Hey GG, how about a vehicle collision fix??
by Lee Latham · in Torque Game Engine · 05/02/2007 (10:49 pm) · 84 replies
I have found posts on the vehicle collision hangs/lockups at LEAST five years old. I don't normally call anyone out about software bugs, but such an old and _basic_ bug (for a game engine!) makes me wonder where your priorities lie. I can't even demo my game (where everything else works fine) because lockups impress NO ONE.
Seriously guys--I'm a fan, I really am. But this makes it real hard to be a true fanboy!
I mean, what is the most fundamental thing a game engine needs to simulate? Frankly, I could care less about ultra-realism if it means a customer doesn't have to ctrl-alt-delete and reconnect--if it hasn't taken the server down with it, that is.
I was just doing some LAN playtesting with friends here tonight, and everyone was having SO MUCH FUN and I was SO PLEASED because they were LAUGHING a lot, but GEEZ I had to get up every five minutes or so and help someone kill the torque client process so they could reconnect. You'd be surprised--that really dampened their enjoyment.
I am trying very hard to get into a position where I can become a very, very good customer of yours, but this could single handedly derail my ability to do so.
Here's some threads for your amusement:
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=1585
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=11794
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=17316 (this one started three years ago, and continues to this day!)
Seriously guys--I'm a fan, I really am. But this makes it real hard to be a true fanboy!
I mean, what is the most fundamental thing a game engine needs to simulate? Frankly, I could care less about ultra-realism if it means a customer doesn't have to ctrl-alt-delete and reconnect--if it hasn't taken the server down with it, that is.
I was just doing some LAN playtesting with friends here tonight, and everyone was having SO MUCH FUN and I was SO PLEASED because they were LAUGHING a lot, but GEEZ I had to get up every five minutes or so and help someone kill the torque client process so they could reconnect. You'd be surprised--that really dampened their enjoyment.
I am trying very hard to get into a position where I can become a very, very good customer of yours, but this could single handedly derail my ability to do so.
Here's some threads for your amusement:
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=1585
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=11794
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=17316 (this one started three years ago, and continues to this day!)
Thread is locked
#22
The downside is that you have to make sure you don't sign some contract which prevents you from doing the work for other people. There are people out there who will do this. You just have to watch out for them. Or better yet, make up your own contract that other people have to sign with you instead of vice versa.
05/11/2007 (2:20 am)
@Martin SchultzThe downside is that you have to make sure you don't sign some contract which prevents you from doing the work for other people. There are people out there who will do this. You just have to watch out for them. Or better yet, make up your own contract that other people have to sign with you instead of vice versa.
#23
05/11/2007 (2:22 am)
Good point Anton, right!
#24
After all, they're pushing it as a core feature on their engine comparison page.
05/11/2007 (12:13 pm)
I find it comical that garagegames is using the excuse of, "it's a bonus feature that we have buggy physics and collision detection. It's not intended to make commercial games with it."Quote:Physics - Networkable Physics: Lightweight systems allows for hundreds of players with collision detection, rigid body, and vehicle physics.
After all, they're pushing it as a core feature on their engine comparison page.
#25
05/21/2007 (6:23 pm)
Yeah, really. 
#26
Why are you comparing two different things and misquoting them as the same thing to attempt to prove a point?
Your misquoted paraphrase (in the form of a quotation):
The original quote:
As you can see, you are changing the context by referencing the starter kit and generalizing it to the entire engine. It does a great disservice to the rest of the people in the thread as well as muddling the context for new people entering it, seeing your quote, and assuming that it must be somewhere up above so that they can add to the "me too" noise ratio on Torque physics.
Everything that is in the core feature list you posted is in the engine. However, you will have to do much of the legwork to make them work for your specific gametype. If your gametype is similar to the racing starter kit, all the better. You will have much less work to do. But you will still have work.
And yes, as noted by several posts above and many posts on physics engines, changing the physics hooks, getting rigid bodies to work the way they do in other engines, etc, is hard work. Especially over a network connection. Well, Gary's done a lot of excellent legwork to make it much easier in ODE, but you'll be tweaking your game for specificity.
