C4 Engine/Wow
by Morrie · in General Discussion · 09/30/2006 (10:12 pm) · 37 replies
I own TGE/TSE and just was curious what the big HYPE on the C4 Engine was. WOW it seems incredible, I has an editer, it has exports for XSI, its like owning an engine that when I bought TGE would provide.
Soon GG will hopefully provide these tools (constructor, XSI exporters), but for now the C4 engine has it all I can't believe the it and now I don't have the money to purchase it for $100. Hopefully they won't raise it too high in price, because I would like to get it.
Soon GG will hopefully provide these tools (constructor, XSI exporters), but for now the C4 engine has it all I can't believe the it and now I don't have the money to purchase it for $100. Hopefully they won't raise it too high in price, because I would like to get it.
Thread is locked
#22
they state crossplatform, can anyone clear that up for me?
which platform's?
ms win2k and ms winxp?
or .. maybe xbox in the future?
currently the rendering is only supported by d3d and the sounds as well only dx sound.
no gl support, no *real* crossplatform support.
and I would bet no source code either.
pretty steep price for what your getting.
I guess if you can fit a game into the codebase without doing too much it might be kinda worth it.
but there are much better free opportunities with other engines capable of more.
10/02/2006 (11:14 am)
Lawmaker,they state crossplatform, can anyone clear that up for me?
which platform's?
ms win2k and ms winxp?
or .. maybe xbox in the future?
currently the rendering is only supported by d3d and the sounds as well only dx sound.
no gl support, no *real* crossplatform support.
and I would bet no source code either.
pretty steep price for what your getting.
I guess if you can fit a game into the codebase without doing too much it might be kinda worth it.
but there are much better free opportunities with other engines capable of more.
#23
On the other hand, P.C. grew out of the realization that offeding people on a regular basis is not a great way to get along, and getting along is a necessity to make society work. Without society, we wouldn't have our fancy computers (much less the electricity needed to run them :-)
Anyway, C4 made a lot of good choices, like cleanly defined interfaces, reasonable tools support, and retained/deferred mode rendering with a real scene state database. It's quite simple to get into and to extend, if you're a C++ programmer.
C4 made some poor choices, too, like a data-flow scripting language that really isn't good for a whole lot, and (what I think is the worst), a total lack of data-driven thinking in defining and using game entities. You gotta go in C++ if you want to do so much as add a new kind of bullet to an existing weapon.
Last, C4 has a lot of nifty features (parallax mapping, displaced water and all that jazz) but is currently lacking animation blending. I'd wait for better scripting, better animation system, and more data-driven entities before attempting to ship anything on C4.
10/02/2006 (11:17 am)
There is no law saying that you will never be offended; some of the P.C. stuff is really quite silly.On the other hand, P.C. grew out of the realization that offeding people on a regular basis is not a great way to get along, and getting along is a necessity to make society work. Without society, we wouldn't have our fancy computers (much less the electricity needed to run them :-)
Anyway, C4 made a lot of good choices, like cleanly defined interfaces, reasonable tools support, and retained/deferred mode rendering with a real scene state database. It's quite simple to get into and to extend, if you're a C++ programmer.
C4 made some poor choices, too, like a data-flow scripting language that really isn't good for a whole lot, and (what I think is the worst), a total lack of data-driven thinking in defining and using game entities. You gotta go in C++ if you want to do so much as add a new kind of bullet to an existing weapon.
Last, C4 has a lot of nifty features (parallax mapping, displaced water and all that jazz) but is currently lacking animation blending. I'd wait for better scripting, better animation system, and more data-driven entities before attempting to ship anything on C4.
#26
10/03/2006 (5:41 pm)
I tried the demo of the C4 engine and I was disappointed. The quality of the models was poor and it didn't look very modern. I moved my character into the water and I saw some horrible artifacts. No doubt it has a good future - the API looks clean, but it's not worth hyping just yet. To me, OGRE looks more impressive given the demos and videos. Though I know OGRE is just a rendering engine.
#27
10/05/2006 (8:55 am)
JW is correct on C4's current issues. C4 is one hell of a engine gfx wise (tons of physics objects video) but you absolutely need to dive into the source to get your own stuff rolling.
#28
In defense of C4...
The art in the C4 demo is just programmer art, created by the developer entirely with the built-in tools. The water is a known issue and since its implementation is not yet complete, will be fixed before the engine hits 1.0 C4 is developed by one guy and so he has to prioritize what he works on. It's still beta.
It seems many of the bad impressions of the engine are on the quality of the artwork (or lack thereof) and not the capabilities of the engine. I personally am not capable of making a detailed analysis, but I've realized the difference.
