Would you pay for a new version of T3D? (Details inside)
by Benjamin Stanley · in General Discussion · 09/08/2013 (2:26 pm) · 15 replies
Hey everyone!
I got thinking recently about Torque 3D and what if they (Garage Games) developed a new engine and sold it.
Here is my proposal.
A high end game engine based on open source technology such as SDL, OpenGL 3.0 and QT.
We would have a say in its development but garage games would have the final word on it. (Since we would be funding it via Kickstarter.)
- A High End Graphics pipeline using OpenGL 3.0 and OpenGLES 2.0
- A visual logic editor for events in level.
- An in engine animation editor for creation in game cinematics.
- An Quad Octree based terrain system with terrain paging/Streaming support.
- Visual GUI Editor.
- Native Support for Windows, MacOSX, Linux, iOS and Android.
- A real time render engine for quick results and fast iteration.
- Native support for .dae and .FBX file formats. (no .Blend file format support.)
- Support for 32 bit and 64 bit Operating systems.
- Support for Multiple cores (up to 8).
- An Overhauled and Redesigned torque script for better performance. (No Torque Script. Got it!)
- A built in IDE for Torque script. (No Torque Script. Got it!)
With that said - Would you pay for a new version of Tourqe 3D?
What would you add? What would you take away?
Addendum - This would be to accelerate development of T3D.
- Ben
Updated - 8:23 PM September 09, 2013
I got thinking recently about Torque 3D and what if they (Garage Games) developed a new engine and sold it.
Here is my proposal.
A high end game engine based on open source technology such as SDL, OpenGL 3.0 and QT.
We would have a say in its development but garage games would have the final word on it. (Since we would be funding it via Kickstarter.)
- A High End Graphics pipeline using OpenGL 3.0 and OpenGLES 2.0
- A visual logic editor for events in level.
- An in engine animation editor for creation in game cinematics.
- An Quad Octree based terrain system with terrain paging/Streaming support.
- Visual GUI Editor.
- Native Support for Windows, MacOSX, Linux, iOS and Android.
- A real time render engine for quick results and fast iteration.
- Native support for .dae and .FBX file formats. (no .Blend file format support.)
- Support for 32 bit and 64 bit Operating systems.
- Support for Multiple cores (up to 8).
- An Overhauled and Redesigned torque script for better performance. (No Torque Script. Got it!)
- A built in IDE for Torque script. (No Torque Script. Got it!)
With that said - Would you pay for a new version of Tourqe 3D?
What would you add? What would you take away?
Addendum - This would be to accelerate development of T3D.
- Ben
Updated - 8:23 PM September 09, 2013
About the author
My name is Benjamin Stanley. I am a Procedural World enthusiast, 3D artist, and Generally Awesome Guy. I have worked on various projects and Modifications in the past and I am currently looking at making a Free Game with Torque 3D or Torque 2D.
#2
09/08/2013 (2:46 pm)
@Lukas - I thought they were still in the engine business. 
#4
09/08/2013 (2:53 pm)
@Lukas - Ah OK thanks. 
#5
If I were looking for a game engine there are plenty of choices.
For improvements to the engine:
A lot of what you mentioned is already in the works. T3D is transforming in ways that won't be seen in months to years. Once this community reaches a critical mass technical competency (number of users that can actually do more than place an item in a level) there will be an explosion and I predict many viable forks for specialized game play types. I also predict a number of companies to create products around the original T2D/T3D code bases. It will be similar to Valve using Quake technology to start the Source engine.
09/08/2013 (2:56 pm)
Flat out, no I would not.If I were looking for a game engine there are plenty of choices.
For improvements to the engine:
- Get rid of TS and use a better externally supported language that maximizes development time and is cross platform. Oh, wait, I already have that.
- Ditch visual editors. I don't need them and a lot of the time I have to edit the source/data anyway.
- Multiple cores is a sticky thing. It can adversely affect the rendering pipeline. I could see support for putting things like AI on other threads. Similar to how sound is done now.
- Dear God, do not ever try to support a native .blend format. It is a beast and not meant for use outside blender.
A lot of what you mentioned is already in the works. T3D is transforming in ways that won't be seen in months to years. Once this community reaches a critical mass technical competency (number of users that can actually do more than place an item in a level) there will be an explosion and I predict many viable forks for specialized game play types. I also predict a number of companies to create products around the original T2D/T3D code bases. It will be similar to Valve using Quake technology to start the Source engine.
#6
sad but true, and also understandable.
TS is fine, but C# from Winterleafs is a great option as well.
DX11, Newest OpenGL, Mac and Android support would make me reconsider a lot about paying cash(but not for now).
Yes the Torque 3D code base comes with many new possibilities(tweak, tweak, tweak).
09/09/2013 (7:35 am)
Quote:Garagegames is not in the engine business anymore.
sad but true, and also understandable.
Quote:Get rid of TS and use a better externally supported language that maximizes development time and is cross platform. Oh, wait, I already have that.
TS is fine, but C# from Winterleafs is a great option as well.
DX11, Newest OpenGL, Mac and Android support would make me reconsider a lot about paying cash(but not for now).
Quote:I also predict a number of companies to create products around the original T2D/T3D code bases.
