IndieGoGo - Port Torque 3D to Linux
by David Montgomery-Blake · 12/20/2012 (10:52 am) · 48 comments
GarageGames Starts IndieGoGo Campaign to Port Torque 3D to Linux
Tweet
Come one, come all to the Torque 3D for Linux IndieGoGo Campaign! We are launching this campaign to help fund accelerating the Linux port of Torque 3D. We need your help, support, and word of mouth to make this campaign a success! But first, the pitch video:
The amount of developer interest in Linux has risen exponentially since the announcement of Steam for Linux. Plus, games that are sponsored in the Humble Bundle traditionally require a Linux version (THQ’s HumbleBundle was an exception to this rule recently). With the Ubuntu store, Raspeberry Pi store, and others on the rise, Linux is turning out to be a commercially viable platform for games.
We have a number of developers in the community who are very, very interested in porting Torque 3D to Linux, and who have given us solid estimates on the port. In light of this, and the Linux gaming push happening recently, we wanted to do an experiment to see how many developers want to make Linux a first-class citizen for game development. We would love to see a professional native development experience on Linux. Not just an export option where developers still have to use Windows or a Mac to make their game. The export option is AWESOME for gamers on Linux, but it’s the status-quo slap-in-the-face that Linux game developers have been feeling for years.
Let us know what you are thinking here or in the comments on the IndieGoGo Campaign. We’d love to hear your comments and questions! And as always, we love to see the support from our wonderful community here at GarageGames!
About the author
Community management and development, Educational computing systems and lab management, Flex, ActionScript, JavaScript, PHP, C++, C#, Perl, Python, Ruby, LUA, etc.
#22
12/20/2012 (8:45 pm)
@Dwarf King: Actually, that isn't true. Due to the sheer scarcity of games that run natively on Linux platforms, Linux users are actually willing to pay more for a good indie or AAA gaming experience than Windows users. 
#23
12/20/2012 (11:04 pm)
We decided to go with Linux because that's what the people overwhelmingly asked for. If OSX support had been the most popular, that's what we would have proposed. www.indiegogo.com/torque3d-for-linux/x/1950489
#24
12/20/2012 (11:16 pm)
While we are on the topic, whats the state of the mac port? I have seen screenshots of the advanced lightning being close-to working on a mac build. 
#25
Lets have full OpenGL support :-)
And I agree I think Linux is a great market to have access to. Linux users love free but also care about it to support it.
12/21/2012 (4:09 am)
It's good to see this but I really feel that Torque was originally about cross platform and some people went and ruined that... Anyway in the past.Lets have full OpenGL support :-)
And I agree I think Linux is a great market to have access to. Linux users love free but also care about it to support it.
#26
12/21/2012 (6:03 am)
T3D for Linux seems like one big plus, good luck with this campaign. I am curious to know who will be the guy from the community who will get involved in this task :)... 
#27
You'll have to ask the community that question. Neither Ron, Mike nor I are working on upgrading the OSX code, and no one has come forwards with any new code to check in that I'm aware of.
However, I would think that getting the OSX code going will be easier once the Linux client is complete (and vice versa), at least on the graphics side. A proper OSX port would also include rewriting the OSX platform layer in Cocoa.
- Dave
12/21/2012 (7:23 am)
@Lukas:You'll have to ask the community that question. Neither Ron, Mike nor I are working on upgrading the OSX code, and no one has come forwards with any new code to check in that I'm aware of.
However, I would think that getting the OSX code going will be easier once the Linux client is complete (and vice versa), at least on the graphics side. A proper OSX port would also include rewriting the OSX platform layer in Cocoa.
- Dave
#28
@Dave -of course, that's precisely what Melv & Mich have done for T2D.
12/21/2012 (8:37 am)
Quote:A proper OSX port would also include rewriting the OSX platform layer in Cocoa
@Dave -of course, that's precisely what Melv & Mich have done for T2D.
#29
Yup, and that's great. Maybe we can use some of their work in T3D when the time comes.
- Dave
12/21/2012 (8:58 am)
@Eric:Yup, and that's great. Maybe we can use some of their work in T3D when the time comes.
- Dave
#30
www.mode7games.com/blog/2012/12/21/support-the-torque-linux-fundraising-drive
- Dave
12/21/2012 (9:02 am)
Ian Hardingham of Frozen Synapse fame has posted a blog about them using Torque 3D for their next game, and why people should support the Linux IndieGoGo campaign:www.mode7games.com/blog/2012/12/21/support-the-torque-linux-fundraising-drive
- Dave
#31
Somewhere along the way, GG decided Linux wasn't worth supporting, to the extent of not even accepting patches from the community. Jeff Tunnel pinned the moment it really died here: Linux expectation management. At each moment in development from there on, decisions were made to add windows-specific patches to a previously perfectly portable codebase.
Anyways, water under the bridge. The world has changed, GG has had a couple changes of ownership, and Linux is clearly no longer ignorable. I've been donating a lot of money to crowdsourced stuff recently.
