Is this true?

The first Half-Life used the Quake 1 engine. Half-Life 2 uses the Source engine.

The source engine is an extension of the HL1 engine, so in a sense it is based on quake 1, yes, but so are all the other ID engines, including Doom 3

.

iceheart wrote:

but so are all the other ID engines, including Doom 3

.

That's just plain wrong. The only way that most of the id engines are based on each other is from what remains in Carmack's mind. It's common knowledge (or so I thought) that Carmack was fond of rewriting engines from scratch (probably up until whatever is after Doom 3 from what I've gleamed from Carmack's comments).

Of course a lot of that was by necessity. The change from Quake 1 to Quake 2 was the obvious integration of OpenGL. Then from Quake 2 to Quake 3 was the abadonment of software rendering altogether and them from Quake 3 to Doom 3 was the unified lighting model change.

At the same time, Carmack was learning (I presume) object-oriented design concepts and up until I think Doom 3 (or maybe Quake 3) his engines were largely in C style C++.

But I've digressed..

bosco wrote:

iceheart wrote:

but so are all the other ID engines, including Doom 3

.

That's just plain wrong. The only way that most of the id engines are based on each other is from what remains in Carmack's mind. It's common knowledge (or so I thought) that Carmack was fond of rewriting engines from scratch (probably up until whatever is after Doom 3 from what I've gleamed from Carmack's comments).

Of course a lot of that was by necessity. The change from Quake 1 to Quake 2 was the obvious integration of OpenGL. Then from Quake 2 to Quake 3 was the abadonment of software rendering altogether and them from Quake 3 to Doom 3 was the unified lighting model change.

At the same time, Carmack was learning (I presume) object-oriented design concepts and up until I think Doom 3 (or maybe Quake 3) his engines were largely in C style C++.

But I've digressed..

Carmack does write new engines from scratch sometimes, but Quake 2 was not done from scratch and I'm pretty sure that Quake 3 wasn't done entirely from scratch either (close to it, though, if memory serves).

If you want to be philosophical about it, then we could reason that Carmack could never create a graphics engine from scratch because he's always drawing upon knowledge from the previous engines he created. Discuss... actually please don't

If you look at the HL2 SDK, the debt that Source owes to Quake is fairly obvious. Anyone familiar with id tech will recognise what those func_* thingies are, let alone the terms BSP, PVS, lightmap, blocksize, detail brush. Source is clearly heavily derived from Quake/HL tech, and that shouldn't really be much of a suprise.

Mind you, anyone claiming that HL2 actually uses the Quake engine is a total biscuit.

No engine is really 'rewrote from scrath', although sometimes they only share some certain small scheletal code. The Quake 2 code was wrote on top of the Quake 1 code, whereas the Quake 3 code was rewrote from scratch as much as possible. The D3 code was rewrote from scratch in that sense too, but the console shell is all from Q3 (for example).

HL1 was done under license from the Quake 1 engine, so it's a heavily modified Q1 engine. Sometime when they were creating the game Q2 was released and they used some small code from that engine, so you can say it's a mix of Q1 and Q2 code, heavily modified.

The HL2 engine is the HL1 engine with a lot rewritten. Although fanboys like to say it's "100% new, rewrote from scratch" (maybe in an attempt to show valve is far superior to id and doesn't need any of the original licensed code) and valve employees have said that on interviews too, it's not. Yes, many of the engine functionality (ie, mods) is still bound to the id way, which is a good thing (I personally hate the way you have to deal with mods on the ut2kx engines, for example)... but more than that, there's a lot of code that still comes directly from the HL1 version. Nothing shocking, of course, since some code like directinput handling or file reading or whatever doesn't have to be changed between different engines anyways.

So you can say HL2 is a heavily modified engine based on an engine that is itself a heavily modified version of the Q1/Q2 engine.

