TSE status
by Dan Partelly · in Torque Game Engine Advanced · 11/25/2005 (7:38 am) · 73 replies
Ok, is there anywhere a resource saying what works and what is broken in TSE compared to TGE features ?
Also, whats the current state of TSE development ?
Judgeing from TSE IGC 2004 screenshots (St Helen's terrain, ice cave demo), whats in CVS today , is more or less what
was a year ago. Does this means that developemnt is extremly slow or even halted, and untill TSE 1.0 is completed one
will have to wait anther couple of years ? (Considering efficient dynamic lighting and shadow algorithms implementation
are way more complex then what was planed for milestone 3 .... which seems to take over a year .... )
Dan
Also, whats the current state of TSE development ?
Judgeing from TSE IGC 2004 screenshots (St Helen's terrain, ice cave demo), whats in CVS today , is more or less what
was a year ago. Does this means that developemnt is extremly slow or even halted, and untill TSE 1.0 is completed one
will have to wait anther couple of years ? (Considering efficient dynamic lighting and shadow algorithms implementation
are way more complex then what was planed for milestone 3 .... which seems to take over a year .... )
Dan
About the author
#22
I can do PS 3.0 programming on Render Monkey as well. I dont need a game engine for that. Edge detection and HDR can be easily done in lesser PS versions.
Ray:
Yes yor last post was helpfull. Thanks for offer to help. If anybody feels like it , id like to discuss what exactly have TSE today
in scene as light sources, and how terrain and interiors are lit presently, or in legacy TSE.
It looks good, your relief mapping. Is Its based on Policarpo's implementation ? Does it work equally well with all types of light sources ?
Do you happen to know that iof GG go for shadow mapping, will they support apart from spot and directional light sources which casr shadows, point light sources with shadow maps ?
I happen to beleive that stuff like paralax mapping and releif mapping should be integrated into the procedural shader generator, for multiple reasons. One of them is, Im sure you guys already know this, that the code for vertex shader has to be slightly different for
different light sources types.
This will alow an efficient way that a object which is lit by a point light and a directional light at the same time , to be corectly rendered in 2 lighting passes , using slightly different shaders, which acomplish same thing, for example one pass for paralxmapped from point light, and
another pass for paralxmapped lit by a direction light.
>> a technology that i haven't seen in any other shader based game engine
Shadergen is a cool technology Ray, but generating shaders at run time is not really a new thing. It is used in other engines as well ,
some commercial ones, IIRC Farcry uses it to some extent, Tragnarion studios uses somethig very similar for their modified Nebula Device (free engine) based games, C4 engine also uses this teknique to a very great extent to generate required shaders for extremly complex lighting models , and the roots of genrating shaders at run time from comprehensive material descriptions can be traced back 3 or 4 years, to a guy called Bart Sekura, which wrote a Quake 3 BSP renderer which used vertex shader extensivly, of course, run time generated from Quake 3 shader descriptions.
Thanks, dan
11/26/2005 (6:20 am)
Randy:I can do PS 3.0 programming on Render Monkey as well. I dont need a game engine for that. Edge detection and HDR can be easily done in lesser PS versions.
Ray:
Yes yor last post was helpfull. Thanks for offer to help. If anybody feels like it , id like to discuss what exactly have TSE today
in scene as light sources, and how terrain and interiors are lit presently, or in legacy TSE.
It looks good, your relief mapping. Is Its based on Policarpo's implementation ? Does it work equally well with all types of light sources ?
Do you happen to know that iof GG go for shadow mapping, will they support apart from spot and directional light sources which casr shadows, point light sources with shadow maps ?
I happen to beleive that stuff like paralax mapping and releif mapping should be integrated into the procedural shader generator, for multiple reasons. One of them is, Im sure you guys already know this, that the code for vertex shader has to be slightly different for
different light sources types.
This will alow an efficient way that a object which is lit by a point light and a directional light at the same time , to be corectly rendered in 2 lighting passes , using slightly different shaders, which acomplish same thing, for example one pass for paralxmapped from point light, and
another pass for paralxmapped lit by a direction light.