How do I know that this won't just be more money ponied up only watch, a year down the road, someone decide that "man, DirectX has this awesome feature that requires a code change that would lead to Linux incompatability: totally worth it!"
Gary
12/21/2012 (11:00 am)
Long ago, I purchased Torque because it supported Linux; that was an inviolable requirement to me. Same with Torque2D. I still have TGEA in my purchased product list, also based on the promise of Linux support.Somewhere along the way, GG decided Linux wasn't worth supporting, to the extent of not even accepting patches from the community. Jeff Tunnel pinned the moment it really died here: Linux expectation management. At each moment in development from there on, decisions were made to add windows-specific patches to a previously perfectly portable codebase.
Anyways, water under the bridge. The world has changed, GG has had a couple changes of ownership, and Linux is clearly no longer ignorable. I've been donating a lot of money to crowdsourced stuff recently.
How do I know that this won't just be more money ponied up only watch, a year down the road, someone decide that "man, DirectX has this awesome feature that requires a code change that would lead to Linux incompatability: totally worth it!"
Gary
#32
The steering committee only has one GG employee on it. I can't imagine the community supporting a decision like that. And if it did, someone would fork it and we'd loose our position as the maintainer of the head branch. Owning the head branch is a privilege...not a right.
The steering committee's job is to build the best base branch version for other's to build on top of. That's it. They aren't feature driven like those who will fork the head branch.
So...if WE wanted to do that with some given feature, we wouldn't do it in head because head because we might loose our privileged position.
12/21/2012 (11:19 am)
@Gary - It's simple. The direction of the base engine is in the hands of the people. GarageGames can't really make that decision they way it did before.The steering committee only has one GG employee on it. I can't imagine the community supporting a decision like that. And if it did, someone would fork it and we'd loose our position as the maintainer of the head branch. Owning the head branch is a privilege...not a right.
The steering committee's job is to build the best base branch version for other's to build on top of. That's it. They aren't feature driven like those who will fork the head branch.
So...if WE wanted to do that with some given feature, we wouldn't do it in head because head because we might loose our privileged position.
#33
You'd of course need a minimum level to aim for (3.x looking like a sensible version), and incrementally enable features in a game on top of that. Yeah, the GL approach would be different than the DX approach. I just don't think Linux/OS X needs to be left out. On those platforms you'd have more options with varied hardware too. On DX it's get the latest cards or buzz off :)
12/21/2012 (11:48 am)
@Gary: DirectX might have the problem that you need to code with an all or nothing approach because the API is entirely different, but OpenGL should gracefully degrade if a feature isn't available. For example no funky tesselation is just fine to leave out if the version on the current system doesn't have it.You'd of course need a minimum level to aim for (3.x looking like a sensible version), and incrementally enable features in a game on top of that. Yeah, the GL approach would be different than the DX approach. I just don't think Linux/OS X needs to be left out. On those platforms you'd have more options with varied hardware too. On DX it's get the latest cards or buzz off :)
#34
12/21/2012 (12:18 pm)
Turned out I had some space on my card after buying various tat for prezzies (read as booze and chocolate, it's easier than thinking up real gifts that people would want) - so ... hoodie (I hate hoodies but hey ... ) and T-shirt. Usual address ;) Ta.
#35
12/21/2012 (5:22 pm)
@Ronny: Microsloth also likes to nuke API updates on certain OS versions; see DX10's initial non-support of Windows XP, DX11's non-support of Windows XP and DX11.1's non-support of Windows 7. OpenGL supports all API versions on all platforms that have capable enough hardware. ;) 
#36
12/23/2012 (7:41 am)
What the.... USD 30K to port torque to linux!? When i got my torque license it was already ported to linux (and that was the reason why i got my license anyway)... a) how hard can it be to 're-port', and b) there was a time when people were porting open source projects to linux for free, and actually, i think this time is not over yet, i think you doing torque and yourself a favor by not supporting this, people will port it for free, i rather wait a while then pay.
#37
Remember Blender? That wasn't even open sourced until a certain money goal was reached to buy the rights off the owners or something, and it's pretty successful now. It wasn't even a program people were actually familiar with, but an internal tool for a TV station. It's fairly popular now :)
12/23/2012 (10:02 am)
@Heiko: Let's hope the people who really want a Linux think the same and actually port for free, then. (The engine ended up in its current state because they didn't have maintainers who knew Linux development. IAC certainly wouldn't put any money towards it.)Remember Blender? That wasn't even open sourced until a certain money goal was reached to buy the rights off the owners or something, and it's pretty successful now. It wasn't even a program people were actually familiar with, but an internal tool for a TV station. It's fairly popular now :)
#38
12/23/2012 (10:34 am)
We have no doubt that a Linux port will happen. It's just a matter of time. We're looking to pay to accelerate the port.
#39
12/25/2012 (9:05 pm)
@Heiko - We don't have any issue with the Linux port happening on it's own. We are hoping to actually support those people who are doing that type of work...all in all, we think that paying developers fair rates for the work they do is more sustainable.
#40
12/26/2012 (6:21 pm)
I'll donate. Linux ftw. 
Torque Owner daffodilistic
Default Studio Name