Where is the TorqueScript Language Reference?.

#1 How about this one?


-Ron

#2 Thanks for the postRon Yacketta, but is exactly what should be at the top of this forum and the Beginner's Guide Resource section. This engine sounds useful but why are there ump-teen expensive 3rd party books and only a wiki for paid up users, that they are arrogantly told to update it themselves, when they are still asking how to use it in the first place!

#3 Yes Vladoshi,
documentation is a big issue around here.
Most of us end up buying those books, but the content of those books should be what you would expect to get default with the engine. As in ... I bought something you would expect the manufacturer to tell you how to use it :)

Once, there was the valid argument of the tech being very cheap and unique, so even buying some book you could consider it as an overall good price...
Now there is stiff competition within the same price range or even open source tech that comes with much better to find and read documentation and tutorials.

Still, if you say what I just said, most people at GG will think you are ungrateful, while other community members will say you are stupid or ignorant for needing easier to find and easier to use documentation or commented source code to start with.

http://www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=38970

I think GG may be working on a new Torque Scripting reference guide?
I know you would want to buy the engine and have all you need right there to get going with your dream... instead you have to go through some unnecessary difficulties first.
Hopefully you will persevere Vladoshi, follow your dream, beat the GG system and do it for yourself.

Keep it up

#4 There are quite a bit of resources out there. We are working on formating them for easier use and have already done that to quite a bit of them (check out TDN, community and GG driven). On the other hand it is always amazing what people will expect for $100.

#5 Hi Matthew,

As one of the people who don't contribute much here I'm also one who refuses to complain about much. As a "lone-wolf" Torquer I praise GG and all versions of Torque everywhere I go, along with the great community. I have a lot of respect for everyone involved with making the various versions what they are today, including following and using your tuts since you started with T2D (TGB).

I'm only jumping here to say that it's the last line of your post that bothers me a little. It's the same line I hear over at TGC for FPSC, except their's is "what do you expect for $50". I'd much rather hear that the Torque docs are a WIP and coming along nicely, I can be patient for that because of the progress I see every day. I just think that whether the software is $100, $10,000, or $10, it's still a product that someone is selling to perform a particular function. And the procedures for using that product should be part of the package.

Mind you, I'm not jumping on the complaining bandwagon here. I know progress is being made every day and I understand what it's like to keep all facets of a software package up to date. Out of everything I've read or seen on the forums on that subject it's always and only just that one line that gets to me, because I really do expect a package to be complete at any price.

That being said, I have to (as always) take time to reiterate the thanks I always offer to GG, the Associates, and the community in general for the great products and the hard work. I sincerely hope you don't take personal offense Matt, I know how much you contribute, just something I had to comment on.

#6 Yep, I agree with Terry on many points and Yes, Matthew you have been fantastic with all those tutorials for T2D.

I just wish GG and some of the community gets the point Terry made because this is the point I and other people talk about but it is always discarded as whining or unappreciative or worse
"I just think that whether the software is $100, $10,000, or $10, it's still a product that someone is selling to perform a particular function. And the procedures for using that product should be part of the package."

Whatever product you make could be as powerful as you want and as cheap as you want, but if it is hard to use (unpractical documentation, lacking source commenting, restricted content creation pipeline etc...) for new users your product may be as useful as an empty shoebox.

Just trying to make a point, don't take the empty box analogy literally.

How can anyone at GG justify the fact that someone could buy TGE today and have no easy to find and follow explanation about, how to add a different player character, how to implement vehicles, and other basic stuff (always appearing as question on our forums from new users) that any new users would expect to find explained in a manual especially after reading about the advertised 1600 pages of available documentation?

I know GG says they are working on better documentation, but I think TGE has been around for years, it is at version 1.4 and still lacks in documentation. So do not be surprised abut new users wondering where the docs are and other users, some of us, complaining about why there isn't more and better official documentation.

People should no buy add on kit to learn how to implement vehicles or skeletons for new characters etc... Add-on kit should be beyond that and default docs should take care of what those kits do by default.

#7 The Reference Documenation (PDF) in TGB is beautiful. This may have been easier to create given that TGB is a smaller project when compared to TGE and also newer. It's usually easier to implement docs like this when a company has a more resources to do so, as GG has with TGB, where as TGE seemed more like an after thought of an expanding company.

