#261

Project Define Cleanup

I think we should have some consideration as to removing some of the project defines that are currently wrapping many of the fixes that are in the CE version.

For optional modules, such as the IPS and Recast for example, it makes sense to retain project defines for these, but if the fixes are working and no one is reporting any issues from them then it is time accept them as valid and discard some of the clutter.

I feel that this will simplify things when we move forward with future official (GG) changes to the engine.

Does the script preprocessor resource work within GUI files? Disabling some of the optional project defines ends up leaving some unusable code within the scripts. This is easily worked around by having new global variables that coincide with the defines which wrap conditional code just like the source level defines do, but this 'easy' solution does not work for those GUI files that have been modified. I would like to clean or resolve this annoying but minor issue as well.

Unnecessary Template Removal

The only up-to-date templates in the CE repository are those for the Full Template and the CE Starter. No one has stepped up to maintain the other templates, and I personally find them superfluous. Does anybody have any reservations about removing the FPS Tutorial, PhysX, and Empty Templates? We all already them anyway...

Community Game Project

Pending the announcement from GarageGames next week I'm contemplating initiating a proposal for a community demo game similar to that of the Realm Wars project from nearly a decade ago. Most likely we would favor a FPS type of game, although the RTS port mentioned above by Guy Allard could be quite interesting to work with. I would like to use the CE as a base for this idea. Anyone interested?

#262 Michael,

I didnt spend the time I expect on this CE, but I m following closely announcent and communication.

From your last post, I m in favor to default fixes that have been test successfully over a period of Time and by the community and not only the owner of the change.

Concering template, yes the 2 you mentionned are the most interesting ones.

Last, to make a community game project. That will be nice If this proposal catch as many attention as the CE.
Personally, I will propose a gameplay different than FPS. I have in mind to create 2 type of game that maybe can fit the CE game.

1: it s a kind of lasertag/paintball game that will be played turn by turn. But instead of having each player waiting for the other one, each player will fill its order sheet and at the end of thé turn, the server will simulate this at If they were realtime orders. We can imagine having 2 or more teams fighting in each game with one player/ai behind à team. This can be played offline, hotseat, online and in future with tablets.
I thought starting on hex board for the field. I have some design document at a draft level that can be shared If we choose this path.


2: a moba game like Bloodlines Champions with future graphics and weapon. Not fantasy or current period style.

Is that something you might be interesting? My préférence Will go for thé first one if I have to choice because I Like tactics game.

#263 I have almost finished adding support for Mac from the files received from the GG. I think for the moment it is better to leave the optimizations/fixs defines. Some changes, such as those relating AsmLib, could create problems.

I fully agree to remove the unnecessary templates and create new templates for new games.

#264 Well, if we're going to drudge up some new templates, would we go ahead and shoot for genre templates?
Like FPS template, Racing template, Turn-Based-Tactical/RPG template, etc, etc?

If we're talking about going that route, then I'd suggest the following templates, as they'd be base enough to act as a template, but would give solid ideas for implementation on a multitude of aspects in the genre:

FPS Template: A battlefield-esque game. Capture points on a large, open map with a mixture of vehicle and infantry combat going on, classes, etc.
This gives implementation ideas for basically every vehicle class in Torque, as well as standard FPS shooter fares with the infantry side(inventory management, class management, teams, etc) and a basic objective of capturing various points on a map.

Racing template would be fairly straightforward, and would emphasize the gametype and wheeled vehicles specifically. Laps, some AI that follow the road, etc.

For the Turn-Based-Tactical template, I'm thinking something akin to what Mr. Acaster was going in his Tactical/Action resource series.
This gives you turn-based gameplay, and you could easily go the route of different units have RPG-esque stats to dictate how they perform. It'd act as a solid base for both standard turn-based action games, or can be readily extrapolated into turn based RPGs.

