Tracking Torque 3D Community Contributions

#21 Well, Cg makes things a bit less platform dependent (given that Cg support for the platform exists, that is) and do a bit of the job for you. With Cg you don't have to write multiple versions of the same shader for multi-platform deployment, no need to write a GLSL and HLSL version, you just write one Cg shader that is compiled into whatever the target platform uses. Cg also solves the problem of supporting a wide range of hardware, as shader languages in different versions/generations and hardware that supports them has different capabilities you might otherwise need to write more than one version of a shader for the same platform, one for the latest high-end hardware and one for the low-end, with Cg you dynamically compile at runtime against the profile of the platform.

#22 @Daniel Buckmaster, @Griagg
My official stand about whole Cg Toolkit stuff is that it's not needed. I know what are pros of supporting that, but I strongly believe that there are more cons.
For example I didn't saw that Cg Toolkit is supported on BSD (native port, not some .deb stuff) or supported on Windows 8 RT (on ARM processors) and Windows Phone 8.
I also believe that supporting all Cg/HLSL/GLSL shaders like you and Griagg suggested is just lost time on rnd. For example, time what you will spend on fixing Cg (what is on "linux-rnd" branch on GitHub) you could use for fixing lighting on OpenGL renderer.

#23 Not to mention Cg Toolkit is not supported/provided under/for ARM processors and no iOS and Android Cg libraries. If you want consistency across platforms then Cg is a no go. I'm also against wasting time on Cg.

We really should just fix and focusing support on OpenGL and forget about Direct3D, thus don't care about HLSL shaders, since Microsoft is continuing their games of latest Direct3D only available on latest Windows versions of which is a support nightmare.

#24 Thanks Nathan and Dusan, I was going to bring up the same issue... let us not forget that CG has NOT been updated in a LONG while. I think even Nivida dropped it because it was a 'stop gap' solution before things were standardized between GLSL and HLSL a bit. I do NOT agree with 'let's not worry about HLSL versus GLSL'. In the end we need to equally support BOTH in order to remain competitive. It's more work but, in the end, supporting both properly will expand the life cycle of Torque.

Oh yeah, I am going to ask an 'unpopular question'.... why Linux? The kick starter failed (due to lack of interest I presume), there has been little to no movement on assorted linux based forks, is this truly a 'must have' or is it just a stepping stone to Android and mobile ports? If this is true, why bother, port directly to Android/OSx and skip Linux...I am asking as a NON-Linux guy that does not get the whole concept... so keep that in mind. I am not trying to start a flame war or anything. I just don't see why we are worried about it (from a dev standpoint). From what I see, it's not a 'real must have nor truly popular' since it's not supported by developers, linux or otherwise.

Ron

#25 For me the point with Linux is, that the only big reason why people do not switch to Linux is because of the games, so converting a game engine to Linux is just a logical step.
Another point is, since Torque3D is open source now, that it would be good to establish it in the open source community, but this only goes with a working Linux port. There are quite some people I think, that will only use Torque , if it will run on Linux.

#26 @Ron Kapaun
I personally believe that Indiegogo campaign failed because of bad presentation. (We can debate on that if needed).
This is how I like to think, if engine support more platforms, more people will use it, and it would bring more people into community and in that way to help with development.
Supporting Linux isn't really bad thing. With fully and proper port of T3D you are offering new "professional" engine there and in that way you are giving others something with what they can develop their vision of how game should be.
So far there are derivatives of idTech1/2/3/4 engines what work native on Linux, but I believe that T3D is much more better and because it's better, more people will use it for their projects.

#27 Duion and Dusan,

Thanks for the 'concept' explanation. I was NOT trying to be a smart
'butt' about it. I just have not dealt with the linux side of things since RedHat 6.whatever. (I know I need to get with the times...) You guys did a good job explaining to a 'non-linux' guy why the port is important. (by the way, you two are the ONLY freakin guys to explain it!) I am on board now.

Thanks

Ron

#28 Ron, my take on why the kickstarter and indiegogo funding failed is because the goal was set too high for such a small community we have. This community could pledge only so much and the majority of the funding would then have to come from outside of the community.

Outside of the GarageGames community Torque is blasted left and right from those who've had bad experiences from the past using the engine or didn't like the price changes done by the old GG/IAC. Therefore those who don't have an opinion or experience using Torque are more likely to stay away from Torque, because of the blasting, much less become willing participants in helping to fund porting Torque to more platforms.