>> a technology that i haven't seen in any other shader based game engine
Shadergen is a cool technology Ray, but generating shaders at run time is not really a new thing. It is used in other engines as well ,
some commercial ones, IIRC Farcry uses it to some extent, Tragnarion studios uses somethig very similar for their modified Nebula Device (free engine) based games, C4 engine also uses this teknique to a very great extent to generate required shaders for extremly complex lighting models , and the roots of genrating shaders at run time from comprehensive material descriptions can be traced back 3 or 4 years, to a guy called Bart Sekura, which wrote a Quake 3 BSP renderer which used vertex shader extensivly, of course, run time generated from Quake 3 shader descriptions.
Thanks, dan
#23
While I agree that the policy of "it's done when it's done" aggravates feelings of anxiety... it really is the only wise way to set a time for something. When's the last time you've seen a game come out exactly when they said they would? Personally, I can't think of a time ever, but I'm sure theres a few... but it is definitely difficult to think of one. Usually, the more skilled teams give no final release dates. Perhaps internally they will keep a "maybe we'll be done May 30th, 2006..." but usually a policy of "it's done when it's done" is safer than the "May 30th, 2006" deadline... when May 30th rolls around and it isn't done... Well, you get the idea.
In any case, technically, they are putting a lot of work into it. Unless I'm mistaken, any knowledge they get from developing Marble Blast Ultra will reflect what we get. Additionally, the "pause" from TSE was due to the new TGE 1.4 which also goes to TSE (even though its not in the milestone). Even though it doesn't look like it, TSE is getting improvements... maybe not eye candy, but eye candy is secondary.
What I am doing is putting my game in TGE and periodically loading up into TSE to make sure I have a path to upgrade when it comes time. Technically, you can get more than 90% of your game done on TGE... might be something to think about.
11/26/2005 (7:27 am)
Dan,While I agree that the policy of "it's done when it's done" aggravates feelings of anxiety... it really is the only wise way to set a time for something. When's the last time you've seen a game come out exactly when they said they would? Personally, I can't think of a time ever, but I'm sure theres a few... but it is definitely difficult to think of one. Usually, the more skilled teams give no final release dates. Perhaps internally they will keep a "maybe we'll be done May 30th, 2006..." but usually a policy of "it's done when it's done" is safer than the "May 30th, 2006" deadline... when May 30th rolls around and it isn't done... Well, you get the idea.
In any case, technically, they are putting a lot of work into it. Unless I'm mistaken, any knowledge they get from developing Marble Blast Ultra will reflect what we get. Additionally, the "pause" from TSE was due to the new TGE 1.4 which also goes to TSE (even though its not in the milestone). Even though it doesn't look like it, TSE is getting improvements... maybe not eye candy, but eye candy is secondary.
What I am doing is putting my game in TGE and periodically loading up into TSE to make sure I have a path to upgrade when it comes time. Technically, you can get more than 90% of your game done on TGE... might be something to think about.
#24
I work in software development, more precisly I develope device driver for Windows NT and derivative kernels, specializing
in file systems and file system filter devleopment. On a broader range, I offer any type of consultancy linked to interans
of windpows kernel and device driver development.
During the projects I contracted, I had in 99% of time to offer to my cutomers a predicted relase date. Was it meet ?
Sometimes yes. Sometimes ... But if I would offer no initial enstimates to my cutomers, and not correct them during project in
a public manner and check with my client, I guarantee you, I would famish today instead of driving fast german cars :P
In this industry (file system developments . general driver development), you are simply not accepted as a partener
if you cant offer estimates.
My cutomers depended by my estimates, their bussiness plans depend by my code and it;s reliability and metting worst
case deadlines, their MONEY and investor relations depend by those, and I always strived to give them the best I could come up with,
and make every effort to meet them. My cutomers also wanted to know if something goes astray from the plan, so they can prepare
in a timely manner a contingency response.
I guess this is not about axienty feelings, is just the way I am used to treat my cutomers, and thus ensure their product
success and my success as a freelance developer and consultant.
It seems that GG thinks oterwise, their best response beeing "when is done". If it works well for them, god bless them.
>>What I am doing is putting my game in TGE and periodically loading up into TSE to make sure I have a path to upgrade when it comes time. >>Technically, you can get more than 90% of your game done on TGE..
Good idea. Thanks man.
11/26/2005 (7:55 am)
>> it really is the only wise way to set a time for somethingI work in software development, more precisly I develope device driver for Windows NT and derivative kernels, specializing
in file systems and file system filter devleopment. On a broader range, I offer any type of consultancy linked to interans
of windpows kernel and device driver development.
