Constructor source
by Maddermadcat · in Torque Game Engine · 06/10/2008 (4:12 pm) · 23 replies
My thread in the constructor forum area, please read it first: garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=75959
Just wanted to bring this to the attention of more people, as I'd really like to see this happen. Post here to show that you want the source, or if you're a GG employee tell us whether this is a possibility or not, and if not, why.
If you own a TGEA license and feel it's necessary, post a link to this thread in the appropriate section. :]
Just wanted to bring this to the attention of more people, as I'd really like to see this happen. Post here to show that you want the source, or if you're a GG employee tell us whether this is a possibility or not, and if not, why.
If you own a TGEA license and feel it's necessary, post a link to this thread in the appropriate section. :]
#2
06/10/2008 (4:35 pm)
IMO since it's a free app the source should also be free to Torque owners, but if they want us to pay for it -- hey, it's their property.
#3
06/10/2008 (7:20 pm)
If i could get the source code to constructor, yeah i would pay for that. 
#4
06/10/2008 (7:22 pm)
Same here. Only reason we still use Hammer is because even though it's not open sourced, it has enough modability (via FGD files) that we can make our own custom types (doors, paths.. etc) and place them via the editor. 
#5
06/11/2008 (6:56 am)
*lurks just out of sight* 
#7
It would be very cool to have the source available, but the amount of resources that it would take to clean it up would have to come from somewhere and be someone knowledgeable. And right now, I think everyone should want Matt and Dave's eyes where they're currently at.
06/11/2008 (8:13 am)
There would definitely be a huge code-cleanup that would be needed before releasing it for free. Releasing it as a product would require MASSIVE amounts of code-cleanup and stability testing, which may eat in to the TGEA dev time (and believe me, *NO ONE* wants the coolness that is coming down the pipe to be eaten away with something like code-cleanup of a tool that's source might benefit an extreme few.It would be very cool to have the source available, but the amount of resources that it would take to clean it up would have to come from somewhere and be someone knowledgeable. And right now, I think everyone should want Matt and Dave's eyes where they're currently at.
#8
So you don't want us to have the source code because it'd be difficult to work with? Seems kind of silly to me. :|
As for an extreme few, I'm doubtful there, so... bump for more support I suppose.
06/11/2008 (10:23 am)
Quote:
There would definitely be a huge code-cleanup that would be needed before releasing it for free. Releasing it as a product would require MASSIVE amounts of code-cleanup and stability testing, which may eat in to the TGEA dev time (and believe me, *NO ONE* wants the coolness that is coming down the pipe to be eaten away with something like code-cleanup of a tool that's source might benefit an extreme few.
So you don't want us to have the source code because it'd be difficult to work with? Seems kind of silly to me. :|
As for an extreme few, I'm doubtful there, so... bump for more support I suppose.
#9
06/11/2008 (11:11 am)
That comment is kind of naive Maddermadcat. There may be many reasons to need a code clean-up, and usually none of them are trivial.
#10
I said extreme few because I really think that the number of people who actively rework the DTS exporter source and map2dif source are in the extreme few. Don't get me wrong, though. Those people rock and we love them. But they are few and far between.
And I never said "we don't want you to have the source". It will just take a large effort to clean it up. id goes through a large clean-up process when they release their engines into the GPL wild because it is necessary, and non-trivial. We would have to do that as well to release the Constructor source.
06/11/2008 (11:22 am)
People have had the source to map2dif for a long time and there have only been a few brave souls who have even touched it even though people have been asking for Bezier patches for a long time (luckily it sounds like Jaimi wants to implement them!).I said extreme few because I really think that the number of people who actively rework the DTS exporter source and map2dif source are in the extreme few. Don't get me wrong, though. Those people rock and we love them. But they are few and far between.
And I never said "we don't want you to have the source". It will just take a large effort to clean it up. id goes through a large clean-up process when they release their engines into the GPL wild because it is necessary, and non-trivial. We would have to do that as well to release the Constructor source.
#11
06/11/2008 (11:48 am)
You've nailed it on the head regarding the code cleanup and the fact that there are no resources available to make that happen. Matt is heads-down on TGEA and has said before that it's just not something we can take on in terms of how much work it would be to do to get it in a state we felt comfortable letting it out the door. 
