What problems have you run into programming T2D with C++ ?

#1 Jason,

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I don't know that developing with T2D often requires code modifications. I would think that the majority of the people using T2D only really work in script. I say this because T2D exposes most of it's awesome power directly to script which allows you to do just about anything you might want to, directly from script. I think the thing that most people struggle with is just script based stuff such as wrapping their minds around the coordinate system used in conjunction with scene windows and camera area/position type stuff. Custom collision poly's seem to be a stubmling block for alot of people as well.

I know this isn't probably what you're looking for, but that's been my experience with T2D.

Best regards,
justin'

#2 For T2D, from what I've seen thus far, code modifications in C++ are *not* usual.

I just wanted people who needed to modify stuff in C++, for whatever reason, to post their bad experiences so that I could see if there's anything I could do to resolve it.

I'm not saying I can, but if I know what the problems people are facing when I'm architecting the thing, maybe I can help.

#3 By the way, thanks for the informative post Justin, I'll keep those points in mind.

#4 The biggest pain I've found is the scripting end is better documented and friendly -- not surprisingly because that is the main development model. For a specific example, schedule() works *very* smoothly from script, but is clumsy from C++.

#5 The most frustrating thing for me is the lack of documentation, and the fact that the search engine on the site searches forums you don't have access to (eg TGE Private) and you can tell by the blurb its exactly what you need, but you can't actually read the thread.

It would be nice to be able to read only the TGE private forums since the engines are so similair and there have been way more posts there than here.

#6 Yup, I've seen this also Ryan.

Thanks for mentioning this, though belive me, I've already been hit with the "no docs" issue many times, so I definatly know that this is the top area for my project to excel at.

Keep the issues comming.. For now, I plan on a C# wrapper with functionality 1:1 on par with TorqueScript, and then an SDK layer on top of that to help with problematic areas.

#7 Yeah, I just pushed through it. I added in my networking library and exposed an object to the torquescript to allow callbacks from the network layer.

I still have a couple things to figure out, but I got T2D connecting to my server I wrote and they exchange messages.

#8 This is an old thread, but it's a good place to add my voice to the other frustrated T2D owners who can't read the TGE forums. I'm investigating a mouse cursor problem, and I've found several possibly relevant messages that I can't read (from what I've seen discussed, winWindow.cc is basically the same for T2D and TGE).

I don't expect much support for an engine that costs only $100 US, but why aren't T2D owners allowed to read all the forums (they needn't be allowed to post)? What's the harm? Access to snippets of code won't let someone make engine mods without owning a copy of TGE's source code. TDN is supposed to be the solution to all our woes, but considering the number of forum messages and resources, how long will it realistically take to extract all that information?

I don't mean to sound indignant; I simply don't understand why customers aren't permitted to access an existing support database.

#9 I've mentioned this in a couple of posts, but just to reinforce:

1) The issue is that when our forum infrastructure was put together, it was not intended to have various information "tagged" for different products. Since then, the product suite has expanded greatly, and unfortunately T2D owners that do not also have TGE have run into the legacy system that we had in place for information transfer.

2) We've recognized the issue, and are currently in the latter stages of development of a completely new information infrastucture based around a Wiki presentation. This new infrastructure gives us full capability to get the right information to the right people, and we are highly focused on pumping out content. In fact, we have two interns who's primary responsibility is converting/re-writing important topics in the wiki format, as well as it being a secondary responsibility for a large portion of our development staff--and to give a perspective on just how amazing that is for GG: I do commercial support as my primary job here at GG (as well as Education), and I have to get explicit permission to tap any developers for even a single support case--Josh is extremely protective over distractions to the dev staff, so having them work on TDN is pretty amazing!

The net result for everyone is going to be a much better organized and easier access set of information to allow you to learn everything you need. As with any new documentation project, it will take a bit of time for it to become fully "rich", but it is an extremely important focus for us, so we just ask for a bit more patience!

#10 While that's an interesting and informative explaination, I don't think it answers Aaron's question. Or, if not his, then the one it raised in my mind.

What exactly is it in the TGE docs that we're being protected from? I mean, if we see some documentation for APIs that we don't have, how does that hurt us or GG? In short, what is the harm to GG or TGE in openning up the TGE forums to us T2D developers? Why do you need to be so protective of certain parts of the TGE docs?

#11 Primarily it's source code that is specific to the 1.3 product that is contained in both the forums and the private documentation. Since there is no restriction to posting source code in private forums (or scripts in the case of T2D), over the years there is a signifigant portion of source code posted. In some cases, there are links to large source code modifications of dozens of files.

#12 Thanks for the reply, Stephen. I shudder to imagine the legacy issues that make it impractical to modify the forum software. It's reassuring to know that TDN is a high priority.

I'm still concerned that some of the topics that interest me are too obscure to be added to the wiki anytime soon. I hesitate to trouble GarageGames' employees with questions that may be specific to my engine mods; I prefer to glean what I can from existing posts.

EDIT: Smaug asked the real question I wanted answered (I doubted that the infrastructure was so brittle that T2D owners couldn't be granted access to the TGE forums). Is the risk that someone will pay $100 for T2D, then harvest enough TGE code to compile their own 3D engine (illegally, I assume), really that great? If I were already willing to spend money on an engine, I'd rather pay another $80 or $100 for a TGE license than go to all that trouble.

#13 Basically, it's just a very large combination of factors that made us decide "ok, it's time to do this a LOT better". Just simple forum management of T2D questions being asked in TGE forums, cross-linking of various topics, differences in T2D and TGE causing confusion for people that read posts form a historical perspective, and a host of other things make it simply not feasible to "mix" everything on this forum infrastructure. We already have a big issue with confusion of tech that crosses between people that do have things like TSE, TGE+RTS-SK, TGE/TSE changes, etc., and it's just much more feasible to do things properly this time!

One of the huge benefits of the wiki based format is that it is even more interactive than the forums here--not only are discussions feasible, but we have the ability for community based content that can be structured much more effectively in both organization and presentation. For example (this is a WAG on my part), I would venture to guess that 80% of the questions I've seen asked in all of the forums (and I do mean all--I just got finished catching up on over 700 messages since friday afternoon!) have been answered previously at least 3-5 times.

That's not a complaint on the community by any means--even with the new search feature, it can still be difficult to do the research you need to do. The wiki based solution is going to solve a huge amount of issues.