Build 2 Released by Ken Silverman
#31 Posted 08 March 2018 - 07:19 PM
#32 Posted 09 March 2018 - 06:07 AM
#34 Posted 09 March 2018 - 06:26 AM
Someone maybe should tell Ken about this, 13/67 isn't good...
(even it still likely false positive but it still not good... )
This post has been edited by Player Lin: 09 March 2018 - 06:29 AM
#35 Posted 09 March 2018 - 03:42 PM
MusicallyInspired, on 09 March 2018 - 06:24 AM, said:
Does it say that in the download? On the website it says "Native Windows, 32-bit color, 6 degrees of freedom, pure CPU rendering".
#36 Posted 09 March 2018 - 04:15 PM
Micky C, on 09 March 2018 - 03:42 PM, said:
This could be a deal breaker for any serious use of this engine. We would need to see what kind of performance it gets with complex constructions and 1080p+ resolutions.
#37 Posted 09 March 2018 - 04:24 PM
Speaking of which, is that why I'm getting this really annoying graphic wall-flashing above and below certain objects like sprites and the help window?
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 09 March 2018 - 04:24 PM
#38 Posted 09 March 2018 - 05:14 PM
MusicallyInspired, on 09 March 2018 - 04:24 PM, said:
Possibly intellectual curiosity. Still, he surely can't expect people to use it for commercial projects?
Btw, IIRC Dark Forces had some simple polygonal models, so it's not outside the realm of possibility that they could be incorporated, if he so desired. Some of the voxels he's using are certainly fairly high res.
#39 Posted 09 March 2018 - 05:43 PM
#41 Posted 10 March 2018 - 02:49 AM
DavoX, on 08 March 2018 - 01:10 PM, said:
Hmm, a caption at around 1:56 says "In 1994, Apogee pushed Ken to write a successor to the Build engine to compete with id Software's Quake", but wasn't the Quake engine developer later? Wikipedia says its development was from 1995.
#42 Posted 10 March 2018 - 09:37 AM
EDIT: I found them. I really really need to read more before asking questions.
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 10 March 2018 - 09:40 AM
#43 Posted 10 March 2018 - 10:11 AM
Trooper Dan, on 09 March 2018 - 05:43 PM, said:
#44 Posted 10 March 2018 - 02:10 PM
My idea is that a special version of eDuke32 using Build2 is developed alongside the normal one. It might be a good alternative to Polymer.
I may move this discussion to another thread in eDuke32 general.
#45 Posted 10 March 2018 - 02:24 PM
This post has been edited by Mark.: 10 March 2018 - 02:48 PM
#46 Posted 10 March 2018 - 03:49 PM
Sgt Nate V, on 10 March 2018 - 02:10 PM, said:
My idea is that a special version of eDuke32 using Build2 is developed alongside the normal one. It might be a good alternative to Polymer.
In my opinion Polymer doesn't need an alternative because it's kind of a flawed approach in improving the engine. Does Build need dynamic shadows? Absolutely not, that stuff doesn't fit the graphical style the engine has and it's really only worth a damn if you convert Duke 3D to a fully 3D game. Of course the HRP does that but as time goes on the HRP ages the game more than anything else: you basically have a choice between the timeless "pixel art" of the original graphics and the HRP's dated 3D models and high resolution textures. The only thing the HRP proves is that you can't remake a Build game faithfully in 3D because the end result will be this weirdly cartoonish mess of a thing.
What is good in Polymer is the option for better lighting effects because that could compliment the original graphics style in a number of ways. That's what Gearbox's new renderer for World Tour did and that's the good approach (man, it feels so strange to say something good about Gearbox ).
This post has been edited by Zaxx: 10 March 2018 - 03:54 PM
#47 Posted 10 March 2018 - 04:46 PM
Zaxx, on 10 March 2018 - 03:49 PM, said:
I agree with most of your post, so I upvoted it, but I disagree with the statement I quoted. There's nothing about Build which precludes developing a game on it in which dynamic shadows would fit in perfectly. Remember, this is Build 2, not Duke 3D 2. I think a game with voxels that have dynamic shadows would be pretty cool.
#48 Posted 10 March 2018 - 05:05 PM
Zaxx, on 10 March 2018 - 03:49 PM, said:
My feelings are hurt that you don't consider a 3rd alternative of high res custom content and TCs as a viable project for Build and Polymer.
#49 Posted 10 March 2018 - 05:09 PM
Zaxx, on 10 March 2018 - 03:49 PM, said:
I don't think the HRP proves anything like that. It was made by a large number of different people over a very long period of time, with no kind of overall direction. Just because it didn't work perfectly here doesn't mean it can't work.
Does Build 2 really have that much of an advantage over eduke32 though?
Quote
6 degrees of freedom,
Multi-user editing with client-side prediction.
No sector/wall/sprite count limits.