05/21/2007 (6:51 pm)
@JacobinWhy are you comparing two different things and misquoting them as the same thing to attempt to prove a point?
Your misquoted paraphrase (in the form of a quotation):
Quote:"it's a bonus feature that we have buggy physics and collision detection. It's not intended to make commercial games with it."
The original quote:
Quote:GG sees the vehicle starter kit as a bonus. If you are making a racing game from our very simple vehicle starter kit, you will need to understand vehicle physics enough to finish it up. We provide the starter example kit as a starting point, it was never intended to ship commercial products.
As you can see, you are changing the context by referencing the starter kit and generalizing it to the entire engine. It does a great disservice to the rest of the people in the thread as well as muddling the context for new people entering it, seeing your quote, and assuming that it must be somewhere up above so that they can add to the "me too" noise ratio on Torque physics.
Everything that is in the core feature list you posted is in the engine. However, you will have to do much of the legwork to make them work for your specific gametype. If your gametype is similar to the racing starter kit, all the better. You will have much less work to do. But you will still have work.
And yes, as noted by several posts above and many posts on physics engines, changing the physics hooks, getting rigid bodies to work the way they do in other engines, etc, is hard work. Especially over a network connection. Well, Gary's done a lot of excellent legwork to make it much easier in ODE, but you'll be tweaking your game for specificity.
#27
05/22/2007 (8:30 am)
The feature on engine comparison page is not well explain. For example " Save/Load System ", what does this mean? Well to me it can only save the mission file. There is no in game save unless you add it. In other engines you do have in game save. I think you should be able to click on it to get more details. When you compare it to another engine the word/phrase are the say with no details. So to understanding what you getting you better know all the engines or you could be mislead.
#28
Different engines approach the save system quite differently. Often they create a rather large snapshot (close to the way emu's do) that may have a large amount of unneeded data. Others only do things that you tell it you need. In Torque, you have to tell it what you need, and the game developer is the best at determining that. Making a nice, reliable save system works best when you know exactly what data you need to save and load and the order in which you need it.
05/22/2007 (8:54 am)
It could definitely be clarified. My criticism was that Jacobin was comparing two separate things as if they were the same.Different engines approach the save system quite differently. Often they create a rather large snapshot (close to the way emu's do) that may have a large amount of unneeded data. Others only do things that you tell it you need. In Torque, you have to tell it what you need, and the game developer is the best at determining that. Making a nice, reliable save system works best when you know exactly what data you need to save and load and the order in which you need it.
#29
05/22/2007 (9:14 am)
In my opinion the engine comparison page is by no means fair - but hey that's marketing guys for ya!
#30
Try looking at the title of the thread. Then read the thread up until Jeff's reply. If someone is replying to B when questioned about A it certainly isn't me. It's also obvious that you have to tailor physics to whatever game type you want. Wheel based vehicles, hover vehicles, etc all need tweaking. That has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If when he talked about garage games seeing the starter kit and vehicle physics as a 'bonus' and not meant to ship commercial games with, he's not including the rigid body collision code then I can't see the relevance of his response.
Lee is suggesting that it's a deficiency inherent in the torque engine itself and questioning why it hasn't been addressed by them. A core component, not 'starter code' to give you a hint on how to do networking vehicle collisions.
I am simply saying that it certainly does not jive with how they describe it in the marketing information.
A person reading this would easily assume that not only do they have networked collision and physics, but that it actually works well and isn't just 'buggy bonus code that sorta works, kinda, sometimes.' There are dozens upon dozens of threads complaining about the problems with torque collisions going back 5 years. Lee posted only 3.
05/22/2007 (9:28 am)
David, Try looking at the title of the thread. Then read the thread up until Jeff's reply. If someone is replying to B when questioned about A it certainly isn't me. It's also obvious that you have to tailor physics to whatever game type you want. Wheel based vehicles, hover vehicles, etc all need tweaking. That has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If when he talked about garage games seeing the starter kit and vehicle physics as a 'bonus' and not meant to ship commercial games with, he's not including the rigid body collision code then I can't see the relevance of his response.
