Why not a without source code version?
by Andrea Farid Marsili · in iTorque 2D · 09/01/2010 (8:32 am) · 6 replies
As you can read in the title:
Why there isn't a "no source code" version of iTorque2D?
Why there isn't a "no source code" version of iTorque2D?
#2
2. Extendability - With source access, you are not limited to the features we provide. You can add new game play object and .integrate other libraries. Most importantly, you are able to access the iPhone API directly to add new iOS features or change the ones we have provided.
3. Work flow - Apple set out to provide a specific work flow via Xcode. We did not want to break that work flow. While you can do a lot of the work in the editors and script, the key parts of optimizing your game and deployment coincide with Apple's standards.
If we do ever provide a binary-only solution, it will be for the sake of trials/demos. I think having source access is a major selling point of the engine and I do not want to remove that.
09/01/2010 (2:21 pm)
1. Optimization - The more you write in source code, the more performant your app will be.2. Extendability - With source access, you are not limited to the features we provide. You can add new game play object and .integrate other libraries. Most importantly, you are able to access the iPhone API directly to add new iOS features or change the ones we have provided.
3. Work flow - Apple set out to provide a specific work flow via Xcode. We did not want to break that work flow. While you can do a lot of the work in the editors and script, the key parts of optimizing your game and deployment coincide with Apple's standards.
If we do ever provide a binary-only solution, it will be for the sake of trials/demos. I think having source access is a major selling point of the engine and I do not want to remove that.
#3
the reason mentioned by craig is actually no reason as thats no problem, as a statically linked library would easily work as well
09/01/2010 (2:24 pm)
Especially 2 is a if not the major reason cause the Torque engines don't have a concept of plugins and alike to hook in 3rd party code (nor the modular structure to easily do so in case of TGE and TGB -> iT2D) yet for the iphone its just a must that you can communicate with objc and iOS or you won't go live at all.the reason mentioned by craig is actually no reason as thats no problem, as a statically linked library would easily work as well
#4
09/01/2010 (2:48 pm)
Marc, correct if you have it as a statically linked library, but iTorque isn't licensed as such. :)
#5
For example if it wants to get anywhere, having a trial won't remain an option much longer (the few licensees it has does not pay anything -> no active / reasonable paced dev as we are suffering it now -> dead) and a trial would be a static link library for example.
09/01/2010 (3:46 pm)
It isn't but does not mean it couldn't.For example if it wants to get anywhere, having a trial won't remain an option much longer (the few licensees it has does not pay anything -> no active / reasonable paced dev as we are suffering it now -> dead) and a trial would be a static link library for example.
#6
09/01/2010 (4:06 pm)
@Marc - I agree. The need for a trial is becoming more important and we have worked on plans to get it done. We have just prioritized the development to take care of bugs and stability in iT2D, ship iT3D, then work on a static lib version for trial purposes. It's doable and someone has done it internally before. 
Associate Craig Fortune