During the projects I contracted, I had in 99% of time to offer to my cutomers a predicted relase date. Was it meet ?
Sometimes yes. Sometimes ... But if I would offer no initial enstimates to my cutomers, and not correct them during project in
a public manner and check with my client, I guarantee you, I would famish today instead of driving fast german cars :P
In this industry (file system developments . general driver development), you are simply not accepted as a partener
if you cant offer estimates.
My cutomers depended by my estimates, their bussiness plans depend by my code and it;s reliability and metting worst
case deadlines, their MONEY and investor relations depend by those, and I always strived to give them the best I could come up with,
and make every effort to meet them. My cutomers also wanted to know if something goes astray from the plan, so they can prepare
in a timely manner a contingency response.
I guess this is not about axienty feelings, is just the way I am used to treat my cutomers, and thus ensure their product
success and my success as a freelance developer and consultant.
It seems that GG thinks oterwise, their best response beeing "when is done". If it works well for them, god bless them.
>>What I am doing is putting my game in TGE and periodically loading up into TSE to make sure I have a path to upgrade when it comes time. >>Technically, you can get more than 90% of your game done on TGE..
Good idea. Thanks man.
#25
You talk as though when you bought the engine, you bought some kind of rights to updates? Well, from my point of view, with the current price of the engine, you bought EXACTLY what you got and no more.
You DIDNT buy any rights, nor should you expect any, to program updates, features or in fact, estimates of completion. If this is what you think, I think that is where you are misinformed.
The fact that GG *do* support thier products and actively develop them is not a license or attribution of rights to you as a licensee. The difference is that in this way, GG can basically do whatever they like, including putting hundreds of features in, or none at all. You got exactly what you paid for (the EA version).
Its amazing how paying such a small amount of money seems to make you think that you can then somehow demand dates for delivery of features which may/may not be actually useful for GG themselves.
The difference between your device driver business and this engine business is HUGE. If GG were doing it the traditional business way, they WOULD be offering release estimates, but they would also be charging much larger fees for "maintenance and support updates". Thats the traditional model.
The fact is, GG have chosen another model, which says "here, you get this and its cheap, and sometime we'll update it, but you might have to help out, or implement your own stuff if you need it right now". I really have *NO* problems personally with this, as I am fully aware of the deal, having taken the time to understand thier situation. I highly recommend you get into the spirit of the use of the TGE/TSE software and understand the unique business case for how it is developed. If you give it a minute and think about the benefits to both parties of the current method, you'll see that as customers it is *we* who have got a sweet deal, even if its an incomplete EA version of the deal.
When its done is the only viable answer with thier current business model, and long may it stay so!
11/26/2005 (9:06 am)
Dan, if you cared to actually read the publically talked about information from the GG staff, specifically Ben and Brian, you would be pretty well aware of what is/has been worked on in the engine.You talk as though when you bought the engine, you bought some kind of rights to updates? Well, from my point of view, with the current price of the engine, you bought EXACTLY what you got and no more.
You DIDNT buy any rights, nor should you expect any, to program updates, features or in fact, estimates of completion. If this is what you think, I think that is where you are misinformed.
The fact that GG *do* support thier products and actively develop them is not a license or attribution of rights to you as a licensee. The difference is that in this way, GG can basically do whatever they like, including putting hundreds of features in, or none at all. You got exactly what you paid for (the EA version).
Its amazing how paying such a small amount of money seems to make you think that you can then somehow demand dates for delivery of features which may/may not be actually useful for GG themselves.
The difference between your device driver business and this engine business is HUGE. If GG were doing it the traditional business way, they WOULD be offering release estimates, but they would also be charging much larger fees for "maintenance and support updates". Thats the traditional model.
The fact is, GG have chosen another model, which says "here, you get this and its cheap, and sometime we'll update it, but you might have to help out, or implement your own stuff if you need it right now". I really have *NO* problems personally with this, as I am fully aware of the deal, having taken the time to understand thier situation. I highly recommend you get into the spirit of the use of the TGE/TSE software and understand the unique business case for how it is developed. If you give it a minute and think about the benefits to both parties of the current method, you'll see that as customers it is *we* who have got a sweet deal, even if its an incomplete EA version of the deal.
When its done is the only viable answer with thier current business model, and long may it stay so!
#26
11/26/2005 (9:45 am)
Well said, Phil.