Afaik HL1 was based on the Q2 engine, Q2 were to be released soon and they shifted from Q1 to Q2 in the middle of the development. It's obvious HL1 has never been a complete Q1 improvment anyway. They rewrote all the Q2 features inside HL1 though. It was not intended at first to use the Q2 engine in HL1 but they had to. When HL1 came out, the game was obsolete yet, i didnt play it a lot, there were other and better FPS at this time. Like HL2 they were sooooo late.

And i here I thought it was common knowledge that HL1 was based on the 1.5 version of the quake1 engine. All the enhancements in the Q2 engine were already implemented into the HL engine at the time that Q2 came out. And due to them being one of the first to feature a unique skeletal animation system (unique for the time) most of the Q2 enhancements couldn't even work on their already enhanced Q1 engine. :wink:

zeh wrote:

The D3 code was rewrote from scratch in that sense too, but the console shell is all from Q3 (for example).

First time I'm reading this.

BTW I've heard somewhere that Valve has licenced the Q3 engine at some point... Anyone heard this?

zeh wrote:

The D3 code was rewrote from scratch in that sense too, but the console shell is all from Q3 (for example).

Do you have a quote or something to back this up? I wouldn't be terribly surprised, I just never saw this bit of information anywhere.

bosco wrote:

zeh wrote:

The D3 code was rewrote from scratch in that sense too, but the console shell is all from Q3 (for example).

Do you have a quote or something to back this up? I wouldn't be terribly surprised, I just never saw this bit of information anywhere.

What part? I think it's common knowledge it was rewrote (meaning it's a new engine) but some parts were left, like the console, I meant it myself as an example. I didn't see any reference to the console anywhere, but it's widely know Carmack has redone the core of the engine since it has a new rendering system and whatnot.

PS -- I don't think HL has ever licensed the q3 code, but I know id licenses carry on (as was the case with q1 -> q2 for hl and daikatana).. does that information help?

zeh wrote:

bosco wrote:

zeh wrote:

The D3 code was rewrote from scratch in that sense too, but the console shell is all from Q3 (for example).

Do you have a quote or something to back this up? I wouldn't be terribly surprised, I just never saw this bit of information anywhere.

What part? I think it's common knowledge it was rewrote (meaning it's a new engine) but some parts were left, like the console, I meant it myself as an example. I didn't see any reference to the console anywhere, but it's widely know Carmack has redone the core of the engine since it has a new rendering system and whatnot.

Did you happen to notice my post before that one. I'm the one that originally said all the Quake engines are largely rewrites. Anyway, the part I was inquiring about was the comment you made about the console being all from Quake3. I mean certainly there's a lot of empirical evidence to support that, just the matter of fact way you said it lead me to believe maybe there was an interview I missed somewhere.

slightly OT (probably a slightly stupid question as well but..).. does all this mean id get royalties from HL2 sales if the engine contains 'snippets' or ideas based on the HL code (and thus based on licenced material from id)???

kat wrote:

slightly OT (probably a slightly stupid question as well but..).. does all this mean id get royalties from HL2 sales if the engine contains 'snippets' or ideas based on the HL code (and thus based on licenced material from id)???

Well considering the Quake engine can be licensed for a flat $10,000 fee now I would doubt it requires royalty payment.

Quote:

Did you happen to notice my post before that one. I'm the one that originally said all the Quake engines are largely rewrites. Anyway, the part I was inquiring about was the comment you made about the console being all from Quake3. I mean certainly there's a lot of empirical evidence to support that, just the matter of fact way you said it lead me to believe maybe there was an interview I missed somewhere.

Oh, ok, no, there's no interview mentioning that. It was just a personal example.

I also believe all engines are rewrites, but some of them are .. to a larger degree. When Q3 was being done, Carmack posted something on his .plan mentioning how was Q2 done (on top of Q1) then how they were doing something completelly different for Q3 (rewriting anew, then just using a few assets from the previous engines).

zeh wrote:

Quote:

Did you happen to notice my post before that one. I'm the one that originally said all the Quake engines are largely rewrites. Anyway, the part I was inquiring about was the comment you made about the console being all from Quake3. I mean certainly there's a lot of empirical evidence to support that, just the matter of fact way you said it lead me to believe maybe there was an interview I missed somewhere.