Steve
10/05/2006 (11:38 am)
Quote:I tried the demo of the C4 engine and I was disappointed. The quality of the models was poor and it didn't look very modern. I moved my character into the water and I saw some horrible artifacts. No doubt it has a good future - the API looks clean, but it's not worth hyping just yet. To me, OGRE looks more impressive given the demos and videos. Though I know OGRE is just a rendering engine.
In defense of C4...
The art in the C4 demo is just programmer art, created by the developer entirely with the built-in tools. The water is a known issue and since its implementation is not yet complete, will be fixed before the engine hits 1.0 C4 is developed by one guy and so he has to prioritize what he works on. It's still beta.
It seems many of the bad impressions of the engine are on the quality of the artwork (or lack thereof) and not the capabilities of the engine. I personally am not capable of making a detailed analysis, but I've realized the difference.
Steve
#29
Somehow that sounds familiar...
10/05/2006 (1:54 pm)
Quote:
It seems many of the bad impressions of the engine are on the quality of the artwork (or lack thereof) and not the capabilities of the engine. I personally am not capable of making a detailed analysis, but I've realized the difference.
Somehow that sounds familiar...
#30
It is absolutely amazing to me that this is a one man show. This is some great work. Think of what he could do with the amount of programmer's that GG has.
For me TSE/TAT just feels good. It runs on a variety of low spec systems. Going with TSE was a no brainer.
10/05/2006 (2:07 pm)
I'm personally not a big fan of C4. I still wish that I would have purchased before the price raise.Quote:...C4 is developed by one guy...
It is absolutely amazing to me that this is a one man show. This is some great work. Think of what he could do with the amount of programmer's that GG has.
For me TSE/TAT just feels good. It runs on a variety of low spec systems. Going with TSE was a no brainer.
#31
10/05/2006 (2:19 pm)
Eric also has quite a history in the tech field. C4 started as a pet project for his tech-savvy side and exploded into an engine, which often happens with such projects.
#32
So, I'd suggest that the eye candy does indeed matter. C4 may be the greatest game engine ever made, but if there is only mediocre art that's what most will judge it by.
10/05/2006 (2:23 pm)
The Doom and Half Life engines would be worthless without good art to back them up. Honestly, someone could take the Illumina version of Torque and make something fairly close. Sure there'd be no motion blur and detailed shadows of tree leaves, but their engine has parallax mapping and water shaders (and DRL if needed)--all from a modified TGE no less.So, I'd suggest that the eye candy does indeed matter. C4 may be the greatest game engine ever made, but if there is only mediocre art that's what most will judge it by.
#33
Ilumina does have motion blur, they use it for grenades and the like. With all due respect someone using TGE with the same resources as Illumina could not produce something visually as good, or fairly close.
10/05/2006 (10:13 pm)
Quote:I find that strange. Not specifically referring to C4, I mean in general. For example I wasn't impressed by the stronghold demo when I first evaluated Torque but I looked past that and judged it on what really counts, not some unknown persons artwork.
if there is only mediocre art that's what most will judge it by.
Ilumina does have motion blur, they use it for grenades and the like. With all due respect someone using TGE with the same resources as Illumina could not produce something visually as good, or fairly close.
#34
-how flushed out and feature rich are the tools? (world building, exporters, particle editor, shader editor,etc)
-are the tools in engine wysiwyg or external tools?
-is there a scripting language? how easy or hard is it to use(subjective i know), what is it like to add new functions into script, what is it like to call the script from code or the code from script? (super easy in torque for example)
-what does the overall code look like, how documented is it, does it really have easy access to all the features they list, are they as complete as they say they are?
-whats the art cotent pipeline like? how many steps to get from model to seeing it in game?
-how about more advanced tools like script debugger, animation editor, etc?
-does it have networking?
-whats the network code like, how complete, what type of features, any tools for it like metrics, profiling, etc.
the list is actually a lot longer then this. I use this type of list to give my opinion of C4 and suffice is to say, it has a ways to go before I would consider it over something like torque.
having a ton of features isnt important, having a ton of features that are complete, well documented, and have tools to help you use them is far more important.
for example, it could have the best particle system in the world, but without decent documention and a rock solid particle wysiwyg editor who cares.
I still say C4 has a long way to go, but its starting out with a solid foundation, so definitely something to keep and eye on.
10/10/2006 (12:53 pm)
I pass no judgement on C4 based on the crappy in game demo art. If we all did that we would have passed up torque years ago. my comments are directed at several other things.-how flushed out and feature rich are the tools? (world building, exporters, particle editor, shader editor,etc)
-are the tools in engine wysiwyg or external tools?
