for the software.


Please elaborate on your differentiation of "free speech" and "free beer".

Kllrnohj wrote:

No, not at all. Just because a block of code does the same overall function doesn't mean it is implemented the same way. So two blocks of code that do the same overall thing (like BSP traversal) are *NOT* the same block of code. They have the same *FUNCTION*, but you can't copyright that. You also can't copyright an idea. What you are thinking of are software patents, and even then that is a bit of a gray area.


You implied that reusing code would be infringing on another companies property. If recoding the entire engine is going to avoid that, it would be logical to name parts like the BSP file format something different.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Engines tend to be reused within the same generation, but not outside of that. Also, engines have to be either licensed or created internally. Most games use internally developed engines. It is also very difficult to make an engine that can cater to all game types, so cross genre engines are also exceedingly rare (and tend to not work very well)


Please tell me why you think engines are made for a single genre.
And for a small company, it's usually good for them to license and engine and just get to work on the actual gameplay. Larger companies might completely recode everything for each new game (though I highly doubt it) but a small or indie game development company doesn't have the people to do it in a reasonable amount of time. Valve takes forever just to make an update. (See: Valve Time)

Kllrnohj wrote:

Which is why they usually are stored as polygon meshes. Things like Hammer use brushes purely for the level designers. It is *NOT* a technical limitation or reason.


If they were stored as polygon meshes, why is the model importer for XSI not written to open a BSP?

Please provide proof of your argument here. The VMF files keep track of brushes and their locations, and I assume the BSP would too.

Kllrnohj wrote:

No I didn't. I said brushes are a collection of polygons. Polygons are what are drawn.


But the vertices of these polygons have to be stored. The only way to do that is a brush (map geometry) or a model file format. In Source, maps don't load from .mdls.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Concave and convex have no real meaning to a game engine. Polygons can't be either - they can only be flat.


If you've figured out a way to make a brush concave, please share.
brushes are used for creating low-detail interior/static models that are intended to be prelit and not move around at all.

Different file formats are used for different tasks.
Quote:
The argument was started when you said that games are usually coded from scratch.

The fact that hey contain it means they didn't start from scratch.


And most games are. Congratulations, you found 1 that wasn't (HL2).

Quote:
If it's being brought over to a new engine, you're saying they would want to code it all over again. They obviously didn't.


I have *NEVER* said that old games use new code. *NOT ONCE*

Quote:
Then why did you refer to it? I was obviously talking about the file format that is shared between the games. I used it is support to my argument. Valve didn't make their own file format, so logically it's legacy from id tech 1.


Because *I* brought up BSPs and *I* wasn't talking about the file format. Hence why *I* said "BSP trees".

Also, the BSP format used by Valve only has a vague resemblance to the one used by id tech 1. It is not the same format.

Quote:
There is this wonderful new thing we call "modding". Have you heard of it? A lot of games even start out by calling themselves mods.


If by "a lot" you mean "less than 0.1% of games started as mods", then sure. Also, that has nothing to do with what you quoted me on.

Quote:
Half-Life was released in 1998. Doom's source code was put under the GPL in 1999. This means Valve had some sort of agreement with id to use the code. Most companies are actually going to pay for a licenses if they're actually going to make a full game out of it.


So your logic is that since Valve purchased an id tech 1 license for HL1, that most companies do? Are you even capable of doing any research whatsoever?

A whopping 3 companies used an id tech 1 engine (id, raven software, and rogue entertainment) to make a combined total of 7 games.

Valve actually used the id tech 2 engine. They are one of 7 companies to license the engine, for a grand total of 8 games.

So, Doom I and Quake I gave us a whopping 15 games using those two engines. I can totally see how you confused 15 with "most" Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Please elaborate on your differentiation of "free speech" and "free beer".


No.

Quote:
You implied that reusing code would be infringing on another companies property. If recoding the entire engine is going to avoid that, it would be logical to name parts like the BSP file format something different.


No, it isn't logical. You don't name a linked list something else simply because some else wrote a linked list first. Its still a linked list. I know its a crazy concept to name things what they are, but seriously dude.

Quote:
Please tell me why you think engines are made for a single genre.


Optimizations. An RTS engine would make a horrible FPS engine since RTS engines are built for rapid movements across large distances and to be viewed from far away.

