What are people working on with TGE?

#1 Sure , Mr Vogel ,
The TGE 112 Demo has been exceptionally helpful in the process of learning the development of a computer game from a beginner level . As I am in that beginner stage I have nothing to offer as far as a project but , experimentation ? There seems to be an abundance of possible opportunities there . And Thank You Mr Vogel , I hope to see other replies and am interested in hearing about some TGE powered games from the past one might could acquire . Thank You and have a nice day I hope .
I totally recommend 3D Game Programming all in one - Kenneth C Finney 2004
for beginners and proud owners of older computers :)

#2 Heya James...

First, you can just call me Mike. The whole Mr. Vogel thing is way too formal lol.

Thanks for the response! I think that's the first time I've heard of TGE being used for education. Not surprising that it could be used for that, I'd just never heard anyone actually doing so.

#3 I think they actually made a push a few years ago for schools using TGE. Not sure how adopted it was though.

#4 Mike , nice to meet ya ,
The book came with the v112 demo on the cd and basically introduces an interested , aspiring , developer to practically all the aspects involved in the production , aside from the actual engine construction or modification . I do realize that this community has moved on but aside from the age of the engine , I imagine most of the process has remained basically the same as is taught in the book . I am surprised to think that hearing of using the engine for education would be somewhat of a rare occurrence .

#5 Yep! I actually own that book (the 1st edition). I was considering getting the 3rd edition, which seems to cover T3D, but I've read that it's not very good.

I'm wondering if 2nd edition covers TGEA...

#6 Mike , If Im not mistaken it (2nd edition) did use TGEA for the lessons . Perhaps the book (3rd edition) isnt for more advanced "students' who may have already been introduced to all of the various parts of the production process and has a relatively good understanding of them . But i would expect to at least be given a good basic expectation of t3ds capabilities especially by the end of the project and how to access them . As you know from the first book all of the pieces didnt exactly fall into place but digging them out is worth the effort . and thats from a noob who had zero game engine experience . Ive done the koob and emaga projects and sorta hijacked the Runeworld common stuff and combined it with the Emaga control stuff and it looks good to me . Ive been working on vehicle collision through the scripting (i dont have the source anyway:)) and its going ok for interpreted stuff using apply impulse at the averaged vectors . Theres a decent bit of math involved using different sized objects (Ive made a pickup and small armored vehicle and motorcycle ) so im still getting at times some undesirable resolution to a collision ,namely the meshes pass through each other , but Im working on that :) and at this time Im trying to make the motorcycle comfortably driveable <not been easy but it looks cool:) After the moto is worked out (if it can be) Ive got Ai behavior and Pathfinding or waypoint following , whatever its referred to as , planned next . so sorry for the excessive chattyness , Have a great day Mike

#7 I still plan to use tge 1.4 as my main game engine even though I own both T3d and Tge 1.4.
My reasons are:

I spent a lot of time learning the basics of tge. GG claims that underneath the hood, t3d is the same as tge 1.4.
but I find that not true. At this moment in my career, I am able to do more with tge than I am with t3d.

tge is able to run on older systems, thus widening the audience potential

#8 @James:
Sounds like you dig a lot more into the coding side of things than I ever could! Nice. I wish I could better grasp programming; it would save me a lot of aggravation of wanting to do stuff, but not having the know-how to do it.

@Gary:
I can see hints of older TGE/TGEA in T3D when I use it. But somehow, there's also a very different "feel" to it all. I think what keeps me interested in TGE/TGEA are their limitations. I find that, when the technology is a limiting factor, and you can't just throw pixel shaders and a whole bunch of "hot this year" tech at something, it does two things:
1. Simplifies your asset pipeline and saves you time.
2. Challenges you to think and work more creatively within those limits.

I might have said this elsewhere on these forums, but I am far more impressed by a game built on "old tech" that still looks great, due to solid art direction and an ability to work creatively with the engine's limitations, than I am by any of the latest and greatest tech.

The "latest and greatest graphics tech" of today will inevitably look outdated and less impressive tomorrow. Solid art, however, never ages, and always looks good.

Here's a great example of working creatively within limitations...
Check out this image.

This is a screenshot taken from Final Fantasy XI, of a lake in an area called Lufaise Meadows. Of note is the reflection of the trees and such in the water. I was always amazed at how they managed do that, since FFXI's engine doesn't support real-time reflections, nor had I ever seen them use reflection maps up to that point. I thought it was an upgrade to their graphics engine to allow reflective water.

Then I found it's 100% faked. They just took the trees and such, flipped them upside down and placed them under the water. Boom. Convincing reflection effect in a game engine that doesn't actually support real-time reflections. They have complete control over that particular spot, since you can't get over to the other side of the lake to see what's really going on.

That's what I mean by taking limited technology and using it creatively.

To me, an older engine like TGE, or even TGEA, provide a great challenge to figure things like that out. I prefer TGEA over TGE, due to improvements like full polysoup collision support, basic materials, etc.

