Beta2 Editor Scripts

#1 If it's just bug reproduction issues, it would be nice if the editor source was available seperately (and unsupported) for those of us who know what they're doing.

Still, you know my position on the editors, so I'm not that bothered either way ;-)

T.

#2 Thanks Justin, I was wondering what the deal was with that. I managed to do what I had to by hacking at the C++ sources and saving .GUI's from the editor... I don't see why the Level Editor scripts are so different that GG feels we can't comprehend them. The scope of the underlying engine sources is large, and taking modifications into account, isn't it always difficult to get accurate bug reproductions? Anyway that's good we will get an SDK, hopefully that will make it easier for us.

#3 In my case I had developed a different system of classes to handle my platformer
and I was thinking to integrate my maps and actors with the level editor, but this is not possible now.
At first I was surprised, because early setups include all the source code and scripts, and it has been
fundamental because T2D is still in a very early stage about documentation.
Thinking in T2D without sources would make it unusable except for simple proves of concept.

#4 I'm a little suprised by this decision.

Although when I bought T2D I wasn't expecting the level of functionality that you've added to the editors so far (which is great btw), I didn't mind because even if the level editors only went so far, I knew I could extend them to work with any source level changes I'd made to the engine. Now however, that may or may not be possible. So rather than taking the risk I'll probably end up building my own editors. I don't mind doing this but it will feel a bit weird having to reinvent the wheel and recreate part of the functionality that you've already gone to the trouble of creating.

I'd put this along similar lines to one reason that I've not bought showtool pro in favour of using my own version of the standard show program. Without source I couldn't guarantee that if I modify certain sections of the engine that show tool would be no longer usable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I wouldn't still license T2D if I hadn't already, even knowing the editors are now not going to come with script, T2D is a lot more than just the editors and worth the money even if it came with no editors at all. (although having read multiple posts in the past saying more advanced editors are in the works, and no mention that they'd be closed source, I feel a little put out. But thats life).

Still, the editors are great, I just don't see myself now taking advantage of them without access to the source. If bug reports is your only fear, then just don't accept/investigate any reports of bugs that have not been tested on a vanilla install of the source. The same problems could feasibly occur with TGE and source bug reports.

Personally I'd agree with Tom, if you could release the editor scripts as a totally unsupported resource, then there would be no issue at all. That said, it's your product to do with as you choose.

#5 It was mentioned in other threads that Beta2 was a fast intermediate build and nothing more, so I won't worry about that.

#6 A big part of the reason I bought TGB (T2D at the time) was because I wanted access to the source so I could modify and customize anything I wanted, fix little issues quickly, and because I could see something cool GG had done then go to the source and see how it was done ;). Sure, I probably won't modify much; and most of my customizations will be small stuff that isn't important to others but make the process more intuitive for me (example) rather than full blown mods.

Not having the script source won't make me stop using it now that I have TGB, but combining the name change with the closing of the editor source and it makes me wonder if the open, developer focused product I bought is on the way out in favor of a closed point-and-click product.

I agree with Tom and Gary, it would be nice to have the scripts source even as an unsupported resource if they aren't going to be part of the core package anymore.

#7 I second that! I'd even be willing to pay a bit more to get access to the editor source if need be. At a *bare bare bare minimum* I'd like to see the source offered as part of a support contract (granted this keeps them out of the hands of 99% of users but it means there's an option if you REALLY REALLY need it and you're REALLY REALLY serious).

-JF

#8 Not having all the source is really making me consider not using it at all. Having the source code to a product I have puchased is a critical feature to me. I have already developed my own 2D engine before T2D was released (with tile map support, 3D hardware acceleration and so on). I bought T2D only because there was a "source license" that came with the complete source code for the product.

Sorry to complain, it just really bothers me. Especially because the product I bought was the "T2D Source License".

#9 It was mentioned in other threads that Beta2 was a fast intermediate build and nothing more, so I won't worry about that.

#10 Marc,

As Justin mentioned in his post here, the missing .cs files are not a result of a fast intermediate build like we thought - it was intentional. Even when TGB is released and not in beta, we won't get the scripts but instead a SDK.

