FFS why do the shadows suck

"HL2 is not cutting edge rendering. There are a bunch of things that 'aren't incredible' in HL2."

Like? The only thing that is not "cutting edge" is the shadowing engine.
 
Well, this does it for me, Im not going to buy hl2, I cant possabley play a game with small shaddow errors.

Honestly I dont think I will even notice them ingame, there will be bug fixes though, so im not bother.
 
meqon aint amateur anymore. They got hired by 3drealms. (Duke Nukem forever)
 
the argument that they're trying to accomodate low end spec computers is rubbish. i say they should use a few more CPU cycles and find some kinda work-around for us high spec people then have an option of blob shadows for all the low spec kids.

and no i won't pretend like i know what im talking about.
 
It'd be cool if they at least would add a console command for it (Dynamic shadows that is, like from flashlights and shit)
 
Dagobert said:
it's just the only thing that isn't incredible in HL2.
HL2 is not cutting edge rendering. There are a bunch of things that 'aren't incredible' in HL2
 
frances_farmer said:
the argument that they're trying to accomodate low end spec computers is rubbish. i say they should use a few more CPU cycles and find some kinda work-around for us high spec people then have an option of blob shadows for all the low spec kids.

So you associate low system specifications with kids? Dazzling logic.
 
^Ben said:
"HL2 is not cutting edge rendering. There are a bunch of things that 'aren't incredible' in HL2."

Like? The only thing that is not "cutting edge" is the shadowing engine.

The landscape seems to be a traditional BSP tree, world brushes self-shadowing with pre-calculated lightmaps. I have yet to see a character model with anything other than a standard diffuse map on it. The detail objects (like grass) are sprites, not meshes.

Do you want some more?
 
frances_farmer said:
the argument that they're trying to accomodate low end spec computers is rubbish. i say they should use a few more CPU cycles and find some kinda work-around for us high spec people then have an option of blob shadows for all the low spec kids.

and no i won't pretend like i know what im talking about.
What sort of 'work around' were you thinking of? You do realise the differences in visibility constraints if you are doing volumetric shadows, don't you? You do realise how much more work it would be for Valve to implement 3 different lighting models, don't you?
 
What sort of 'work around' were you thinking of? You do realise the differences in visibility constraints if you are doing volumetric shadows, don't you? You do realise how much more work it would be for Valve to implement 3 different lighting models, don't you?

5 years?? is it enough?
LOL.. i think the shadows are fine..(not).. it's the damn ""bugs"" that i dont like. Honestly.. Valve are high-level programmers.. and they cannot fix those things... strange... they are programming one of the best FPS-physics engines.. and they dont know how to handle their own shadow engine?..

It's like i told you before.. HL2 is an entirely different game.. Those pictures are just to confuse us, make us believe that the game looks that way.. and then when you start the game... BAM!! :)
 
"The landscape seems to be a traditional BSP tree, world brushes self-shadowing with pre-calculated lightmaps. I have yet to see a character model with anything other than a standard diffuse map on it. The detail objects (like grass) are sprites, not meshes."

So basically like every other "cutting edge" engine then? Except doom 3 which uses a unified lighting system. Oh and a portal rendering system because of current limatations with it's lighting system.
 
Crusader said:
It's no fetish, it's just the only thing that isn't incredible in HL2, therefore it's the only real thing to bitch about. And we all know how much people like to bitch - hence these topics. :hmph:
Thanks. That helps to put things into perspective.
 
So basically like every other "cutting edge" engine then?
No, there are a bunch of games which don't use pre-caculated maps for lighting (all console games, for instance), the characters in Far Cry, BF: Vietnam and Doom 3 have normal or bump mapped characters and there are also a bunch of games where the detail on the landscape is meshes, not sprites.

5 years?? is it enough?
Five years is not long enough to fix a 'problem' if you never intend to fix it.

LOL.. i think the shadows are fine..(not).. it's the damn ""bugs"" that i dont like. Honestly.. Valve are high-level programmers.. and they cannot fix those things... strange... they are programming one of the best FPS-physics engines.. and they dont know how to handle their own shadow engine?..

I'm sure they could come up with a great 'cutting edge' shadow system, but their priority is to make a profitable game that looks good on a variety of systems, hence the 'low fi' shadows and the resultant 'bugs'. They are no more bugs that the fact that the grass blades don't individually blow in the wind. It's intentional.
 
lol about the crispness and softness of shadows, people are forgettin stuff...

there are factors that affect the sharpness of a shadow. like light intesnity, distance of the light or object to the floor, and the surface that the shadow is projected on. on some surfaces the shadow will be more clear than on others.
anyone care to create a new game engine to incorporate all this and more, to create perfect shadows that we all care about and affect the gameplay so much???
 
anyone care to create a new game engine to incorporate all this and more, to create perfect shadows that we all care about and affect the gameplay so much???