Oh, ok, no, there's no interview mentioning that. It was just a personal example.

I also believe all engines are rewrites, but some of them are .. to a larger degree. When Q3 was being done, Carmack posted something on his .plan mentioning how was Q2 done (on top of Q1) then how they were doing something completelly different for Q3 (rewriting anew, then just using a few assets from the previous engines).

I remember well a Carmack interview where he says clearly "console stuff is not programmed from scratch". Renderer is surely 100% new code

Hm the D3 console seems quite different form Q3 if you ask me, but than again I'm not a programmer...

BTW about the Q series engine licences: IONS had to licence both Q1 and Q2 engine for Daikatana when they considered moving on to Q2 during the development process and the same happened to 3DR with DNF - it's not like you licence one engine and you get another one in 3 years for free... Maybe it works (had worked) the other way - licence Q2 ang get Q1 for free - Special Offer!!!

On the other hand Valve has licenced Q1 and 'has used some code from Q2' - noone says they licenced that one as well so I can't tell.

goodoldalex wrote:

BTW about the Q series engine licences: IONS had to licence both Q1 and Q2 engine for Daikatana when they considered moving on to Q2 during the development process and the same happened to 3DR with DNF - it's not like you licence one engine and you get another one in 3 years for free... Maybe it works (had worked) the other way - licence Q2 ang get Q1 for free - Special Offer!!!

On the other hand Valve has licenced Q1 and 'has used some code from Q2' - noone says they licenced that one as well so I can't tell.

That's true. Certainly licensing the Quake 1 engine doesn't get you the Quake 2 engine when it comes out. I think the person that made that statement is mistaken. At best, you get revisions and updates that are made to THAT code base, often times by other companies that are working closely with id.

In fact, anyone that is interested in this matter as much as I am, should really just go here: http://www.idsoftware.com/business/technology/.

Quote:

Hm the D3 console seems quite different form Q3 if you ask me, but than again I'm not a programmer...

It's the same thing... it even duplicates the bugs the Q3 one had on international keyboards, something developers never notice because they don't use ` for accented characters like à è ì ò ù (I do).

Is it possible to write a engine in C#. And if so wil it be les performant than c/c++ ?

I don't see why you couldn't. It's a programming language and from my understanding it's basically C++ with extensions.

If performance is an issue, you can always code in assembly. That will yield more gain in performance than anything.

Problem is that assembly is one of the most obscure programming languages other than basic machine code.

Is it possible to write a engine in C#. And if so wil it be les performant than c/c++ ?

I don't see why you couldn't. It's a programming language and from my understanding it's basically C++ with extensions.

If performance is an issue, you can always code in assembly. That will yield more gain in performance than anything.

Problem is that assembly is one of the most obscure programming languages other than basic machine code.

Is this true?

The first Half-Life used the Quake 1 engine. Half-Life 2 uses the Source engine.

The source engine is an extension of the HL1 engine, so in a sense it is based on quake 1, yes, but so are all the other ID engines, including Doom 3

.

iceheart wrote:

but so are all the other ID engines, including Doom 3

.

That's just plain wrong. The only way that most of the id engines are based on each other is from what remains in Carmack's mind. It's common knowledge (or so I thought) that Carmack was fond of rewriting engines from scratch (probably up until whatever is after Doom 3 from what I've gleamed from Carmack's comments).

Of course a lot of that was by necessity. The change from Quake 1 to Quake 2 was the obvious integration of OpenGL. Then from Quake 2 to Quake 3 was the abadonment of software rendering altogether and them from Quake 3 to Doom 3 was the unified lighting model change.

At the same time, Carmack was learning (I presume) object-oriented design concepts and up until I think Doom 3 (or maybe Quake 3) his engines were largely in C style C++.

But I've digressed..

bosco wrote:

iceheart wrote:

but so are all the other ID engines, including Doom 3

.

