We need a TGB 2.0
by Tyler Slabinski · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 04/06/2009 (12:21 pm) · 25 replies
Wow... My 100th thread...
Ok, I would like to address the problems with TGB. For me, it seems as if GG is not even paying attention to TGB, it's all about TX and T3D. And I wanted to know if GG even has somebody working on this.
1. Shaders:
-We all love shaders... Normal Mapping, Relief Mapping, Mapping Mapping, etc. Yet why does TGB not have a single shader? TX 2D has shaders, yet of course TX doesn't support OpenGL, doesn't run on C++, and of course is not cross-platform compatible. So I ask GG to include shaders in TGB, I would love to see developers to create metallic shining race cars, or 3d looking objects when the screen turns.
2. Collision:
-I am surprised that GG hasn't fixed this before... The collision problems... Yes, THE collision problems... The collision problems that make our players have seizures when they stand on a block. The collision problems that make that spaceship ignore that planet it's suppose to land on and you fall into the black abyssal background of TGB. Why has this not been fixed? It is one of the most aggravating bugs in the builder, and I hope that GG addresses this.
3. Networking:
-Ok, so this is not a 'big' problem, but it is big enough to make it on this list. So here is an idea: Upgrade the networking. I know it is good, and can be used for minor games. But I would like to make a game that can support as many players as T3D, TGEA, and even TGE can! 4-8 players is not enough, I would like to be able to hold up to 64 players.
4. Give it the old 'spit and shine'
-I know TGB is easy, but I would like it if there was an updated GUI for the editors. Nothing big, but something that looks like it does in T3D. Something that would make your new line of engine run together smoothly.
5. Physics:
-Another major problem with TGB is the physics. The rigid body physics that come with TGB fail horribly, and I would like to see some better ones. PhysX is meant for 3d engines, but I believe it shouldn't be too difficult for the company to integrate something like that. I am sick of having my objects act like they are on a trampoline when they are set to sticky (infact, setting it to sticky makes them bounce even higher!).
Those are some beginning thoughts on TGB. I refuse to switch to TX, for it is written in C#, has no OpenGL support, and is not cross-platform compatible. I hope GG implements these things.
Post what you think GG should put in it.
Ok, I would like to address the problems with TGB. For me, it seems as if GG is not even paying attention to TGB, it's all about TX and T3D. And I wanted to know if GG even has somebody working on this.
1. Shaders:
-We all love shaders... Normal Mapping, Relief Mapping, Mapping Mapping, etc. Yet why does TGB not have a single shader? TX 2D has shaders, yet of course TX doesn't support OpenGL, doesn't run on C++, and of course is not cross-platform compatible. So I ask GG to include shaders in TGB, I would love to see developers to create metallic shining race cars, or 3d looking objects when the screen turns.
2. Collision:
-I am surprised that GG hasn't fixed this before... The collision problems... Yes, THE collision problems... The collision problems that make our players have seizures when they stand on a block. The collision problems that make that spaceship ignore that planet it's suppose to land on and you fall into the black abyssal background of TGB. Why has this not been fixed? It is one of the most aggravating bugs in the builder, and I hope that GG addresses this.
3. Networking:
-Ok, so this is not a 'big' problem, but it is big enough to make it on this list. So here is an idea: Upgrade the networking. I know it is good, and can be used for minor games. But I would like to make a game that can support as many players as T3D, TGEA, and even TGE can! 4-8 players is not enough, I would like to be able to hold up to 64 players.
4. Give it the old 'spit and shine'
-I know TGB is easy, but I would like it if there was an updated GUI for the editors. Nothing big, but something that looks like it does in T3D. Something that would make your new line of engine run together smoothly.
5. Physics:
-Another major problem with TGB is the physics. The rigid body physics that come with TGB fail horribly, and I would like to see some better ones. PhysX is meant for 3d engines, but I believe it shouldn't be too difficult for the company to integrate something like that. I am sick of having my objects act like they are on a trampoline when they are set to sticky (infact, setting it to sticky makes them bounce even higher!).
Those are some beginning thoughts on TGB. I refuse to switch to TX, for it is written in C#, has no OpenGL support, and is not cross-platform compatible. I hope GG implements these things.
Post what you think GG should put in it.
#2
But looking at your list, I think you're going to like a lot of what you see.
04/06/2009 (8:10 pm)
Hey Tyler, I'm not sure where you get this idea that it's not being worked on. Melv posted a blog a while back now about becoming a full-time part of the GG Remote Corps - Awesome Division with Josh, Lara, Dave, and I. I can understand that you're seeing more on Torque 3D since we are nearing a release state for it. I can also understanding that you're seeing a lot of TorqueX chatter because we have been trying to release it for a long time now and are jumping through certification hoops.But looking at your list, I think you're going to like a lot of what you see.
#3
I understand those reasons for TX and T3D. Yet I have expected that someone would have got rid of the collision and physics bugs by now. It isn't easy to get a good non-puzzle game when you want to try and get rid of all these glitches.
Anyway, in the next build going to be a new TGB? Like will current TGB owners need to pay for the new one?
04/08/2009 (12:04 pm)
I haven't looked at the blogs since the new site started up, I don't like the new community page layout. But that's not a problem for me.I understand those reasons for TX and T3D. Yet I have expected that someone would have got rid of the collision and physics bugs by now. It isn't easy to get a good non-puzzle game when you want to try and get rid of all these glitches.
