State of TGEA on MacOS X
by Robert Rose · in Torque Game Engine Advanced · 11/20/2007 (4:26 pm) · 32 replies
Anyone know anything about the state of TGEA for MacOS? The TGEA website implies that an OpenGL version is coming "soon", but I could imagine that was last updated a long time ago. :-)
#22
Saying today that OpenGL was an optional thing for TGEA and noone ever said that OpenGL will be in is just not true. I'm long enough here on the GG site to know that it was not like that. I'm/was early adopter for TGEA.
1) Well, honestly I remember the same as Stefan Lundmark, it was removed after the launch of TGEA. There are still posts around in the forums asking exactly this, why after the launch still references to OpenGL are on the sales page!
2) GG has charged money for EA TSE/TGEA and later removed features from that. This is a whole different story. For many of us the multi platform support of TSE/TGEA was a main reason to buy it.
3) A few minutes of search on GG leads to posts that simply tell about OpenGL and TSE/TGEA. The weakest one is a blog from Brian Ramage giving a hint on the OpenGL support (last paragraph of the blog). One of the better ones is a post from Ben Garney which I like to quote here:
Please, don't get me wrong, this is not a personal attack to Stephen, he's not the one to blame for. But at least for me as "customer" it looked OpenGL _was_ on the list and a major decision arguement to buy TGEA already as early adopter. I'm sad it's not in yet, but I guess, esp. regarding T2, GG will have kind of "solution" for us TGEA fanboys... ;-)
11/23/2007 (1:10 am)
Hmm, I'm usually not jumping into this kind of conversation (or is it a duell?), but in terms of TGEA I'm unfortunately sensible too. Saying today that OpenGL was an optional thing for TGEA and noone ever said that OpenGL will be in is just not true. I'm long enough here on the GG site to know that it was not like that. I'm/was early adopter for TGEA.
Quote:
The problem is that you are describing a change in implementation from an EARLY ADOPTER Proposed Feature List
1) Well, honestly I remember the same as Stefan Lundmark, it was removed after the launch of TGEA. There are still posts around in the forums asking exactly this, why after the launch still references to OpenGL are on the sales page!
2) GG has charged money for EA TSE/TGEA and later removed features from that. This is a whole different story. For many of us the multi platform support of TSE/TGEA was a main reason to buy it.
3) A few minutes of search on GG leads to posts that simply tell about OpenGL and TSE/TGEA. The weakest one is a blog from Brian Ramage giving a hint on the OpenGL support (last paragraph of the blog). One of the better ones is a post from Ben Garney which I like to quote here:
Quote:
Posted: Feb 24, 2005 06:11
We are waiting for TSE on DX to be done before porting it. No sense doing major dev work AND porting at the same time.
We're also waiting for GL to stabilize, especially on OSX. That's naturally less of a constraint than when we started our plans, but it's still an annoying problem.
Please, don't get me wrong, this is not a personal attack to Stephen, he's not the one to blame for. But at least for me as "customer" it looked OpenGL _was_ on the list and a major decision arguement to buy TGEA already as early adopter. I'm sad it's not in yet, but I guess, esp. regarding T2, GG will have kind of "solution" for us TGEA fanboys... ;-)
#23
GG position about Open GL support for TGEA is rather confusing.
I won't spend time to check if the posts I'm referring to have been deleted/edited/censored or not, but about 3 months ago, hints were given OpenGL would be supported not so far away.
Then came the IAC announce...
Communication doesn't seem to be GG best asset.
Even if I agree with Stephen about the demo screenshots, when he says it cannot be understood as a promised feature, putting them the way they are is really pointing customers in the wrong direction, and hence can be considered as an attempt to fool them.
There shoud be a clearly written legal disclaimer about this point both in the demo and on the product page.
11/23/2007 (1:20 am)
I have to agree with Martin.GG position about Open GL support for TGEA is rather confusing.
I won't spend time to check if the posts I'm referring to have been deleted/edited/censored or not, but about 3 months ago, hints were given OpenGL would be supported not so far away.
Then came the IAC announce...
Communication doesn't seem to be GG best asset.
Even if I agree with Stephen about the demo screenshots, when he says it cannot be understood as a promised feature, putting them the way they are is really pointing customers in the wrong direction, and hence can be considered as an attempt to fool them.