-is there a scripting language? how easy or hard is it to use(subjective i know), what is it like to add new functions into script, what is it like to call the script from code or the code from script? (super easy in torque for example)
-what does the overall code look like, how documented is it, does it really have easy access to all the features they list, are they as complete as they say they are?
-whats the art cotent pipeline like? how many steps to get from model to seeing it in game?
-how about more advanced tools like script debugger, animation editor, etc?
-does it have networking?
-whats the network code like, how complete, what type of features, any tools for it like metrics, profiling, etc.
the list is actually a lot longer then this. I use this type of list to give my opinion of C4 and suffice is to say, it has a ways to go before I would consider it over something like torque.
having a ton of features isnt important, having a ton of features that are complete, well documented, and have tools to help you use them is far more important.
for example, it could have the best particle system in the world, but without decent documention and a rock solid particle wysiwyg editor who cares.
I still say C4 has a long way to go, but its starting out with a solid foundation, so definitely something to keep and eye on.
#35
The tools are fairly feature rich.
The exporters are all COLLADA -- i e, he imports a standard format, which you can export from almost any tool.
The tools in the engine are mostly WYSIWYG, although the 2D level geometry tools clearly aren't the same as the 3D game level view (nor would you want them to be).
The scripting system is a graphical data-flow triggered-event system, not a text-driven scripting language. Major functionality is added in C++, not in script.
The overall code has a very sensible structure, and a decent factoring into C++ classes and interfaces -- much cleaner than Torque. The documentation level of the code is about the same as that of Torque, but the code itself is easier to navigate.
To go from 3dsmax to game: 1) Export as Collada 2) Import into engine 3) Save as whatever mesh you want.
Animation is not as strong as Torque; however, it is on the short-term feature-to-come list.
It does have networking, although I reserve judgement of the quality (I just haven't used it heavily at all, nor read the code).
What I like about Torque:
1) You can write code in script. This is slightly faster turn-around time than C++ (but not hugely faster).
2) Linux support (although it has warts).
3) Decent animation blending.
The two main features I think C4 out-classes Torque in (apart from the eye candy stuff), are:
1) It actually has an active developer who puts out new releases with bug fixed and new features on a very rapid basis (every few months).
2) When I try to use a feature, it usually works as advertized. In Torque, I've had to debug and fix every feature I've actually tried to push on (!)
It's a very different beast, that's for sure.
10/10/2006 (7:51 pm)
These questions are probably better answered on the C4 forum, but here's my impression:The tools are fairly feature rich.
The exporters are all COLLADA -- i e, he imports a standard format, which you can export from almost any tool.
The tools in the engine are mostly WYSIWYG, although the 2D level geometry tools clearly aren't the same as the 3D game level view (nor would you want them to be).
The scripting system is a graphical data-flow triggered-event system, not a text-driven scripting language. Major functionality is added in C++, not in script.
The overall code has a very sensible structure, and a decent factoring into C++ classes and interfaces -- much cleaner than Torque. The documentation level of the code is about the same as that of Torque, but the code itself is easier to navigate.
To go from 3dsmax to game: 1) Export as Collada 2) Import into engine 3) Save as whatever mesh you want.
Animation is not as strong as Torque; however, it is on the short-term feature-to-come list.
It does have networking, although I reserve judgement of the quality (I just haven't used it heavily at all, nor read the code).
What I like about Torque:
1) You can write code in script. This is slightly faster turn-around time than C++ (but not hugely faster).
2) Linux support (although it has warts).
3) Decent animation blending.
The two main features I think C4 out-classes Torque in (apart from the eye candy stuff), are:
1) It actually has an active developer who puts out new releases with bug fixed and new features on a very rapid basis (every few months).
2) When I try to use a feature, it usually works as advertized. In Torque, I've had to debug and fix every feature I've actually tried to push on (!)
It's a very different beast, that's for sure.
#36
I'm sure the code is tight, but it is AFAIK unproven technology. Sure, it has some things such as moving (and more detailed) shadows whichTGE doesn't have, but overall the demo level just isn't up-to-par.
I'm glad there's competition out there. That's a Good Thing (tm). And good luck with your games!
10/10/2006 (8:11 pm)
Tim,I'm sure the code is tight, but it is AFAIK unproven technology. Sure, it has some things such as moving (and more detailed) shadows whichTGE doesn't have, but overall the demo level just isn't up-to-par.
I'm glad there's competition out there. That's a Good Thing (tm). And good luck with your games!
#37
10/10/2006 (9:50 pm)
All I can say is no way and how can you, even on the gg forum. TSE, TGE rules... 
Torque 3D Owner Eric Forhan
Sometimes (and quite often, in fact) political correctness is almost fascist.