bit-tech.net | Cinematic Effects in Source

Tim S 10th December 2005, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by specofdust
Neat. So mininova are a site that use other trackers and just correlate the data, and aren't in fact a tracker, right?

afaik, yes, but it's nice to get some stats :)

Stickeh 10th December 2005, 18:29

I love the ending of this video :D

Supafragest 10th December 2005, 18:47

Ive played dod and dod:s and source is great with all the effects but valve has put too much into effects and not corrected some long known gameplay problems, theres still helmet camping and bullet penetration is not right, yesterday i was playing and i put 4 rounds into a mgers head through a 1x4 piece of wood and finally had to get up to kill him, with that theres many times where people are "running and gunning" it shows the models have only 1 hand on the gun and thats on the barrel and they constantly burst fire and bullet damage doesnt decreace over distance. and a problem with the "effects" are that they are not yet complete, shadows show through bridges and other sects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigz
No, read what I said again. Day of Defeat is based around the World War II era, and World War II happened right? I'd love to see 64-player Day of Defeat, but I completely disagree with you saying that Day of Defeat is not a great game.

The only problem that valve has with 64 player servers is that code is normally 32 bit, and maps would need to be huge for that many players and with noobs it would suck. I would like the russians and jappaneese added but if the russians were added a choise would have to be made, realism; russians usually had lower quality weapons and were under trained, or balanced gameplay; the russians would have counterpart weaponry. for the jappaneese, a new set of classes would have to be implemented and "artillery support" also, and japaneese usually were suicide bombers and usually carried just a grenade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigz
Also, Day of Defeat is nothing like CS. The mechanics of the game are completely different, as are the weapons. The only things that CS and Day of Defeat have in common is the fact that both use the Source engine and are developed by Valve Software.

DOD is great on source but counter-strike died at 1.6, 1.5 was great and simple, the port to source was just cs 1.6 but without the shield, if CS had another gameplay feature it would revive

specofdust 10th December 2005, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supafragest
I would like the russians and jappaneese added

This won't happen. Red Orchestra, which is right now a fantastic, but woefully underplayed mod for UT2004, is getting made for the source engine. Red Orchestra is a highly realistic WW2 FPS between the Russians and the Germans. It was announced recently that this would be made for source, I imagine it'll be a paid addition(which is annoying, but another discussion altogether). So you'll be seeing russians on the source engine, just not in DoD:S :)

nikolasqp 10th December 2005, 22:06

personaly i think theres sould be no ballance of game play. it you look at world war 2 the germans should have won, they had better epuipment and better trianing. this ballance of game play crap sucks.at least it could be optional so you can have noob severs an realistic servers.

Bindibadgi 10th December 2005, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by specofdust
Neat. So mininova are a site that use other trackers and just correlate the data, and aren't in fact a tracker, right?

Nope, you can upload torrents to mininova as well iirc.

As for the Nazi's being better trained etc, we won, so it doesnt matter now :P It wouldnt make a good game if it was too one sided.

riggs 11th December 2005, 01:01

Bit of a late reply (havn't checked the main page in a while!)

The effects do look damn nice, props to Valve for continuing to amaze me...

But...I can't see how depth of field would work whilst playing - cut scenes would be fine, but actually trying to play with it turned on would be a nightmare.

The only way I could see depth of field working was if there were some kind of hardware available that tracked the movement of your eye (and focuses on whatever you're looking at).
Kinda like that wotnot they used on that 'Secret of Drawing' program a few weeks ago...

kergareth 11th December 2005, 01:08

Sweet! We got linked in the Steam update news window.

Nath 11th December 2005, 02:15

I wasn't particularly convinced that the cinematic effects would make a huge difference during actual gaming, and I thought that they'd just be annoying to see. However after seeing the videos, I think that the new effects really enhance the quality of the experience. ;)

frankthetank115 11th December 2005, 04:05

i think this is going to give the game a great look and feel.

i am wondering too.. how they made this short "film" i would love to make some shorts using the same methods, not necessarily with the effects. if anyone knows how to do this could you please pm me. thanks.

pillow 11th December 2005, 04:31

i just watched the vid, that video was tight. the onyl thing i didnt like was how the bodies went flying every where. in real life they would not 'fly' that far. i think that i will get dod source when i get some money, the sniper was tight.

frankthetank115 11th December 2005, 04:32

dod:source is out...

pillow 11th December 2005, 04:33

whoops i mean when i get the money

frankthetank115 11th December 2005, 05:04

so anyway.. i think this filming was done with hammer, someone mentioned scripting and using cameras? can anyone explain how this was doe?

pillow 11th December 2005, 05:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankthetank115
so anyway.. i think this filming was done with hammer, someone mentioned scripting and using cameras? can anyone explain how this was doe?

