L4D3? (Source 2.0 reveal)

yeah, for 150 euro...

they charged full price for portal 2
 
Half life 3 will launch with source 3.0. So we have a ways to wait.
 
Newer engines don't require more horsepower to look better, they actually make things look and run better using less horsepower.

For example, the original half-life engine didn't have anything like shader 2.0. Source brought shader 2.0 which allowed adding depth and detail without adding more polygons. The only way you could add more detail before that is by adding more polygons which is a big performance hit.

If you created something like that with pure polygons using the old engine it would run really slow, but using the new engine you get the same amount of detail and it runs really fast.

You could in theory recreate Half-Life 1 with identical graphics in the source engine using all the fancy new technology and it would run twice as fast as it did in the original engine.

Of course they typically just make the graphics better and add more detail like better shadows, more realistic animations, physics, etc. to new games because hardware has become more powerful and can handle it.

But basically they could release their new engine and their new game would run better while look better on the new consoles than their old ones.

This is simply wrong. Current gen and next gen engines DO require more power to produce better graphical detail. Imagine running UE3 based games on 5 year old hardware. It would not run very well.
 
This is simply wrong. Current gen and next gen engines DO require more power to produce better graphical detail. Imagine running UE3 based games on 5 year old hardware. It would not run very well.

Why not? UE3 was used in games like Gears of War and Mass Effect. Those will play on a TI calculator.
 
Current gen and next gen engines DO require more power to produce better graphical detail. Imagine running UE3 based games on 5 year old hardware.
You're conflating games and engines. The two aren't analogous: games run atop engines.

In a hyper-theoretical example, if you were to do a reasonably good job porting UTK3 (the game) to UE3 (the engine), it would — in all likelihood — run quite a lot faster than the original game did on the original engine. Multiple times faster, probably, depending on the exact hardware used.

Why? More modern graphics APIs allow greater exploitation of current GPUs; significantly improved script execution performance; multi-threaded core systems; language and compiler improvements over time; thousands of man hours worth of insight into improving performance implemented over time; etc.
 
Agree. Its very simple and works great. Thats why CS is still so great to this day.

have you not heard about the peekers advantage due to lag compensation and all the times when someone is behind a wall already and you still manage to hit them? Not to mention shooting thin air and getting a headshot.

This also happens in tf2 too when you look at frag videos, a spy can stab mid air where a person was 1-2 seconds ago and still get a kill.

Outside of interpolate being turned on none of this stuff happens in half life / cs 1.6.

examples of what im talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i267QWLn-Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRgFnWmY7qM (I see this happen on a daily basis)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_WZD3s7FFg
 
Why not? UE3 was used in games like Gears of War and Mass Effect. Those will play on a TI calculator.

When it came out it was rather demanding. UE3 is no longer being updated aside from bug fixing and 3rd party modifications. Much like how the Splinter Cell games still use a heavily modified UE2.5. UE4 is their new engine, but from what I understand it still runs good on modern hardware. But I would expect it to require a faster PC.
 
have you not heard about the peekers advantage due to lag compensation and all the times when someone is behind a wall already and you still manage to hit them? Not to mention shooting thin air and getting a headshot.

This also happens in tf2 too when you look at frag videos, a spy can stab mid air where a person was 1-2 seconds ago and still get a kill.

Outside of interpolate being turned on none of this stuff happens in half life / cs 1.6.

examples of what im talking about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i267QWLn-Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRgFnWmY7qM (I see this happen on a daily basis)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_WZD3s7FFg

Of course there is latency in these situations. You will never achieve 1:1 on that. On the CS Source video you posted it was simply showing the peek. Where you can see then and they cant see you. This was and issue in CSGO but it was fixed.

CSGO has a delay for when you stop before the recoil goes back to normal. Thats why the first vid shows what it did. The second video someone else was shooting and he was moving so his recoil was way off. Thats how you get those randy shots like that. If you have a demo you can turn on some variables in the console to display the hitboxes and where the bullet impacts are. None of the vids did this.
 
Of course there is latency in these situations. You will never achieve 1:1 on that. On the CS Source video you posted it was simply showing the peek. Where you can see then and they cant see you. This was and issue in CSGO but it was fixed.

