From Valve Developer Community
Jump to: navigation, search

Source on Core 2 Duo

Not quite sure where to put this...

ExtremeTech ran some benchmarks on Intel's new chip recently, and Episode One was one of the benchmarks. Even though the article was meant to be about the processors, it's clear who really came out on top. Source absolutely smoked every other engine they tested - and subjective a thing to say as this is, out of those games Ep1 clearly delivers the most advanced environments, graphics, and so on. It's astounding. Can't wait until Valve get some actual dual core stuff into the engine (or have they already?). --TomEdwards 09:38, 3 Aug 2006 (PDT)

Real-time radiosity.

Everywhere on the net, and even here, it says that the engine features Real-time rad, what _exactly_ does this mean, and it this a current feature, or like the parallax, a feature that is non existant. And therefore just a rumor/myth? --Hipshot 03:10, 15 Dec 2005 (PST)

Real-time radiosity is non-existant in games (I believe there are some interesting research papers on the subject, but 'real-time' in graphics papers typically means at least one frame every few seconds). I'm fairly certain the feature list refers to lighting calculated using radiosity (in the vrad preprocessor) and displayed in real-time, not on-the-fly radiosity calculations.
Gonna take a guess here, but when you have a highly reflective object and you put your play model near the object, the player model will take on the colours of the light bounced off the object(I think sdk_hdr has a good example of this in the house) ^Ben 09:45, 15 Dec 2005 (PST)
Isn't that VERTEX LIGHTING via VERTEX COLORS? Could Valves word 'Realtime Radiosity' just be another word for Dynamic Lightmap? I would love to hear some explains from some one working with the engine, since I find this pretty interesting! --Hipshot 15:32, 15 Dec 2005 (PST)
The real-time radiosity they are refering to, is based of the models inheriting the colours of the environment around them, look up r_radiosity in the console, and play around with that, it should answer some questions.


Should this be merged with Source Engine? - Fragrag

Originally was vandalized but ^Ben changed the page. - Shens

Actually, TomEdwards, I've read an interview about how Source got its name. It actually IS GoldSrc modified... According to the interview, anyway.—Pon t3h p0ny >_> (talk) 02:15, 2 Nov 2005 (PST)
You are thinking of this. --TomEdwards 02:50, 2 Nov 2005 (PST)
Yes, according to that, ts2do seems to be quite correct. What's the problem? —Maven (talk) 10:28, 2 Nov 2005 (PST)
It doesn't say Source is based on GoldSrc, just that it follows Valve's naming conventions.
Ah, my bad. I couldn't remember what the interview was anyway lol.—Pon t3h p0ny >_> (talk) 18:15, 2 Nov 2005 (PST)

it said goldsource was the codebase and that the code branched to source—ts2do (talk) 13:55, 2 Nov 2005 (PST)

And was then replaced. --TomEdwards 09:38, 3 Aug 2006 (PDT)
Can we agree on at least some kind of description here? (Tom just removed it all.) Can we at least say what ts2do stated earlier about it being Valves engine following GoldSource? --Andreasen 16:27, 27 Aug 2007 (PDT)

More support being there's cmultiplayrules and cteamplayrules with much of it not being'd also make sense to continue adding to an established engine...—ts2do (talk) 13:57, 2 Nov 2005 (PST)


What exactly is next for Source? Are they working on another upgrade, or are they just going to continue the modular adds that they've been doing thus far? --CorporalAris 12:07, 18 Oct 2008 (GMT -6)

Source 2?

When will someone make a page for Source 2? Greenhourglass (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)