That's just plain wrong. The only way that most of the id engines are based on each other is from what remains in Carmack's mind. It's common knowledge (or so I thought) that Carmack was fond of rewriting engines from scratch (probably up until whatever is after Doom 3 from what I've gleamed from Carmack's comments).

Of course a lot of that was by necessity. The change from Quake 1 to Quake 2 was the obvious integration of OpenGL. Then from Quake 2 to Quake 3 was the abadonment of software rendering altogether and them from Quake 3 to Doom 3 was the unified lighting model change.

At the same time, Carmack was learning (I presume) object-oriented design concepts and up until I think Doom 3 (or maybe Quake 3) his engines were largely in C style C++.

But I've digressed..

Carmack does write new engines from scratch sometimes, but Quake 2 was not done from scratch and I'm pretty sure that Quake 3 wasn't done entirely from scratch either (close to it, though, if memory serves).

If you want to be philosophical about it, then we could reason that Carmack could never create a graphics engine from scratch because he's always drawing upon knowledge from the previous engines he created. Discuss... actually please don't

If you look at the HL2 SDK, the debt that Source owes to Quake is fairly obvious. Anyone familiar with id tech will recognise what those func_* thingies are, let alone the terms BSP, PVS, lightmap, blocksize, detail brush. Source is clearly heavily derived from Quake/HL tech, and that shouldn't really be much of a suprise.

Mind you, anyone claiming that HL2 actually uses the Quake engine is a total biscuit.

No engine is really 'rewrote from scrath', although sometimes they only share some certain small scheletal code. The Quake 2 code was wrote on top of the Quake 1 code, whereas the Quake 3 code was rewrote from scratch as much as possible. The D3 code was rewrote from scratch in that sense too, but the console shell is all from Q3 (for example).

HL1 was done under license from the Quake 1 engine, so it's a heavily modified Q1 engine. Sometime when they were creating the game Q2 was released and they used some small code from that engine, so you can say it's a mix of Q1 and Q2 code, heavily modified.

The HL2 engine is the HL1 engine with a lot rewritten. Although fanboys like to say it's "100% new, rewrote from scratch" (maybe in an attempt to show valve is far superior to id and doesn't need any of the original licensed code) and valve employees have said that on interviews too, it's not. Yes, many of the engine functionality (ie, mods) is still bound to the id way, which is a good thing (I personally hate the way you have to deal with mods on the ut2kx engines, for example)... but more than that, there's a lot of code that still comes directly from the HL1 version. Nothing shocking, of course, since some code like directinput handling or file reading or whatever doesn't have to be changed between different engines anyways.

So you can say HL2 is a heavily modified engine based on an engine that is itself a heavily modified version of the Q1/Q2 engine.

Afaik HL1 was based on the Q2 engine, Q2 were to be released soon and they shifted from Q1 to Q2 in the middle of the development. It's obvious HL1 has never been a complete Q1 improvment anyway. They rewrote all the Q2 features inside HL1 though. It was not intended at first to use the Q2 engine in HL1 but they had to. When HL1 came out, the game was obsolete yet, i didnt play it a lot, there were other and better FPS at this time. Like HL2 they were sooooo late.

And i here I thought it was common knowledge that HL1 was based on the 1.5 version of the quake1 engine. All the enhancements in the Q2 engine were already implemented into the HL engine at the time that Q2 came out. And due to them being one of the first to feature a unique skeletal animation system (unique for the time) most of the Q2 enhancements couldn't even work on their already enhanced Q1 engine. :wink:

zeh wrote:

The D3 code was rewrote from scratch in that sense too, but the console shell is all from Q3 (for example).

First time I'm reading this.

BTW I've heard somewhere that Valve has licenced the Q3 engine at some point... Anyone heard this?

zeh wrote:

The D3 code was rewrote from scratch in that sense too, but the console shell is all from Q3 (for example).

Do you have a quote or something to back this up? I wouldn't be terribly surprised, I just never saw this bit of information anywhere.

bosco wrote:

zeh wrote:

The D3 code was rewrote from scratch in that sense too, but the console shell is all from Q3 (for example).

