T3D 1.0 Artists/demo

#1 I think that the demo does not allow you to save or load levels. So it is just for "demoing".

#2 and you cant add things from editor.
no more than 32 whatever whatever...

#3 Deep is correct, the demo has an object limit, you can't add to or save a scene with more than 32 objects... It's primarily to give you a demo experience that isn't limited by time but gives a full sample of all features.

#4 OK thanks. There needs to be an artist version that artists can have for free... for editing levels and importing their models, sounds, etc..

The whole point of making the pipeline better was for the artists, and now that the pipeline is better the artists can't access the editing features! Makes me want to scream.

ARG!

#5 yeah and as for the discussed "Artist version" for $500. I think that is totally BS. Should not have to pay a fee for every artist on my team that is just retarded. No other engine does that. With the exception of maybe Unity3D.

I have always said for years now that the editor should be separate from the game.

Most game engines the artist tools are free. Period. We artist Give our money to Autodesk. So we have none left for GG. Sorry..

#6 There certainly does need to be some form of artist licence.
Right now our artists have to model and check in Showtool Pro then pass the DTS and textures over to one of the licenced developers to integrate into the world.

This means the artist can't see the effects of their output in-situ and with the world lighting etc applied.
Also means they can't play with the textures on the terrain or even work with the material and object editor.

#7 Artists/level builders definitely need something less than full source code, but with enough of the engine that they can see reliably how it'll look. Some sort of binary licence with the same features would be easiest. Full lighting and other effects are important.

#8 Suggestion: Put out a toolkit that is just the editor. with everything non-essential to the art pipeline removed.

#9 I guess there is always the demo, they cannot save or do anything with it, but they can "test" it. If you are designing levels that is another story and I don't see anything free coming down the pipe for that.

#10 a whole team of artists does not need the engine.

i'm an artist, but i'm the only one, designate a technical artist put them in control of porting assets to the engine. your average artist doesn't need to use the engine directly just supply all the textures and models to the technical artist to port across.

that artiost makes sire layers are correctly arranged, triangle counts are within limits. lod's are sufficient. etc. split the task up and you minimise needed licenses.

typically this might be your level designer on smaller projects as they already need the full license for the tools it adds.

#11 exactly, Al the artist need is a set of realtime shaders for their application that mimics the render and texture setup for you engine. All of the Autodesk support realtime shaders in the viewport. so all you have to is find one that has all of the features of the torque shader system. Though typically you will have to modify what channels are used for what. But once you do that you can pretty pretty mush the same look in the view port of Maya, Max, or Softimage, that you get in Torque3D

Also there is another route and since you have the SDK there is nothing in the license preventing you programmers from making a set of tools for your artist to use. But again I would just use the realtime shaders and then have one person that is responsible for checking in the assets and importing them into the engine.

#12 @James: "I think that is totally BS."

I 100% agree with you on this. Everyone likes to tell you to develop in range of your budget, and the golden rule "the team makes the game, not the engine". So if you can't afford a seat for every artist then your pretty much SOL.

Also what about modders? Independent games have a better chance of taking off and gaining steam via a good modding community, so splitting the editors from the package and allowing you to destribute the binaries to the community/artist of your game would be sweet.

Immagine Quake w/o TF, WF, etc... Would it have attracted and substained the giant following w/o the ability to mod?

From a commercial stand point I can see why the would like to sell an artist version however with a $1,000 license, $3,000+ for 3d package + zBrush. Makes it hard for the little guy to get going. I like to spend my SMALL paycheks on other things like... rent; not paying for every person that wants to contribute to the project.

Futhermore and lastly I know this thought is a bit spread out but seriously this is an issue: If you license the source and they boast their 100% source code etc, you should not be limited to how you distribute your compiled binaries. So what would it hurt to disbriute compiled editors?

Sorry for the thoughts just getting them out there!

-Jace

#13 yeah as long as you don't distribute them with the final product I don't think it should be an issue. I think only those that are going to have source access should have to have a license.

though I think the way that the license is written now it is.

#14 I think an artist editor is needed, and it could even lack a variety of programing related features to limit the artist to level building only.

#15 With T3D anyone requires a license, independent of source developer or not.
I agree that an additional, cheaper non source license is required for the non-programmers on the team (2/3+ of the team). I liked the idea put up in the 1.0 release blog actually.

The $250 basic "cut down to uselessness" version was really not too tempting, but the brought up artist version sounds fine, also price wise.

Its still in the tens of thousands cheaper than the normal fullteam PER PROJECT licenses especially on the longer run as it is not per project.
Also, T3D finally allows you to create more than just games.