There shoud be a clearly written legal disclaimer about this point both in the demo and on the product page.
#24
I was starting to feel so much confident in my skills with the TGE terrain editor - and in fact I like it a lot -, I was considering taking a look a L3DRT, even if I was aware if would be terribly different. But I had no fear, there was still the TGE legacy terrain.
I will certainly have to look for another game engine, and certainly give Blender the required time I should have put in it for too long now. With drop of BSP (.map like format), this would have been required anyway.
There is still the option of TGE + MK for my own - not so big - projects.
I will certainly repeat myself twice in a day; but GG, please, improve communication and make it clear.
11/23/2007 (4:01 am)
From my point of view (a Mac user one ;-) ), no Open GL is a wings breaker.I was starting to feel so much confident in my skills with the TGE terrain editor - and in fact I like it a lot -, I was considering taking a look a L3DRT, even if I was aware if would be terribly different. But I had no fear, there was still the TGE legacy terrain.
I will certainly have to look for another game engine, and certainly give Blender the required time I should have put in it for too long now. With drop of BSP (.map like format), this would have been required anyway.
There is still the option of TGE + MK for my own - not so big - projects.
I will certainly repeat myself twice in a day; but GG, please, improve communication and make it clear.
#25
11/23/2007 (4:49 am)
Some of these posts seem silly, we are game developers are we not, and a group of what should be professionals? When people do try their hardest and still fall short of our "expectations", it's not very nice to pick on them about it constantly. When I found features I wanted added to TGEA, I learned about what it takes to implement it, ask appropriate questions (even if I thought they sounded dumb at the time!) about all the aspects of that area I could, and started to work on it, and was not the only one, and just before I finished my solution someone else came up with one that worked great with what I already had, now I have some awesome looking terrain. What I'm saying is that with all the people I've seen complain about "no Open GL", why don't you all band together "AKA" get organized, and do it yourself, heck I bet people around here might pay you for your efforts?? Just a suggestion for a peaceful resolution of this growing problem, we seem to have in this community. I see why now GG didn't want to share it "plans" with the community for so long, some really take it as a promise when they see what is "planned".
#26
11/23/2007 (5:03 am)
(I'm even censoring myself on this one). 8-P 
#27
Thats what quite some already do here as you see due to resources and bug fixes :)
And I hope this will help TGEA using its true potential.
There is still a lot hidden potential buried :)
11/23/2007 (5:16 am)
Agreed Bobby :)Thats what quite some already do here as you see due to resources and bug fixes :)
And I hope this will help TGEA using its true potential.
There is still a lot hidden potential buried :)
#28
there is none. If someone is working on it, then their keeping it a secret which would be their right. Right or wrong, not to many people are going to be bothered with approx. 3% of the computer population.
While I disagree with the majority of Bobby's post, I do agree that it could be something we could all work on together if we so decided. What may have been the argument with GG is almost not even functionally practical at this point, from a client development standpoint. They have already stated TGEA along with TGE will be discontinued in the not to distant future, and from a business position, rightfully so.
Maybe, could whoever did the initial work from GG on the GL attempt release their early work or collaborate closer with the community? Just a thought. I think thats what eb and everyone else is really asking for when it comes down to it.
11/23/2007 (10:55 am)
Guys... whats the point in having this kind of conversation again. To date, it has never changed anything, and even when your right.. your still wrong. Quote:Anyone know anything about the state of TGEA for MacOS?
there is none. If someone is working on it, then their keeping it a secret which would be their right. Right or wrong, not to many people are going to be bothered with approx. 3% of the computer population.
While I disagree with the majority of Bobby's post, I do agree that it could be something we could all work on together if we so decided. What may have been the argument with GG is almost not even functionally practical at this point, from a client development standpoint. They have already stated TGEA along with TGE will be discontinued in the not to distant future, and from a business position, rightfully so.
Maybe, could whoever did the initial work from GG on the GL attempt release their early work or collaborate closer with the community? Just a thought. I think thats what eb and everyone else is really asking for when it comes down to it.
#29
For myself, OpenGL was a secondary concern but still on the radar. It was Atlas that sold me on TGEA early adopter. Of course with it's unfinished state, broken promises and myriad of problems we got the exact same excuse from Stephen Zepp in the last thread on the issue. "We never said Atlas would be suitable to make games. It's only for photo realistic rendering of real world satellite data!" Where did I get the silly idea that Atlas was supposed to be used for games?