#27
>> Its amazing how paying such a small amount of money
This is plain bullshit. A price is asked, a price is payed. Once a merchendise is evaluated by the seller, regardless the price
is hundreds of US$ or thousands, you cant comment bullshit like "paying such a small amount of money" The price payed is
the right price, which is the price seller asked. Is not the small price, or the big price, its the price. From my point of view,
they can ask 100$ or 10000$ , I couldnt care less. I see a price, see if it fits my pocket and pay it. Once you sold your merchendise , you
cant say "see, I sold you this for so little money .... ". You just sold it. Period.
>> you bought some kind of rights to updates?
Well, since I bought an EA, I expect the right to updates untill 1.0 . Or else is nothing but a scam. In fact such a EA program
is good for GG beause they brigh them more revenues.
>> You DIDNT buy any rights, nor should you expect any, to program updates, features or in fact, estimates of completion.
I bought a EA , and as such I expect updates till 1.0 in the same price. Im not a lawyer, but I think this is part of EA deal.
Or else there is no sense in a EA , but to get money from ppl.
As for TGE, I bought a finished engine , 1.4 and as such I expect no upgrades to it for free at all. It is irrlevant for me if GG will choose to update it or no. Same for TSE once it will reach 1.0. After 1.0 I expect no free updates at all.
Im not saying GG is bind ny law to give estimates of completion, I only said that their policy do suck big time.
>> When its done is the only viable answer with thier current business model
Hihihi. Is this fanboy mode ?
<< you'll see that as customers it is *we* who have got a sweet deal
And do you think GG did not ? Do you think they did all this from the goodness of their hart ? No, they doit for money.
The deal is advantageous to both parts, not only for us.
<< If GG were doing it the traditional business way
Internally, GG does businness the tradintional way. Or else I think they would not get too far as a company. But they seem to do just well.
Dan
11/26/2005 (10:34 am)
Mr Carlisle,>> Its amazing how paying such a small amount of money
This is plain bullshit. A price is asked, a price is payed. Once a merchendise is evaluated by the seller, regardless the price
is hundreds of US$ or thousands, you cant comment bullshit like "paying such a small amount of money" The price payed is
the right price, which is the price seller asked. Is not the small price, or the big price, its the price. From my point of view,
they can ask 100$ or 10000$ , I couldnt care less. I see a price, see if it fits my pocket and pay it. Once you sold your merchendise , you
cant say "see, I sold you this for so little money .... ". You just sold it. Period.
>> you bought some kind of rights to updates?
Well, since I bought an EA, I expect the right to updates untill 1.0 . Or else is nothing but a scam. In fact such a EA program
is good for GG beause they brigh them more revenues.
>> You DIDNT buy any rights, nor should you expect any, to program updates, features or in fact, estimates of completion.
I bought a EA , and as such I expect updates till 1.0 in the same price. Im not a lawyer, but I think this is part of EA deal.
Or else there is no sense in a EA , but to get money from ppl.
As for TGE, I bought a finished engine , 1.4 and as such I expect no upgrades to it for free at all. It is irrlevant for me if GG will choose to update it or no. Same for TSE once it will reach 1.0. After 1.0 I expect no free updates at all.
Im not saying GG is bind ny law to give estimates of completion, I only said that their policy do suck big time.
>> When its done is the only viable answer with thier current business model
Hihihi. Is this fanboy mode ?
<< you'll see that as customers it is *we* who have got a sweet deal
And do you think GG did not ? Do you think they did all this from the goodness of their hart ? No, they doit for money.
The deal is advantageous to both parts, not only for us.
<< If GG were doing it the traditional business way
Internally, GG does businness the tradintional way. Or else I think they would not get too far as a company. But they seem to do just well.
Dan
#28
See, thats is exactly where you are incorrect. The fact is, garagegames DO do something different. That is what has set them apart from many other people doing game engines.
You may call me a fanboy, but I'm just a supporter of all things I percieve as "good" for people and for the games industry. The fact that I can count the garagegames guys as personal friends doesnt make me view everything with rose tinted spectacles or be unable to speak my mind when I see things going wrong.
But the actual fact of the matter is that GG *ARE* taking a different path. The whole deal with the v12 engine (subsequently torque) has a lot of history that you really should read about to understand how fundamentally different thier approach is.
As it is, $100 or whatever you pay for GG products is fundamentally NOT the value they are worth in the commercial marketplace. I know of plenty of commercial developers who would happily pay many thousands for the same technology. So saying "that is the price" belies any understanding of the marketplace.