#29 Nathan,

I get that. Trust me, one of my primary goals over the last year or so has been attempting to change the perception that T3D is TGE. I spam review sites and try my best to change 'perceptions'. (this carried on even since I left the steering committee, because I TRULY believe in the engine and this community) Alas, it can't be JUST ME or the Steering Committee. Believe it or not there are a MAJORITY of sites that still think IA is running the show.... WE as a community, need to correct that view. I can HONESTLY say, at T3D V3.0.... we are NOTHING like the commercial version of Torque. I can also state with 100% confidence that T2D is no longer 'what is public'. If we want to INCREASE our interest, the best way is to SHOUT AT THE TOP OF OUR COLLECTIVE LUNGS.... WE ARE NOT UNDER IA any more. We are new and we are growing.

As for your view on Kick Starter and Indiegogo thoughts, DUDE! You are right! I also think these things happened TOO FAST. We needed to change perspective on the engine overall before we try to crowd fund major changes.

Ron

#30 tbh changing T3D`S reputation
is not that easy

ppl actually get turned off as soon as they hear the name
sersiously

now that might change or not - depending on the projects
that gonna come to life
and depending on who of those will actually insert a made with T3D MIT v3/4 text

see what i mean

nd depending the route T3D goes in the next stages of developement


and the ongoing discussion about cg/hlsls/glsl/ multiplatform support
- u can`t just skip directx
- neither can you skip opengl
+ what could be done would involve
a major rework of the rendering pipeline
to give T3D a new facelift

what are the options
well for one there is Ogre3D
-what speaks against it, seems to much work
so lets just go the lazy road and do some halfway done opengl things runnin right? wrong!

+ with Ogre3D`s renderer T3D would be able to go multiplatform
see

now - before someone goes for future suggestion
lets see
who thinks this way aswell???

be honest do you really want a halfway done T3D with a crappy opengl
and a aging directx support?
or
do you want to see T3D get new life and real attention

or hey how about suggestin somethin of your own if you think what am writin here is ment for global amusement???

sidenote: with that i mean actually you all - even those that can`t sit
on their chairs cuz of loling around

#31 what about open shading language(OSL)

#32 This is great news Torque is still one of my favorite engines. I hope this will catapult it back to the popularity it had before many bad business decisions took a leg from it.

#33 Per Dennis' post... need I say more?

(not burning on your post Dennis..it's just been quite a while since IA has been in control of the Torque series of engines, you just re-enforced my point :-)

Ron

#34 Merging T3D with Ogre3D rendering? Sounds interesting!

#35 Uhm, I am not seeing anything that Ogre can do that we can't already do in T3D. Just my observations, I could be wrong of course.

In the end, for all my time with T3D as an artist, I just seen a TON of requests that ask for proper documents that (to identify the core issue) show HOW to do things art wise, in Torque 3D. I can tell you as a 'tech artist' (even if I am a fledgling at it....) T3D can handle WAY more than is documented! I will try and document as much as I can and release these docs to everyone once I have the time to make it understandable to everyone...programmer and artist alike. The biggest hurdle to everyone right now (art wise) is that NO BODY understands HOW to make current gen effects work in Torque.... alas! They have been there this WHOLE time, just hidden. (and yes! this includes lightmaps, parralax maps (as my initial tutorial shows), even something as complex as tessellation (with some shader code exposed). I assume many of you follow my videos and such... I am NOT making anything NEW! I am just showing that it can be done. If you have issues with my stuff check this thread out; www.garagegames.com/community/blogs/view/22339 I think you will ALL see that the ability to make GREAT environments and art is there, you just need to know HOW.

Ron

#36 @Ron,
You are absolutely right on the the T3D graphics. I made a couple of tweaks to the source code and got dynamic materials on almost every object in the game. The only one I have seen fail was the terrain as it stores textures internally for some reason. It might even be a simple fix in code to make that happen. This is just another tool to use (though it might be expensive) for making a scene that much more interesting. I cannot wait to see what you come up with.

And yes, I need to get T3D MIT 3.0 downloaded AND I need to submit the dynamic texture changes so everyone else can use if they want. Though it requires objects that can support writing to materials which is C++ changes.