#11 So, frankly -- who cares? I bought TGB as an engine... and expect the source code to the engine... I could care less if I have the sources to the Level Builder. It's a fantastic tool, but IT'S A TOOL. I have no plans of shipping tools, I want to build GAMES. As long as you keep getting the source code to the engine, does this really matter?

#12 For that matter, look at constructor -- it's a Level Builder of sorts for TGE. Do you expect the source code to that too? I don't. I'm fine if the tools stay closed.

#13 @Marc:

Quote:
Outside of the beta the scripts will still be closed but extensibility will not be compromised.

If the editor really proves to be as extendible as you say then it doesn't bother me to much not to have source. Yet I would feel a bit better if had it. Just in case. But I guess, as the level editor will be used by lots and lots of people in the future most bugs will be found and ironed out pretty soon.

#14 Well if I am basing a project off of a product that doesn't have source code, I am taking an added risk when I am working on a project. If I am paying someone to do the art for a product I am working on, I want to eliminate as many possible points of failure as possible. I don't really care about filing bug reports. I only mention bugs if they are in the stock versions of torque products.

#15 The level editor is going to be an important tool for delivering games in a timely and cost-effective manner. That said, I can easily see circumstances where it won't be enough to simply use an SDK to extend it. For example, not having source to the level editor prohibits me from making certain kinds of fundamental changes to how the engine behaves unless I'm willing to give up the level editor entirely.

Let's say I want to make a change to the GUI controls so that they use the same coordinate-space as scene objects. Or perhaps just make them use an abstract coordinate system of their own with 0,0 at the upper left corner still. This would instantly break the level editor, leaving me with no way to repair it. I can have one, or the other, but not both. Well, OK, in THIS instance I could just clone the GUI classes and make the NEW ones behave the way I want (and go through the extra effort of having shipping builds exclude the old GUI classes to minimize code bloat) but I'm sure there are plenty of other possible changes where that ISN'T going to be a possibility. Making changes to the semantics of t2dSceneGraph, or the rendering pipeline could easily cause interference that can't be worked around by copy & paste.

-JF

#16 Another point you may want to consider, especially in reference to your comments Jon (mainly since they're the most recent and I don't have a whole lot of time to comment my opinion on the entire thread :)... if you plan to do such fundamental changes to the engine then our versions of the Level Builder will -never- be supported by your version, in essence it would almost be ideal for you to build your own in this case. On top of that TGB is still in EA and this is an intermediate build. A lot of things have been planned and discussed and a lot of things have been changed in the pipeline of TGB's dev cycle. I wouldn't accept anything set in stone yet, on top of that what Justin has said still leaves a lot of areas to be explained. Before anyone jumps to conclusions I'd highly recommend you waiting and seeing what we choose to do :)

On the other hand keep the comments coming, again the plus of an EA like this is you get to directly effect the development of the engine, I would just politely request that you keep comments level headed, matture, and constructive (which is what I've seen so far, just sense some heat building up).

#17 Well this is just a sore point with a lot of people that purchased the engine. It says "T2D Source License" but all of a sudden we don't get the full source code. I know it really upset me when I found out that I wouldn't be getting the full source code.

The fact that I don't have the editor source, makes using those editors not an option. If there is a bug, issue or fundamental change in the editors, its possible I will have to redo all the levels in my game. So now for this one project I have started working on, I have to now consider whether I would want to create my own editors from scratch, or to create my own engine for my game.

#18 If this is the direction that GG wants to go, that's their decision. I would be disappointed if the tools source was not included. I have always thought this to be a tremendous asset and selling point for TGB. I also would not like to see any "Support Contract only" source, as this would definately push alot of developers out. I would suggest a more tiered approach. Source License for the people who want all the source code. Then maybe a Casual Developer License for the people who could care less if they had the source code for the editors.

On a side note, does this have any indication if GG is going to remove the sources for the editors in all the GG products?