The whole point of Garagegames was that the guys wanted to actually help out other developers, other people who care about games as a creative venture, by bringing technology to them in essence at-cost. Believe me when I say that they could quite easily be making much much more money by NOT selling TGE or TSE for the current price to indie developers. They would be perfectly within thier rights and I wouldnt blame them one iota for doing such a thing if they decided to.
Sure, the EA license does suggest that 1.0 is implied as a free upgrade, which is fine. That again doesnt actually imply any given set of features for 1.0 or any specific timeframe other than what they decide is 1.0 and decide on its release date.
If you take the time to read up on the plans of the people involved in GG, you'll see that development of TSE is definitely a prime mover for them, but right now they have a lot of commitments with regard to marble blast xbox360, which again is of benefit to us all for the reasons Ben made clear.
Actually, if you take the time to read around the background of the company, it is *definitely* out of the goodness of thier heart that they do this. Sure, they make a small amount of money, but as a business, they sure could be making a hell of a lot more and most of us understand that and appreciate the situation because of that understanding.
This is definitely NOT traditional business, thats kind of the point really. If you are sick of how a business works, you try something different right? this is the intention with GG. To try and make a business that isnt based on traditional bean-counting lunacy. With this new method comes some additional problems, like not having always the resources you need to complete milestones to some percieved timeframe. Of course they will internally have plans, but the fact is, if you need features within a timeframe, the onus is always on you to develop them.
Or if you need an absolute feature set, use the many thousands you saved buying the engine to put up a bounty for that feature set!
I dont particularly care wether you like thier concept of "when its done" or not. But the fact is, in this particular circumstance, its entirely reasonable and in fact laudible. They could easily say "you'll have to pay again", or "you'll have to take a yearly maintenance contract".
Finally, just to kind of prove my points. Please just check the prices of many of the various middleware vendors, including things like renderware, netimmerse, unreal engine, etc. Hell, even the prices of things like the Gamespy API or Granny sdks. Or even miles sound system.
This is SUCH good value that its amazing we're even talking about it. Let alone questioning the business reasoning.
11/26/2005 (10:55 am)
Dan,See, thats is exactly where you are incorrect. The fact is, garagegames DO do something different. That is what has set them apart from many other people doing game engines.
You may call me a fanboy, but I'm just a supporter of all things I percieve as "good" for people and for the games industry. The fact that I can count the garagegames guys as personal friends doesnt make me view everything with rose tinted spectacles or be unable to speak my mind when I see things going wrong.
But the actual fact of the matter is that GG *ARE* taking a different path. The whole deal with the v12 engine (subsequently torque) has a lot of history that you really should read about to understand how fundamentally different thier approach is.
As it is, $100 or whatever you pay for GG products is fundamentally NOT the value they are worth in the commercial marketplace. I know of plenty of commercial developers who would happily pay many thousands for the same technology. So saying "that is the price" belies any understanding of the marketplace.
The whole point of Garagegames was that the guys wanted to actually help out other developers, other people who care about games as a creative venture, by bringing technology to them in essence at-cost. Believe me when I say that they could quite easily be making much much more money by NOT selling TGE or TSE for the current price to indie developers. They would be perfectly within thier rights and I wouldnt blame them one iota for doing such a thing if they decided to.
Sure, the EA license does suggest that 1.0 is implied as a free upgrade, which is fine. That again doesnt actually imply any given set of features for 1.0 or any specific timeframe other than what they decide is 1.0 and decide on its release date.
If you take the time to read up on the plans of the people involved in GG, you'll see that development of TSE is definitely a prime mover for them, but right now they have a lot of commitments with regard to marble blast xbox360, which again is of benefit to us all for the reasons Ben made clear.
Quote:
And do you think GG did not ? Do you think they did all this from the goodness of their hart ? No, they doit for money.
The deal is advantageous to both parts, not only for us.
Actually, if you take the time to read around the background of the company, it is *definitely* out of the goodness of thier heart that they do this. Sure, they make a small amount of money, but as a business, they sure could be making a hell of a lot more and most of us understand that and appreciate the situation because of that understanding.