CSGO has a delay for when you stop before the recoil goes back to normal. Thats why the first vid shows what it did. The second video someone else was shooting and he was moving so his recoil was way off. Thats how you get those randy shots like that. If you have a demo you can turn on some variables in the console to display the hitboxes and where the bullet impacts are. None of the vids did this.

you're kidding me. you call that recoil??? he shot NOWHERE near the guy and got a headshot it was more than half way across the screen.

and the peeking issue still exists now you can ask anyone who plays now, which is why no one holds angles anymore. and if you do it will look like the other guy is prefiring you on your screen, and how you sometimes die when you are behind the wall already on your screen, on their screen you're not behind the wall.

All these problems listed above did not exist in 1.6
 
you're kidding me. you call that recoil??? he shot NOWHERE near the guy and got a headshot it was more than half way across the screen.

and the peeking issue still exists now you can ask anyone who plays now, which is why no one holds angles anymore. and if you do it will look like the other guy is prefiring you on your screen, and how you sometimes die when you are behind the wall already on your screen, on their screen you're not behind the wall.

All these problems listed above did not exist in 1.6

Thats exactly what it is cheif, When your running the recoil is way off. The hitbox was on the player, not where his crosshair was. Get me the demos and ill prove it to you. The peeking issue was fixed in CSGO. The latency is prolly still there but being able to see around a corner without the other team even seeing your model has been fixed.
 
Demos are borderline pointless to try and prove stuff like hit reg. When you're watching the demo, you're viewing the world with no lag compensation (also why shit can look off when spectating someone). sv_showimpacts will trust where the client thinks the shot landed while the demo is playing, when the result in reality could of been different. Players are NOT guaranteed to be in the exact same spot in a demo as they were in an actual match, sv_showimpacts can give both false positives and negatives.

This is not unaligned in game, and they're real hits, yet sv_showimpacts shows nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPMN1tZtp-s

Peekers advantage happens because the client predicts movement. It will always be slightly ahead of the server, and the best they can do is minimize it. Dying around a corner is the price you pay for lag compensation and shooting AT people rather than ahead. Interp is lag compensated for along with your actual latency... but if you die before someone else, your shots will just cease to exist. You can generally trust that they're not trying to do it if you drop dead around a corner, and that they likely shot at you before you ever went back around the corner for them - it just registered late.

It's NOT fun to play with high ping, and it's definitely not an advantage. I had a period where I routed like shit to MM servers and it was fucking awful playing at 100-150 ping to everyone's 20. And yet people bitched constantly, some thinking I was doing it intentionally for some dumb reason.


It doesn't help that you peek at lightning speed in GO, your acceleration is a good bit sharper than Source / 1.6
 
Thats exactly what it is cheif, When your running the recoil is way off. The hitbox was on the player, not where his crosshair was. Get me the demos and ill prove it to you. The peeking issue was fixed in CSGO. The latency is prolly still there but being able to see around a corner without the other team even seeing your model has been fixed.

you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Read the guy below you he pretty much sums it up pretty well.
 
Demos are borderline pointless to try and prove stuff like hit reg. When you're watching the demo, you're viewing the world with no lag compensation (also why shit can look off when spectating someone). sv_showimpacts will trust where the client thinks the shot landed while the demo is playing, when the result in reality could of been different. Players are NOT guaranteed to be in the exact same spot in a demo as they were in an actual match, sv_showimpacts can give both false positives and negatives.

This is not unaligned in game, and they're real hits, yet sv_showimpacts shows nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPMN1tZtp-s

Peekers advantage happens because the client predicts movement. It will always be slightly ahead of the server, and the best they can do is minimize it. Dying around a corner is the price you pay for lag compensation and shooting AT people rather than ahead. Interp is lag compensated for along with your actual latency... but if you die before someone else, your shots will just cease to exist. You can generally trust that they're not trying to do it if you drop dead around a corner, and that they likely shot at you before you ever went back around the corner for them - it just registered late.

It's NOT fun to play with high ping, and it's definitely not an advantage. I had a period where I routed like shit to MM servers and it was fucking awful playing at 100-150 ping to everyone's 20. And yet people bitched constantly, some thinking I was doing it intentionally for some dumb reason.


It doesn't help that you peek at lightning speed in GO, your acceleration is a good bit sharper than Source / 1.6
Ok, and server side demos?
 
It can be unreliable all the same.

It's usually noticeable on AWP shots in frag videos and stuff because it looks like they hit a bit behind the person. So yea, don't be surprised at slightly wonkiness.
 
It can be unreliable all the same.

It's usually noticeable on AWP shots in frag videos and stuff because it looks like they hit a bit behind the person. So yea, don't be surprised at slightly wonkiness.