Anyway, in the next build going to be a new TGB? Like will current TGB owners need to pay for the new one?
#4
Now, the physics have been under scrutiny for a while. Outside standard rigid body, some users have gotten Box2D working. At any rate, keep your eyes on the blogs post-Torque 3D and prepare for the Torque 2D flood.
04/08/2009 (12:09 pm)
Quote:It isn't easy to get a good non-puzzle game when you want to try and get rid of all these glitches.I see plenty of games in Powered by Torque Page that are action based that work just fine. The Platformer Starter Kit seems to have perfect collision responses.
Now, the physics have been under scrutiny for a while. Outside standard rigid body, some users have gotten Box2D working. At any rate, keep your eyes on the blogs post-Torque 3D and prepare for the Torque 2D flood.
#5
I think the collision system needs some work on the usability side more than anything. Perhaps separating out advanced physics options the main scene object class be default would help. It may also help to avoid collision detection on the layer level and simple use layers to organize scene drawing. By default, groups would be used for collision detection only.
Just some suggestions!
04/15/2009 (8:26 pm)
Hmm. While T2Ds collision system can be hard to handle - largely due to it's wealth of options and control - I never had a problem with "tunneling" of objects with fast moving objects. In fact, TGBs collision system is swept, meaning it "shouldn't" have any major problems with tunneling. I didn't have any during the development of Zompocalypse, in fact, getting the damn thing to exclude objects from collision and not be so zealous was the greater problem.I think the collision system needs some work on the usability side more than anything. Perhaps separating out advanced physics options the main scene object class be default would help. It may also help to avoid collision detection on the layer level and simple use layers to organize scene drawing. By default, groups would be used for collision detection only.
Just some suggestions!
#6
04/23/2009 (1:57 pm)
Not being able to collide with two different objects at the same time is a pretty big collision problem I'd say... 
#7
04/24/2009 (12:03 pm)
I just can't wait to see what physics additions they will have in the new version... also wondering if current license holders will have to pay for the new version? 
#8
04/27/2009 (8:02 am)
I'm set to purchase two indie licenses for TGB in the next couple of weeks, and I'm also curious to know if I'll have to pay for this new and improved version that's in the pipeline. 
#9
04/27/2009 (10:36 am)
I'd like to know the answer to the purchase question as well. I'm currently in the market for a gaming engine, and need to know if I should wait a bit or purchase now.
#10
04/27/2009 (10:48 am)
We have not discussed the cost/licensing for Torque 2D yet. The most we have announced is that it will receive the same magnitude of upgrades, fixes, and documentation rewrite.
#11
04/27/2009 (11:16 am)
No time frame to speak of yet? If this is like a year out then I won't feel quite so miffed if I have to pay an upgrade fee as I would if it's a few months out. 
#12
As for upgrade fees or not, it depends on what we can deliver whether we can charge anything, if at all. To reiterate, it's hard to tell this early in development. However if we do charge an upgrade (note the if), we will handle it like Torque 3D, with deep discounts for current TGB owners.
04/27/2009 (11:25 am)
The build is still in R&D phase at the moment. We've tested out some new features and they're working, but the time frame for launch will depend on how the R&D build merges back to the current engine. We actually want to push this out this year (since there's a lot of useful stuff we're developing), but as Mich said, it's still too early to tell.As for upgrade fees or not, it depends on what we can deliver whether we can charge anything, if at all. To reiterate, it's hard to tell this early in development. However if we do charge an upgrade (note the if), we will handle it like Torque 3D, with deep discounts for current TGB owners.
#13
04/28/2009 (11:30 am)
Thanks for the replies GG crew. That sealed the deal on my TGB purchase today - now if someone would just answer the email that I sent yesterday...
#14
05/01/2009 (6:38 pm)
Can't WAIT!!!
#15
I'm very new to bringing art into TGB, and I'm constantly fighting the battle of white jaggies on the edges of my sprites, something I didn't have to deal with in Flash. However in Flash I lack all of the excellent advantages that the TGB engine offers.
05/06/2009 (7:26 am)
One more question about TGB 2.0, if you have the time: Will it support vector art? I'm very new to bringing art into TGB, and I'm constantly fighting the battle of white jaggies on the edges of my sprites, something I didn't have to deal with in Flash. However in Flash I lack all of the excellent advantages that the TGB engine offers.
#16
If you are careful enough with the edits, you won't see any jagged edges, try cleaning up your artwork if you need to.
05/06/2009 (11:52 am)
I don't think vector art will be supported... If it is? Great! If it isn't? Not that bad.If you are careful enough with the edits, you won't see any jagged edges, try cleaning up your artwork if you need to.
#17
05/06/2009 (3:20 pm)
On Mac OS X and iPhone OS, it's possible to load PDFs instead of regular images to use as sprites or buttons, with clean scaling and all (if the PDF was produced from vector art). That would actually be a useful feature in at least iTGB, but it leaves out the poor Windows programmers. 
#18
05/06/2009 (3:32 pm)
@Ronny: Yuuuuuuuuuuck!
#19
05/06/2009 (6:23 pm)
Well... Looks like this time Windows users are left out in the rain... Good thing I use a Mac (pwnage!)
#20
05/06/2009 (6:24 pm)
How so Tyler? 
Torque 3D Owner Deborah M. Fike
Default Studio Name
Thanks for your feedback above. We are listening!