This is definitely NOT traditional business, thats kind of the point really. If you are sick of how a business works, you try something different right? this is the intention with GG. To try and make a business that isnt based on traditional bean-counting lunacy. With this new method comes some additional problems, like not having always the resources you need to complete milestones to some percieved timeframe. Of course they will internally have plans, but the fact is, if you need features within a timeframe, the onus is always on you to develop them.
Or if you need an absolute feature set, use the many thousands you saved buying the engine to put up a bounty for that feature set!
I dont particularly care wether you like thier concept of "when its done" or not. But the fact is, in this particular circumstance, its entirely reasonable and in fact laudible. They could easily say "you'll have to pay again", or "you'll have to take a yearly maintenance contract".
Finally, just to kind of prove my points. Please just check the prices of many of the various middleware vendors, including things like renderware, netimmerse, unreal engine, etc. Hell, even the prices of things like the Gamespy API or Granny sdks. Or even miles sound system.
This is SUCH good value that its amazing we're even talking about it. Let alone questioning the business reasoning.
#29
11/26/2005 (11:03 am)
Sorry to go off topic, but how much does Gamespy API cost? I was looking at integrating that into my game at one point.
#30
Thanks for your time posting the second post, which is a bit more descriptive.
Dan
11/26/2005 (11:06 am)
Ok Phil, Ill give it a couple of months whithin the comunity to see how things evolve =).Thanks for your time posting the second post, which is a bit more descriptive.
Dan
#31
Saves jumping on to a busy forum thread and going off topic.
Remember... Google is your friend...
11/26/2005 (11:30 am)
Robert... why not just go to www.gamespy.net sign up and find out for yourself?Saves jumping on to a busy forum thread and going off topic.
Remember... Google is your friend...
#32
The API was truly appalling and buggy too. But perceptions amongst developers is strange, they dont mind paying 50k for an API because they think its "worth it", but then bitch and whine about 100 dollars for something that is far far more advanced. I guess it actually boils down to the perceived "reliability" of the API or company or something.
You'd think GameSpy would be a huge company charging 50k for something like a simple lobbying sdk wouldnt you? noooope.. small company.
Middleware is a funny old place, with publisher and developer perceptions very much in force (not value).
Those figures are from what I recall, might not be current, its probably negotiated on a per developer deal. But we paid it (well, the publisher did).
I think its partly the old "nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" syndrome.
11/26/2005 (1:45 pm)
Robert: at the time we were evaluating using the gamespy sdk, they charged I think it was 50,000 GBP. Thats roughly 90,000 dollars. This was of course backed by something like 20,000 usd a year "maintenance".The API was truly appalling and buggy too. But perceptions amongst developers is strange, they dont mind paying 50k for an API because they think its "worth it", but then bitch and whine about 100 dollars for something that is far far more advanced. I guess it actually boils down to the perceived "reliability" of the API or company or something.
You'd think GameSpy would be a huge company charging 50k for something like a simple lobbying sdk wouldnt you? noooope.. small company.
Middleware is a funny old place, with publisher and developer perceptions very much in force (not value).
Those figures are from what I recall, might not be current, its probably negotiated on a per developer deal. But we paid it (well, the publisher did).
I think its partly the old "nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" syndrome.
#33
11/26/2005 (5:59 pm)
This reminds me why I try to avoid the bleeding edge of tech, despite its fangled shiny gadgety toyiness.
#34
11/26/2005 (6:26 pm)
Rome was not built in a day. TSE is a fantastic product and it will one day rise up to crush the nad of all the other engines. 
#35
That said... it is very frustrating to be told the ominous 'when it's done'. This is why you don't ask the actual developers when they will be finished. They just feel pressured, get pissed off and tell you to be patient. Ask the marketing guys. They will give you answers that are much more palettable. That's their job.
11/26/2005 (7:00 pm)
This is why Valve didn't tell anyone it was making HL2 until a 6 months before release. Of course even then they were a year late. And they started HL2 the day after HL shipped. How many years was that?That said... it is very frustrating to be told the ominous 'when it's done'. This is why you don't ask the actual developers when they will be finished. They just feel pressured, get pissed off and tell you to be patient. Ask the marketing guys. They will give you answers that are much more palettable. That's their job.