#19 Again I would just like to point out that Justin never said source would never be given out, he simply said that as of now the only option we felt we had for this build was to not release it and that in the full release you will be able to add and mod your own Level Builder extensions. All I'm asking is to keep an open mind and keep comments constructive, a lot of you have been in the GG community for a while, before I came on board I found GG to be very considerate and helpful, I also found people jumped to conclusions way too quickly in the community. Keep the feedback coming, but don't take anything as an absolute yet, especially something that is just an assumption at this point :)

Add: Also keep in mind that if you've thought of it in the first day of thinking on this then we've probably already talked about it, had multiple discussions/meetings and are considering it as an option.

#20 Accidentally double-posted my last post... Heh. Let's try this again:

First up, the issue of support: I'm a Mac developer, and a couple of experiences have left me feeling quite unsupported to begin with. Please don't take offense at this, it's just the *perception* I've come away with as someone who doesn't have a Windows box to work on.

1) The particle editor in T2D 1.0.x was nearly unusable on Mac because dStrupr/dStrlwr were broken (they always return empty string, so you couldn't see the names of emitters). You can't use the "EA" excuse for this one because it turns out this was a known bug in TGE, and a patch had been submitted over a year and a half prior (an extremely trivial patch, even by my standards) to T2D being released.

2) All TGE 1.4 based builds of T2D have lost the capability to detect available screen resolutions on Mac (this capability worked just fine in TGE 1.3 and earlier T2D builds) -- instead we just get a hard-coded list (and funky behavior if you try to switch modes to one that isn't actually available).

3) The T2D product page notes that Linux support is done by the community and is unofficial. It also notes that compilers other than XCode are supported by the community rather than GG. It does not note that problems get fixed much more slowly on Mac builds and so while you may technically get the same version of the engine you don't necessarily get feature parity without... Community support. For example: In 1.0.x, audio didn't work on Tiger at *all* without a community-developed patch.

In all cases, having the source was my only way to workaround the problems. In #1, it would have been very hard for me to even identify the cause of the problem without the source of the particle editor (I didn't know in advance that dStrupr and dStrlwr were broken on Mac -- I only knew that emitter names weren't visible).

Anyway, my point is not to rant about Mac support, it's just that telling me I'm going to lose support if I do X rings kinda hollow given my experiences thus far.

As for it being unsupported in the face of fundamental engine changes -- fine, I can live with that as long as I have the opportunity to make it *work*. (On my own, without help from GG...) Without that option, I'm deeply constrained in how I can use the engine or I'm forced to give up the level editor, either of which dramatically decreases the value of T2D. Honestly I hadn't anticipated that the in-game tools would matter so much, but after getting half-way through developing a real-game I can see that they really do, and at least half the value of T2D is in those tools.

Second, the issue of what Justin did and did not say: The fact that man-hours are being devoted to developing an extensibility SDK strongly implies that source will never be released, so hopefully you can at least understand why we're all nervous? As for not wanting to deal with spurious bug reports, the same argument could be made about including the actual engine source. Using this argument seems at best specious and at worst makes me fear that you'll change your mind about releasing source for the engine itself, and all my hard work on my game will hit a wall when I'm forced to either fix an old beta release of the engine myself, or rewrite the game without using T2D (my game unfortunately isn't possible without source as I require more precise timing and animation control than is possible from script -- rhythm game).

Third, the issue of T2D being in EA: That just makes source access even more important as I'm more likely to encounter bugs that I need to find a way around. I've been able to work around many problems thanks to the efforts of the community, or through my own development efforts (or those of people working on contract for me) but only because I have source.

Fourth, the issue of what we were promised when we paid: I tend to agree with the poster above that "includes full source" means "includes full source" and I'm disheartened to see this change relatively late in the development process.

Obviously I'm still taking a wait-and-see approach (I wouldn't be posting on the forums or hanging around in the IRC channels if I wasn't). I see T2D as potentially providing me with a LOT of value but between GG's lack of communication in general, events like this, and my experiences as a Mac user it's hard not to see a lot of hidden costs waiting for me around the corner in the form of missed opportunities (any time I don't have the source for something, that means there's SOMETHING that I may want to do that I cannot), increased development costs due to a less efficient art pipeline, and so forth.

Again, please don't take offense to this -- I'm not trying to be rude or insulting, I'm just trying to articulate my concerns and explain why I stubbornly insist on holding onto those concerns even though they might seem absurd to you.

-JF