#12
Why not just dump it out there "as is" and let people muck about in it as they like? Don't most people just want to see how it works?
I'm sure 'madcat would accept it as it is, without any cleaning up.
Just my two cents.
Tony
06/11/2008 (2:57 pm)
I'm no programmer so maybe my opinion doesn't count, but why would anyone waste time "cleaning up" code that is being released free?Why not just dump it out there "as is" and let people muck about in it as they like? Don't most people just want to see how it works?
I'm sure 'madcat would accept it as it is, without any cleaning up.
Just my two cents.
Tony
#13
06/11/2008 (3:06 pm)
Thanks, Infinitum, that's what I was trying to get at but clearly didn't manage to express it very well. :) 
#14
Cleaned up code means it's easier to read, understand, and comprehend. This means there will be fewer questions about the code and there won't be only a handful of people who are able to answer questions that are asked.
06/12/2008 (5:28 am)
That's an incredibly easy question to answer.Cleaned up code means it's easier to read, understand, and comprehend. This means there will be fewer questions about the code and there won't be only a handful of people who are able to answer questions that are asked.
#15
Though your arguments against releasing the source unmodified don't really seem to make enough sense, I just want to figure out my options here:
1) Go with a more moddable editor like Hammer and lose improved lighting and baked static meshes
2) Use constructor unmodified and make mapping a pain in the ass for our team and the end user
3) Get the constructor source (and have all of constructor's features plus the few relatively simple changes that would be needed for our game), but that isn't possible unless:
a) GarageGames decides to put more resources than it can afford into cleaning up constructor's source
b) Get the source just for our team somehow
1 would, as I said, force us to give up a lot of the reasons we'd use constructor in the first place, 2 would make everything unnecessarily difficult, and 3a isn't a possibility as you've already told me. 3b seems to be the best option, though I find it rather unlikely that I'll get your approval. So, would it be possible for me to get the source for my team as-is?
06/12/2008 (8:38 am)
So basically what you're saying is the best reason they could have is that they don't want people's questions to remain unanswered?Though your arguments against releasing the source unmodified don't really seem to make enough sense, I just want to figure out my options here:
1) Go with a more moddable editor like Hammer and lose improved lighting and baked static meshes
2) Use constructor unmodified and make mapping a pain in the ass for our team and the end user
3) Get the constructor source (and have all of constructor's features plus the few relatively simple changes that would be needed for our game), but that isn't possible unless:
a) GarageGames decides to put more resources than it can afford into cleaning up constructor's source
b) Get the source just for our team somehow
1 would, as I said, force us to give up a lot of the reasons we'd use constructor in the first place, 2 would make everything unnecessarily difficult, and 3a isn't a possibility as you've already told me. 3b seems to be the best option, though I find it rather unlikely that I'll get your approval. So, would it be possible for me to get the source for my team as-is?
#16
06/12/2008 (8:24 pm)
You could also use Radiant and make sure not to use any non-Valve220 features (patches, etc).
#17
06/12/2008 (11:50 pm)
Another factor to consider is that Constructor is based on the Torque codebase... so it would have to be released in a way that respected the licensing implications there.
#18
That makes me happy enough to move on from this thread :P
06/13/2008 (12:59 am)
Quote:Matt is heads-down on TGEA and ...
That makes me happy enough to move on from this thread :P
#19
@David: But then, no static meshes, and those are pretty important in our case. :[
I also found this statement by Ben:
Is that still true? :\
06/13/2008 (10:46 pm)
@Ben: which is why it would only be made available to Torque owners.@David: But then, no static meshes, and those are pretty important in our case. :[
I also found this statement by Ben:
Quote:You can use Radiant, but you have to pay a $5000 license fee to use it with a commercial game.
Is that still true? :\
#20
Most problems it has come from broken scripts not from a broken core and due to the fact that only the DSOs are present, we as user and Torque licensees can't do much about it but getting annoying by stuff thats just too troublesome on the long run.
06/16/2008 (10:10 pm)
I would like to alter the request: Make the scripts opensource to the editor.Most problems it has come from broken scripts not from a broken core and due to the fact that only the DSOs are present, we as user and Torque licensees can't do much about it but getting annoying by stuff thats just too troublesome on the long run.
Torque 3D Owner Max
I'd pay $50 or so or the Constructor source. Maybe more.