In terms of the game itself, the only real advantage (assuming polymer is finished) is the lack of sector/wall/sprite limits. The 6 degrees of freedom is nice I suppose, and polymer does support it, but I gather the underlying build engine does not. It's impressive that it can do everything in software, but as others have said, hardware acceleration is the desirable choice between the two.
The SOS, which appears to be a wall-over-wall (WOW) implementation does look pretty good though.
This post has been edited by Micky C: 10 March 2018 - 05:10 PM
#50 Posted 10 March 2018 - 05:13 PM
#51 Posted 10 March 2018 - 06:03 PM
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 10 March 2018 - 06:07 PM
#52 Posted 10 March 2018 - 06:12 PM
#53 Posted 10 March 2018 - 06:38 PM
MusicallyInspired, on 10 March 2018 - 06:03 PM, said:
It's a good system, but I'd view it more as a compliment to TROR rather than a replacement. As far as I can from playing around in the level editor, if you want to make a hole in the ground for example, TROR would be much easier.
MusicallyInspired, on 10 March 2018 - 06:03 PM, said:
The editor seems to be missing a LOT of basic functionality and conveniences that really speed up mapping with mapster32. As it stands, the editor is extremely bare bones and I wouldn't want to use it to make large, complex maps.
Having had a look at build2.txt, it appears that Ken hasn't really worked on the engine since 2012, and seems unlikely to work on it in the future. Perhaps it'd be possible to convince him to release the source?
#54 Posted 10 March 2018 - 06:57 PM
Trooper Dan, on 10 March 2018 - 04:46 PM, said:
I agree, it would be cool but on Build 2 and not on Build. The way I see it Build 2 emphasizes 3D graphics, dynamic shadows and lighting and voxel models so sure, a game that focuses on those things would be the perfect choice.
On the other hand Build (1) is all about "2.5D", large pixels and detailed sprite work and its lighting / "shadows" technically may be as primitive as it gets but it's still very specific and it creates a unique atmosphere if used well. Because of this a source port to Build like EDuke32 should always focus on features that stay true to the mindset in which the games for Build were - and are - created. Stuff like dynamic shadows don't fit into this picture so adding them clutters up the engine with features that would be very rarely used and really this is what we're seeing now with Polymer. The large majority of content created for EDuke32 don't use Polymer (hell, Ion Maiden's version of ED32 does not even let you use it) and not only because its performance is bad but also because most of the community prefers the original look of Duke 3D.
And really the way I see it there is a reason why the most popular Doom source ports are the ones that are based on ZDoom: ZDoom was never really about the graphical bullshit but rather about expanding the original engine's functionality in ways that are super useful for the community while also being natural extensions to the original tech. I think that's the optimal way of doing it and that's what a project like EDuke32 should be about too. In that sense I'd rather see improvements that make even more complex maps and even higher enemy counts possible for mods.
Edit: Anyway this is one of my favourite games ever so trust me, I appreciate voxels and software rendering:
This post has been edited by Zaxx: 10 March 2018 - 07:15 PM
#55 Posted 10 March 2018 - 07:25 PM
#56 Posted 10 March 2018 - 07:57 PM
#57 Posted 10 March 2018 - 08:03 PM
Micky C, on 10 March 2018 - 05:09 PM, said:
I think it does mean that it will never work perfectly. If you look at projects that had much stronger direction, for example the high res texture pack that was created for Doom you can see that upgrading an old game's graphics that way simply doesn't work. All of the textures of Doom were recreated faithfully based on the originals yet the result is still just some cartoony weirdness. Why? Because the original assets were created with a low resolution in mind: everything was stylized, the proportions are unrealistic because everything had to be easy to identify etc. so if you bump those assets up to HD everything will look funny no matter how good of an artist you are. Want to make nice looking HD textures? You can't because even if you redesign the look of every single texture the original level geometry will still limit you and at the end everything will look just as weird as before. The only solution is to fully remake the game from the ground up with modern technology in mind and to do that you need a different, modern engine.
You can do "Duke Nukem Reloaded" with great results but a high resolution texture pack (or a 3D model pack... dear God) will never feel like the originals.
This post has been edited by Zaxx: 10 March 2018 - 08:06 PM
#58 Posted 10 March 2018 - 08:33 PM
#59 Posted 10 March 2018 - 11:39 PM
Zaxx, on 10 March 2018 - 08:03 PM, said:
You can do "Duke Nukem Reloaded" with great results but a high resolution texture pack (or a 3D model pack... dear God) will never feel like the originals.
Even remaking it from the ground up like Reloaded would be highly problematic as the level designs themselves are done with the same low detail in mind.
Recreate it faithfully and it will look empty, bare and unrealistic. Fill it with details and you will have a cluttered, unreadable mess. Reimagine it in a modern way and it will no longer be the same level design and won't play the same...