specific and interest a thread to discuss enhancements and improvemets for T3D
by Kory Imaginism · in Torque 3D Beginner · 01/29/2014 (3:29 pm) · 49 replies
This is a thread for people that would like to help improve T3D. A place were we can openly discuss the direction the T3D engine should move in. Just in case the steering committee doesn't reboot!
#42
Actually Paul and I have had some lengthy discussions about merging OMNI into T3D but we ran into a few snags personally, technically and business wise. I'll see if I can explain them properly.
Personal Issues with the Community
On a personal experience prospective, many of the developers who are working on OMNI tried to do first work with the MIT community. We tried to be part of the community, but we were either ignored, the code fixes rejected by the committee and or found GitHub to be too big of a pain in the butt. This frustrated a lot of us and we gave up trying to convince the community that we might have a better idea.
Somehow we all found each other and settled down at WLE. We found that through communication and reasoning if we all listened to each other we could come to a happy medium on most issues. There are times that Paul or I will tell someone 'No' to an idea, but it is usually because it is not in-line with our documented project plan or has a technical flaw. We tend to think no idea's are bad, some just need more refinement than others.
Technical Issues
Omni runs TorqueScript. We haven't removed any functionality to run TorqueScript with OMNI. We just added the functionality to use C# as well. To do this we have touched, rewritten or disposed of many lines of C++.
We have also overhauled all the other C++ libraries in the engine updating them to the latest version, etc. Inside the core T3D we have gutted, rewritten, re-worked everything including console callbacks, console functions, graphics integration, shaders, etc. Our code base still has the T3D look but it definitely a different code base.
To provide a Pull that broke all those changes up into distinct parts at this point would be very time consuming. When you have re-written 20 percent of something, merging that back into the old stream gets to be very difficult. That 20% does not include the work that the OMNI ToolBox does and all the other new code that's been added.
Also, even though OMNI RUNS TORQUESCRIPT, people hear C# and run away in this community. (Or at least they use to.) There are several threads about using this language or that language to replace TS, but no one has made a final decision. C# was our final decision. It got things rolling for us in a language we knew and is fairly standard in the IT Industry.
01/31/2014 (7:53 am)
@MonkeyChops,Actually Paul and I have had some lengthy discussions about merging OMNI into T3D but we ran into a few snags personally, technically and business wise. I'll see if I can explain them properly.
Personal Issues with the Community
On a personal experience prospective, many of the developers who are working on OMNI tried to do first work with the MIT community. We tried to be part of the community, but we were either ignored, the code fixes rejected by the committee and or found GitHub to be too big of a pain in the butt. This frustrated a lot of us and we gave up trying to convince the community that we might have a better idea.
Somehow we all found each other and settled down at WLE. We found that through communication and reasoning if we all listened to each other we could come to a happy medium on most issues. There are times that Paul or I will tell someone 'No' to an idea, but it is usually because it is not in-line with our documented project plan or has a technical flaw. We tend to think no idea's are bad, some just need more refinement than others.
Technical Issues
Omni runs TorqueScript. We haven't removed any functionality to run TorqueScript with OMNI. We just added the functionality to use C# as well. To do this we have touched, rewritten or disposed of many lines of C++.
We have also overhauled all the other C++ libraries in the engine updating them to the latest version, etc. Inside the core T3D we have gutted, rewritten, re-worked everything including console callbacks, console functions, graphics integration, shaders, etc. Our code base still has the T3D look but it definitely a different code base.
To provide a Pull that broke all those changes up into distinct parts at this point would be very time consuming. When you have re-written 20 percent of something, merging that back into the old stream gets to be very difficult. That 20% does not include the work that the OMNI ToolBox does and all the other new code that's been added.
Also, even though OMNI RUNS TORQUESCRIPT, people hear C# and run away in this community. (Or at least they use to.) There are several threads about using this language or that language to replace TS, but no one has made a final decision. C# was our final decision. It got things rolling for us in a language we knew and is fairly standard in the IT Industry.
#43
We have invested significant funds into setting up and operating WLE. This isn't just a bunch of guys getting together on the weekends to merge some code. We have our own server farm, Sharepoint, TeamServer, Mumble, Web Servers, SQL Servers, etc. The monthly maintenance costs of operating WinterLeaf easily runs over 500 dollars a month. And remember we had the initial purchase of all of the hardware and software which was many thousands of dollars. You then add our other costs into the equation, like our contractual obligations, the monthly bills easily go over a thousand dollars a month.
We have been operating for about 2 years now and EVERY penny WLE has made has either been used to pay contractors, buy hardware or pay bills. Paul and I have not taken a single penny from the operation and we have invested all of our extra money each month from our day jobs into it. Yes, our wives are not fond of WLE.
If WLE was folding and closing the doors, then yes, we would follow the same route GG did and publish all of our stuff MIT. But we aren't, we are trying to build a business very much the same way the old GG use to be.
We look at it this way, if you want an open-source MIT solution, go with T3D. If you want product support, targeted research and development and a tested product, you go with OMNI. OMNI is being actively developed - we have a road map, a goal and a vision. We are currently working on a website for OMNI that will open things up to the public and make everything more transparent to our community. We plan on having the bug list, bug fixes, etc. available to the community so that people can pick a bug and fix it so that 5 people aren't working on the same fix, but can work together also. This would also allow the community to see what the developers at WLE is working on also.
As far as licensing goes, that's still being worked on. We plan to have a free license of the engine - everything setup with the engine DLLs. We are also looking at a full source engine license at about a 200-300 dollar price point. We are also looking at a yearly subscription that basically takes care of all updates, support and what not. This is all still being batted back and forth because we would really like to come to an agreement internally and with the T3D community. We were not wanting to say anything until we got things a bit more solid on our end first.