#37 i aggree that the kickstarter projects failed due to taking on too much too soon.

and i also aggree with what i am sure most know that sad to say that torque has a bad rep amongst the indie game development communities.

and although the development team is doing what they can to get out from that rep. once a rep. is given it is hard to get out from under.

and yes Ron T3D is not TGE. but that is not something you are going to be able to tell people, that is only something one can show people.

now i don't really know the developement team but from what i have read from thier posts i feel that they are really good guys with the very best of intentions. and have done a very lot to get the T3D game engine out from under the rep. that TGE has put it under.

however, and you just knew there as going to be a however.

i also feel that inspite their best intentions they are still making the same mistakes that was made with TGE.

in order to understand what i am saying, one has to ask themself why did the TGE game engine fail.

ask yourself,

was it because TGE lacked features that was needed to develope games to compete with the day's market?

i don't think this was the problem, at the time TGE was pretty advanced with the supported features of games engines aimed at the indie game developers.

was it because of the price?

i feel that the price was reasonable for the features it included. it wasn't so much to bankrupt a person's wallet by purchasing.

was it due to too small of a user base, or community?

this i don't think was the problem either. for at the time, the community was growing, and one was always seeing new users popping up in the forums.

so now we have a good feature rich game engine offered at a reasonable price, in a growing community of users, and yet, forgive me it i picked the wrong words, the project went belly up.......why?

i feel it was because the developers was so busy working on the backend of the engine, thinking the more options and features the game engine supports is the more people the game engine will attract.

sooo....do you see a pattern here?

Ron what you have stated you are going to try and do will attract more people to this community then any feature you may add to this already powerfull game engine. and that is provide documentation that will not only show you what this or that does, but how to do this or that.

the biggest downfall of torque has always been the learning curve. i have said this before and i will say it again. you can have all the bells and whistles on the engine you want, but if no one but users that have years of experience in programing will be able to do anything with the engine, you are only going to succeed in scaring off more users then one is attracting.

and one of the repercussoins of scaring people off, is they tend to go off to other game development communities bashing the torque name, preventing possible other developers from exploring just exactly what can be done with the T3D game engine.

i think that instead of trying to recruit people to help develope the game engine's inner workings, i think it would be a very good and helpfull thing to try and recruit people who have knowledge with the engine and have the know how to teach others how to use the engine.

and i am not trying to sound like a broken record here, it is just that i myself truely beleive that the lack of a good learning ground is the achilles heel of the T3D game engine. and until that is addressed, it is going to be very hard to get the game engine into the proper status the game engine deserves. for it is a truely powerfull game engine. it just has a bad name, because it lacks the learning material that is so very much needed in order to use this great engine.

#38 A couple of things I am working on eventually for my fork that I think T3D needs is a C++ API (that works the same as the torquescript API so a person can just know the API and work in either C++ or TS. If you have ever tried converting TS to C++ you can probably see what I mean.) and a real minimal template (no FPS crap. This means no shapebase or player class along with a lot of other code) When you sit down to start a non FPS currently in Torque you have to modify the FPS example game because no one has separated it out. I am looking more for a minimal start like unity offers. A clean slate to work on a game in.

With that said, cross platform support is more important to me so I will be working on that first in my spare time.

#39 @James
TGE didn't fail. It was decided to deprecate it in favor of continuing TGEA. But you are right that learning curve has always been one of Torque's big shortcomings. When it first came out, it followed the same expectations of all engines, regardless of licensing: that you would have a strong programmer working with it.

Over the years engines have become more accessible, with UDK being the most accessible with Kismet (or Unity with the PlayMaker plugin). Torque's accessibility has been behind the curve there, definitely. But while the engines have simulated the interfaces of a number of art tools, they still require programmers (or logic engineers for visual scripting) to work with. Unity's learning curve is a midrange curve rather than upfront like Torque. It definitely helps Unity to have C# and Javascript as two languages that it makes use of. Both are more accessible than Torquescript simply because there are a ton of learning materials on them, even if it is completely unrelated to Unity.

I keep thinking I should write a post-mortem on the IndieGoGo campaign because the viewpoints outside the community and inside it are quite different. There were definitely a number of missteps, but the perception is always interesting when I hear people speculate about it. Since I'm not an employee any longer, I can't create that post-mortem.

#40 @david,
well perhaps fail was too strong of a word, and yes i am only speculating, and i also know that it wasn't just one thing that caused the turn that the engine took.

i guess the point i was trying to make, was

from my point of view, TGE had the stradegy plan of,

If you Build it, They Will Come.

and once again from my point of view i am seeing a very similiar pattern with T3D.

i feel that people come to this community to learn how to create games, and that being the key word, to learn.

and yet the engine keeps catering to people who already have years of experience in programing behind them.

i feel that this is a big damper in building back up the community.