Lee is suggesting that it's a deficiency inherent in the torque engine itself and questioning why it hasn't been addressed by them. A core component, not 'starter code' to give you a hint on how to do networking vehicle collisions.
I am simply saying that it certainly does not jive with how they describe it in the marketing information.
Quote:Physics - Networkable Physics: Lightweight systems allows for hundreds of players with collision detection, rigid body, and vehicle physics.
A person reading this would easily assume that not only do they have networked collision and physics, but that it actually works well and isn't just 'buggy bonus code that sorta works, kinda, sometimes.' There are dozens upon dozens of threads complaining about the problems with torque collisions going back 5 years. Lee posted only 3.
#31
05/22/2007 (9:52 am)
Jacobin, it's marketing - you know.. People try to lift some companies above others and say they are looking out for their customers, but in the end they are a company entity which needs to pay their bills as well.
#32
You definitely have my agreement that a more fleshed out description page of the engine's features would be helpful. Then I wouldn't have to answer the "why can't I find the 3D modeling app that comes with Torque...you know...Puppeteer?" questions.
05/22/2007 (10:56 am)
I have read this thread, and have actively participated in a large number of the threads covering this issue over the last few years. I'm not arguing that there are not issues with the physics in TGE. I'm not arguing that Lee shouldn't ask for certain fixed to be entered into HEAD. I was saying that you were incorrect in your comparison and paraphrase of what wasn't actually said. You were adding incorrect fuel to a fire--and a fire which Lee has every right to kindle and question since it has long been an issue with a number of users. Other examples of long-standing issues: doors, ladders, intuitive camera control. You definitely have my agreement that a more fleshed out description page of the engine's features would be helpful. Then I wouldn't have to answer the "why can't I find the 3D modeling app that comes with Torque...you know...Puppeteer?" questions.
#33
But there's a difference between creative marketing and some of the things that you see with GG. From the line about rigid physics/collision in discussion here, to them still claiming that "OpenGL for TGEA is at the top of our list mac users!" to atlas being unfinished and others...It is a tad beyond simply being creative marketing. Hell, they still sell the RTS starter kit without telling anyone that's it's a totally unsupported and orphaned product. Creative marketing is one thing. Selling your customers a bill of goods is quite another. People on these boards have recently screamed for refunds and the forums of competing engines are chock full of ex-torque users disgruntled with this exact disconnect between promised and received product.
David: I think I was right on the money in the paraphrase. Hopefully Jeff Tunnel can jump back into the thread and actually clear up what he was referring to in terms of "it was never intended to ship commercial products." Was it the starter racing mod only or was it the topic of the thread, being rigid body collision. If it was the former that's perfectly acceptable, but then he still needs to answer why they haven't fixed the core system in the half-decade people have been complaining about it.
You comment about puppeteer made me laugh. I did a double take when I first saw that page myself, wondering if it meant that torque came with something similar to Poser.
05/22/2007 (12:10 pm)
Stefan: I fully understand that. When game companies marketed "16 megabit cartridges!" because it gave an impression of a larger entity than if they had referenced it in terms of bytes that is a fine example of creative marketing.But there's a difference between creative marketing and some of the things that you see with GG. From the line about rigid physics/collision in discussion here, to them still claiming that "OpenGL for TGEA is at the top of our list mac users!" to atlas being unfinished and others...It is a tad beyond simply being creative marketing. Hell, they still sell the RTS starter kit without telling anyone that's it's a totally unsupported and orphaned product. Creative marketing is one thing. Selling your customers a bill of goods is quite another. People on these boards have recently screamed for refunds and the forums of competing engines are chock full of ex-torque users disgruntled with this exact disconnect between promised and received product.
David: I think I was right on the money in the paraphrase. Hopefully Jeff Tunnel can jump back into the thread and actually clear up what he was referring to in terms of "it was never intended to ship commercial products." Was it the starter racing mod only or was it the topic of the thread, being rigid body collision. If it was the former that's perfectly acceptable, but then he still needs to answer why they haven't fixed the core system in the half-decade people have been complaining about it.