Yes the Torque 3D code base comes with many new possibilities(tweak, tweak, tweak).
#7
There is a lot of commercial engines out there, we do not need to compete with them in that field, we will lose anyway.
If you want to pay a lot of money there is already many things you can chose, we do not need that also, I like the idea that making games is now affordable for anyone.
09/09/2013 (9:13 am)
I would not pay for a new version, not because of the money, but because of the license change that would be necessary in order to commercialize the engine.There is a lot of commercial engines out there, we do not need to compete with them in that field, we will lose anyway.
If you want to pay a lot of money there is already many things you can chose, we do not need that also, I like the idea that making games is now affordable for anyone.
#8
Hell, no. Pretty much all of T3D's current appeal is due to the licensing.
09/09/2013 (9:21 am)
No.Hell, no. Pretty much all of T3D's current appeal is due to the licensing.
#9
09/09/2013 (12:33 pm)
If this were all part of a huge community purchase pack (including all of the above), then I would consider forking in, but no, this engine went MIT for a reason, and a really good one at that. I was part of the original $1000 club and TBH, I think I got my fair share of the price paid for it (extra time to learn the engine and fork out a huge deal of nice additions (see my resources) to the engine itself).
#10
By far that is the most mature and insightful perspective on past events I have seen to date. I also agree very much with the idea of community tech buyout. Kudos on mentioning that.
09/09/2013 (1:22 pm)
@Robert,By far that is the most mature and insightful perspective on past events I have seen to date. I also agree very much with the idea of community tech buyout. Kudos on mentioning that.
#11
IMO I prefer the open-source model that T3D has now. Open-source development is nice. You can share, be recognised, encourage other people to jump on board guilt-free.
09/09/2013 (5:04 pm)
Ben: I think what you're talking about is an entirely new engine. It sounds great - don't get me wrong - but Rome, like all great game engines, wasn't built in a day.IMO I prefer the open-source model that T3D has now. Open-source development is nice. You can share, be recognised, encourage other people to jump on board guilt-free.
#12
09/09/2013 (6:15 pm)
So going back to a pay for use version is a step back from Torque's evolution. This is a bad idea, while the entire community appreciates your input if implemented it would likely result in a destruction of Torque's remaining community and any future community.
#13
Basically, if you couldn't stomach donating money via kickstarter/indiegogo for someone to build something that will be available for free, then it would not happen because that's essentially what you would be doing - paying for something to get built that everyone can use.
I have no problems with being a benefactor for things that I know other people will get without paying.. after all, I'm a veteran.
Having said that, I think there are other options out there if you need those things, and I personally wouldn't support building something that uses TorqueScript...
It may be a perfectly fine scripting language, but being a full-time software dev that has to deal with a multitude of languages on a regular basis, I just don't have the brain cells to dedicate to another language that I won't use anywhere else. That's just me, and it's not anyone else...and has nothing to do with logic, just preference.
09/09/2013 (7:21 pm)
just to chime in - since he mentioned Indiegogo and Kickstarter, I don't think the license would need to change. The end product could still be free and open source (MIT). Those that paid would merely be benefactors paying to get it built, even though others using it later on would not need to pay anything.Basically, if you couldn't stomach donating money via kickstarter/indiegogo for someone to build something that will be available for free, then it would not happen because that's essentially what you would be doing - paying for something to get built that everyone can use.
I have no problems with being a benefactor for things that I know other people will get without paying.. after all, I'm a veteran.
Having said that, I think there are other options out there if you need those things, and I personally wouldn't support building something that uses TorqueScript...
It may be a perfectly fine scripting language, but being a full-time software dev that has to deal with a multitude of languages on a regular basis, I just don't have the brain cells to dedicate to another language that I won't use anywhere else. That's just me, and it's not anyone else...and has nothing to do with logic, just preference.
#14
I mentioned Kickstarter so that we could accelerate the development of Tourqe 3D. Not sell it.
Kickstarter is also allot more mainstream than Indiegogo which I think played into the part on why we failed on raising the money for linux.
Another kickstarter Leadwerks raised above its goal for linux development.
Link
I also think that the rewards that were listed were a bit sub par at least the low end ones. The higher end ones were awesome! Most kickstarters are funded by the little guys like us!
09/09/2013 (7:25 pm)
@ AllI mentioned Kickstarter so that we could accelerate the development of Tourqe 3D. Not sell it.
Kickstarter is also allot more mainstream than Indiegogo which I think played into the part on why we failed on raising the money for linux.
Another kickstarter Leadwerks raised above its goal for linux development.
Link
I also think that the rewards that were listed were a bit sub par at least the low end ones. The higher end ones were awesome! Most kickstarters are funded by the little guys like us!
#15
Torque has a lot of programmer related things, so the problem is how you tell normal people why they should support this.
For small things you can make a community buyout, since the community knows what they need and what they get, but to raise higher amounts you have to reach out of the community.
09/10/2013 (1:46 am)
Commercial engines have more promotion and reach a bigger audience, I think we failed, because no one knows about us.Torque has a lot of programmer related things, so the problem is how you tell normal people why they should support this.
For small things you can make a community buyout, since the community knows what they need and what they get, but to raise higher amounts you have to reach out of the community.
Torque Owner Lukas Joergensen
WinterLeaf Entertainment