About T3D Steering Committee (01/2014)
by Luis Anton Rebollo · in Torque 3D Professional · 01/21/2014 (4:20 am) · 77 replies
It has created some hopelessness toward the Committee since the announcement of his halt.
The committee is made up of all of us. It is a little our fault that no one outside of GG with rights to write to the repository on Github. I myself was thinking on send an apply, but the 2 times i thought that it was not the right person.
It is clear that this is not good for the community that the official repository this so stopped.
I hope to be able to submit my application to the committee when they have time to talk, but I am sure that in the community there are people better prepared than I am.
Torque3D Committee and GREED FPS are good for the community.
The committee is made up of all of us. It is a little our fault that no one outside of GG with rights to write to the repository on Github. I myself was thinking on send an apply, but the 2 times i thought that it was not the right person.
It is clear that this is not good for the community that the official repository this so stopped.
I hope to be able to submit my application to the committee when they have time to talk, but I am sure that in the community there are people better prepared than I am.
Torque3D Committee and GREED FPS are good for the community.
About the author
I'm working on a port of Torque3D to OpenGL and Linux/SteamOS
#22
We are all working with the same base engine. There really shouldn't be too much hate. One thing we all have in common is we like to develop games. I may not be a strong programmer, or the best artist but one thing I believe I share with MOST of the community is my passion for game development, in particular with the T3D engine. I wouldn't have ever drop the $100 dollar (TGE), then the $295 (TGEA) and then the over $500 dollars for (T3D) if I didn't believe in this engine. I'm not even going to go into the amount of money I've spent on add-ons that never got upgraded, and various content packs..
Fact of the matter is Jeff Tunnel and company created something great. Now that it's open source it's a great opportunity for people to get in to game development and finally create their visions. Rather the engine stays as T3D switch to GREED or even OMNI..It's GREAT tech!!
There isn't any reason why there should be a BIG major disagreement with what should be done about the TECH.
I would LOVE to reboot the SC and even like to use some of the things that are in development with GREED..I also like the the idea of people selling 3rd party content which was SO influential unity decide to emulate it!
Me personally, I feel T3D should be the main engine. Just because it's what ALL us us know the engine by.
@Jolinar, the SC mentioned about doing templates type system for T3D. Maybe that's what could be done with GREED, is that it could be the official FPS/TPS template for it?
That way you can continue doing what you had planned for GREED, and the other people that aren't into FPS/TPS genre game would still have a solid engine to work with. Plus still get access to some of the stuff ya'll are doing. A win win on both sides!!!
At the end of the day rather it's the GREED, OMNI, or even ron's Hybrid engine they all were may possible through the T3D tech. BTW, thanks again for updating VERVE. IMO, it was something that should've been stock in the engine to make it a complete solution. Now all the engine needs is some kind of stock AI tool.
01/21/2014 (3:23 pm)
Ouch, jump off here for a little while to take care of a few personally things. To come back to this!We are all working with the same base engine. There really shouldn't be too much hate. One thing we all have in common is we like to develop games. I may not be a strong programmer, or the best artist but one thing I believe I share with MOST of the community is my passion for game development, in particular with the T3D engine. I wouldn't have ever drop the $100 dollar (TGE), then the $295 (TGEA) and then the over $500 dollars for (T3D) if I didn't believe in this engine. I'm not even going to go into the amount of money I've spent on add-ons that never got upgraded, and various content packs..
Fact of the matter is Jeff Tunnel and company created something great. Now that it's open source it's a great opportunity for people to get in to game development and finally create their visions. Rather the engine stays as T3D switch to GREED or even OMNI..It's GREAT tech!!
There isn't any reason why there should be a BIG major disagreement with what should be done about the TECH.
I would LOVE to reboot the SC and even like to use some of the things that are in development with GREED..I also like the the idea of people selling 3rd party content which was SO influential unity decide to emulate it!
Me personally, I feel T3D should be the main engine. Just because it's what ALL us us know the engine by.
@Jolinar, the SC mentioned about doing templates type system for T3D. Maybe that's what could be done with GREED, is that it could be the official FPS/TPS template for it?
That way you can continue doing what you had planned for GREED, and the other people that aren't into FPS/TPS genre game would still have a solid engine to work with. Plus still get access to some of the stuff ya'll are doing. A win win on both sides!!!
At the end of the day rather it's the GREED, OMNI, or even ron's Hybrid engine they all were may possible through the T3D tech. BTW, thanks again for updating VERVE. IMO, it was something that should've been stock in the engine to make it a complete solution. Now all the engine needs is some kind of stock AI tool.