I would say the good thing about TDN is that it will be(is already starting to) more than just torque docs... it is turning into a "how to make a game with torque". Input from people on modeling and animation has already shown up on TDN. These topics have little to do with the functionality of the engine yet are heavily encourged with the design of TDN. Bravo GG, as this is also important information ... especially for a one man show indie types out there.

In my opinion, a combination of TDN tutorials and Reference Docs similar to those seen for TGB would make the documentation "Good". Most of what people seem to want is very too specific or basic programming knowledge.

My thoughts are... well done on TGB docs. Well done on TGE tutorials and resources.

#8 @Terry & Hokuto: First of all would like to say you have stated your opinion very respectuflly and neither of you are anything like those we all know (the ones that were mentioned to complain etc).

I completely understand your considerations as well. Actually all of GG really does, in fact documentation right now is a very high priority. The past week I've been working on just about 100% documenation and we've had interns and community members alike contribute large ammounts of time. We definately understand that more documenation would be great and we definately want that. TGB is one of our examples of doing much better on the documenation front. Right now I personally would consider TGB very close to fully documented besides the latest features released in beta versions (which is understandibly not documented yet).

TGE we're all playing catch up. Documentation takes a huge ammount of time. I think there are a lot of people who downplay the value and investment documentation takes. It can take a good game dev weeks to document some basic systems properly. In that time not only is the company spending money for the dev to document, but they are losing time that dev could be working on the actual engine. I think GG has done this right in the past, considering it consisted of only 12-14 or less people, when they focus more on fixing issues with the engine and adding to the engine instead of documenting every bit of their time away. Now GG is about 30 strong and we have enough people here to focus much more on documenation... though even with over double the ammount of people we still don't have the manpower to provide the documentation people request.

Any Torque engine has never been priced accordingly. $100 is a steal for the engine, even with no documentation at all.

I was in this community about 2 years before coming on board. I originally picked up TGE and then set it down. Later I picked it up again and dug into all the resources and figured things out. At that time the documentation now (such as newest books, and TDN especially) didn't exist. The google search wasn't implemented yet either so I pretty much dug through post after post, resource after resource. I still consider that time spent good. Things are much easier now. There's a starting tutorial, there's starting 3D exporting tutorials (lol I remember using the old ones). I mean things have gotten a lot better, yet the price has still remained $100.

I mean what is the value of a dev's time for a week or two to document one simple system or section of the engine. Now consider that multiplied accross all the systems and sections in Torque. To afford the documentation everyone wanted right now we would have to jack the price waaay up. In the end our only option is to keep at it and keep working on it. Which we are :)

Plus there are a lot of community members (like I did in the past) that realize that at $100 they are getting a steal and they feel like giving back to GG and the community by helping out with this. A lot of the documentation exists and just needs to be either converted to TDN format or updated and converted. If you are fully passionate about that then you can assist with the process :)

It definately is a nice idea that the engine be completely documented no matter what the price, but in reality we all need to eat and have a place to live so whether we like it or not it does come down to some sort of money in the end and the fact of the matter is at $100 no company could afford to do a full documentation front the likes people would like. We would even like to do so, though it just isn't reality. So instead of raise the price we keep plugging away with what we can do and get as much help as possible.

TGB is definately our example of a better approach to this. We are fortunate enough to start the documentation process from the beginning and keep it updated as we go. Its not that we don't want this for the other engines, moreso that we are trying to do the same for the other engines, but TGE is a beast and we're playing catch-up :)

Thanks for your input and feedback, as you know we are all about speaking your mind and standing up for what you feel you should say.

#9 For TDN Users:


(I am currently working on, not finished) Console Objects Fields and Methods Quick Reference


TorqueScript Quick Reference



Console Functions Quick Reference


I hope these help =)

edit: turned them into clickable links

#10 Anthony has been doing a great job at converting Edward Maurina's awesome references from his GPGT book.

#11 Matthew,

Thanks for understanding the comments offered. I'm one of those people that has to stand back and look at things objectively, and from every angle before I make a comment.