Last template I can think of would be an RTS template. Speaks for itself, but if they get that RTS example polished up here soon, that could be a solid starting point, and we could branch it off into a full template where you can have friends and enemies compete with their armies on the same field.

While a community game project would definitely be pretty awesome, I think in the long run genre templates would do better for the community as a whole, as it'd give more developers(new and old) a base to work from for a given game project they're starting.
Just throwing the idea(s) out there to discuss.

#265 Yeah, "Genre Templates" may be a better goal than a game-like goal for the CE. That way various people could team up on the Templates that interest them the most. This would also allow those uncomfortable with coding a greater chance to participate. The game initiative I had in mind would be outside the technical purposes of the CE, I just mentioned it here since it would have it's roots in the CE.

And Alfio, I'm not proposing removing all of the defines but there are a good many fixes that could be accepted as working and valid. I'll look at rearranging some of the fixes that are currently wrapped in 'optimization' defines such that the most logical as a straight fix can be categorized under a distinct define for review before doing so.

#266 Also some simple templates:

1. Script window only template for learning TS.
2. Create a window and put a logo and quit button on the screen.
3. Show a 3D object on the screen in a 3 space view.
4. Single player only template.
5. Multiplayer template.
6. Server only template.
7. Launch a mission template possibly some visuals showing back and forth communication with server.
8. etc

I really liked the simple script code resources people made back for TGE. A set of very simple or perhaps a learning template would help keep the learning curve a little less steep. It always seemed way too busy for the default templates and confused the heck out of me especially with packages.

#267 I think that makes sense.
You could have 2 types of 'templates'.
Learning/Tutorial example templates, which would be stuff Frank mentions above. These are geared towards learning the guts of the engine at varying levels of intricacy.

Then you'd have Genre/Game templates, which would be more for gameplay-specific ideas, or acting as a *cough* template to start your game from.

I think both are equally valid and important, and we should try to draft which ones we'd like to see so people can start putting them together. One of the recurring complaints with torque over the years was how it was hard to jump into the thing, and these would go a huge, huge distance in fixing that grievance.

#268 Torque 3D is going open source:

Eric's Blog

Dave's Blog.

You guys might want to start talking on Dave's blog to figure out how the community edition can fit into this, if at all.

#269 The Starter Template is intended to be a stepping stone to a more stripped down "barebones" template. But time constraints and all that... I was also waiting on some feedback from the CE users before I put it into a more final form. But in it's current form it has the game-like functionality of the Empty Template with the menu/gui and mulitplayer features of the Full Template, but with no assets or class examples. It has the package complexity reduced by one layer, but that could still be taken another step or two. I personally like packages, but hated the directory structure of the T3D projects.

Also, as I mentioned on Dave's blog I had already asked for early access to the Github repository so that I could begin staging things for an easy transition between it and the CE. The question that should be asked though is if you guys want that transition or do you wish to maintain separation due to license concerns?

#270 Greetings!

One thing to keep in mind is that an IP release form will likely need to be signed by anyone that would like to contribute to the open source master branch. That would ensure the integrity of the master as well as protect everyone involved. I've not really been part of the business end of going open source to speak on the details, but this is a common arrangement with professionally run open source projects.

From a CE perspective, that would likely require everyone who has contributed changes to sign a release, including changes supplied by a 3rd party. (But only if there is a desire to push CE changes to the master open source branch in the future, of course).

I hope this won't be considered a road block as you guys have done great work here. But it is an unfortunate reality of the world we live in.

- Dave

#271 For my part i believe that the CE will keep open only to licensed users.

Even if we are living a moment of confusion, the CE has a solid foundation and a package of experienced users. It is absolutely not a good idea to merge the two projects if not then you will be able to follow the flow of data. An open source project on GitHub can also mean a number of changes daily, with the consequent loss of sight of the original objectives.

In any case, this is a community project, and a community project will remain. So to them to decide.

#272

#273 @Alfio: I agree with that notion.

