Torque 3D Community Edition Discussion Thread

#81 I was thinking of the same approach to set up the "brain" type (behavior and etc) that was used with guidebot: logicking.com/index.php?page=topology
but also taking advantage of the NavMesh Resource Daniel did: www.garagegames.com/community/resource/view/21392/4
That way you'll have a choice of creating new bots; all of their parameters and behaviors all within the editor. Also NavMeshes should automatically be generated. That's kind of the idea I was thinking.

#82 Also a cutscreen editor, similar to what he did with GMK (game mechanics kit). That way an individual would not have to buy a third party plug-in to do something that the engine should be able to do out of the box!

#83 You guys are in charge of the project. You should start a OotB tag for features that you feel should have been in the engine out of the box. It would be interesting to track. UDK, Source, and Crytek's engines have their OotB featureset based around the titles they are actively developing. Unity, ShiVa, and our tech have them largely based on licensing requests and requirements, team size, industry direction, and resource allocation. As I noted in IRC, I'm excited to see where this CE project leads.

#84 An OotB tag is a great idea. My main concern for the CE would be stepping on GG's toes - developing features in parallel to what they're already working on, and ending up with two different versions of the engine. Kind of like the way D has two standard libraries :P.

EDIT: I have some ideas for AI features. I've actually written a very generalised Sensor class which I'll get around to sharing at some point, and also an editor for scenarios and scripted AI behaviour. Will probably blog about it soon. Hopefully. I have been known to say that and then not :P.

EDIT EDIT: What I meant to say was that the editor is in progress. Not completely written yet. Grm, posting when frazzled from exam study :P.

#85 Been busy the last week(s), but just read through this thread and one thing that strikes me is the feeling of 'feature creep'.

I honestly think that it should be kept in line with the Achilles heel, although I realize that merely doing the work that GG should be doing with the core engine can be really boring.

But if the community attempts to optimize the engine, as well as implement some ressources in cleaned up versions -an attempt to create a code convention could actually be the right thing to throw in here. Especially since with this project the engine is viewed from a helicopter perspective, and the goal is cleaning and streamlining code.

#86 It is not 'feature creep' if there is no defined 'target'. The want of additions to various parts of the engine will help drive the direction of the engine structure. For instance, if we want to have script deformable bones, but not necessarily on every game object, then it may make sense for it to be a modular piece that gets added to a derived object. Or, if we want to have the feature of hit location for every object then it would be designed into a more base class. So understanding the direction people want to take this will help drive the engine development.

Besides, I don't think it will take long to 'clean up' the majority of the engine. After that I don't see a reason to keep polishing the rest of engine if we are going to change it. It would be like continuing to polish a car you don't want, rather than building the one you do want.

#87 I think that's why David's 'OotB' tag makes sense. We can set up tickets for feature we feel should be included in the Torque package(which insofar seems to focus heavily on usability and the editor suite).
It's different than just 'man, I sure wish T3D had a build-in library of 2000 shaders!' but solid concerns for a modern engine. GG's made some exquisite progress in the recent iterations of T3D, but it's impossible for them to know for sure exactly what we as active developers want and/or need to do our thing. That's sort of the point of the CE, isn't it? Pick up slack where GG may not be able to and implement stuff we need/want for use that might be outside their current design scope.
In that light, stuff like a Skeletal wrapper, or a more integral AI system fits pretty well, as they're not slaved to any particular game or project making them ideal additions for the short and long-term.

#88 Great discussion guys, I really like the ideas and suggestions you all are throwing out there!

One point that kind of bothers me though, is the suggestion noticed in IRC that we are doing GarageGames' job in regards to the engine. Personally, I feel that was unfounded negativity and maligns the progress that they have done and continue to show. We all have different priorities for what we would like to see addressed. This, the CE, is everyone who joins chance to have a say in this priority and actions to be taken. These actions can be unaddressed bugs or any amount of feature requests and optimizations.

Also, don't fear divergence, I actually look forward to it :)

The ticket system has these Ticket Types (or tags) with this priority order:

• defect
• enhancenment
• task
• request

Do you guys feel that a OOTB tag should be added, or does that fall under request?

Oh, and a reminder that if anyone wants to step up and take on any of the tickets, or add a personal feature/enhancement/fix/optimization, a simple request is all it takes to get write permission -- several have asked for it already. The more who accept this responsibility, the more we can get done in a more or less fluid timeframe :)

#89 I can only agree with you Michael. I think GG is doing a great job and I love T3D.
I don't know where the negative attitude towards GG is coming from and I do stand up for them when I see people write about it in the IRC.

#90 I believe the negative attitude has been around all along. I Can recall people complaining back in the TGE days, then again TGEA and now with T3D. I don't own T2D but I'm sure they are there too. Just ignore them!
I know have my share of gripes but not toward the developers at garagegames. I just though it was a little frustrating trying to wait or having to buy a third party software in order to achieve somethings I feel the engine should make a part of the engine but that what the CEV is for. SO NO MORE FRUSTRATION...

#91 With the new changes being done to upgrade the particle system. I was wondering how people felt about Fire Propagation to be added. I think alot of game could benefit from it here is a quick video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulhOOwNVyDM

#92 I think it sounds like a lot of work for a very game specific tech.
It is a nice feature, but not a necessary one so I wouldn't prioritize it just yet.

#93 Like Lukas says, it's fairly game specific, but useful. I would suggest either just having code hooks to implement it at the developer's discretion, or maybe just posting the implementation of that effect as a resource. That way it doesn't over-complicate things when many games won't use it, but is readily accessible if the developer feels their game would make use of that particular feature.

#94 Yes I agree. I've just been look at some of bigger budget engines with features and a visual look similar to T3D; what T3D could use, or would be nice. This does fall into the would be nice area but imagine the possibilities! Especially with the direction of the new particle system.

#95 I think we could talk about new features only when, first will be corrected those not working but already present. -.-

Now need support.

#96 That is fine and I agree, but I was wondering what are those issues? Maybe if there was a clear list of reported issues posted, it would help for those to get solved/addressed. I know some were reported or talked about in the Achilles thread but how many of them have been reported/a ticket started on the CEV?

#97 https://lab.collateral-studios.eu/trac/report/18

#98 Gotcha!

#99 Just a little curious, is there an engine update coming for T3D anytime soon? If so, just wondering when (if you can give an ETA)and would it be a paid update? Also I would hope that none of the work being done on the CEV would conflict with new things the developers are doing.

#100 The next T3D release mainly covers bug fixes, so there may be some overlap, but unless the CE has concentrated on bug reports on the reporting forum, it shouldn't be much.