Also, it isn't something I *think* happens, its something I *know* happens.

Quote:
And for a small company, it's usually good for them to license and engine and just get to work on the actual gameplay.


Ideally yes, but this rarely happens. The reason is that commercial engines are *EXPENSIVE*. Very expensive. Indy developers tend to be on the poor side, and dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars on a license just isn't an option.

Heck, the game AudioSurf was created by a single developer.

Quote:
Larger companies might completely recode everything for each new game (though I highly doubt it)


They do, I promise you this. Especially for consoles, where you really *can't* port an engine forward due to massive hardware differences.

Quote:
If they were stored as polygon meshes, why is the model importer for XSI not written to open a BSP?


I'm not intimately familiar with the BSP format, but I promise you that whatever in a BSP isn't a polygon mesh gets converted to a polygon mesh during the loading of the BSP.

Quote:
Please provide proof of your argument here. The VMF files keep track of brushes and their locations, and I assume the BSP would too.


Uh, no. Go do some research on the differences between VMF and BSP files on your own time.

Quote:
But the vertices of these polygons have to be stored. The only way to do that is a brush (map geometry) or a model file format. In Source, maps don't load from .mdls.


Again, no. You cannot use a collection of polygons (brush/model) to store the location of a collection of polygons. That doesn't make any sense. Vertices are stored as 3 floats or doubles. Brushes and models are MADE from polygons.

What you are claiming would be akin to saying that you cannot have a single lego block without having an entire lego model to store the single lego block.

Quote:
If you've figured out a way to make a brush concave, please share.


If you can't have a concave brush, that it is a technical limitation of the engine. Again, concave and convex have no meaning to a polygon, as polygons can only be flat.
Kllrnohj wrote:

And most games are. Congratulations, you found 1 that wasn't (HL2).
]

Let's take a look at this graph again: http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Quake_Engine_Hierarchy

And those are just the ones that are direct descendants of id tech.

Kllrnohj wrote:

I have *NEVER* said that old games use new code. *NOT ONCE*


A port would be making the game new. Reviving it.Therefor, using the code from the older version would be using legacy code.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Because *I* brought up BSPs and *I* wasn't talking about the file format. Hence why *I* said "BSP trees".


I brought up BSP by using as an example of a shared resource from an older game and a newer one.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Also, the BSP format used by Valve only has a vague resemblance to the one used by id tech 1. It is not the same format.


Same name, same purpose, added features. Sounds like they just modded it.

Kllrnohj wrote:

If by "a lot" you mean "less than 0.1% of games started as mods", then sure. Also, that has nothing to do with what you quoted me on.


Where did you come up with that number?
I referenced the modding culture because you suggested the just adding or changing things didn't make a game.

Kllrnohj wrote:

So your logic is that since Valve purchased an id tech 1 license for HL1, that most companies do? Are you even capable of doing any research whatsoever?


Are you? Please link me to where you found this bit of information about most companies not licensing resources from another company.

I'm at the understanding that using all of your programmers to make something that's already been made isn't a good idea.

Kllrnohj wrote:
A whopping 3 companies used an id tech 1 engine (id, raven software, and rogue entertainment) to make a combined total of 7 games.


Look at graph in the first section of my post.

Kllrnohj wrote:
Valve actually used the id tech 2 engine. They are one of 7 companies to license the engine, for a grand total of 8 games.


It used the quakeworld engine, which is obviously descended from the same engine powering the original quake.

Kllrnohj wrote:

So, Doom I and Quake I gave us a whopping 15 games using those two engines. I can totally see how you confused 15 with "most" Rolling Eyes


graph.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Quote:
Please elaborate on your differentiation of "free speech" and "free beer".


No.


I see "free speech" as being able to do whatever you want with it.

Kllrnohj wrote:

No, it isn't logical. You don't name a linked list something else simply because some else wrote a linked list first. Its still a linked list. I know its a crazy concept to name things what they are, but seriously dude.


We're talking about large chunks of software, not a line or two of code. id made the BSP file format. (not the algorithm Smile ) If Valve had recoded theirs entirely, why would they still call it BSP?