So is this truly a issue with the game or is it just people who have bad connections to possibly poor servers?

I used to run CSGO servers but to be honest i stopped once they dropped server side FPS because of the huge performance decrease it brought on.
 
I was going to write a bigger post, but it can ultimately be summed as: it's a visual anomaly, and really not a real world gameplay problem.
 
you wont see them pull a microsoft and make you have a steam client or OS for the game to work as designed lol
I'm not sure why you think this. Valve pulled this long before Microsoft did. HL2 was launched part and parcel with the *mandatory* Steam client.
 
I'm not sure why you think this. Valve pulled this long before Microsoft did. HL2 was launched part and parcel with the *mandatory* Steam client.
Because its not the same thing. Steam runs on more then just steamboxes. You would be hurting yourself by blocking every other platform except for steamboxes.
 
Yes, but you said "steam client". Steam runs on multiple OSes, but doesn't run without the client.
 
I was going to write a bigger post, but it can ultimately be summed as: it's a visual anomaly, and really not a real world gameplay problem.

I'll just say the same thing I tell everyone, it never happened in the original CS. And that game is ancient compared to source engine.
 
I used to run CSGO servers but to be honest i stopped once they dropped server side FPS because of the huge performance decrease it brought on.

Wait, Valve allowed people to set server tickrate? Huh. What was the max value, what it is defaulted to now?

id had to sync client to server FPS with Quake 4 which worked ok for duels (still only 90 fps initially but they unlocked it later on), but generated way too much otherwise avoidable overhead.

At this point I am fairly confident TF2 netcode is superior to CS:GO. Maybe it's the stupid spread but that's how it feels to me.
 
The topic was it being locked to only coming out with SteamOS.
Then why did you change it?

I'll just say the same thing I tell everyone, it never happened in the original CS. And that game is ancient compared to source engine.
This looks to me like a finite tick rate issue, not a latency compensation issue. So I'd wager that it did probably happen in the original.
 
Wait, Valve allowed people to set server tickrate? Huh. What was the max value, what it is defaulted to now?

id had to sync client to server FPS with Quake 4 which worked ok for duels (still only 90 fps initially but they unlocked it later on), but generated way too much otherwise avoidable overhead.

At this point I am fairly confident TF2 netcode is superior to CS:GO. Maybe it's the stupid spread but that's how it feels to me.
In the early beta they didnt restrict tickrate or FPS. Tickrate would run with no problems up to 256 and FPS up to 1000. They made it so that 256 tick servers had quirks so everyone dropped to 170 tick. Then they made it so that 170 tick had quirks and restricted it to no higher then 128. Thats when they locked the FPS to the tickrate of the server which made it awful.

There isnt much difference at all in TF2s and CSGOs netcode.

Then why did you change it?
I didnt, go back and read it again.
 
In the early beta they didnt restrict tickrate or FPS. Tickrate would run with no problems up to 256 and FPS up to 1000. They made it so that 256 tick servers had quirks so everyone dropped to 170 tick. Then they made it so that 170 tick had quirks and restricted it to no higher then 128. Thats when they locked the FPS to the tickrate of the server which made it awful.

There isnt much difference at all in TF2s and CSGOs netcode.

I am curious, why would synced client/sever fps make things worse if it doesn't hit performance as you claim? That makes no sense in theory. Maybe they did something else along with that.

Maybe I like TF2 better because I actually hit where I aim without getting my hands off the keyboard. Can't hit shit in CS:GO. It's frustrating. Should be better on LAN, thought I have no first hand knowledge.
 
I am curious, why would synced client/sever fps make things worse if it doesn't hit performance as you claim? That makes no sense in theory. Maybe they did something else along with that.

Maybe I like TF2 better because I actually hit where I aim without getting my hands off the keyboard. Can't hit shit in CS:GO. It's frustrating. Should be better on LAN, thought I have no first hand knowledge.

FPS and tickrate do affect performance directly.

The netcode in the games are the same. There are some variances im sure. Also keep in mind Valve didnt develop CSGO, Hidden Path did which i think is a large contributing factor of why this game is so bad.
 
Because its not the same thing. Steam runs on more then just steamboxes. You would be hurting yourself by blocking every other platform except for steamboxes.
It doesn't have to be the "same" thing to understand that Valve is not opposed to alienating customers or linking a popular release to a new tech that will lock it down in their favor.