#9 @Mike - Regarding your two reasons for liking the old tech is also the reason why I prefer to work with 2D game engines and editors. Torque 2D MIT is a badass piece of technology, though it lacks a modern graphical pipeline and features. It also currently doesn't have an editor (yet, working on that now). The limitations allow you to really focus on getting basic sprites in and getting a game rolling. Just look at what practicing01 and Simon have managed to accomplish. When they started in on T2D MIT, they admitted they weren't the hottest programmers and felt like newbs with the engine. Now they are cranking out badass tech, features, and small games with just a year's worth of dedication.

#10 Michael Perry:

Indeed! I'd actually considered checking out T2D. For some reason, though, I find I'm more comfortable working with 3D. Creating good 2D graphics always stumps me for some reason. Odd, considering I grew up on them lol.

I really like the setup of T2D, though. Looks like a very powerful system. Maybe someday I'll get a better grasp on the 2D stuff. For now, I just feel more at home in 3D.

But yeah, 2D games making such a strong come-back lately really underscores how, while next-gen graphics and such is certainly nice to look at... it's not at all necessary for a good game. Older 3D games, and 2D games just tend to have a lot more personality to me.

Like, while I'm blown away by Unreal Engine 4, at how amazing it looks, even compared to UE3, which already looked great... I see it in terms of "wow, that's some really impressive technology... all that physics-based lighting and stuff... Amazing how far graphics technology has come since my first experiences on the Atari 2600 and the Vic 20". Beyond that, it leaves me feeling "cold".

Yet, show me a game with strong artwork and, again, clever use of otherwise limited technology, and I'll just wander around and stare at everything for hours, almost literally. In Lineage 2 I was so amazed by how much detail those artists could pack into an aging engine (Unreal Engine 2, though a bit modified) and how great the game looked, I'd get myself killed from time to time).

I think that's what keeps me working with TGE/TGEA. The opportunity and challenge to make something that looks great, despite its age and apparent limitations.

I'm still juggling between TGE and TGEA. I like TGE because it has OpenGL support and will run on more platforms, but lacks in polysoup collision support, which is an absolute must for me (I have no desire to create blocky looking caves out of BSP brushes :p). TGEA provides the enhanced materials/rendering and the polygon soup support... but is more limited in terms of platform support. So.. it's a debate I'm having with myself here... meanwhile I have both versions installed on my computer while I try to figure it out.

#11 I'm using TGE 1.5.2 to (very) slowly develop a game idea I've had for years. Initially, I was just looking for a cheap entrance to playing with 3d, so the engine choice was due primarily to cost (IIRC, at that point TGE was $99 while TSE/TGA was $350). One thing I also really liked about TGE was that w/ OpenGL support it was possible to implement on a range of platforms. Of course, at the time I'd assumed the GL support would be re-implemented at some point in TSE/TGA. With the way things shook out, TGE's OpenGL support remains a strong point even years down the road.

In retrospect, I do regret not licensing TGA when it was still possible to do so. By the time I checked back in and purchased a license to T3D Studio, TGA was no longer offered. From an engine work standpoint, it would be really nice to have the entire code family (and associated resources) to draw on.

I'm first and foremost a coder so I've done pretty intensive engine-side extensions (including a polysoup implementation ... which I don't actually use much). That alone is a strong factor pushing me in the direction of finishing out my demo in TGE. From an under-the-hood standpoint, t3d does indeed carry forward a ton of code but there are many quirks. It feels like as much work to port and debug needed functionality to T3D as it would be to complete the core project along with some solid game scenarios and passable artwork. Plus I actually like some stuff about the TGE codebase better.

Longer term, I'm not sure where to go with it. As a solo developer, the licensing is not currently a problem. But if I wanted to create a team to attempt producing a viable commercial title from the game concept, it might be difficult to base it on my TGE platform work. As I understand it, under the license terms my studio can only have one TGE engine programmer without purchasing additional code licenses ... and GG doesn't sell TGE licenses anymore (that I am aware of). But that's sort of borrowing trouble seeing how at this point I can't even seem to get the demo done.

#12 Kent, I have exactly the same misgivings about moving forward with TGE or TGEA. In both cases, while I own a license, not everyone else I may come across will as well, and that can become problematic.

I've given T3D a go but, having reinstalled Windows onto a new drive, and attempting to download the latest Executable version, there is no EXE in the download and it seems I have to compile/build it anyway. Thing is, I keep getting errors with that as well, so it won't compile correctly and there's no executable created.

Not sure why an executable isn't included in an 'executable' download...probably an oversight somewhere... but there ya go lol.

#13 They've broken the package into parts - the 32 and 64 bit executables are a separate download. In my opinion this is an oversight, an overly aggressive application of the DRY principle (don't store anything that can be generated, in this specific case), and has been very confusing for beginners in this release cycle.

#14 - Edit: Noticed they'd linked to the wrong file per a different thread -