Do you have a quote or something to back this up? I wouldn't be terribly surprised, I just never saw this bit of information anywhere.

What part? I think it's common knowledge it was rewrote (meaning it's a new engine) but some parts were left, like the console, I meant it myself as an example. I didn't see any reference to the console anywhere, but it's widely know Carmack has redone the core of the engine since it has a new rendering system and whatnot.

PS -- I don't think HL has ever licensed the q3 code, but I know id licenses carry on (as was the case with q1 -> q2 for hl and daikatana).. does that information help?

zeh wrote:

bosco wrote:

zeh wrote:

The D3 code was rewrote from scratch in that sense too, but the console shell is all from Q3 (for example).

Do you have a quote or something to back this up? I wouldn't be terribly surprised, I just never saw this bit of information anywhere.

What part? I think it's common knowledge it was rewrote (meaning it's a new engine) but some parts were left, like the console, I meant it myself as an example. I didn't see any reference to the console anywhere, but it's widely know Carmack has redone the core of the engine since it has a new rendering system and whatnot.

Did you happen to notice my post before that one. I'm the one that originally said all the Quake engines are largely rewrites. Anyway, the part I was inquiring about was the comment you made about the console being all from Quake3. I mean certainly there's a lot of empirical evidence to support that, just the matter of fact way you said it lead me to believe maybe there was an interview I missed somewhere.

slightly OT (probably a slightly stupid question as well but..).. does all this mean id get royalties from HL2 sales if the engine contains 'snippets' or ideas based on the HL code (and thus based on licenced material from id)???

kat wrote:

slightly OT (probably a slightly stupid question as well but..).. does all this mean id get royalties from HL2 sales if the engine contains 'snippets' or ideas based on the HL code (and thus based on licenced material from id)???

Well considering the Quake engine can be licensed for a flat $10,000 fee now I would doubt it requires royalty payment.

Quote:

Did you happen to notice my post before that one. I'm the one that originally said all the Quake engines are largely rewrites. Anyway, the part I was inquiring about was the comment you made about the console being all from Quake3. I mean certainly there's a lot of empirical evidence to support that, just the matter of fact way you said it lead me to believe maybe there was an interview I missed somewhere.

Oh, ok, no, there's no interview mentioning that. It was just a personal example.

I also believe all engines are rewrites, but some of them are .. to a larger degree. When Q3 was being done, Carmack posted something on his .plan mentioning how was Q2 done (on top of Q1) then how they were doing something completelly different for Q3 (rewriting anew, then just using a few assets from the previous engines).

zeh wrote:

Quote:

Did you happen to notice my post before that one. I'm the one that originally said all the Quake engines are largely rewrites. Anyway, the part I was inquiring about was the comment you made about the console being all from Quake3. I mean certainly there's a lot of empirical evidence to support that, just the matter of fact way you said it lead me to believe maybe there was an interview I missed somewhere.

Oh, ok, no, there's no interview mentioning that. It was just a personal example.

I also believe all engines are rewrites, but some of them are .. to a larger degree. When Q3 was being done, Carmack posted something on his .plan mentioning how was Q2 done (on top of Q1) then how they were doing something completelly different for Q3 (rewriting anew, then just using a few assets from the previous engines).

I remember well a Carmack interview where he says clearly "console stuff is not programmed from scratch". Renderer is surely 100% new code

Hm the D3 console seems quite different form Q3 if you ask me, but than again I'm not a programmer...

BTW about the Q series engine licences: IONS had to licence both Q1 and Q2 engine for Daikatana when they considered moving on to Q2 during the development process and the same happened to 3DR with DNF - it's not like you licence one engine and you get another one in 3 years for free... Maybe it works (had worked) the other way - licence Q2 ang get Q1 for free - Special Offer!!!