Kllrnohj wrote:

Optimizations. An RTS engine would make a horrible FPS engine since RTS engines are built for rapid movements across large distances and to be viewed from far away.


An FPS engine, like Source for example, could easily be made into an RTS game. Example: http://www.hl2wars.com/

Kllrnohj wrote:

Also, it isn't something I *think* happens, its something I *know* happens.


Find me a major engine that doesn't have a mod or game that switches genres.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Ideally yes, but this rarely happens. The reason is that commercial engines are *EXPENSIVE*. Very expensive. Indy developers tend to be on the poor side, and dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars on a license just isn't an option.


But indie companies don't have the staff to construct a completely new engine that can rival the big ones. A decent game on a popular engine will at least get the smaller enough profit to start expanding.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Heck, the game AudioSurf was created by a single developer.


AudioSurf is a casual game. If you consider casual gaming as the largest percentage of games now, you must be crazy.

Kllrnohj wrote:

They do, I promise you this. Especially for consoles, where you really *can't* port an engine forward due to massive hardware differences.


Explain to me these "massive hardware differences". The most popular console now (the xbox 360) has a nvidia 7 series in it. It would actually be easy to port to the console market, you don't have to worry about hardware differences between players.

Kllrnohj wrote:

I'm not intimately familiar with the BSP format, but I promise you that whatever in a BSP isn't a polygon mesh gets converted to a polygon mesh during the loading of the BSP.


Wouldn't it be better to not have to convert anything at all?

Kllrnohj wrote:

Uh, no. Go do some research on the differences between VMF and BSP files on your own time.


If I have to do research, you can too.

Kllrnohj wrote:

Again, no. You cannot use a collection of polygons (brush/model) to store the location of a collection of polygons. That doesn't make any sense. Vertices are stored as 3 floats or doubles. Brushes and models are MADE from polygons.


*sigh*
Go open a smd in a text editor. It store texture uvs and polygon locations. I consider a model as the saved file that stores these. A brush is another way to save where a polygon would go.

Kllrnohj wrote:

What you are claiming would be akin to saying that you cannot have a single lego block without having an entire lego model to store the single lego block.


The model would not be the actual build. That is what we call a mesh.

The model would be more like the instructions.

Kllrnohj wrote:

If you can't have a concave brush, that it is a technical limitation of the engine. Again, concave and convex have no meaning to a polygon, as polygons can only be flat.


That limitation is apparent in all brush based map geometry. The brushes have to be converted into a mesh later.

It would much better if they were just stored as a mesh in the first place.
Sigfig wrote:
And those are just the ones that are direct descendants of id tech.


Descendants that don't necessarily share code. Doom 3, for example, contains no Quake 3 code. It was a complete rewrite.

Also, that graph was created by a *USER*. It is not necessarily correct.

Kllrnohj wrote:
A port would be making the game new. Reviving it.Therefor, using the code from the older version would be using legacy code.


No. A port to a new engine follows very different rules than a new game.

Quote:
I brought up BSP by using as an example of a shared resource from an older game and a newer one.


You have to start being more clear what BSP you are referring to.

Quote:
Same name, same purpose, added features. Sounds like they just modded it.


Oversimplifications are fun Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Where did you come up with that number?


Same place you are getting your information. I made it up.

Quote:
I referenced the modding culture because you suggested the just adding or changing things didn't make a game.


No I didn't. Do you posses a brain? Can you actually read?

Quote:
Are you? Please link me to where you found this bit of information about most companies not licensing resources from another company.


I already showed that only a small handful of companies licensed id tech 1 or 2 engines.

But here, look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines#Commercial_engines

Notice that only a few games use each engine. As I said, most games don't use a commercial engine.

Quote:
I'm at the understanding that using all of your programmers to make something that's already been made isn't a good idea.


But most of the time it *HASN'T* already been made. All game engines don't do the same thing, no matter how much you want them to.

Quote:
Look at graph in the first section of my post.


Doesn't change the facts. 7 games were made using id tech 1. 7

Quote:
It used the quakeworld engine, which is obviously descended from the same engine powering the original quake.


Yeah, and a modern smart phone is a descendant of the brick cell phones from the early 90s. A descendant doesn't mean shared code, or even that it has any code from its parent.

Quote:
graph.


