Documentation

#1 Ivano,

This is the only one that I know that will give you a complete list; that doesn't mean it's the only one.

Console Commands.

- Melv.

#2 DumpConsoleClasses() and dumpConsoleFunctions() can also be handy.

#3 .

#4 Take a look at, ah, example/common/scripts/scriptDoc.cs

#5 .

#6 .

#7 If someone wants to make the best wine ever, but they don't even know what wine grapes are, how can you possibly explain to them what they need to understand to make wine. They don't even know what questions they need to ask to find out the information on how to make wine. They don't even know what they need to think about. Soil Ph, the humidity of the region, how consistant the temperatures during the day and night are across the growing season, etc. It's like someone wants to design cars but they don't even know calculus, let alone physics. You can't teach someone physics unless they know calculus.

My suggestion to you is that you not look to GarageGames to teach you how to program, that is not our focus. We provide technology , but trying to support someone who doesn't know how to program is not feasable. You don't even know what questions you need to ask. What you need to do is to do a lot of learning. I had to write a 3d engine from scratch before I began to understand or appreciate Torque. You need to figure out how to ask questions, and how to interpret their replies. This is a very good resource for that, and it will take you far if you heed it's advice. We have a ton of documentation. If you print it out it will be a stack of paper over a foot thick, and that isn't counting the user-resources. The problem here is not our lack of documentation, and your persistant demands for TSE "features", and better documentation are getting tiresome.

#8 .

#9 Then why aren't you using them if documentation and physics are your sticking points?

#10 .

#11 Doing anything with the Torque engine requires a programmer. Be it a C++ programmer or a TorqueScript programmer. And for those two type of people there are several sources of documentation / manuals provided by GarageGames.

The C++ Engine manual is 3800+ pages
The TorqueScript Manual is over 70 pages
The Official Documentation over 400 pages
Essential Guide to Torque - Edward Maurina 300 pages

That is just the resources you get that are available from GG's

That doesn't include the huge volume of resources that the community has provided that can be found in the resources section.

YOU continue to harp about missing physics, and incomplete Docs, yet time after time you have ignored the resources pointed out to you and have complained about how incomplete they are.

You have been insulting and rude from your first post, yet you expect to be treated like a king and have everyone fall over themselves trying to please you.

And as for your assinine comment... Not one programmer who works for GarageGames started there because they "lost theyr job", they started GG's because they chose to do so.

#12 @Ivano: You burn your bridges whilst at the same time try to build other ones. You obviously do not understand the guiding principles behind what GarageGames is. The requests for documentation are perfectly acceptable, the insults and blase comparisons are not. This is the last time I will ever reply to one of your posts.

- Melv.

#13 .

#14 .

#15 If you're truly looking at Quest3D over Torque, then you had no idea what you were purchasing in the first place. They are products that target two completely different markets. Quest3D is an excellent solution for architectural walkthroughs or data simulations. It also has the ability to wander into the gaming arena, though I can't say that I've been impressed with any of the games created on it. Though that's more of a personal taste issue than an engine issue. Torque, by comparison is a game engine with several commercial gaming products behind it. It is programmer-friendly (as long as they are willing to learn), and GG is working on making it much more widely user-friendly for everyone else. Torque has been used by companies and the military on a number of walkthroughs and simulations as well, but it's core appeal is to the game development market. They're both great products, but their core focus is different.

Perhaps you didn't know what you were buying in the first place. This seems to be the case from each post of yours that I've read. Perhaps you have a "moving marker" plan for your game that keeps adjusting and the requirements when you purchased a Torque license were quite different than they are now. Perhaps you're just a forum troll with a spare $250 to burn on TGE/TSE. Your comment about GG indicates that more than anything else. I hate trolls.

#16 @Ivano - Yes, the Torque and certainly some of the newer features of TSE aren't 100% documented. We're adding new docs all the time and we've got the core stuff covered pretty well. If you have a specific area that you'd like documented or explained better, then please post a clear, polite, concise question about it and we'll be happy to answer and cover the "hole" in the docs.

#17 .

#18 OK. Here is the official word:

No physics in Torque or TSE this year. A physics package like ODE is not compatible with the networking based assumptions of our engine. For single player games, a competent programmer can quickly hook it in (Chris Calef, an intern here at GG has done so). T2D will have excellent physics.

We feel our docs are good, but they will continue to get better. They are not perfect, but we have performance proof that they work. Our engine has more shipping games than any of the other engines you mention. We cannot absoutely make everybody happy, but we are satisfied with our progress.

This is now the official end of this conversation. GG employees will no longer spend time on this thread or any other of a similar type that you may start, and I encourage Associates to do the same.

-Jeff Tunnell GG

#19 .

#20 Ok this is my last reply, and more for the benifit of everyone who reads this thread. I just wanted to make something very clear because it doesn't seem like it is:

We HAVE physics. We have a rigid-body simulation model that is one of the best on the market with regard to efficency and network accuracy. Just wanted to clear that up.