You comment about puppeteer made me laugh. I did a double take when I first saw that page myself, wondering if it meant that torque came with something similar to Poser.
#34
05/22/2007 (12:23 pm)
@Jacobin: Just of pure interest: To which other engines have the former Torque users left? I wondered where some people have left to and would like to know that. 
#35
Does it really matter to you or me why they choose to not use Torque? There are a plethora of reasons that one could come up with to use a competing product and really those reasons shouldn't matter at all to any of us as "end users". What matter is if we are getting a solution provided with Torque that we feel allows us to perform our tasks either as hobbyists or professionals. The fact that we are still here and using the product says that to us, yes Torque is a proper solution for the work that we are doing and that's all that should matter no?
05/22/2007 (12:35 pm)
@MartinDoes it really matter to you or me why they choose to not use Torque? There are a plethora of reasons that one could come up with to use a competing product and really those reasons shouldn't matter at all to any of us as "end users". What matter is if we are getting a solution provided with Torque that we feel allows us to perform our tasks either as hobbyists or professionals. The fact that we are still here and using the product says that to us, yes Torque is a proper solution for the work that we are doing and that's all that should matter no?
#36
The sentence is clear. It is in reference to the racing starter kit as per the context of the rest of his statement. As to why other issues haven't been addressed in the vehicle collisions, I have absolutely no idea. Yeah. I did a double-take on that one, too...wondering if I was getting something I hadn't bargained for. I got a lot, but a mesh modeling application was not part of it!
@Martin
There are a number of choices for people: C4, BeyondVirtual, Unity, 3D Game Studio (though many of them are users of 1.3 or prior), TrueVision, Lawmaker, etc. Each have their benefits and drawbacks, just like Torque.
05/22/2007 (12:43 pm)
Quote:We provide the starter example kit as a starting point, it was never intended to ship commercial products.
The sentence is clear. It is in reference to the racing starter kit as per the context of the rest of his statement. As to why other issues haven't been addressed in the vehicle collisions, I have absolutely no idea. Yeah. I did a double-take on that one, too...wondering if I was getting something I hadn't bargained for. I got a lot, but a mesh modeling application was not part of it!
@Martin
There are a number of choices for people: C4, BeyondVirtual, Unity, 3D Game Studio (though many of them are users of 1.3 or prior), TrueVision, Lawmaker, etc. Each have their benefits and drawbacks, just like Torque.
#37
@David: Thanks. Except lawmaker I have all "inspected" a bit to see what they offer, but for me no reason to switch to other tech. Still satisfied with Torque! :-)
05/22/2007 (12:57 pm)
@Logan: No, it doesn't really matter to me why anyone else chooses a different engine, but for my own comparison I would like to know where those users left to. The reason behind is that I sometimes think those people make the wrong decision when they go away from this community, even it is not always super perfect here, but that is normal in life I guess. I would like to see (myself) why they think a different engine could solve their problems (personally I think their problems don't come from Torque, the problem maybe sits in front of their monitor... ;-) @David: Thanks. Except lawmaker I have all "inspected" a bit to see what they offer, but for me no reason to switch to other tech. Still satisfied with Torque! :-)
#38
05/22/2007 (1:42 pm)
Lawmaker does look quite nice
#39
But their Indie single license costs $1499.99.
05/22/2007 (2:08 pm)
Wow, Lawmakers features do look quite impressive, especially built in ODE physics.But their Indie single license costs $1499.99.
#40
If not, then lawmaker is a good option, but I feel I got a bargain with Torque, because of the fact I got the source :)
05/22/2007 (2:14 pm)
The only problem with it, is no source code, which is quite useless if you want to learn how a game engine works.If not, then lawmaker is a good option, but I feel I got a bargain with Torque, because of the fact I got the source :)
Torque Owner Martin Schultz
The idea of hireing is generally good, but how do you know someone made something that you want him to hire for - there is no platform for this. But your statement in general is brilliant - it brought me to the idea that one can "virtually sell" his code pack by not selling it directly, but instead offering to get included in the team as contractor to add the specific code. Never thought of that. Good idea! :-)