Unreal3 engine.. :|
 
another shadow thread already...
(see http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=37337)

some of the shadow problems are fixable - dx9 and even dx8 level cards should be able to cope with using stencil or destination alpha buffers to stop the overlapping shadows artifact. this may be fixed in the shipped game.

but the projected shadow technique works best with simple static flat surfaces so i don't think you'll be seeing shadows cast on movable entities. HL2's art direction will ensure we don't notice this much, i hope...

btw even doom3 disabled shadowing on most entities, but for another reason (ugly hard stencil shadow edges on curves - also fixable fairly easily if you are doing animation on the CPU, imho).

btw Ben wtf is wrong with portal rendering? it's a great solution to the problem doom3's engine is trying to solve.
 
if you take a look at the video stress test, shadows look alright, nothing short of amazing (was running dx 8). but now in dx 7 it's crap. :(
 
She said:
Unreal3 engine.. :|

let me finish that for you

She said:
Unreal3 engine.. :|
uses the same technique as hl2, in terms of precalculated things. Pretty much the same method as what valve are using, and will have to use the same work arounds that my guess valve did for source.

Whose willing to wager that the things your complaining about will be fixed come release? =)
 
Heres a fun thing to do in mequon, load the bowl level, and hit f8 at the start, Than quickly remove the bowl and they will stack up, than play Jenga with tho ones on the bottom :p
 
Oh yeah

Look at the e3 video when he moves the big magnet and picks up the metal thing and drops it on the guys. The magnets shadow is visible even with a huge metal object under it. gay. :flame:
 
She said:
Unreal3 engine.. :|
Yes She, we all forgot about Unreal 3, what were we thinking????
Maybe we thought, hey that game won't be out until 2006, where my high end comp will barely meet minimum system requirements. Really its like comparing Quake3 to HL2.

Perhaps Valve was busy righting source/steam, making sure CS/DoD were updated constantly updated, getting gearbox to make to develop add-ons, ohh ya and finishing HL2 instead of worrying about a shadow glitch.

And if thats all you can say about this game is that HL2 has crappy shadows, then your doomed to dislike what could be GOTY.
 
"uses the same technique as hl2, in terms of precalculated things. Pretty much the same method as what valve are using, and will have to use the same work arounds that my guess valve did for source"

Wrong. Unreal 3 uses unified lighting as well as they interpolate the shadows softness and hardness based on how close or far the light is to the object. The physics are amazing too. Watch the Unreal 3 tech demo.
 
Ahnteis said:

Which is only a year and bit away :| you waited a whole ****ing year for Half Life 2. You'll wait another year for Unreal 3. Plus Bioware is using it make a game.
 
If you're complaining about a bunch of freakin' shadows then play another game - you don't deserve to play Half Life 2 if you're going to be that damned picky. :rolleyes:
 
brink's said:
Really its like comparing Quake3 to HL2.

actually, in terms of rendering architecture (excluding animation), HL2 is very similar to Quake3 from what i can tell. lightmapped level geometry, shader based texturing, vertex lit models, projected shadows (with cg_shadows 2). Q3 shadows even use stencil buffer to avoid overlaps IIRC.

HL2 does have normal-mapped reflection/refraction mapping which improves the look tremendously.

but on the whole, HL2 is just basically a higher res, higher polycount version of the same kind of lightmap/BSP renderer as Q3 but with infinitely better art assets.

edit: to clarify, that is not to say it is a bad thing - given the kind of game they are making and the target machine range it is probably the right choice
 
I don't see what all the arguing is about. None of us can play HL2. So most of what we have to talk about is how it looks. Those shadows are sometimes a problem. I think that was worth mentioning. I've learned a lot about shadows from this thread. I like it when the games are so advanced the developers themselves can't run the game well. It means there planing for tomarrow when computers can handle it. With options for the sake of performance of course. That kind of thing can make a game last longer. Options are great because they keep everybody happy. The low end people have performance and the higher end people have eye candy.
 
uses the same technique as hl2, in terms of precalculated things. Pretty much the same method as what valve are using, and will have to use the same work arounds that my guess valve did for source.

