Torque or A6

#1 First, both are excellent engines.
Secondly, neither one is magical.

Both can do a FPS well as long as you know what you are doing.

You still have to tell A6 what is important to save and what is not, just like TGE. But the distinction of objects and code in the editor is somewhat easier for people to comprehend in A6. It is not that "A6 can but Torque can't", it is "A6 and Torque both can, but some people find organizing their data easier in A6". Using the built-in functionality can be spotty depending on just how much data that you have that can change. You will often want to cull down the save/load functionality to include only what is necessary.

You need to look at your market. Are you targeting more than just Windows desktops? If so, then A6 is not the engine for you. If not, then both are equally viable. Do you have any experience with game development and programming? If no, then A6 has a lower learning curve. But if you want to make a marketable game, you will have to learn a *LOT* of the complexities of the engine. Do you need network play? A6's networking is not its high point. It is extant, but not too hot. Networking for fast-action games is TGE's strong-point. A6's shader support is rather nice. I wish their compiler was faster, but I absolutely love WED for level editing. It's a very intuitive editor.

If saving games is your key engine evaluation, you'll have problems when you get to the really complex questions of AI, collisions, network metrics, etc regardless of the engine.

Have you looked at FPS Creator? It is a kit designed specifically for FPS's and rapid development. By reducing the number of variables and changing "things" in any level, the save-game functionality is greatly simplified.

EDIT:
Plus, if you search the forums on both sites you will see a myriad of posts about this exact same topic (A6 vs TGE) with numerous posts both rational and irrational.

#2 David,
thanks for the very elaborate explanation on the topic. I think I am going to stick with torque. For some reason I had the impression that A6 has a higher learning curve than Torque. But either way I think making a game in torque will help me understand most of the complexities of game making. And networking is important to my game. FPS starter kit is great, i am using it as a template for my game.

One thing I am concerned about is torque's support on the art works. I think in A6 you can import graphic buildings from max 3d other various other popular format as a mesh into the mission editor. But in Torque you can't import big objects(like a building) or least efficiently do so from 3ds. And since most of the art works are done in m3d and a few others, that raises some concern. please correct me if I am wrong in this aspect.

is TSE comparable to A6's shader?
thanks

#3 You can import meshes into TGE and A6. I think where the confusion lies is in the difference between 3D models and levels. A6 and TGE are actually quite similar in that they both use CSG (constructive solid geometry) for levels and polysoup models for decoration/animated "things".

Polysoup applications usch as 3DS Max, Lightwave, Maya, Milkshape, etc, are used for creating detailed static and animated models in TGE. A6 also includes exporters for the MDL format for polysoup editors. The purpose of the models between TGE and A^ is pretty much the same, actually.

The levels, however, are usually created in an application like WED (World Editor for A6) or 3D Game Studio or Quark. This allows for fast, accurate collisions but takes some getting used to. There are a number of engines such as Unity and Beyond Virtual that support direct polysoup models as their levels and collision sets. Blitz3D has an excellent Max toolset, though you will have to program the engine proper from scratch.

You can import large objects from 3DS, but the problem is using Max as a level editing tool. Even with Game Level Builder, you will need to modify your workflow in Max to create CSG levels. This is whether you are using A6 or TGE.

And, yes, TSE is comprable to A6's shaders. Lighting is in the next milestone, as it is in early adopter release, so the DX9 specifics are included in A6 as of now.

#4 From a CSG perspective WED is quite good for building interiors and actually produces better DIFS than Quark, Radiant, or Hammer. Which was quite funny.

I don't think you would have too much trouble doing FPS in any engine. It's just about the easiest type of game to make really. How nice it looks depends on the art path and the amount of effort your willing to put in. Neither Torque or A6 have a particularly good artpath, but I think Torque offers the most flexibility and has the better comunity by far.

#5 I used A6 commercial for a long time. But in the end the scripting language just had too many limitations.

#6 So when creating levels(the terrain,the world), I can use WED, 3D Game Studio, Quark, or the Torque Mission Editor? Or is it just the last one? what does CSG stand for?
again thanks all for the helpful inputs.

#7 Computed Solid Geometry (I screwed up the definition above; and who knows...perhaps here).

The Torque Mission editor (or World Editor) is for object placement, not creation.

#8 Btw, which one has a higher efficiency?

#9 From an artist standpoint :

Torque Engine has a pretty simple workflow if you want to import your own character/mesh (especially if you use 3ds max), i also like how we can use Multires Modifier for LOD (so i don't have to manually reduce the polycount for each LOD set).
And also the Torque exporter support character studio biped which helps a lot for character animation (especially copy/pasting pose & saving animation).

A6, i don't have many experience with this engine, however last time it takes me a while to successfully export my own character to game studio (since i can't find the plugin for 3ds max, and i have to convert all my biped to standard bones), but once you get used to it i guess it works ok :D


evi
=======
www.cubixstudio.com
3D Characters for sale

#10 Do you get the engine source code with A6 like you do with Torque?

#11 No Mark, you don't.

#12 Which means if there's a something the scripting language doesn't have, there's no way to get it.

#13 @KW
Efficiency is difficult to gauge. It depends on your experience, gametype, complexity, and target. A6 often has an initially higher efficiency since it has a lower learning curve, but in down the line (again, depending on the gametype), you may be posed with whether to port to another engine, pay experienced coders to extend A6 in the direction your game needs, or find time-consuming work-arounds to do unconventional things with the engine. That all falls under the nebulous term "efficiency".

For someone with no programming or development experience, A6 is easier to get into than TGE. TGE is more robust in terms of what can be done with it as you gain experience. That's a very general look since both are great engines with impressive works under their belts. But that's generally how I see them.

@Evi
There is a plug-in for Max on their downloads page. I am not sure of the version it supports, though, since I am not a Max user. And just thought that I'd comment again: I love the skirt on your newest model. It was a welcome change from the usual pants we see!

@Nathan
There is a SDK for A6 which allows you to extend a good portion of the functionality. I believe that it is through this SDK that Tokamak and Newton's newest version are being implemented. A6 does not include the engine source, but no one should have the idea that it is a static engine without a means of expansion.