Ben Garney's Forest Pack Status?

#121 I am going crazy waiting for this.......Any updates would be great :)

#122 If it's likely to be canned wouldn't it be better to release what has been done as opensource so that somebody else in the community can try to complete it?

#123 What the hell happened to this?

#124 Tom

Now that Ben released his TGE version of his base code for this, I wondered if theres any ETA for the TGEA version you guys are doing. I do remember the previous statement that we should not wait, but roll out our own solitions if said tech was needed, and its been like 2 weeks only since my last question ;)

But, if theres no light at the current pipe, I guess its time to start diggin into the code just 'open to use', asnd stop waiting for the pack you are working on (hopefully).

#125 Aw damnit, I thought the release was for TGEA. It was always said it would be built for TGEA first, I thought..

#126 I believe Ben's release will work in either TGE or TGEA. As I understand it, Tom's would be capable of creating a larger, more packed forest thanks to better shader optimizations (including Imposters).

#127 Ben's code does not work out of the box for TGEA and is separate from Spilman's Read TGEForest Free Release which states:

Quote:
Note that this code is entirely distinct from what Tom Spilman demoed at last year's GDC - his work is for Torque Advanced and integrates SpeedTree. This is just for TGE, although the code is accessible to Torque Advanced owners as well. Please don't get them confused. :)

#128 I was confusing it with a different resource.

Mea Culpa.

#129 I'm pretty sure (though someone from Sickhead would have to comment) that originally they had their start in the same code, but that Sickhead expanded upon that, added new features and ported it to TGEA. This thread been silent for a long time though, not sure what the status is on it.

#130

Quote:Anyone want to take bets when this will be released? I have $20 on 2012.

You're on, Peter. I've got $20 on 2008. ;)

#131 I'll take both Peter and Russell on by going down to the month. I'm putting down 20$ on June '08
;-P

#132 For TGE I'm betting Oct 2007 since it was released here. :-D

For TGEA I'm betting it's never released for TGEA since basically work has stopped on that and Torque 2 is being actively developed now.

I'm betting that it is never released for Torque 2 and that you'll have to use SpeedTree when Torque 2 comes out.

Any takers? :-D

#133 I think it will eventually get done for TGEA since Sickhead is developing it, not GG. Even though GG is no longer making any significant enhancements to TGEA, Sickhead is still using it as their engine of choice.

#134

Quote:
For TGEA I'm betting it's never released for TGEA since basically work has stopped on that and Torque 2 is being actively developed now.

Quote:
I think it will eventually get done for TGEA since Sickhead is developing it, not GG. Even though GG is no longer making any significant enhancements to TGEA, Sickhead is still using it as their engine of choice.

I really wish people would simply listen to what we say, instead of making guesses. The only people that have said anything similar to the quotes above are the community, not GG.

#135 Gladly looking to be proven wrong on the TGEA enhancements thing, Stephen. I'll send you a muffin basket or something.

#136 @Stephen - Which part of my statement are you referring to?

TGE-A development is basically stopped - It has, hasn't it? Sure, you're probably doing bug fixes and you're continuing to support it, but are you planning any new features for it?

Torque 2 is actively being developed now - It is, isn't it?

TGE-A will never be released with Ben's Forest Pack - That was a guess, but the last few posts were bets on when we thought it would be released and my bet was "never."

If GG has made a statement about when TGE-A will be released with Ben's Forest Pack then I never saw it... can someone point it out for me, please? Then I'll stop guessing. :-D

#137

Quote:

TGE-A development is basically stopped - It has, hasn't it?

No, it hasn't. We haven't come flat out and described our entire business structure, but we have mentioned several times that T2 is in "research and development" mode, and that our existing products are in "product enhancement/support" mode.

We have never only ever worked on one engine, and we've always had R&D work going on at the same time as product work, but it's much more delineated now.

#138 Then that indeed is good news. Thanks for clearing that up.

#139 @Stephen:

The community still has these "misunderstandings" in spite of GG's new "transparent development" philosophy. Maybe it's not as transparent as we were led to believe or expect.

You said yourself that GG's still not willing to describe their "entire business structure", meaning we're not allowed to know who's working on what, or even rough percentages. Looks to me like GG's still hiding the important data behind a veil of secrecy. That doesn't sound like "transparent development" to me.

If you expect the community to stop making guesses then you need to provide us with more detailed information. The people you're contradicting here are two of our community's most respectedand educated members, not just a couple of hotshots running off at the mouth.

I bet if the definition of "transparent development" included the following things (with status updated on a regular basis) then we wouldn't have these people making all these guesses that seem to frustrate you so much:

1. what percentage of developers and testers working on each product

2. what percentage of development (for each product) is on bugfixes, versus minor enhancements, versus major enhancements

3. expected changes to these percentages in the future, with projected dates and scope of changes

THIS is what the community expected when GG introduced the term "transparent development". Maybe you can explain what GG meant, since it certainly doesn't seem to mean the same thing internally.

But if all you give us is vague denials like

Quote:"We have never only ever worked on one engine, and we've always had R&D work going on at the same time as product work, but it's much more delineated now."

when we are clearly expecting some hard numbers, how can you be surprised when we start making assumptions that you're hiding some bad news from us?

#140 A good chunk of the misunderstanding I see in the community comes from 1) TD tech not being in place, 2) a misunderstanding that TD is extended from T2 to all GG products and projects, and 3) a desire for an open window into everything GG.

Right now the TD tech is not in place. If you've followed most open-source consortiums and projects, you know that the means of communication for the projects are often archaic and kludgy. A number of them have moved to CMS packages and written plug-ins for their nightly builds, etc. But right now it's a bandaid solution. There are a lot of project management packages, but they often lack or assume other methods of information that are currently used such as mailman lists or the like. Creating a TD environment is a big call, and a very worthwhile one. I'd love to have something like what we've talked about at IGC in terms of transparent tech in place for open-source projects--and commercial projects.

TD, while it would be nice for all products, is something that will provide the community with information about Torque 2's development. It is there to promote discussion, allow people to see features being slashed and hacked without a sense that the feature was promised through their own expectations. This, like Torque 2 itself, is something that is coming, not something that is currently in place or expected to be in place for TGE/A/B/X currently. This doesn't mean that it won't extend to the current engines down the road, but the further along it gets towards full Torque 2 development, the less useful it will be in terms of the existing engines.

I highly doubt there will ever be an open window into all of GG's inner workings. That doesn't mean that TD will not enlighten us on Torque 2 or allow us a space for discussion on engine tech and decisions being made. But since there are internal game projects for which much of the current technology is being developed, it is a difficult call to release statistics. Perhaps some of the code Clark is writing will go into Project X, but it might also be rolled into TGEA or Torque 2. Then you have to back-calculate or the quite useless statistics of engine developer-to-specific-ratio is even more useless. Pat did a lot of work with MBU on XBLA, and that work directly influenced TGEA. Would it be cool to see that dev time and experience through an open window? Definitely. Would it have benefited the community? I really don't know. I like to think that it would have, but since I don't have a time machine and today's wayback machine to show the dev's back in the day, I don't know.