Opening up T2D Develpoment
by Jean-Fran · in Torque Game Builder · 09/07/2005 (6:53 am) · 7 replies
Good day All,
Apologies in advance if this is an old/redundant question.
Because of all the speculation, and lack of information concerning the release date of T2D 1.4, I'm wondering why GG is not opening their development a bit more. In other words, what about providing T2D owner access to the source code in development?
I know that it's a work in progress, and things change overnight, but I think some of us would like to get a head start with the new goodies provided by the great developers working on T2D.
I'm not trying to whip a dead horse. Just being curious.
Apologies in advance if this is an old/redundant question.
Because of all the speculation, and lack of information concerning the release date of T2D 1.4, I'm wondering why GG is not opening their development a bit more. In other words, what about providing T2D owner access to the source code in development?
I know that it's a work in progress, and things change overnight, but I think some of us would like to get a head start with the new goodies provided by the great developers working on T2D.
I'm not trying to whip a dead horse. Just being curious.
About the author
#2
And to (hopefully) answer your question, it comes from two historical reasons:
1) T2D was originally a side project of Melv's, and it came under the GG banner as a work in progress instead of a self-started project. It exists in our SVN repositories which the public does -not- have access to, but not in our CVS repository which is what is used for mainline TGE/TSE distribution for EA/RC work. Since GG is working towards getting away from CVS completely and going to a full installation system, the decision to have T2D be the first engine development that wasn't available via repository was made.
2) T2D was originally viewed as an entirely different beast than TGE/TSE: the plan was to provide a completely script based game builder, and only deliver the executable. This was reviewed internally, and it we decided to make the source code available in release candidates to the purchasers relatively late in the project lifecycle. At that time, the decision listed in 1) above was made as well.
09/07/2005 (10:02 am)
A clarification: actually, T2D is currently on 1.1 version, it's TGE that is on 1.4.And to (hopefully) answer your question, it comes from two historical reasons:
1) T2D was originally a side project of Melv's, and it came under the GG banner as a work in progress instead of a self-started project. It exists in our SVN repositories which the public does -not- have access to, but not in our CVS repository which is what is used for mainline TGE/TSE distribution for EA/RC work. Since GG is working towards getting away from CVS completely and going to a full installation system, the decision to have T2D be the first engine development that wasn't available via repository was made.
2) T2D was originally viewed as an entirely different beast than TGE/TSE: the plan was to provide a completely script based game builder, and only deliver the executable. This was reviewed internally, and it we decided to make the source code available in release candidates to the purchasers relatively late in the project lifecycle. At that time, the decision listed in 1) above was made as well.
#3
Though honestly if you didnt have source available for T2D, i would have just purchased TGE. lol
09/07/2005 (11:29 am)
@Stephen: I'm really, really glad you guys decided to release the source code, as it definatly adds a lot more flexibility. Though honestly if you didnt have source available for T2D, i would have just purchased TGE. lol
#4
To further my question, will you consider CVSing T2D in the (near|distant) future? I'm really looking forward to seeing the next release!
Keep up the great work...I may just fork out another $100 to get TGE soon ;).
J-F
09/07/2005 (3:37 pm)
Thanks Stephen for your answer. As Jason said, I'm really glad you chose to provide the source with T2D. It's really great stuff!To further my question, will you consider CVSing T2D in the (near|distant) future? I'm really looking forward to seeing the next release!
Keep up the great work...I may just fork out another $100 to get TGE soon ;).
J-F
#5
09/07/2005 (4:10 pm)
I can say with pretty reasonable confidence that we won't be making the development repository for T2D public. I do know both the pros and cons, and we've discussed it here at the office, but it's not the direction we want to go in the future for Torque products, and I don't think it's going to change for T2D either. 
#6
I just now saw this thread as I was browsing the forums this evening, after I'd just posted what turns out to be a very relevant thread of my own: www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=34278. Though we don't have plans to create a public T2D code repo, I am considering doing a codedrop of T2D 1.1 in beta form. More details in the thread!
09/08/2005 (4:43 am)
Stephen is right on, and thanks for your understanding guys. I know we've gone over this decision a few times in the forums here before, and most everyone seems to think it makes sense. I just now saw this thread as I was browsing the forums this evening, after I'd just posted what turns out to be a very relevant thread of my own: www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=34278. Though we don't have plans to create a public T2D code repo, I am considering doing a codedrop of T2D 1.1 in beta form. More details in the thread!
#7
This was a key factor behind my decision to buy T2D. There are plenty of engines out there that provide source, but most are GPL or non-commercial only. There are likewise engines out there that allow commercial usage but no source, so once more if you can't do it via a mod/scripting you're stuck. T2D gives the ideal solution, can't do it in script, then spend time learning the engine and add to it :) So yes, I'm very glad you decided to make the source available, even if the emphasis is on providing enough scripting hooks to allow the majority of games to be made without touching the engine.
For cvs, I think seeing occasional beta releases would be better than having CVS access. Newcomers will always want access to the latest/greatest when really they'd be better off starting their learning with the most recent stable version. Not to mention the threads requesting help on how to setup and download from cvs.
The beta releases would increase the number of support threads, but overall I think they'll be worth it. You'll get feedback pretty quick on problems for example if the makefiles are not correct for linux. This would be less of a problem in a beta as those who are still learning have the stable release to fall back on if they can't find solutions to the beta issues, which would hopefully not have these little hurdles.
It might not work out, but I think its worth trying, if it helps nail additional bugs prior to the next stable release. Plus it gives those interested in following the development something to play around with, even if it is a little un-stable :)
I think you should try it and see.
09/08/2005 (5:31 am)
One of the main factors behind my purchase of TGE was the full access to the engine source code. It made a nice change to know that you are only limited by your own abilities rather than the supported features of the engine. This was a key factor behind my decision to buy T2D. There are plenty of engines out there that provide source, but most are GPL or non-commercial only. There are likewise engines out there that allow commercial usage but no source, so once more if you can't do it via a mod/scripting you're stuck. T2D gives the ideal solution, can't do it in script, then spend time learning the engine and add to it :) So yes, I'm very glad you decided to make the source available, even if the emphasis is on providing enough scripting hooks to allow the majority of games to be made without touching the engine.
For cvs, I think seeing occasional beta releases would be better than having CVS access. Newcomers will always want access to the latest/greatest when really they'd be better off starting their learning with the most recent stable version. Not to mention the threads requesting help on how to setup and download from cvs.
The beta releases would increase the number of support threads, but overall I think they'll be worth it. You'll get feedback pretty quick on problems for example if the makefiles are not correct for linux. This would be less of a problem in a beta as those who are still learning have the stable release to fall back on if they can't find solutions to the beta issues, which would hopefully not have these little hurdles.
It might not work out, but I think its worth trying, if it helps nail additional bugs prior to the next stable release. Plus it gives those interested in following the development something to play around with, even if it is a little un-stable :)
I think you should try it and see.
Torque 3D Owner Matthew Langley
Torque