#36
I like Anton's reply, short and to the point. :P
Brian and I try to keep the community updated on where we are and where we're going, and we feel pretty bad that MBU/1.4 have taken us away from that. Admittedly, 1.4 and MBU are both going to bring huge improvements to TSE (you think Unicode support in TSE just happened? :). But we'd definitely like to be working on this much more, which we're finally going to be getting back to... and I think that this round of TSE development is going to be a couple of orders magnitude better than the last, if things go as planned. :)
11/26/2005 (9:29 pm)
Wow, lot of conversation here. Well said, Phil! I'm glad the conversation stayed largely on the reasonable and civilized, instead of descending into fanboy-powered flamewars. Thank you, Dan & Phil and everyone else. :)I like Anton's reply, short and to the point. :P
Brian and I try to keep the community updated on where we are and where we're going, and we feel pretty bad that MBU/1.4 have taken us away from that. Admittedly, 1.4 and MBU are both going to bring huge improvements to TSE (you think Unicode support in TSE just happened? :). But we'd definitely like to be working on this much more, which we're finally going to be getting back to... and I think that this round of TSE development is going to be a couple of orders magnitude better than the last, if things go as planned. :)
#37
Ben: Thanks, I just sometimes think that people new to torque dont really understand the background and the truly different nature of its coming into being. Its easy to do of course, when there are other engines out there written by guys with shoestring budgets or open sourced, but of course they arent quite the same beast as torque/v12 is. Unless you know the cost of middleware typically used in the industry, its very easy to lose sight of the fact that this is essentially giving away the software and asking for nothing but good games to be developed as a reward.
Now *that* is fundamentally different.
Which means that I think we shouldnt expect anything more and take whatever we get from GG as a gift, not a right. Expectations are something that seem to get out of order pretty quick when youre the one asking for the impossible, not the one delivering it. People automatically assume rights to all kinds of software, including feature sets of games and engines, when in fact, buying a product does not give the right at all. Imagine buying a TV and then going to the manufacturer and saying "hey, when you release the next model, I want mine sprayed gold".
The way I see it, if people want or need specific features, they can pay for them. Everything else is gravy.
11/27/2005 (3:18 am)
Yeah, like you believe what the marketing guys say about release dates? @:)Ben: Thanks, I just sometimes think that people new to torque dont really understand the background and the truly different nature of its coming into being. Its easy to do of course, when there are other engines out there written by guys with shoestring budgets or open sourced, but of course they arent quite the same beast as torque/v12 is. Unless you know the cost of middleware typically used in the industry, its very easy to lose sight of the fact that this is essentially giving away the software and asking for nothing but good games to be developed as a reward.
Now *that* is fundamentally different.
Which means that I think we shouldnt expect anything more and take whatever we get from GG as a gift, not a right. Expectations are something that seem to get out of order pretty quick when youre the one asking for the impossible, not the one delivering it. People automatically assume rights to all kinds of software, including feature sets of games and engines, when in fact, buying a product does not give the right at all. Imagine buying a TV and then going to the manufacturer and saying "hey, when you release the next model, I want mine sprayed gold".
The way I see it, if people want or need specific features, they can pay for them. Everything else is gravy.
#38
11/27/2005 (4:03 am)
I also think that in the price range of Torque, there isn't anything really close (and I should know because I routinely buy licenses to engines, it's a tax write off and I'm just curious about them all). Unigine looks nice but it also carries a $2000 per seat price tag. The other engines mentioned in this thread carry a much larger one.
#39
If you fork over cash for a product, you do have the right to get what it says on the box. Fair enough, in the TSE FAQ it specifically states "When its done, No release date". Would I like to see estimated release dates, yes, but since I'm not going to.... (It wont stop me gently asking for them however, 'shy bairns get nowt')
To take you up on your TV analogy, if a manufacturer promises your analogue TV will be able to work with the new digital boxes when they come out, and it then can not, you have a *right* to be upset.
The issue is, some of us have a fairly long expected development cycle, we work part time. We would maybe like to release a game that has some nice graphics and we dont want to duplicate effort due to our limited budgets. Knowing what is in the pipeline, and roughly when it can be expected helps a great deal in the situation most of us are in, I would have thought.
On the flip side, TSE is breaking new ground for the Torque engine, its a creative process requiring carefull research. Things are bound to slip to a degree.
I think some of the frustration stems from the perceived priorities in the engines development. We buy an engine (price is really irrelevent to the issue from the end users point of view in this respect, point being it has been asked and paid) and we 'expect' a team of coders/hampsters/slaves/Ben's clones/etc to be toiling night and day, building us that engine. This being how most development is done. Ben's comments above should give you a clue as to how development actually proceeds. Its not what I expected when I first settled on Torque, and while it has not caused me any sleepless nights, I'm sure it could some people.
