Torque 3D Community Edition Discussion Thread

#1 Quick note, I removed all the tags and just left the Resources one on for this thread so it doesn't dominate categories it shouldn't be.

#2 Just want to get peoples opinion on the current camera system? Do you think it should stay and have more camera views added to it to create a camera system manager or should it just be redesign/rewritten from the ground up?

#3 Is there a clear roadmap set up for the CE?

#4 Torque3D CE, does not have a real roadmap.

Users who are part of the project can contribute with what they have available, or applying changes freely. No official engagement is made.

Having a roadmap would mean have a true path to reach a final product.

What we can have are ToDo lists which each user could create and carry out on its own or in collaboration with others.

I undertake only to keep the project clean, and to become a guide to others, avoiding end with have a bad engine in the hand.

#5 @Kory[Roadmap] Apparently there isn't. But thats what the discussion thread is for I guess! I believe you should talk with Alfio as he is the creator and I believe he is the one to define a clear roadmap for the project, atleast he is the one who can do so as regular users don't have access to edit it :)

#6 That seems like a good plan Alfio, I like the todo lists as it would maybe look a little clearer than to have tickets in some places.
A bigger project like optimization of the source code would benefit from this as you could say: fx optimization; done! bullet optimization; done! rather than having a ticket for each of these. And having a single ticket for them all would not synch so well with more than one person working on the ticket.

#7 Before there can be a "roadmap", we have to know what people want. That's the purpose of this discussion thread, and or course the Trac Ticket service. Once tickets are created for specific enhancements then that provides us with direction through a to-do list. We're primarily in this to provide enhancements, fixes, and general code improvement that the community wants that haven't been earmarked as a priority for official development by GarageGames. Eventually completely new features could be added - this sort of thing would entail a defined roadmap.

Of course Alfio also allows us to make individual contributions that we feel could be useful without going through the discussion and ticketing process so long as we don't dirty up the code and cause conflicts in other areas -- which is why write privileges to the repository have to be asked for.

#8 I stickied this thread. Stickiness will last as long as the project is active.

#9 As a long term goal I think a 64bit refactoring would be nice.

#10 If we really want to talk about big goals, I would say that the first would be re-implement OpenGL.

I remain of the opinion that for now it is best to keep our feet on the ground.

We will do what we can ;)

#11 I think it would be the developers job and is maybe on a list of things to do, but what about Direct3D 11 implementation? I think maybe a year or so ago, there was discussion about adding Direct3D 11 support. I know it not easy work but just wondering if it is still on the radar?

#12 Personally, i much prefer working on OpenGL. This would allow me to return to work freely in linux, to run Torque3D on MacOs, and to adapt the engine for ps3/vita platforms.

#13 I don't care whether it is OpenGL or DX11 tbh, from what I have seen, they are completely the same feature and performance wise (Maybe some fps difference in favor of one of the two depending on what system and hardware it is run on)
But I am not sure why DX11 would be needed, I think that DX9 got all the features I need. DX11 is limiting the amount of players you can get as well because not all players have DX11 hardware. And having support for both is a great amount of work ( Both creating LOD and displacemappings for models could get tiresome, and not doing so would not make proper use of DX11 )

#14 @Alfio, yes OpenGl would be great also, to allow developer to do PS3 and vita games.
@Lukas, I only make mention of DirectX 11 because I noticed alot of other engines are doing it, plus with the life span of the current gen games coming to an end. It would be nice for developers to start development on the Next-Gen platforms (WiiU,Xbox720,PS4). Building a DirectX 11 layer would allow that, and at the same time you would still have the option to do your projects on the DirectX 9 as well. Something similar to cryengine 3. Like Alfio said it would probably be better to added back OpenGL first.

#15 Fix and streamline.
That is all.
K.I.S.S.

#16 @Steve, I agree but I just thought I'd get a discussion going. Just to get a few topics floating around.

#17 Took a look at converting it to DX11, and my that is so much work.
They change the whole API so much that most of the code has to be rewritten and redesigned.

#18 Yes I been reading up on cryengine 3 and unreal (UDK) and how/what they did to their engines to manage DX11 with there current rendering line. I think I pretty much read the same thing.
Granted I think it would be nice to have the ability to start developing for the next gen consoles but I'm sure no one would want to take that upon themselves.
I think re implementing OpenGL would be good also. That way torque would have the ability to deploy to vita/PS3. Also a good starting point for torque's next gen engine.

#19 Also like Ross mention 64 bit would be nice also. Microsoft is plan on doing away with the 32-bit in the near future so a 64 bit T3D only makes since.

#20 Do realize that using T3D for development on anything other than personal computers (e.g. consoles and/or mobile devices) would require a license (re)negotiation with GarageGames.