On the other hand Valve has licenced Q1 and 'has used some code from Q2' - noone says they licenced that one as well so I can't tell.

goodoldalex wrote:

BTW about the Q series engine licences: IONS had to licence both Q1 and Q2 engine for Daikatana when they considered moving on to Q2 during the development process and the same happened to 3DR with DNF - it's not like you licence one engine and you get another one in 3 years for free... Maybe it works (had worked) the other way - licence Q2 ang get Q1 for free - Special Offer!!!

On the other hand Valve has licenced Q1 and 'has used some code from Q2' - noone says they licenced that one as well so I can't tell.

That's true. Certainly licensing the Quake 1 engine doesn't get you the Quake 2 engine when it comes out. I think the person that made that statement is mistaken. At best, you get revisions and updates that are made to THAT code base, often times by other companies that are working closely with id.

In fact, anyone that is interested in this matter as much as I am, should really just go here: http://www.idsoftware.com/business/technology/.

Quote:

Hm the D3 console seems quite different form Q3 if you ask me, but than again I'm not a programmer...

It's the same thing... it even duplicates the bugs the Q3 one had on international keyboards, something developers never notice because they don't use ` for accented characters like à è ì ò ù (I do).

zeh wrote:

It's the same thing... it even duplicates the bugs the Q3 one had on international keyboards, something developers never notice because they don't use ` for accented characters like à è ì ò ù (I do).

Perhaps. I'm not arguing

What I've noticed is that using the scrollbar on the dedicated server window freezes the game for clients (rofl) in the same way as with q3

On the other hand, the full-screen console which appears in d3 from time to time bugged me so I thought it's a new code with old heritage.

Originally, much of the low level Q3 stuff was in use:

"The process of building the new engine went much more smoothly than anything we have done before, because I was able to do all the groundwork while the rest of the company worked on TeamArena. By the time they were ready to work on it, things were basically functional. I did most of the early development work with a gutted version of Quake 3, which let me write a brand new renderer without having to rewrite file access code, console code, and all the other subsystems that make up a game. After the renderer was functional and the other programmers came off of TA and Wolf, the rest of the codebase got rewritten. Especially after our move to C++, there is very little code remaining from the Q3 codebase at this point. "

http://archive.gamespy.com/e32002/pc/carmack/

Black Dog wrote:

Anyone familiar with id tech will recognise what those func_* thingies are, let alone the terms BSP, PVS, lightmap, blocksize, detail brush.

The terms BSP, PVS, lightmap and blocksize were not created by Carmack. He may have been the first person to use BSP trees efficiently in a 3d engine, but those were all existing concepts that hardly belonged to JC.

zeh wrote:

It's the same thing... it even duplicates the bugs the Q3 one had on international keyboards, something developers never notice because they don't use ` for accented characters like à è ì ò ù (I do).

The keyboard input is hardly the console as a whole, and the code that handles it is probably always reused. It's not like keyboard input changes significantly, ever. From what I've read (and Carmack isn't known to embellish), the rest of the console was rewritten from scratch.

Just looking over the technical specs, it's quite obvious that D3 was a near-total rewrite. The gamecode is EXTREMELY different, as is the renderer. Don't know about the net code, but given all of the physics stuff, it's probably pretty different.

HL2 on the other hand... Anyone who's seen the source code leak can testify that they basically took HL1, wrote a new file access backend and renderer, then bolted about $200,000,000 of proprietary SDKs on to it. The gamecode even uses old HL1 callbacks and uses the old frame/edict based networking stuff. The map format is an attrocious blend of HL1 BSP with displacement-mapped terrain and static meshes. If you wondered why HL2's levels were so short, there's why.

Why do this? Why do you think? Not to shorten development, but rather so they could milk every last penny they could out of Half-Life and Counter-Strike. How do you think they "remastered" the original Half-Life so quickly? Do you know how long it would take to port Quake 1 to ANY other Id engine?

All I know is that Source engine games still load a .qc file...so there's at least that method left over from Quake, and who knows what else.

I couldnt make a popup box say hi in c, but hl2 uses *.mdl & *.bsp's. So in my eyes, it's always going to be quake1. atleast id updated the file extension

several of the updates to Q1 were actuatly things that were "new" in Q2, mostly used in expansion packs though . So Valve could of easily made HL1 from beta Q1 code that had those features.