What are the main problems I have encountered managing projects? Meeting unmanaged expectations and communication, both tied up in each other. That and sales guy's selling stuff that just can not be done with the resources available :-)
Phew, longer than I expected.
11/27/2005 (4:43 am)
Ummm, I'm going to have to disagree there Phil (cordially, of course).If you fork over cash for a product, you do have the right to get what it says on the box. Fair enough, in the TSE FAQ it specifically states "When its done, No release date". Would I like to see estimated release dates, yes, but since I'm not going to.... (It wont stop me gently asking for them however, 'shy bairns get nowt')
To take you up on your TV analogy, if a manufacturer promises your analogue TV will be able to work with the new digital boxes when they come out, and it then can not, you have a *right* to be upset.
The issue is, some of us have a fairly long expected development cycle, we work part time. We would maybe like to release a game that has some nice graphics and we dont want to duplicate effort due to our limited budgets. Knowing what is in the pipeline, and roughly when it can be expected helps a great deal in the situation most of us are in, I would have thought.
On the flip side, TSE is breaking new ground for the Torque engine, its a creative process requiring carefull research. Things are bound to slip to a degree.
I think some of the frustration stems from the perceived priorities in the engines development. We buy an engine (price is really irrelevent to the issue from the end users point of view in this respect, point being it has been asked and paid) and we 'expect' a team of coders/hampsters/slaves/Ben's clones/etc to be toiling night and day, building us that engine. This being how most development is done. Ben's comments above should give you a clue as to how development actually proceeds. Its not what I expected when I first settled on Torque, and while it has not caused me any sleepless nights, I'm sure it could some people.
What are the main problems I have encountered managing projects? Meeting unmanaged expectations and communication, both tied up in each other. That and sales guy's selling stuff that just can not be done with the resources available :-)
Phew, longer than I expected.
#40
This is one reason why we're willing to take time off and work on MBU (the other is that it's the sort of thing that helps us get extra income with which to grow our development teams so that we can in turn do better and faster engine releases ;). It's still a bit rough, but it's good enough to make fun games on, in fairly limited timescales, on limited budgets. Which is sort of what indie development is all about, so... ;)
Anyway, I thinkyou'll be pleasantly surprised by what Brian and I have in store for you. Just be patient and have a little faith! :)
11/27/2005 (11:19 am)
And of course, TSE _is_ ready to ship games on. Half Life 2 clones? Maybe not. But we've shipped three games on it, on consoles, which is about as demanding of an environment in terms of robustness of code as you can get, so it's possible. :)This is one reason why we're willing to take time off and work on MBU (the other is that it's the sort of thing that helps us get extra income with which to grow our development teams so that we can in turn do better and faster engine releases ;). It's still a bit rough, but it's good enough to make fun games on, in fairly limited timescales, on limited budgets. Which is sort of what indie development is all about, so... ;)
Anyway, I thinkyou'll be pleasantly surprised by what Brian and I have in store for you. Just be patient and have a little faith! :)
Torque Owner Dan Partelly
Thanks for your reply. From my point of view , which is mot likely shared by other ppl, whatever they recon this or not publicly in those forums, is extrmly bad to give out answers like "when is done". We all bought a product, and we aknowledge it is in a EA state , but
at least from the outside of comunity , for a newcommer like me , developemnt on TSE *seems* stalled. It is also not unresonable to
from my point of view to give estimates to your licensees (we are after all ppl which BUY and USE the solutions and products which you offer) for completion of milestone of a product in devleopment which we bought, unless
you indeed are looking at a couple of years to finish it :P
All in all, if you allow me to be frank, your policy of "when is done" sucks. Big time.
>> gamemakers, be they commercial or independent, are going to appreciate a reliable, battle-tested solution a lot more.
It is indeed so. Assuming the engine gets to 1.0 in time, and not in total of 4 years, since it has been advertised first time,
, pretending to beat Half Life 2 and Doom 3 to market, and has a decent technical solution for int;s release 1.0. There are engines out there which matured in a single year in a very fast and unexepcted unexepcted way, from almost nothing to a very powerfull rendering solution. http://www.unigine.com/ is a living proof of how many features can be added into one year into an engine, from alsmot scratch, and + a full featured phsycs engine.