So?.. it still gonna kill Source ( release date comparisment )

hmm.. u3 engine has 1 more year of programming.. so i think the physics will be better.. if not alot better... ( on release date )

and oh.. you forgot to mention the AWESOME SHADOWS!!!!
THAT A SHITGAME CALLED HL2 LACKS OF... :p
now... there you go.

Since when the **** did shadows matter?

Let me just ...

Since when the **** did physics matter? or
Since when the **** did 3dskyboxes matter?
 
Since physics could affect gameplay. Which they do.
sarcasm is the key my friend..

oh.. the fact still is...
HL2 shadows suck... and are outdated..

If you're complaining about a bunch of freakin' shadows then play another game - you don't deserve to play Half Life 2 if you're going to be that damned picky.

they still suck..
 
She said:
So?.. it still gonna kill Source ( release date comparisment )

hmm.. u3 engine has 1 more year of programming.. so i think the physics will be better.. if not alot better... ( on release date )

and oh.. you forgot to mention the AWESOME SHADOWS!!!!
THAT A SHITGAME CALLED HL2 LACKS OF... :p
now... there you go.



Let me just ...

Since when the **** did physics matter? or
Since when the **** did 3dskyboxes matter?
A game based on the Unreal3 engine would only barely run on today's top hardware. You seem to imply that the reason the Source engine currently lacks some of the technological aspects of the Unreal3 engine is because of a lack of programming talent at Valve. HL2 was built to run on most of today's hardware and any features that you see in the Unreal3 engine that are not in Source are there because they envision the engine being used at a time when most hardware can support it.

After HL2 the Source engine will be upgraded to match the technology of other engines being used at the time of HL3, the list of which probably including the Unreal3 engine. If Source cannot be upgraded to match the new technology, Valve will either need a new engine or the time will be a dead end for Valve.
 
What are the system specs for your computer?

i have 4 computers..

1. PC.. P4 3.2.. Corsair 2x1024Mb = 2048RAM.... 800XT PE... yadayada
2. PC (the one im using now) .... very old.. :p P4 2.4.. 1024RAM Ti4200..
4. Laptop. (PC) 2400Mhz 1024RAM (some shitty card)
5. MAC G5.. standard

Why do u ask??
 
I wonder who will be the first to make a shadows ( d00mIII uber shaDoWz m0d!!11) mod for Half-life 2.
 
She, where the hell do you get that kind of money you spoiled brat. And for f*cks sake why do you own a mac. Oh, and your second pc (the pc you labled "1.") is not old at all. I envy you.
 
She said:
i have 4 computers..

1. PC.. P4 3.2.. Corsair 2x1024Mb = 2048RAM.... 800XT PE... yadayada
2. PC (the one im using now) .... very old.. :p P4 2.4.. 1024RAM Ti4200..
4. Laptop. (PC) 2400Mhz 1024RAM (some shitty card)
5. MAC G5.. standard

Why do u ask??
Can I have one?
 
She, where the hell do you get that kind of money you spoiled brat. And for f*cks sake why do you own a mac. Oh, and your second pc (the pc you labled "1.") is not old at all. I envy you.

;)

And for f*cks sake why do you own a mac

I am a designer.. And when you work with Sound/Graphics and Video... a MAC is standard.. and alot.. LOT better than a PC..

She, where the hell do you get that kind of money you spoiled brat.

I get it from my "Company"..

Oh, and your second pc (the pc you labled "1.") is not old at all. I envy you.

hmm.. the Nvidia - Ti4200 suck.. but i use this comp for internet and other misc stuff..

BAH!.. back on topic..
HL2 shadows suck.
 
She said:
i have 4 computers..

1. PC.. P4 3.2.. Corsair 2x1024Mb = 2048RAM.... 800XT PE...

Why do u ask??

Assuming you are telling the truth about this one, your X800XT PE maybe powerful enough to render soft dynamic shadows using DX 9. Maybe.

On top of that you shouldn't expect dynamic lights or a complicated physics model as well because all of the rendering/computational power has gone to shadows.

There is a reason why Doom 3 manhandles most peoples computers. And the reason isn't because it is a poorly optimized engine either. Dynamic lights and dynamic shadows are very performance intensive. You try to add dynamic soft shadows to the mix and you just made your X800 XT PE cry uncle.

If you are not satisfied with my answer - what other shadow techniques would you recommend for the developers of HL2? People complain about stencil shadows, but hardware isn't fast enough for dynamic soft shadows.
 
Back
Top