As such, I have to see the points made by some as to the lack of startup docs for TGE, though you are correct that there are many, many resources out there. Part of the problem is that some people just starting out in game making are so new to this that it's easy for them to get completely lost in the enormity of Torque. And without a very basic starting point that is easy to get to and use, they quickly become frustrated.

I did a lot of research before buying the first of my 3 Torque licenses, so I knew what I was getting into. Kind of. I bought Ken's first book, then the second, and I now own The Game Programmer's Guide to Torque (very nice, by the way). I also have 3 other books that reference Torque in some way. I didn't have any problem buying them, I have 3rd party books for most software I own because of the simple fact that no complex software ever comes with good enough docs.

When I bought Dark Basic Pro years ago, I also bought the 3rd party book they were selling because I knew I would need it. Same for Visual Studio, MacroMedia Studio, Office, and many, many others. Possibly one thing I would have done differently if I were selling TGE would be to recommend Ken's first book right up front. "Here's a great engine, and here's the book you should buy to get into it".

As I stated earlier, I have a great deal of respect for GG as entrepreneurs and people with the foresight to envision something like GG for the game making community. The only problem I genuinely have is the "What do you expect for $$$$" thing. I expected up front to have to purchase additional materials, but having 30 years experience in software development I suppose I had an edge over some. I suppose it's that experience, though, that's shown me that no matter how good your software is, and no matter how great a deal it is, you have to make it relatively easy to delve into right out of the "box".

You're right about never satisfying everyone, can't happen. And the starter apps (FPS, RACER, etc.) were great things to have, but it is just my own little quirk that that single line always gets to me. I bought a large swingset/play area for my grankids the other day and lost the instructions. I did get a good deal on the set, but because I couldn't find any instructions on the net I spend 6 frustrating hours putting the blinking thing together. My fault for losing the instructions, but it is an example.

In your example of the time better spent by GG people working on code than docs, I mostly agree. That's why I'm not usually a complainer. On the other hand, you'd have to agree that the customer's time is also valuable. I'm sure it's a conundrum that won't be solved here, and I normally would spend this kind of time not being productive. It's just that one damnable line...:)

I'll leave you to your work, sorry for the novel length posts. Keep up the good work, and thanks again for not taking this the wrong way...

*Edit: I do want to reiterate that TDN is a great step in the right direction, along with all the docs and tuts available. And you're right about TGB coming out of the box with nice docs. Much appreciated...

#12 I think that people are misunderstanding Matt's quote:

Quote:On the other hand it is always amazing what people will expect for $100.

I think most people interpret that as saying

"For the price you are paying you are lucky we give you anything."

Whereas Matt was simply saying:

"We are doing the best we can with the resources we have."

GG would love to sit down and hammer out full, complete documentation with everything they have, however, they just don't have the time. It is definately a priority to get the community documentation - but not as high of a priority as improving the engine and financially supporting their comapny. So, they have tried to compromise, adding docs and revamping outdated docs when they could, asking the community to help out on the wiki, and even going so far as doing bounties and paying people money for making and updating docs. It is kind of offensive when someone degrades GG like they are intentionally trying to keep people in the dark or they don't care -

Quote: This engine sounds useful but why are there ump-teen expensive 3rd party books and only a wiki for paid up users, that they are arrogantly told to update it themselves, when they are still asking how to use it in the first place!

Quote: beat the GG system and do it for yourself

They care, but short of completely stopping development and tackling this problem (which really isn't an option), they are doing what they can.

#13 @ Anthony Fullmer: great stuff!

@ Matthew King: thank you for your open and fair reply. keep it up.

@ Terry: clear and meaningful post again

back to work now :)

#14 Last post on this, I promise. Anthony, I like your replacement line. I can always live with something like that. I'm sure Matt didn't mean it the way it sounded in the original line, he's always been great at helping people. As I said, it's simply that I've seen that line used before by people who did mean it the other way, which is what raises the ire of so many so quickly.

I myself have gotten quite upset at the many people I see here hammering GG, sometimes in a very demeaning manner. And sometimes things come across the wrong way in a post or email because the system lacks the ability to put in context what the poster is trying to say. Guess that's why they created smileys.

