Gaming News

J Mysterio

MiskyBoyy wrote: »

Or if like me, you didn't realise you couldn't charge a DS4 controller with a regular Samsung phone charger. ****ed my battery on brand new DS4 straight out the box :rolleyes:

I always do this.. no problems yet?

MiskyBoyy

J Mysterio wrote: »

I always do this.. no problems yet?

Completely fried my battery at the time (2017) wouldn't hold a charge after using my samsung fast charger. Googling at the time suggested I ****ed up.

EoinHef

Hopefully they are going with better material for the sticks this time,the original DS4 analog sticks dissolved over time:P

ijohhj

MiskyBoyy wrote: »

fast charger.

This was your mistake. Regular chargers shouldn't be as bad, still ill-advised.

Varik

Normal 5V phone charger or otherwise are perfectly fine.

Fast charger can be an issue as a lot of phone manufactures don't want to pay for any of the main standards so go their own route, if your fast charger uses Quickcharge or PD it's perfectly fine too it just won't charge any faster and will stick to 5V.

Problem with the brand specific ones or the knock offs is the handshaking process giving a false positive.

Varik

2 months after the fact but NACOM bought PLANTRONICS' RIG brand.

And bye bye to some good quality good value products, any existing stock should be bought if you are interested as they've bumped up most of the RRP and seems they're not continuing the cheaper stuff.

Mr Crispy

The Steam controller might be making a comeback.

https://twitter.com/ValveNewsNetwor/status/1248855274514984960?s=20

ijohhj

I would've bought me one of the first gens when they were a fiver but shipping was like five times that figure. Not going to be holding my breath for this though, patents can take years to become real products. Sometimes they never do.

Retr0gamer

I bought one when they were a fiver. A waste of a fiver and shipping.

Grumpypants

Yeah horrible controller. I get what they wanted to do and give a mouse input option but the ps4 has this and all the proper buttons and sticks.

ijohhj

Grumpypants wrote: »

Yeah horrible controller. I get what they wanted to do and give a mouse input option but the ps4 has this and all the proper buttons and sticks.

I think the idea is it's for things like strategy games etc.

They do say it takes time to get used to though.

Zero-Cool

Fallout 76 getting free dlc next week where npc's and a story has been added.... Is this still a subscription game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytteBpDDhuA

pixelburp

Fallout finally becomes a Fallout game. No doubt on release there'll be a bug that uninstalls the game, or just deletes characters.

Looks like it, but this was all built on Bethesda's heavily modified gameBryo right? Characters still look to have that floaty feeling anyway.

ijohhj

pixelburp wrote: »

Looks like it, but this was all built on Bethesda's heavily modified gameBryo right? Characters still look to have that floaty feeling anyway.

BGS allege that code has been replaced so many times in all areas of it that their 'Creation Engine' (I believe they call it?) is completely different. But that of course would be listening and believing to Todd Howard.

Not sure you could pin a 'floaty feeling' on an engine, more like the character setup in these games is extremely simple, the ground is often very uneven, and characters are hand animated rather than mocapped.

I sincerely wish ESVI to be on a completely new engine, but I think they've confirmed that's not happening

Retr0gamer

When companies say that they mean the renderer. Which means it looks different and runs on modern system.

Game feel can be chalked up to the underlying game engine code. The physics and how the low level vectors interact with each other. That usually remains unchanged which is why stuff like call of duty still feels like a quake 3 arena game and why Bethesda games are all janky pieces of ****.

Bethesda won't change that low level stuff. Obsidian had awful trouble with new Vegas because Bethesda refused to fix the same low level bugs in all their PS3 versions of the games which made them near unplayable and were never fixed. I very much doubt this company has changed the fundamentals of their engine.

pixelburp

Yeah, that's what I mean. The underlying engine of Creation/GameBryo just looks and feels the same. That "floatiness" of its internal objects & physics that give everything a sense that nothing is attached to any surface (witness the cutlery exploding everywhere when standing on tables in Skyrim).

Fallout 76 gives off those vibes in any trailers or gameplay videos I've seen, so if they've also bolted on a MMORPG engine onto that janky PoS I'm not surprised the game has been plagued with issues.

If NoClip or Jason Schrier get some tellalls from the Dev team of this, it'll be fascinating. I suspect it'll circle around the need to quickly bootstrap a round peg into a square hole.

ijohhj

Retr0gamer wrote: »

When companies say that they mean the renderer. Which means it looks different and runs on modern system.

No?

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Game feel can be chalked up to the underlying game engine code. The physics and how the low level vectors interact with each other. That usually remains unchanged which is why stuff like call of duty still feels like a quake 3 arena

Again, no? When was the last time you played CoD? The new Modern Warfare couldn't be further from an intentionally slidey arena shooter.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Bethesda won't change that low level stuff. I very much doubt this company has changed the fundamentals of their engine.

No fan of Todd Howard, and would prefer a ground up new engine written for their upcoming titles (or moving to UE4) but we have literally no evidence for what you're saying.

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I mean. The underlying engine of Creation/GameBryo just looks and feels the same.

This is not dependent on the engine. Game designers, animation teams, sure.

A lot of people who play games attribute the wrong things to engines. Like visual style. It's inaccurate to do so. A lot of what people attribute to 'the engine' is all about how game designers, artists and animators manipulate the engine.

Mr Crispy

Re: the animation in TES series, they've already confirmed they'll be using mocap for VI. Hopefully there'll be more realistic physics to go along with the photogrammetric graphics as well.

ijohhj

Mr Crispy wrote: »

Re: the animation in TES series, they've already confirmed they'll be using mocap for VI. Hopefully there'll be more realistic physics to go along with the photogrammetric graphics as well.

Yup, me too. Photogrammetry is pretty huge for next gen for me, more important than raytracing. Excited to start seeing next gen only titles.

Retr0gamer

I've played all the call of duties. They are all still relying on the same collision and movement logic since medal of honor allied assault.

Sure you can adjust some of the physics but the underlying logic on how object interact is the same.

Fallout 76 just needs to be buried in the sea

I agree a new engine or forget about it if they ever make a new one

pixelburp

Mr Crispy wrote: »

Re: the animation in TES series, they've already confirmed they'll be using mocap for VI. Hopefully there'll be more realistic physics to go along with the photogrammetric graphics as well.

That's kinda the point Retro was making though; physics and the like would be more mechanical, baked-in aspects of the engine itself; wouldn't know enough myself to say where animation sits within an engines pipeline but there's a point where you're just stuck with however the engine works under the hood. The physics has always been janky since Oblivion, so I'm guessing there's limited scope for refactoring.

Maybe there's an internal team rewriting Creation from the ground up, though at that point you'd then simply wonder why not migrate to Unreal, Unity or whatever instead of persisting with a heavily modified 14 year old engine. Beyond the need to rehire/reskill a tonne of staff.

Wonder what StarField will use, assuming that ever properly comes to be.

ijohhj

pixelburp wrote: »

That's kinda the point Retro was making though; physics and the like would be more mechanical, baked-in aspects of the engine itself

You don't understand how engines work mate. Sorry.

For one, 'physics' engines are very interchangeable and often developed separate to most engines. Havok, developed right here in Ireland, is often plugged directly into other engines, not developed for them. Bullet is another.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I've played all the call of duties. They are all still relying on the same collision and movement logic since medal of honor allied assault.

Sure you can adjust some of the physics but the underlying logic on how object interact is the same.

Provide links to these shocking truths please.


Because I know for a fact collision detection is not the same in a game released late last year, and a five year old game not even distributed by the same publisher.

Unless you're suggesting Activision stole EA collision detection IP. (lol)

And unless you're suggesting their physics engine has literally never been updated, which is equally unlikely.

pixelburp

ijohhj wrote: »

You don't understand how engines work mate. Sorry.

So go on then mate, don't be sorry-not-sorry. Be informative. Enlighten. If you know different then pass on the articles that Creations physics engine has been reworked since Oblivion. Cos insofar as my small bit of dicking around with the Editor tools since then TES4 and Fallout has shown, it's the same engine just with more window dressing. Same data structure and format for a start.