#274 Well, I think the question with that approach though, does that mean that once they officialize it, does anyone that didn't buy a license beforehand not allowed 'in'?

I can definitely see holding off for a while while everything stabilizes, but I think it makes sense to at some point allow(if in a regulated fashion) people to be a part of the CE stuff if they came in after the old license is not purchasable anymore.

You could do the same approach as what GG is talking about, a few people have write access(such as it is right now, if I remember right), and others can pull the current build. It'd be up to the people that are actively contributing/have write/management access to decide who can contribute, or what should be added.
It wouldn't be all that different than it is already, and everything could be left where it is instead of moving it to github, but I think it'd make sense to open it up so new people can use it or contribute after the current license can't be acquired anymore.

#275 I doubt that there is, but in case there's any confusion (since I've been asked this a couple of times via e-mail), no one has to house their stuff on GitHub. It is just where we chose to house our repo. It makes forking and pull requests, etc easy which fit within our vision. Anyone can use whatever system they want wherever they want.

#276 I know its still early ... but makes me curious, the engine source code is going OPEN SOURCE. All of the torque scripts were already previous included "open" even in the demo.

But there is still the licensing of all the art content, etc ... many objects of which are included in the previous licenses for example the content added like Chinatown with T3D v1.2

So although everyone now gets free source access ... but not free access to all the assets previously included in each build?

The profit/cost/licensing will instead be with artist and other bundled content. correct?

Last I heard / understood, all the previous (and current) versions of Torque included a license to use the artistic content included with it -- the 3d models, textures, etc... along with the source code access.

Maybe that means you only get the source + default scripts for free.

And for example, have to purchase the extra a "FPS Kit" that includes specific scripts, example art, sample level, etc...

and another for "RTS Kit" and so on ...

#277 Good question, Jeff. We're trying to keep everything under MIT to avoid confusion. So everything in our repo will be under that license. Realistically, if this becomes a common question, the Creative Commons license that most closely matches the MIT license is CC 3.0 Attribution UnPorted. But our official Torque 3D repo is released in the spirit of both of these licenses, source or not.

But, yes, teams could develop a full commercial template and release it, including artwork, etc. We could do the same. Of course, teams that develop free content could do the same and release it as well. People are not constrained to only using official kits.

#278 @All,
We are about to get an influx of amateur and professional programmers contributing/using T3D. It would be short sighted to not view that as a future resource to improve the engine. Constraining the CE to those who bought before the source was opened is going to limit talent and resources.

I don't see T3D being a free for all with tons of changes daily for some time. Perhaps only the head version will be like that. There will be releases and branches that are controlled. GG is committed to using a roadmap that we help create. I think Alfio's roadmap so far has been good. The idea of nailing bugs that have been lingering is a good one. Perhaps that will get us to version 1.3. From there we can work with GG to add features, improve the core, etc. It would be unfortunate to not look at this as an extension and perhaps a replacement of the CE.

#279 But nowhere is it written that a CE will be isolated. I'm just saying that maybe the road that we are taking with the CE, which will be different from the public repository.

It is in no way a limitation.

The users of the CE will continue to have access to both (or more) projects. And the CE, will probably also open for reading to all other users are not licensed. But we will continue to maintain the guidelines of the CE.

My experience tells me that people are hungry for new features and various embellishments (ubuntu is the greatest failure to be taken into account. Im a debian user).

So there will always be a trade between the various repositories that will emerge like mushrooms. But we will try to preserve the peculiarities of the CE.

#280 I agree with you Alfio, I don't want an engine which is (already) filled with unnecessary stuff for most genres.
The current T3D is already bloated with FPS only stuff, and alot of stuff could be cut out to enhance performance in other genres. If people are adding more on top of that you might end with an engine that is full of all kinds of fancyness, but you will only use 10% of that.
But I hope that CE will take the best of both worlds and try to keep up with the official code base, so exchanges of improvements and bug fixes wont be a pain.