In any case, I was in no way ragging on Matt for his post, just mentioning that that one line can really come across the wrong way in text. I believe anyone who hangs out here regularly knows how much time and effort is going into docs and tuts. In fact some of the GGers themselves have said they know that area needs attention and they are focusing on it.

Anyway, good post Anthony, and as Hokuto said, back to work now. This whole thread reminds me of that old poem by Hughes Mearns:

- As I was going up the stair
- I met a man who wasn't there!
- He wasn't there again today!
- I wish, I wish he'd stay away!

Later...

#15 Np Terry, you weren't the main focus of that post anyways, you were respectful and non-combative - which is more than I can say for all those who contributed to this thread. However, I did say my piece, I hope that those who it was aimed for at least read it and realize I am talking to them.

#16 I feel obliged to log in on this issue now, as I have been one who in the past has criticised the lack of TorqueScript documentation, limited particularly to the seemingly elusive Torquescript Function documentation.

Kudos to GG for finally getting this under control. I just visitied Anthony Fullmer's link posted above and this appears on it's way to becoming the asset the beginning Torquer needs on day one.

Great job, Anthony and GG in general. So yes, Anthony, I realize you are talking to me, I read it, and it's great.

#17 Haha, well I am glad you found those things helpful

#18 Well, this is my first post, but I thought I should probably add my 2 cents.

For the last year, I have been struggling mightily with the Source(HL2) tools to create something mildly original. Wow... what a pain. Their documentation is WiKi based and, well, it just sucks. Any time you ask a question about something, you get pointed to the same old tutorials and docs that don't really tell you anything.

A bunch of us just started figuring stuff out on our own. I spent a lot of my time learning about the materials system and modelling using XSI. I created some tutorials, which were very well received. You can see one of them at my website www.redemptionmod.com.

In the end, I decided to move from Source. My logic was this. Even if I created something mildly useful or entertaining, I didn't own it. You can't even get Valve to talk to you about a license. That's a lot of work to do just to have your destiny determined by Valve in the end.

That is how I ended up here. Sure the documentation is fragmented and incomplete. But I have the whole source code, a good community that is versed in more than just mapping, and what I make I know I own.

In the end, IMHO the Garage guys, as well as the community, did a great job and that the documentation lacking is a price you pay to work with a good engine with a very low cost.

So my recommendation is this... if you think the documentation sucks, then fix it. When you learn something new, create a resource and add on to the TDN so that everyone else can benefit. If you find an answer to a question by looking through fragmented documentation, create a clear summary of what you found and put it in a resource.

Actually, I think that was like 25 cents worth; sorry for the long post. Brevity is not my strong suit.

#19 Preach on it Steve!


Though, I feel that GG is talented enough to provide both a useful engine and good documenatation - it will just take a little for them to catch up. Mind you their next gen engines (TSE and TGB) are much better documented, which is a by-product of their realization of how lacking they were. Steve has the right attitude about this IMO.

#20 I think I have to back Matthew's "it's amazing what people expect for $100" statement.

I've worked with a game engine in the past that cost over $1,000,000 for my employer to license for a single game. This engine came with next to no documentation, apart from a Wiki that was really nothing more than a collection of news group posts from other licensees.

Hmm...I wonder if the engine authors ever thought "gee, it's amazing what some people expect for $1,000,000" ;o) I think we're pretty luck here...we get a lot of bang for our buck.


Even though some of the articles on here and TDN aren't exactly helpful if you want to go beyond the basics, you can learn a lot by just grepping around the source code for stuff. It's well organised, well written and documented enough internaly to get a good diea as to how it all fits together.

This is what I was doing last night, and not only did I achieve my goals for the evening, I also learned a bit more about how the engine works.

Let's not forget how great the whole Garage Games community is at helping people with thier problems.

But for those of you who don't want to spend the time searching for answers, I can sort of undertand the issues with a lack of documentation. But this is changing though. It's just going to take time.

Hmm...I wonder, have you guys at GG ever thought about hiring a technical author (or do you already have on)? I used to work at Criterion, and the quality of the documentation was quite high because thier technical author was extemely good at pulling all of that stuff together. She also made a pretty good chicken curry too, but this is getting a wee bit off-subject :op