*that's* what they did with Steam. Looking past the minutia of detail regarding the fact that they released a specific game on a specific client the underlying issues, in the abstract, were that they compelled everyone who wanted to play their game to engage in an always on DRM scheme that was fairly uncommon at the time.

They could easily lock a new release to their own console and people would either gripe about it and buck up and buy the console or not. It wouldn't matter either way to them because the market is at a point where they would be financially fine, if not better off, doing so *and* they're privately held making it even less likely that financial considerations would hold them back from going forward with a relatively low-risk, high-payoff reward.

They did it before with Steam. There was lots of controversy, lots of teething problems, and yet still lots of customers. Now it's almost a non-issue. The fact that you simply regard their past behavior as releasing a game on a non-issue client because it could be used multi-platform (which wasn't true in the beginning, btw) is indicative of just how much that move of theirs reshaped the landscape. At the time, it was highly controversial and not at all clear that customers would accept the deal.


edit: although I was mainly interested in why you called launching a title on a mandatory client "pulling a microsoft" because that sounded like you were referring to Origin, which was Microsoft pulling a Valve not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't have to be the "same" thing to understand that Valve is not opposed to alienating customers or linking a popular release to a new tech that will lock it down in their favor.

*that's* what they did with Steam. Looking past the minutia of detail regarding the fact that they released a specific game on a specific client the underlying issues, in the abstract, were that they compelled everyone who wanted to play their game to engage in an always on DRM scheme that was fairly uncommon at the time.

They could easily lock a new release to their own console and people would either gripe about it and buck up and buy the console or not. It wouldn't matter either way to them because the market is at a point where they would be financially fine, if not better off, doing so *and* they're privately held making it even less likely that financial considerations would hold them back from going forward with a relatively low-risk, high-payoff reward.

They did it before with Steam. There was lots of controversy, lots of teething problems, and yet still lots of customers. Now it's almost a non-issue. The fact that you simply regard their past behavior as releasing a game on a non-issue client because it could be used multi-platform (which wasn't true in the beginning, btw) is indicative of just how much that move of theirs reshaped the landscape. At the time, it was highly controversial and not at all clear that customers would accept the deal.


edit: although I was mainly interested in why you called launching a title on a mandatory client "pulling a microsoft" because that sounded like you were referring to Origin, which was Microsoft pulling a Valve not the other way around.

Do you really think Valve is going to lock a game to SteamOS which like .01% of people have? Your talking about releasing a game onto a free service which anyone can get for free. You all also for some reason think that Valve is going to lock a 60 dollar game down to a peice of hardware that costs at least 400 dollars(None of that 400 will go to valve) just to make it SteamOS exclusive? Thats called loosing money in every way.
 
just to make sure what you're asking me here:

is a privately held company, not beholden to any shareholders, that historically and proudly encourages risk-taking hardware and software R&D, and previously linked its flagship *single player* title to an intrusive, always on-line DRM scheme and download service that buckled under demand for the first week's launch...would that company be willing to link its next iteration of the same sequel to it's own OS and possibly hardware box?

Yes, I believe that's entirely possible.
 
just to make sure what you're asking me here:

is a privately held company, not beholden to any shareholders, that historically and proudly encourages risk-taking hardware and software R&D, and previously linked its flagship *single player* title to an intrusive, always on-line DRM scheme and download service that buckled under demand for the first week's launch...would that company be willing to link its next iteration of the same sequel to it's own OS and possibly hardware box?

Yes, I believe that's entirely possible.

You really believe that a company is going to release its most anticipated game to be only on a peice of hardware that .01% of the population have so that even if it does raise steambox sales that the OEMs will get 100% of instead of releasing it on all platforms and setting sales records the second it goes on sale?

You need to go back to school and take logic 101.
 
Then why did you change it?

This looks to me like a finite tick rate issue, not a latency compensation issue. So I'd wager that it did probably happen in the original.

it doesn't, load up the game and play it for a few hours and you'll be able to tell the difference. Or just watch any frag movie. The closest to it that you'll see is interping.
 
You really believe that a company is going to release its most anticipated game to be only on a peice of hardware that .01% of the population have so that even if it does raise steambox sales that the OEMs will get 100% of instead of releasing it on all platforms and setting sales records the second it goes on sale?

You need to go back to school and take logic 101.
Valve released HL2 on a platform that 0.0% of the population had and it came with a boat load of controversy. Yet their backend couldn't handle the demand and customers weren't able to download or even play the game!

Do you even remember HL2 launch? You act like it was just some innocuous download client for the game. It's as if you weren't even there and can't comprehend how risky that was.