One thing most people (including me) forget about HL2 is that source wasn't built for HL2, it was built for TF2. Valve started testing the Source net code YEARS ago, so I'd expect that to be pretty simular. But i'm actuatly amazed at what they DIDN't do with source... we've all seen what's been done with the Q1/Q2 source code by home based amatures (tenebrae & code red for example). We know that Valve could of done a better render but they didn't. Maybe it was one of the first hings they finished & spent most of their time on maps & physics implimination.

next up in source engine will probaly be bump mapping. like unreal warfare will probaly have soon. or already has since the last screenshots of ut2007

these shots if you havnt seen um
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/te ... ue30.shtml

port66 wrote:

next up in source engine will probaly be bump mapping. like unreal warfare will probaly have soon. or already has since the last screenshots of ut2007

these shots if you havnt seen um
http://www.unrealtechnology.com/html/te ... ue30.shtml

HL2 has support for bump/normal maps, it's just that only a fraction of the textures use them.

and the lack of dynamic lighting in most cases (not that it doesn't support it, but it's almost never used) makes them pretty much inivisible.

I think there is like umm one enemy that use it...

This just proves how sucky Valve and Source are, and how Steam should be painfully executed.

What do you expect, of a company made up of ex-Microsofters?

HL 1 was a heavly modifyed Quake 1 engine (http://collective.valve-erc.com/index.php?go=q1_or_q2) although some say there was some quake 2 code for coloured lighting and other little touches. HL2 was written from the ground up but some people believe there may be a small bits of code from quake 1 in it, for example the null texture and bsp fromat maps are the same.

mattd wrote:

HL2 was written from the ground up but some people believe there may be a small bits of code from quake 1 in it...

i know one of those people is john carmack.

carmack: "Previous source code releases were held up until the last commercial license of the technology shipped, but with the evolving nature of game engines today, it is a lot less clear. There are still bits of early Quake code in Half Life 2, and the remaining licensees of Q3 technology intend to continue their internal developments along similar lines, so there probably won’t be nearly as sharp a cutoff as before. I am still committed to making as much source public as I can, and I won’t wait until the titles from the latest deal have actually shipped, but it is still going to be a little while before I feel comfortable doing the release."

[quote="Foebane"]This just proves how sucky Valve and Source are, and how Steam should be painfully executed.

What do you expect, of a company made up of ex-Microsofters?[/quote]

Shame they are the industry leaders right now, then. It's hypocritical of you to slag off Valve, yet simultaneously be totally behind games which are designed to tick a load of boxes which didn't even exist before HL.

As for graphics, as long as they are fairly competitive, so what, really? HL2 looked great in places (IMO, hi-res lightmaps can still occasionally yield an edge over stencil shadows due to radiosity), Doom3 looked very good overall and Quake4 at it's best looked as good as Doom3 and OK otherwise. My favourite game of the lot though? Q4. You can bet it will have more impact than Doom3, but it's not down to the graphics.

I don't particularly like Valve's approach (if anything, I blame them for a lot), but I appreciate that it exemplifies many of the defining trends in the modern FPS, which other games just imitate.

No, it is not.
The source engine is 100% valve (except for the Havok physics, of course)

Valve re-wrote the whole engine. Nothing comes from HL1.

old thread alert!

all i know is that john carmack himself said there is still bits of quake1 code in the source engine...

it's no different then the CoD 2 engine, which has parts of Quake 3 code in it (heck, id is even listed on the copyright notices because of this!).

i don't really know why valve-fans always get uspet over this. it has part of Quake 1 code in there from HL1. The MDL format isn't that different from HL1's MDL format which hints (strongly) that they kept the model reading code at least.

i love id & doom 3 & don't have a problem saying three's a little bit of Q3A code in there. Heck, why re-write the console system 3 different times?

Sorry, but this thread gets 5/5 for "most useless thread ever!".

I read alot of it so that makes me "the most boring person ever!".