...isn't a counter.

Quote:
I see "free speech" as being able to do whatever you want with it.


Correct (to an extent). And you can't do whatever you want with freeware.

Quote:
We're talking about large chunks of software, not a line or two of code.


Irrelevant.

Quote:
id made the BSP file format. (not the algorithm Smile ) If Valve had recoded theirs entirely, why would they still call it BSP?


Because it still stores information in a Binary Space Partitioned way. Regardless, a recode doesn't require a rename. I've been on several projects where we recoded an application, library, class, or single function, but it kept the same name. Most recodes do keep the same name for things.

Quote:
An FPS engine, like Source for example, could easily be made into an RTS game. Example: http://www.hl2wars.com/


I didn't say it *couldn't*, but its not going to be nearly as good as an RTS engine. Also, Source is a very simple and fast engine. Raw computing power will easily overcome the inefficiencies of using an FPS engine for an RTS as far as the Source engine is concerned.

Quote:
Find me a major engine that doesn't have a mod or game that switches genres.


id tech 4
Gamebryo
Unreal Engine 3
Supreme Command (engine written from scratch)
SAGE (engine for Command & Conquer)
Call of Duty 4 (custom engine)
Far Cry 2 (another custom engine)
CryEngine 2

To name a *few*. The fact is that a vast majority games don't even get ONE mod, much less a total conversion + genre switch.

Quote:
But indie companies don't have the staff to construct a completely new engine that can rival the big ones. A decent game on a popular engine will at least get the smaller enough profit to start expanding.


Which is why indie games rarely rival major studio engines. Exceptions include id, Crytek, Epic, Bungie, Blizzard, etc... All of whom had major commercial success with their games based on internally created engines.

Engines are cheaper to be written from scratch than they are to buy for indy studios. One programmer working for a year to create an engine costs ~$80,000 (and it most likely won't take him a year). Purchasing an engine costs $100,000 or more.

Quote:
AudioSurf is a casual game. If you consider casual gaming as the largest percentage of games now, you must be crazy.


I said no such thing, but you also can't casually dismiss casual gaming.

Quote:
Explain to me these "massive hardware differences". The most popular console now (the xbox 360) has a nvidia 7 series in it. It would actually be easy to port to the console market, you don't have to worry about hardware differences between players.


Correction, the most popular console right now is the Wii, and its not even close. The Wii has 48.6% of the market share.

Also, the xbox 360 has an ATI video card that was developed uniquely for the 360. It is not based on a desktop video card, and was the first GPU with unified shaders. The PS3 has a 7800 GTX based nvidia GPU.

But those weren't the differences I was talking about. None of the current breed of consoles (Wii, PS3, and Xbox360) run an X86 CPU. I also wasn't even talking about differences between PC and consoles (which are large, but slowly shrinking). I was talking about the differences between generations of consoles. Compare the PS2 to the PS3. The difference between the two is *MASSIVE*.

Clearly you don't know shit about hardware or even modern consoles, so go do some research before you respond.

Quote:
Wouldn't it be better to not have to convert anything at all?


No. Polygons are good for GPUs (indeed, they are the *only* choice), whereas brushes and models are good for people.

Quote:
If I have to do research, you can too.


The difference being that I *am* doing research, and that I have actually worked on a commercial video game. You, clearly, have done neither.

Quote:
*sigh*
Go open a smd in a text editor. It store texture uvs and polygon locations. I consider a model as the saved file that stores these. A brush is another way to save where a polygon would go.


No.

Models contain lists of vertices that define multiple polygons.
Brushes contain lists of vertices that define multiple polygons.

What you "consider" is irrelevant, as the above is the way it actually works.

Quote:
The model would not be the actual build. That is what we call a mesh.

The model would be more like the instructions.


Obviously that analogy went way over your head.

Quote:
That limitation is apparent in all brush based map geometry. The brushes have to be converted into a mesh later.


"all"? Pray tell, what engines have you mapped for besides Source?

Oh, and FYI, HL1's BSP file format had *NO* brush information.

Quote:
It would much better if they were just stored as a mesh in the first place.


Oh really? I'm sure you know how to write a game engine far better than John Carmack. If you know how to do it better, go do it.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 5 of 5
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement