Epic Releases Free Version of Unreal Engine 217
anomnomnomymous writes "Just a week after Unity announced its engine is now available for free to indie users, Epic Games has revealed a free version of its popular Unreal Engine technology. Called the Unreal Development Kit (UDK), it is a free edition of UE3 that allows community, modder and indie users more access to the engine's features and is available for all. Epic said game developers, students, hobbyists, researchers, creators of 3D visualizations and simulations plus digital filmmakers can all take advantage of the UDK for non-commercial use. The UDK site also offers detailed product features, technical documentation, commercial licensing terms and support resources."
You know what I want to see now? (Score:3, Insightful)
A multi-platform client that allows you to load Google Sketchup files. It would be nice to walk around the models, buildings, etc.
After that, make that multi-platform client compatible with Google Earth. Yes a lot of stuff is still flat but at least they do have terrain data so it would still be nice.
And last, just for kicks, add an option for playing in that map MMOFPS style!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they didn't iD gave you the code, this is just a free license for Indies, nice but not really in hte same league
Re: (Score:2)
You may be interested in this- http://www.3dnemo.com/031_G_to_U.html [3dnemo.com]
It's for unity, the other engine recently made free.
The bummer is that it's kind of a PITA for a large area, but it's still doable.
Re: (Score:2)
Unity (http://unity3d.com/) can import a bunch of the formats that Sketchup Pro can export... native support would be easier, of course.
Out of the box development on Mac or Windows, and deployment to Mac or Windows, as well as on the web.
Still working through the massive (120 pages!) platformer tutorial and piles o' docs.
A Link to the Press Release (Score:5, Informative)
3...2...1.... Virtual Porn! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you think a cinder-block sculpture in the shape of a humanoid is hot. No amount of subd is going to smooth a chunky UT-sized player mesh by that much...
Re: (Score:2)
On Slashdot! Pay attention!
Not a source release... (Score:5, Interesting)
While it's unsurprising given that the current Unreal Engine is still in active development and a ton of commercial games are still being developed and shipped using it, it's worth pointing out that this isn't a source code release; instead, it's something much closer to an elaborate mod engine, with generous swaths of behavioral scripting but no real ability to get 'under the hood' as it were. Still, kudos to Epic for this; it'll be interesting to see who picks up the ball and runs with this.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, I wasn't aware of that, I haven't had much time to read into this (at work and all). I was actually pretty excited, I like the Unreal Engine for its shaders more than anything else. I like to get my hands on the real gooey stuff, to take what bits and pieces I like and leave the rest. I'd rather develop my own game with my own patchwork engine rather then make an Epic Mod for Unreal (Pun fully intended).
Why I like Unreal (Score:5, Interesting)
Having modded for a few different games, I really appreciate the Unreal engine for one specific reason: it assumes that all the space you haven't touched is filled rather than empty. That way, creating the basic flow of a level is just a matter of drawing out a cuboid per room and subtracting it from the filled space. By contrast, the id style starting with empty space requires you to create a cuboid for each wall, ceiling, and floor. There's a three page tutorial on how to make all the seams line up properly - and heaven help you if your room isn't a simple rectangle.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't done any modding or level creation recently, but wasn't Quake 1 subtractive as well? I remember building levels using subtraction a lot and I loved the method.
Re: (Score:2)
Anon is right, it's called CSG substract. And also, it is evil. I don't remember the exact reason why it was evil (I haven't done any mapping for quite a while and I forgot a lot of the theory), but generally on every mapping/modding forum everyone would tell you not to use it.
Drawing floors, walls, and ceilings by hand, no matter how painful may it seem compared to drawing just the inside and hitting the magic button, is the way to go. If you'd be modelling a wall that is visible from both sides (for examp
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You know what? It works. Builds smoothly. Runs flawlessly. Now just gotta get Doom3. Damn it, I hate you. I wasn't supposed to ever touch mapping again, and not being able to run Radiant on Linux was what was keeping me sane. I'm an addict. Now I'm going to abandon all my other projects, quit my job, break up with my girlfriend, and spend next ten months doing an epic map. :(
Thanks :D
Re: (Score:2)
The problem usually solved in other engines by putting a couple 0-depth 1 sided inverted boxes (There's totally a name for it other than "Shell" but I can't remember it) outside the realm of play and using that to cut off rendering, like a hullbox or whatever, then using one giant Brush inside of that and carving your map out of that. But it is annoying to make sure your brushes are snapping together properly and you can get some ugly leaks if you're not careful. For MOST people's map design, or essentially
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded. I don't know how it's in the most recent engines. But Doom 3's level editor was a real piece of shit.
While i really liked the Unreal ones.
Alot of people don't appreciate this (Score:5, Interesting)
But each release of the Unreal Engine actually changes the Game development scene for alot of game development, not just modding community pertaining to Unreal games. Given Unreal 3 is staarrting to get old, this is probably too late to boost the game back into the light of gamers but Unreal has always had this precedence in the scene of developing.
For example, I myself usually develop with the source Engine. I find it easy to use, and probably more importantly, I find Hammer easier to create maps with instead of the Unreal Editor. In one particular scenario I wanted to have a marsh with really cool fog and properly dripping water and fireflies and all this jazz. Now Source while a great PHYSICS engine isn't as fine tuned towards the details as other engines tend to be. I've found that Valve will only update the Shaders to really meet their own needs, and other little things like that - but I mean you can't complain when they are giving it out for free, right? Anyways, Unreal has been pretty good with those kinds of effects - just look at ANY screenshot of their maps, or any video of the gameplay. I was able to look into Unreal and use their structure as a basis for my own particle effects, after all, I don't want it to look EXACTLY like an UT2K3 Map. Worked like a charm. Now, before you jut in, yes, I know Steam has their own FX for this kind of stuff. But its actually pretty taxing on the system, they still haven't quite seemed to nail fog down as it lags quite a bit (See CS:S When multiple smoke nades go off)
So, the next time you think "Unreal, who cares?" - remember that while they seem to be declining a bit in their sales of games, their rendering technology is still amongst the best free stuff out there. And every bit they give to their community is another bit to every community.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked into what they planned for the Unreal 4 engine? It looks really great. Unreal 3 is now nearing its EOL anyway.
Nice one editors. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well done!
On topic: I think this is a very smart move by Epic. It's great to be able to tinker with a top quality engine without having to buy any of their games first. This can definitely come in use for the scientific community, where you would like other people to download your, for example, simulations, and not be constrained by them having to own a game on which it runs.
Also, as some people above mentioned, this is great for some indie developers, who can now build a complete game, see if it's feasible, and if the end-product is to their liking, they can decide to license the engine and sell it.
Of course I'd prefer them to release the whole source, but that can't really be expected of an engine that is still commercially available.
Overall, great move Epic!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, I got to say I'm impressed with the /. editors. After hastily submitting this story at work, I only had links to the Unity3D- and UDK- sites in there. Whereas the text is still the same as I submitted it, the editors done a great job in actually providing some extra informative links in there.
Well done!
After that statement, I had to check my URLs and DNS cache to make sure I wasn't on some Bizarro Slashdot.
Just kidding, editors. I actually appreciate what you guys do for us here.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. I actually really like their business model. It encourages community development alot, which means when I pay 60 bucks for a game, I get more than whats just in the case. And even better, if you've EVER been interested in starting your own game, Unreal is a good place to start (Though probably the first Unreal Engine if you have little to no experience). You can go down to your local bookstore (Chapters or Indigo) and grab a book on game development and They usually bundle a CD with either the Doom o
Re: (Score:2)
``Of course I'd prefer them to release the whole source, but that can't really be expected of an engine that is still commercially available.''
Sometimes, I wonder why companies don't just license the engine as open source and sell the actual game. Let someone else do maintenance and porting on the engine while you focus on the artwork and the story line.
fail - windows only (Score:2, Insightful)
"Anyone can try out the Unreal Development Kit powered by Unreal Engine 3" ...as long as your on windows
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so disappointed to hear that my dream of a UE powered Tux Racer is no longer a possibility. Whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Anyone can try out the Unreal Development Kit powered by Unreal Engine 3" ...as long as your on windows
Very few people are going to seriously try and do 2D texturing on any other platform anyway, although I know 3D work is possible on FOSS, via Blender.
Nobody who is Linux-only, is that way because of Windows' expense. Pirated Windows is available pretty much anywhere, and for all Microsoft's noise to the contrary, that is exactly how they like it.
Nobody who uses FreeBSD is FreeBSD-only, either. It is pure FSF cultism that causes Linux users to want to be single platform.
Refraining from dual booting because
More SF CGI-only fan productions now? (Score:2)
Yay!
much appreciated (Score:2)
No thanks, we've already got 3 Quake engines and a bunch of quality open-source developed ones. But we greatly appreciate the gesture!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the ones they won't be releasing anymore, because they're broke and have been owned by the man?
But whoa, I'm really looking forward to Doom 5 or whatever their working on now. I'm sure it will be nice and dark.
Re:Still behind id (Score:4, Funny)
I found a screenshot of Doom 5 [e-try.com].
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I found a screenshot of Doom 5 [e-try.com]
Nice. Putting those pixel shaders to heavy use I see.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, clearly you misunderstand this screen shot. Our hell spawn battling protagonist is getting ready to shoot something and as an enhancement for Doom 5, he not only puts down his flashlight but now also closes his eyes too. It's all very atmospheric...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't you notice the "sudo mod me up" at the end?
Now make me a sandwich.
No?
sudo make me a sandwich
Re: (Score:2)
You can change to Plain Old Text in settings and then enter works as normal (and html tags too)
Re: (Score:2)
Still behind id software and their GPL releases of the game engines.
Please point me to GPL'ed sources of ID software engine technology equivalent to the technology described in TFA. Thanks.
Xreal, evolution Q3, etc... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please point me to GPL'ed sources of ID software engine technology equivalent to the technology described in TFA. Thanks.
Xreal [xreal-project.net]
Heavily improved version of the (GPLed) Id Tech 3 engine. Includes features such as shadow mapping, per pixel lightning, etc... bringing the whole project visually closer to what's available in modern engines.
Other questions ?
----
More seriously :
Giving away free (gratis) access to some proprietary technology is nothing more than a complex marketing ploy to try to attract more commercial licensee in the long term, by gaining more fans and hackers in the short term. The basic idea is "let the Indie market play around with the engine, and if some group emerge with a new killer-app, they'll have to license our engine".
Whereas giving complete freedom to tinker with the GPL is the most community enabling. Granted, id Tech 5 is not in the GPL now. But on the other hand, the full freedom offered by the GPL has enabled heavy customisation such as the above and many other. And in the long term, are much more valuable for creativity.
Re:Xreal, evolution Q3, etc... (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving away free (gratis) access to some proprietary technology is nothing more than a complex marketing ploy to try to attract more commercial licensee in the long term, by gaining more fans and hackers in the short term. The basic idea is "let the Indie market play around with the engine, and if some group emerge with a new killer-app, they'll have to license our engine".
Oh noes! Epic actually wants people to use their technology and make money from it! The horror! The horror!
Re: (Score:2)
No need to get smarmy with t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...the full freedom offered by the GPL
The GPL does not offer full freedom. Public domain offers full freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Public domain does not offer full freedom.
Full freedom would be to have a hyper-intelligent oracle that produces a completely bug-free and perfect implemention of any software idea you can imagine, with infinite resources behind it and available to everybody instantly and with no cost.
Altair IV (Score:2)
Full freedom would be to have a hyper-intelligent oracle that produces a completely bug-free and perfect implemention of any software idea you can imagine, with infinite resources behind it and available to everybody instantly and with no cost.
A civilization without instrumentalities ?
Yes, but the Krell forgot one thing - monsters from the Id !
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL offers enforced freedom... and not just to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only issue with public domain that I see as a potential problem, is somebody taking the public domain code, adapting it to suit their needs without disclosing their own modifications, and selling it.
Without any sort of licensing, people could keep the code for their own profit without offering insight to the person or people who made it.
Of course, anybody who puts their code in the public domain would be aware of that risk.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point of public domain. It's the "do what you want, I don't care" option.
Re: (Score:2)
More seriously :
Giving away free (gratis) access to some proprietary technology is nothing more than a complex marketing ploy to try to attract more commercial licensee in the long term, by gaining more fans and hackers in the short term. The basic idea is "let the Indie market play around with the engine, and if some group emerge with a new killer-app, they'll have to license our engine".
Whereas giving complete freedom to tinker with the GPL is the most community enabling. Granted, id Tech 5 is not in the GPL now. But on the other hand, the full freedom offered by the GPL has enabled heavy customisation such as the above and many other. And in the long term, are much more valuable for creativity.
Lets say someone makes a Killer-App (or more likely a kick-ass demo that will lead to further funding to complete the game) with either of these engines.
With Epic's Unreal Engine, they can make a game that can target PS3 and XBOX 360 markets which are significantly larger than the PC market. The can also make a closed source commercial game that targets the PC market. It's possible that Epic even intends to use this as an incubator to fund projects. Killer App --> Potential Profit.
With a GPL game
Re: (Score:2)
And what, exactly, is preventing one to sell the other parts of the game? A game is more than just it's engine and engine code. There's music, 3D-art, textures, maps and a whole slew of other *content* one could sell, while still giving away the engine for free. And any enhancements to the game engine can go back upstream, as well. It's a win/win.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Xreal is nowhere near the level of technical capabilities of UE3, sorry.
The rest of your post was a goofy anti-capitalist rant where you actually complain about somebody giving something away for free to attract people to the commercial version (aka, shareware). You even use the trite phrase "marketing ploy." Congrats on being predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving away free (gratis) access to some proprietary technology is nothing more than a complex marketing ploy to try to attract more commercial licensee in the long term, by gaining more fans and hackers in the short term. The basic idea is "let the Indie market play around with the engine, and if some group emerge with a new killer-app, they'll have to license our engine".
Well, yes. Much like the cute girl at the supermarket offering you to try some cookies is nothing more than a complex marketing ploy to attract more customers in the long term, by gaining more fans and cookie-addicts in the short term. However, it's still a free cookie so go, grab it and eat it. They get some extra marketing, cute girl keeps her job, you get a cookie, win for all involved.
Sure it'd be best if it was all GPL, BSD or whatever, but this is still a good step so I'll congratulate them for it.
An
Re: (Score:2)
Heavily improved version of the (GPLed) Id Tech 3 engine.
Right - it's not an example of id's technology equivalent to UE3 that id have GPLed. It's an example of a much earlier id technology that has been improved by someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving away free (gratis) access to some proprietary technology is nothing more than a complex marketing ploy to try to attract more commercial licensee in the long term, by gaining more fans and hackers in the short term. The basic idea is "let the Indie market play around with the engine, and if some group emerge with a new killer-app, they'll have to license our engine".
Whereas giving complete freedom to tinker with the GPL is the most community enabling. Granted, id Tech 5 is not in the GPL now. But on the other hand, the full freedom offered by the GPL has enabled heavy customisation such as the above and many other. And in the long term, are much more valuable for creativity.
Creativity? Show me anything similar to Red Orchestra: Ostfront 1941-45 or Killing Floor, quality-wise, built on a FOSS engine.
Re: (Score:2)
http://xreal-project.net/ [xreal-project.net]
You are delusional if you think quake3 engine (id tech 3) is anywhere near UE3.
Re: (Score:2)
You're delusional if you think that's just a plain-jane Tech3 engine too, pal.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, XReal has some significant enhancements. It can render much more detailed scenes than a stock id tech3 engine can.
Behind ID? (Score:4, Informative)
Well I guess if your goal is to GPL engine then ok. However in general that isn't the goal of a company, they want to make money so they can do things like pay their employees to develop more software. So how have licensing the engines gone? Well Unreal Engine 3, which was released after iD Tech 4, has about 150 games out using it. iD Tech 4? 7 games.
So I'd say Epic has been pretty successful at their primary goal of making a good engine that people wish to license for designing games.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I have no problem with that model to help indie and poorer developers make their mark. It improves the field by keeping companies on their toes constantly improving and allows people with little/no upstart cost get a foot in the door.
Re:Behind ID? (Score:5, Informative)
John Carmack specifically told he did not want to be like Epic. They had (relatively) huge success with Quake 3 engine sales, however he had to spend lots of time for technical support of engine licensees, while he could've spend those times on this on games.
Please look at this:
http://kotaku.com/5339057/john-carmack-ok-with-id-not-becoming-an-epic-or-valve [kotaku.com]
Re:Behind ID? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, his stirring, creative games that would be amazing even without a nice set of graphics tech running them. I know the first time I killed the Cyberdemon in Doom I nearly wept, it was like a modern re-imagining of a Greek tragedy.
Okay, that's getting pretty thick there but lets get one thing out of the way: Id's claim to fame has been sweet tech demos, they've yet to make some kind of interesting innovation that isn't a technical one.
Re: (Score:2)
But you do gain through the support. Epic hires people into support roles. I doubt Tim does much hands-on support these days. He probably views their dev forums and comments on the interesting stuff when he's bored. But every bug filed by a partner goes towards improving the core engine. And that kind of test coverages goes a long long way towards improving everyone's lives. Chances are you'll have a significantly smoother dev cycle with that number of developers hammering on the same codebase together. So
Re: (Score:2)
---
3D Shooter [feeddistiller.com] Games Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still behind id software and their GPL releases of the game engines.
What a troll. id releases its old generation engines as GPL, not the current or even last-generation engines. Unreal Engine 3 is not comparable to the Quake 3 engine, it's more like the id Tech 5 engine, which certainly isn't available for free licensing let alone GPL distribution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GPL is a terrible license for a game engine if you plan to have a multi-player mode, because releasing the code to your game makes it really easy to make cheats.
No. Bad design makes it really easy to make cheats. A server naive enough to trust the clients makes it really easy to make cheats. A well designed multiplayer game is no easier to cheat in with or without the source code. If releasing the source code makes it easier to cheat, the game was poorly designed. Conversely, if a developer knows the source code will be available, they may be motivated to do the job right. Since people can make cheats for a poorly designed game anyway, regardless of whether y
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. Bad design makes it really easy to make cheats. A server naive enough to trust the clients makes it really easy to make cheats. A well designed multiplayer game is no easier to cheat in with or without the source code. If releasing the source code makes it easier to cheat, the game was poorly designed. Conversely, if a developer knows the source code will be available, they may be motivated to do the job right. Since people can make cheats for a poorly designed game anyway, regardless of whether you release the source code or not, a game that releases the source code and is designed to be secure anyway is certainly going to be harder to make cheats for than games which mistakenly think if they don't release the source code, their game will be more secure, a fact proven wrong again and again and again.
The same thing was said by open source supporters when Quake 1 source code was released and cheating went rampant. It's, of course, absolutely true, if you desing so that automating your input doesn't give you an advantage, and so that having the information that your RAM hides doesn't give you an advantage, then there's no cheating problem! The catch? This involves adding auto aim into a FPS game and not hiding players behind walls, which would make them flicker on sight, degrading severely the gaming expe
Re: (Score:2)
Any popular multiplayer game is going to get hacked (especially PC FPS's). There really is no way around it. Whether your source is out there or not, people will reverse engineer the code and find a way. As an indie developer, I can only hope that my game becomes popular enough that people would create cheats for it. Regardless, security through obscurity is not something that a developer should rely on, and rarely does these days. Most companies take a proactive stance against cheating, which is reall
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually GoldenEye (N64) invented hit locations, including head shots.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought we had those in quake (team fortress)...
Re: (Score:2)
You're all wrong (Score:3, Funny)
Mario Brothers was the originator even if they didn't have a booming voice letting everyone know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
AC, I think you might be right. I remember SiN and Soldier of Fortune both having location-based damage modifiers, but SoF was released in 2000 and SiN was 1998.
Re: (Score:2)
Although not exactly an FPS as the term is generally used, MechWarrior 2 had hit locations before that, badly bugged at first - I remember that hits were very often erroneously scored against one particular part of the target (right arm?). I think they patched that pretty quickly.
I'm not sure whether the original MechWarrior allowed you to aim at particular parts of opposing 'mechs - I never played that game.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately that meant that it was trivially simple to line up head shots on slower moving targets and suck any hint of challenge out of the game, but so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Mechwarrior 2 was doing it before then. Not a true FPS by definition but I don't know if we're sticking to the genre or just the game mechanic in general.
Re:The game that invented the headshot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The game that invented the headshot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
+1 Moneyshot. Oh wait, wrong forum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unreal Tournament may not have invented the head shot, but it did invent the neck shot. Sadly the ripper was dropped after the first game in the series. An unwieldy weapon that was just fun to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was just a less cool version of the Razorjack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and Halo invented the first person perspective for shooters and Splinter Cell invented stealth gameplay.
Please remove yourself from the grassed area outside my house.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was ported to Linux 2 years ago(right after the windows release) but it was never released.
Re:Windows only.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Unity engine also mentioned in the caption (which is now also free, and even lets you make money with it) has always had a mac version (it actually used to be mac-only for content generation until earlier this year).
Re:Man's gotta eat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Man's gotta eat (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how that applies to "serious gaming" or gaming for training purposes. You aren't directly profiting by creating the training, but in training your employees you improve the overall bottom line. I didn't see any point in the licenses that mention it. (I admit, I did just skim through it though...)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, they want people doing game design courses to practice on their engine and not something free.
Which is a really really important strategic move. Because the primary motivator for creation of free software, is NEED. So if they reduce, or better yet eliminate, the "need" for people doing classwork to have a free-software based engine, then they have significantly reduced potential future competition in the engine market.
Potential competition that will eventually always "win", all other things being equal, because... it's free, ya know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess would be they are about to announce UE4 and trying to get people onboard with the UE3 would be the best way to get them to upgrade in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm doubting there is much engine source included with this release.
Some UnrealScript/Kismet stuff sure, but no engine source.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they would. If somebody uses the GPL version, they have to include the source code of their game with it along with a license that says anybody can copy or modify it for free! That is a pretty big limitation on any business model for a game company. They could however pay Epic for a different license to the code that would allow them to release closed source or otherwise limit what end users can do with the software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The engine is without a doubt -THE- hardest part of development. I myself have only ever hacked together Frankenstein Engines using bits from everywhere, and never really added my own component (why write your own when someone else already has). With the engine out of the way, a feature Length Game can be done in as little as 6 months*, tested, released, and on the shelf in about a year.
*This is assuming you've got one guy with the ideas who fleshes out a story, 1 guy who does the artwork (both concept and
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, but rarely do you get one that is of high enough standards for todays gaming environment (Which is why every release of the Unreal, Source, Doom, Quake, etc... is such a big deal)
The Original Half Life Series is run off a modified Quake Engine, I believe. and I wouldn't be surprised if the first Unreal Tournament did too. But when you look at how the Unreal engine has evolved and how Source has evolved they are very different.
If you aren't modifying the engine at all, what you're mostly doing