Some engines are more modular than others, know that from experience of modding (albeit circa 2007 and earlier). If the physics engine is baked into the engine, using middleware like Havok may not be possible without a major refactor. Is Creation using Havok, is it the most recent? Could be a locked version, which is common enough with heavily brittle software.

Game engines are a Ship of Theseus scenario; reworked enough there's a point where refactoring means it's no longer the original engine - GoldSource is a good example of that, barely recognisable as the Quake engine beyond its use of BSPs and other foundational elements. I've never got the sense Creation is much more beyond a cosmetic rework of GameBryo however. That may be because it's technically not possible.

pixelburp

This was started by me, the jist of things being:, is this the same wonky engine Bethesda use for their other RPGs. Cos on the evidence of Fallout 76s troubled existence it seems to be "yes".

Creation / GameBryo is a piece of crap, and wish Bethesda would spent the Dev cycles to move to something less janky and obviously stapled together.

Retr0gamer

I never said physics engine. I know about havok and all the other third party ones.

In 3d games how 3D vectors interact with each other at a base level is the lowest level of the engine. It's also all that games are when you strip out everything else. Sure you can mess with that in a game engine but if you want to radically alter it then you might as well be building your own engine from scratch.

It's why techniques such as bunny hopping have remained in source engine games since Quake. It's a Hangover from the fundamentals to how quake handles vector movement an interaction.

And I've built my own vector engines as well and can see it in my own work

ijohhj

pixelburp wrote: »

So go on then mate, don't be sorry-not-sorry. Be informative. Enlighten.

Already doing that.

pixelburp wrote: »

If you know different then pass on the articles that Creations physics engine has been reworked since Oblivion.

Never said it was, I said that so much has been re-written that it effectively is a new engine. A quick google will find you plenty articles on that. It was the first thing they talked about regarding the Creation Engine far as I remember.

pixelburp wrote: »

Cos insofar as my small bit of dicking around with the Editor tools since then TES4 and Fallout has shown, it's the same engine just with more window dressing. Same data structure and format for a start.

Editors=/=engine, and why change file formats if they work? :pac:

pixelburp wrote: »

Some engines are more modular than others, know that from experience of modding (albeit circa 2007 and earlier).

I believe you. Old ass engines and games wrote their own solutions. That's why a lot of old games are locked at 30fps.

Modern engines and games rarely do.

pixelburp wrote: »

If the physics engine is baked into the engine, using middleware like Havok may not be possible without a major refactor. Is Creation using Havok, is it the most recent? Could be a locked version, which is common enough with heavily brittle software.

Again, this is 2007 talking.

pixelburp wrote: »

Game engines are a Ship of Theseus scenario; reworked enough there's a point where refactoring means it's no longer the original engine - GoldSource is a good example of that, barely recognisable as the Quake engine beyond its use of BSPs and other foundational elements. I've never got the sense Creation is much more beyond a cosmetic rework of GameBryo.

Because you're associating BGS jank with its engine. But that's inaccurate. Believe me, I've been on a team developing with Gamebryo. It's a POS, it deserves its' rep. But it's gone. BGS just doesn't bother with complicated character setup (for now). Probably doesn't help being stuck on Jaguar cores as primary platform for several years. We'll see if they can up their game with 12+ Zen 2 threads.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's why techniques such as bunny hopping have remained in source engine games since Quake. It's a Hangover from the fundamentals to how quake handles vector movement an interaction.

... I bunny hop in Fortnite, pretty sure that's UE4...

Zero-Cool

First tweet in over 3 years...

https://twitter.com/Crysis/status/1249714251360501761?s=19

johnny_ultimate

Whatever problems there are with Bethesda’s engine/editor/technology - in its current or previous forms and the many permutations in between - are amplified and IMO drowned out by the fact they seemingly haven’t bothered to evolve their game design in any meaningful direction since the 360 days. Fallout 4 remains one of the laziest, blandest sequels to a major franchise that I’ve played.

Zero-Cool

I remember playing Fallout 4 after witcher 3 and how absolutely shocked i was with the engine (and quest design).