I hope all this clears things up a bit as far as where we are coming from. As always, you can contact Paul Yoskowitz at pyoskowitz@winterleafentertainment.com and he will answer any questions that you might have.
01/31/2014 (7:55 am)
Business IssuesWe have invested significant funds into setting up and operating WLE. This isn't just a bunch of guys getting together on the weekends to merge some code. We have our own server farm, Sharepoint, TeamServer, Mumble, Web Servers, SQL Servers, etc. The monthly maintenance costs of operating WinterLeaf easily runs over 500 dollars a month. And remember we had the initial purchase of all of the hardware and software which was many thousands of dollars. You then add our other costs into the equation, like our contractual obligations, the monthly bills easily go over a thousand dollars a month.
We have been operating for about 2 years now and EVERY penny WLE has made has either been used to pay contractors, buy hardware or pay bills. Paul and I have not taken a single penny from the operation and we have invested all of our extra money each month from our day jobs into it. Yes, our wives are not fond of WLE.
If WLE was folding and closing the doors, then yes, we would follow the same route GG did and publish all of our stuff MIT. But we aren't, we are trying to build a business very much the same way the old GG use to be.
We look at it this way, if you want an open-source MIT solution, go with T3D. If you want product support, targeted research and development and a tested product, you go with OMNI. OMNI is being actively developed - we have a road map, a goal and a vision. We are currently working on a website for OMNI that will open things up to the public and make everything more transparent to our community. We plan on having the bug list, bug fixes, etc. available to the community so that people can pick a bug and fix it so that 5 people aren't working on the same fix, but can work together also. This would also allow the community to see what the developers at WLE is working on also.
As far as licensing goes, that's still being worked on. We plan to have a free license of the engine - everything setup with the engine DLLs. We are also looking at a full source engine license at about a 200-300 dollar price point. We are also looking at a yearly subscription that basically takes care of all updates, support and what not. This is all still being batted back and forth because we would really like to come to an agreement internally and with the T3D community. We were not wanting to say anything until we got things a bit more solid on our end first.
I hope all this clears things up a bit as far as where we are coming from. As always, you can contact Paul Yoskowitz at pyoskowitz@winterleafentertainment.com and he will answer any questions that you might have.
#44
I hope I did not come across like I did not like Torque or something. My comments were harsh to get attention on the issue, not talk bad about Torque or the amazing staff that are working on the engine. I have been trying to talk to other developers into using Torque as opposed to the other options. I feel passionate about getting this engine up to the glory it deserves, and I see several posts per week on "strange physics bugs". Its actually embarrassing to tell them that they need to use the version of Torque that is Bullet based, when they were initially attracted to the PhysX version. PhysX is eye candy, but it does get attention.
01/31/2014 (8:01 am)
@Vince,I hope I did not come across like I did not like Torque or something. My comments were harsh to get attention on the issue, not talk bad about Torque or the amazing staff that are working on the engine. I have been trying to talk to other developers into using Torque as opposed to the other options. I feel passionate about getting this engine up to the glory it deserves, and I see several posts per week on "strange physics bugs". Its actually embarrassing to tell them that they need to use the version of Torque that is Bullet based, when they were initially attracted to the PhysX version. PhysX is eye candy, but it does get attention.
#45
I wish I had full time to work on T3D. I really love it, but it needs some work. I actually started replacing some of the old TGE containers with STD counterparts, but was afraid it would break somewhere I didn't expect and never tested it enough.
01/31/2014 (9:09 am)
I do prefer Bullet myself.I wish I had full time to work on T3D. I really love it, but it needs some work. I actually started replacing some of the old TGE containers with STD counterparts, but was afraid it would break somewhere I didn't expect and never tested it enough.
#46
01/31/2014 (9:31 am)
@Vince GeeThanks for the detailed reply! I think what you're doing is really impressive and I also agree that forking off can often be the best approach - trying to keep everyone happy and fitting into other people's workflows and ways of working and still being productive is not always possible.My concern is that without Winterleaf's work being part of the mainstream Torque3d, it's always going to be "us and them" and any fixes and additions that go into one will be difficult (if not impossible) to incorporate into the other and it fragments the already small community.There is also the issue that WLE don't have the scale or the resources to do all the work alone. Things like porting to iOS and Android are surely going to rely heavily on the efforts and contributions from the community such as Luis' OpenGL work if they're going to happen in a realistic timeframe. That then creates some duplication of effort and probably one-way sharing.There is a chance that OMNI will really take off and loads of people will buy it. If you really do stick to your sensible and very reasonable pricing then maybe there's a fair chance of that.I think in practice though it will be really hard to break through. The hardcore T3D/TorqueScript crowd will want to stick with what they know. The real noob developers will go with Unity as it will always be the first hit on Google and has all the awesome "just add water" samples and asset packs around it. The more serious C 
#47
Due to licensing issues the Constructor code can't be released into the wild.
01/31/2014 (9:46 am)
@KoryDue to licensing issues the Constructor code can't be released into the wild.
#48
01/31/2014 (10:41 am)
Quote:We tried to be part of the community, but we were either ignored, the code fixes rejected by the committee and or found GitHub to be too big of a pain in the butt.Just wanted to point out that I personally took the time and effort to properly re-submit the majority of those initially rejected pull requests myself.
#49
02/04/2014 (11:48 am)
@Gibby: What is the Bug that's stopping you from continuing development on your game with T3D and releasing it? 
Torque Owner Vince Gee
WinterLeaf Entertainment
Yeah we felt the same way about Physix, we kinda changed Omni around so it uses primarily Bullet and we solved a few of the problems you talked about. The crashes annoyed us as well.
Vince