Debian based SteamOS in a console box that people already want is a cakewalk in comparison. And as far as logic 101 goes, if there's money to be made in it there isn't anything preventing Valve from manufacturing their own SteamBox. I mean, just lean back in your chair and think about how silly that point is you're trying to make.


But again, the comment I responded to from you specifically stated that Valve would not "pull a Microsoft" in reference to Origin. I was originally correcting you that it was Valve, in fact, that launched Steam first and Microsoft that "pulled a Valve" with Origin.

At any point in these arguments you engage in for the past few pages and days, does it occur to you that you might actually just be wrong and simply correct your interpretation of things rather than insult people?
 
Valve released HL2 on a platform that 0.0% of the population had and it came with a boat load of controversy. Yet their backend couldn't handle the demand and customers weren't able to download or even play the game!

Do you even remember HL2 launch? You act like it was just some innocuous download client for the game. It's as if you weren't even there and can't comprehend how risky that was.

Debian based SteamOS in a console box that people already want is a cakewalk in comparison. And as far as logic 101 goes, if there's money to be made in it there isn't anything preventing Valve from manufacturing their own SteamBox. I mean, just lean back in your chair and think about how silly that point is you're trying to make.


But again, the comment I responded to from you specifically stated that Valve would not "pull a Microsoft" in reference to Origin. I was originally correcting you that it was Valve, in fact, that launched Steam first and Microsoft that "pulled a Valve" with Origin.

At any point in these arguments you engage in for the past few pages and days, does it occur to you that you might actually just be wrong and simply correct your interpretation of things rather than insult people?
Valve released HL2 on a free service that anyone could get and download. Thats different then requiring a 400 dollar peice of hardware running their open source operating system LOL.

I dont get stuck on things in the past to be honest. Life is to short to dwell on things in the past especially long after they have been corrected. There is no need to lean back and think about it. As a business you have to make money. All businesses are interested in making the most possible. You you truly think will happen will net fractions compared to what i think will happen. Thats the way a business thinks.

Requiring someone to download a free program to play the game they purchased != Requiring someone to buy a 400+ dollar console to play the game they just bought. Especially when the company making the requirements sees NONE of the sales of steamboxes.

I never said anything about origin. What i said was in no way shape or form a reference to or anything to do with Origin. You assumed it.
 
Requiring someone to download a free program to play the game they purchased != Requiring someone to buy a 400+ dollar console to play the game they just bought. Especially when the company making the requirements sees NONE of the sales of steamboxes.

I never said anything about origin. What i said was in no way shape or form a reference to anything to do with Origin. You assumed it.
Oh, I assumed it, did I?

Explain what you are referring to here then:
you wont see them pull a microsoft and make you have a steam client or OS for the game to work as designed lol.
If you're not referring to Origin and BF3 then are you referring to Halo and the xbox?
Either example contradicts what you are arguing here...
 
Oh, I assumed it, did I?

Explain what you are referring to here then:

If you're not referring to Origin and BF3 then are you referring to Halo and the xbox?
Either example contradicts what you are arguing here...

When they required you to have Windows Vista for DX10.

To break it down for you.

When a company makes you buy something else so you can play the game you bought.
 
Keynote and Impress are OK. I prefer a mix of InDesign and Flash

InDesign and Flash? That's comparing a custom built rifle to a glock you can buy from the store. Not many people have time to devote to learning and mastering a full publication app when powerpoint gets the job done "well enough". :p

90% of the issue with Power Point isn't the software - it's the idiots designing and giving the presentation in the first place. They wouldn't be any better with InDesign, and I'd argue that they'd get so lost that they'd probably do worse. (It may have changed since the one time I had to do anything with it, some years back, but given what it is aimed at, I somehow doubt it - it's a power designer tool at heart).

Oh, and the CC license can suck it.
 
Keynote and Impress are OK. I prefer a mix of InDesign and Flash

InDesign and Flash? That's comparing a custom built rifle to a glock you can buy from the store. Not many people have time to devote to learning and mastering a full publication app when powerpoint gets the job done "well enough". :p

90% of the issue with Power Point isn't the software - it's the idiots designing and giving the presentation in the first place. They wouldn't be any better with InDesign, and I'd argue that they'd get so lost that they'd probably do worse. (It may have changed since the one time I had to do anything with it, some years back, but given what it is aimed at, I somehow doubt it - it's a power designer tool at heart).

Oh, and the CC license can suck it.
 
Back
Top