This is a change from the old excuse he used to use often. That used to go something along the lines of "You got the code, go fix it yourself. What, you expect us to fix problems with our engine?" When he went and quoted the EULA in another thread, arguing that they are not legally bound to fix anything or offer any updates, that was the icing on the cake.
I have very little faith in garage games anymore. Like many other users I have a bad taste in my mouth, feel like I've been sold a bill of goods on numerous occasions. Total transparency in Torque 2.0 is certainly a step in the right direction. I'm just not going to spend hundreds of more dollars for the chance to be fooled again. If GG really wants to make things right, they'll give all the TGEA users T2.0 for free.
11/24/2007 (3:22 am)
There's a problem with Stephen's assessment, that's nothing unusual. One has to look at the demo and combine that with the TGEA features list, which up until very recently included declarative statements such as "Don't worry Mac users! OpenGL support is forthcoming, it is at the top of our list!" Stephen cannot seriously make an argument that GG never sold units by purposely building up expectations of GL support. He will nonetheless, it just won't hold any water. The word 'lie' may be harsh, but it is not an embellishment or a mis characterization.For myself, OpenGL was a secondary concern but still on the radar. It was Atlas that sold me on TGEA early adopter. Of course with it's unfinished state, broken promises and myriad of problems we got the exact same excuse from Stephen Zepp in the last thread on the issue. "We never said Atlas would be suitable to make games. It's only for photo realistic rendering of real world satellite data!" Where did I get the silly idea that Atlas was supposed to be used for games?
This is a change from the old excuse he used to use often. That used to go something along the lines of "You got the code, go fix it yourself. What, you expect us to fix problems with our engine?" When he went and quoted the EULA in another thread, arguing that they are not legally bound to fix anything or offer any updates, that was the icing on the cake.
I have very little faith in garage games anymore. Like many other users I have a bad taste in my mouth, feel like I've been sold a bill of goods on numerous occasions. Total transparency in Torque 2.0 is certainly a step in the right direction. I'm just not going to spend hundreds of more dollars for the chance to be fooled again. If GG really wants to make things right, they'll give all the TGEA users T2.0 for free.
#30
:: buys Jacobin a beer(if he is of legal drinking age) ::
11/24/2007 (5:29 am)
(page saved):: buys Jacobin a beer(if he is of legal drinking age) ::
Quote:If GG really wants to make things right, they'll give all the TGEA users T2.0 for free.
#31
I believe in TGEAs potential. Sure, the T2 thing is really puzzling me, especially after the progress TGEA has made but if GG decides that Torque2 shall become the "future" for all then I believe there will be a fair path for all to join the future and bring in all our experience to make T2 in the end what the current Torque (without TorqueX) could be if all the efforts and especially all the experience were put into a single system.
11/24/2007 (6:38 am)
There is a reason it was once offered that you can just mail a specific person and he will take care that you get refund.I believe in TGEAs potential. Sure, the T2 thing is really puzzling me, especially after the progress TGEA has made but if GG decides that Torque2 shall become the "future" for all then I believe there will be a fair path for all to join the future and bring in all our experience to make T2 in the end what the current Torque (without TorqueX) could be if all the efforts and especially all the experience were put into a single system.
#32
Those that have turned it in to yet another "I'm unhappy with TGE-A", your points have been stated many times in many other threads (I can think of 2 or 3 right off the bat), and you are not in any way helping the original poster.
If you want to continue to repeat the same points over and over again, please do it politely, and in another thread.
11/24/2007 (10:02 am)
This thread isn't even remotely close to being on topic any longer.Those that have turned it in to yet another "I'm unhappy with TGE-A", your points have been stated many times in many other threads (I can think of 2 or 3 right off the bat), and you are not in any way helping the original poster.
If you want to continue to repeat the same points over and over again, please do it politely, and in another thread.
Torque Owner Robert Rose
Hey if you guys (or anyone else for that matter) get TGEA reasonably running on MacOS X please post about it.. I'm sure there are others like myself that would be interested in begging/borrowing/stealing/licensing/purchasing source code for the port. (I know GG has a framework for 3rd party tool providers -- I'm sure something can be arranged that will satisify everyone).