i wouldnt mind learning how to do this, and lets stop this pointless argument or what ever it is. ok?

frankthetank115 11th December 2005, 05:34

i would love to learn how to make short films in dod like this, im currently playing around with a 3d program and animating the dod models manually.. but if i could do it like the cinematic trailer, it would make my life soo much easyer, plus i dont know if there is a way to open up the maps in hammer.. is there?

jakenbake 12th December 2005, 06:08

this looks retarded... :(

:: kna :: 12th December 2005, 08:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakenbake
this looks retarded... :(

http://www.inc.com/articles/2001/08/23257.html

mclean007 12th December 2005, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by :: kna ::
http://www.inc.com/articles/2001/08/23257.html

haha - I nominate this for best response ever!

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikolasqp
as far as i can say (still waitng for the movie to dl) boooooooo. i payed for a game not a movie. especially not a movie thats ww2 era in picture quality. i'm a realism buff (i play with no hud at all) and i think they should spend the efforts on making the world more realistic. for example, when using voice chat, the futher away you are from other players the quiter you voice becomes . not making it look like you watching a news real from 1944. or even to go as far as adding bullit drop and windage effects, not to mention propore bullistsics for the weapons (no more of this equality bs, wars not far). basicaly tryig to simulate real intence combat, so ppl want to play the game. not just to wonder around goin ooooo awwwwwww thats purdy. and from what i've seen in the past is all the eye candy games fad away while the games with awsome game play last for ever EX. half life. but this is all just my opinion.

Friendly word of advice - your post was very difficult to read. The standard of English on these forums is a bit higher than you might find elsewhere - please take a bit of care with your posts or you will start to annoy people. Sorry to sound like a teacher and welcome to the forums!

jlamb 12th December 2005, 11:48

Okay, I do NOT get Valve. Why do they make some cheesy (#*%ing low-skilled arcade mess of WWII and then put all these resources into making it LOOK more "cinematic." The trailer was a joke; if the game actually played something like that I might enjoy it a little.

It would be far more telling to re-shoot the whole thing at the same quality, but show how a game really goes: 32 people with hosing each other at 6 feet with SMGs (and missing) while bunny-strafe-hopping in circles. For some drama, you could have a patient, prone rifleman (like those in the actual trailer) carefully drop an entire clip at one of the epileptic WWII rambo wannabes to cover his squad-mates--but as the rifle bullets are flung harmlessly out of the barrel at 20 degree angles, the A.D.D. poster child of an opponent manages to saturate him with an aimless spray of WooT L337 KDR ROxxOOR!11!! lead while zigzagging forward at 20MPH.

I'm so glad we can FINALLY understand what those soldiers went through!

sadffffff 13th December 2005, 07:21

L.O.L. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! @ jlamb

Tim S 13th December 2005, 18:18

I've just updated the final page of this to clear up some confusion about the time frame for when these features will be added to the source engine. Depth of Field and Motion Blur are going to have to wait for the hardware to catch up for now. We might see them at the back end of 2006.

blitzerx 15th December 2005, 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Depth of field doesnt work. People naturally have their eyes look first, then move their hands. With FoV you have to move the mouse in order to adjust the focus of the screen. Rarely do users not look anywhere other than the absoulte centre of their screen, so while you're mouse is looking down at something else and your eye catches something up in the building you cant see it, whereas naturally it would have taken you a fraction of a second to refocus.

Agreed, however what if they could change it so that the computer did know what you were focusing on? If they changed it so that the eye would focus on motion instead of wear your crossfire is, you could get those fraction of a second refocuses.

I love the new features but, film grain is just annoying.

mclean007 15th December 2005, 10:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitzerx
Agreed, however what if they could change it so that the computer did know what you were focusing on? If they changed it so that the eye would focus on motion instead of wear your crossfire is, you could get those fraction of a second refocuses.

But what if there was motion both in the distance and in the foreground? How would the system know if you were focusing on the distant guy for a long range head shot, or on the close up guy for some melee action?

One option which should be technically possible, but difficult to implement, would be to use a webcam to track your eyeline. It would have to be carefully calibrated to give usable results, and might require a better camera than your average webcam, but I know that eye tracking has been used in military applications (Apache) for many years now, so the technology is viable. Of course, the computer would need to be able to dedicate a bit of cpu power to image processing, but with dual core becoming commonplace, and multi-core on the horizon, processing power should not be an issue.

Tim S 15th December 2005, 10:54

I think the way they'll do it is to focus on where the crosshair is pointing - I can't think of any other way that they could implement this.

Log in

Cinematic Effects in Source

Comments 51 to 76 of 76