#16 How is $500 a better deal price wise than $250? BEside it was always stated that paying for the $250 version was just for licensing purposes that someone on you team could always produce a full feature exe for the team members to use.

For us Artist are just not going to touch T3D for now. We have realtime shader in Softimage so that is all they need.

Still say it is retarded Just about every other engine gives the tools for free. the new license system is just a money grab IMHO.

Quote:I agree that an additional, cheaper non source license is required for the non-programmers on the team (2/3+ of the team). I liked the idea put up in the 1.0 release blog actually.

Actually in bigger project like Halo 3 Artist vs programer ratio was more than 10:1. Big projects like that today that is pretty normal.

#17 The thought here really is why should you haft to pay for someone that doesnt have source access?

Would it be a violation in terms to pull the code from the engine and compile editors for artist?

If T3D can be used for non-games which it can an editor is not a game, that is where I am confused so why would it be against the EULA to destribute an editor instead of a game?

I think having the ability to MOD out games is needed in spirit of indie development. I hope GG reconsiders this whole Artist package idea and offers team members of a LICENSED developer to use the binary editors. However on the other hand I can see why they wouldnt as you can make a game with T3D w/o altering the source at all... So maybe a watered down version for artist so they are able to build out levels and let the LICENSED devs script/code them.

#18 I would be totally fine with that. I think it should be made where it can't be used as a game I don't think that would be difficult. Not to mention There is absolutely no incentive of any licensed developer to do so.

I just think that having to pay for every artist on my staff as well is ridiculous.

The fact that the tools are free for most engines like unreal for instance is because everyone has access to the tools. there for there are tons of talented artist that know them and instantly are up to speed the day they are hired. Thing like this are taken into consideration when a game company selects and engine for a project. Especially when both deadlines and budgets are tight.

If the tools were available for free and able to be freely distributed with the games. there is no reason that you won't see torque being used by artist in the big game art competitions like Dominance War. Now that the torque art pipeline is a little more artist friendly you need to do everything you can to get Game artist using these tools.

Unreal is not selected so often because it is such a ground breaking engine. IMHO there are a lot that look better. Marmoset Engine for instance. Anyway Unreal is the first choice for because it has a great art pipeline that just about any worth hiring game artist in the business has used before.

Nothing but good could possible come from Giving out a pre-compiled binary set of editors or give the developers a project preset to build them out. Better yet make them like Unreal Ed where for the most part that compile for the game they are being distributed with.

I remember a time a few years back when GarageGagage was only even able to have interiors was because Valve was gracious enough to make their tools free.

This is kind of thing should be encouraged not feared. No company that has ever done this has suffered sales from it guys.

#19

Quote:If T3D can be used for non-games which it can an editor is not a game, that is where I am confused so why would it be against the EULA to destribute an editor instead of a game?

because you are not allowed to distribute any of its editors at all. if you use the build functionality of the tool you will get a deployable version and likely understand why it is not possible.

Counterquestion to yours: Why should programmers pay 2 - 3 times as much if 2/3 of all on a team using the engines are non programmers? After all, licensing fees for technologies are always calculated on the team size, not on the amount of programmer staff as the team uses the tech, not an individual. Normally you would just have to get seat licenses, independent of the source as the source is not an "addon thing" its commonly with game techs the very base to do anything as you even have to compile them to get something to work with, independent of your position in team. GG just provides precompiled exes, thats the difference, and they actually even consider licensing an artist seat license without the sources at a 50% discount ...

Also your question is lacking a major factor: just because artists don't use the sources, does that mean that they don't get updates? does that mean that the development of the editors and tech they use was free?
No, definitely not.
The fee you pay is a license to be allowed to use the technology as whole in your project and the license cost scales only by the number of seats, not the number of projects nor your budget (the two factors that normally define the price for game engines)

Artists just don't need the sources so they potentially will be able to get the same great tech minus the sources at a reduced price. Nothing forces GG to do that, they could just as well say: 1 license per seat, independent of the type of seat.

would make them more money after all.

#20 Would make them more in the short term but if you look a the long term and want work toward having the next generation of game artist be familiar with the tool and the Torque art pipeline they need to be distributed freely and put into the hands of everyone possible. Yes I know that those at GG are all happy with their new tools that they just spent god knows how much making. Well they should consider that an investment in their future. And sucking it up and giving them away is the best thing for Torque in the long run. I mean hell I would say that prolly 80% of us are here because we started out making mods. Just seems to me like GG is turning their backs on everything that got them here.