#23
I will also say this.... neither GREED (horrible name actually), nor Omni, nor stock T3D can do everything I want or need. So, as usual, I am jamming my own little versions together.... Besides, I hear a lot about TECH and and this feature or that feature.... not a lot about games. Kinda sad, we went from Garage Games to Garage Game Engines....
Ron
01/21/2014 (4:09 pm)
I have to agree with Kory on this. I really hate to see this community becoming an 'us and them' type of thing. Personally, I believe there is room for all types of engines using core T3D tech. Once we start 'splintering' over what should be developed and what should not, well then we may as well hang up the towel and go home. We are all stronger as a group (even a group that does not always see eye to eye) then as a bunch of individuals, fighting for our own personal projects to be developed by the community. I will also say this.... neither GREED (horrible name actually), nor Omni, nor stock T3D can do everything I want or need. So, as usual, I am jamming my own little versions together.... Besides, I hear a lot about TECH and and this feature or that feature.... not a lot about games. Kinda sad, we went from Garage Games to Garage Game Engines....
Ron
#24
Whatever the name it falls under.
Whatever licence it falls under.
Whoever's involved.
The seeds I chose to plant in the greed forks to see what sprouted were direct extractions from current and prior game development, with an eye for starting with generalized utility, and refining from there. In that regard, it's all about making games, or at least accelerating things.
Now if you'll excuse me, this is getting a bit too political for my tastes, so I'll be sticking my head back down. Before I start yelling. A lot. At everybody.
01/21/2014 (5:16 pm)
@Ron: However this turns out, I'll simply say to my mind it remains a case of a discussion on how we can better facilitate sharing findings that we run across while actively developing games. Whatever the name it falls under.
Whatever licence it falls under.
Whoever's involved.
The seeds I chose to plant in the greed forks to see what sprouted were direct extractions from current and prior game development, with an eye for starting with generalized utility, and refining from there. In that regard, it's all about making games, or at least accelerating things.
Now if you'll excuse me, this is getting a bit too political for my tastes, so I'll be sticking my head back down. Before I start yelling. A lot. At everybody.
#26
J0: I personally agree with Lukas - I don't see myself being attached long-term to Greed. I really appreciate what you guys are doing but my own goals are different.
But that's ok! I'd hesitate to guess that some of the negative reaction to Greed you are seeing is because you've been very militant about recruiting for it. Which has worked really well, obviously, having gotten Verve open-sourced in the process and so on. But when you try to insist that Greed is the way forward for T3D tech, I can definitely understand why people might get a bit defensive.
EDIT: I like talking too much to bow out of this thread ;P.
01/21/2014 (6:40 pm)
Quote:Besides, I hear a lot about TECH and and this feature or that feature.... not a lot about games. Kinda sad, we went from Garage Games to Garage Game Engines....Amen to that. I can't claim I've been helping with that (almost all my coding is tech-based rather than game-based these days), but it is a shame to see.
J0: I personally agree with Lukas - I don't see myself being attached long-term to Greed. I really appreciate what you guys are doing but my own goals are different.
But that's ok! I'd hesitate to guess that some of the negative reaction to Greed you are seeing is because you've been very militant about recruiting for it. Which has worked really well, obviously, having gotten Verve open-sourced in the process and so on. But when you try to insist that Greed is the way forward for T3D tech, I can definitely understand why people might get a bit defensive.
EDIT: I like talking too much to bow out of this thread ;P.
#27
Lots of great discussion here so I'll just jump right to it. The Steering Committee as it previously existed is on indefinite hold. The Committee took quite a time commitment from everyone involved, and GarageGames has moved to a Service model with all hands-on-deck. For a while now I've moved away from programming and more into a Producer role to help with this work, and there isn't anyone else with the time available to manage the Committee.
But we have taken notice of the recent pick-up in activity from the community and this is great! As Scott mentioned, we had a meeting today to discuss this activity and what we could do to help it along. We decided that we could open the main T3D repo up to qualified community members to deal with Pull Requests and merging.
'Qualified' is a broad term so what does it mean? Well, as we're mostly talking about dealing with code here, the person would need to be an experienced programmer. They should also be very familiar with the Torque 3D code base as they would need to be able to either know what impact a particular Pull Request would have on the engine as a whole, or know enough to be able to track that information down by reading and tracing code, debugging results, etc.
A qualified person would also be responsible for ensuring that the code base remains stable. The Committee may have seemed by some to have been plodding along and taking forever to accept Pull Requests. Sometimes, this was true, due to time available to its members. But many times this was due to internal debate about the impact of a Pull Request and how that would affect the community at large.
Unlike most Game Development where you are given some freedom to just get something done regardless of it being the best solution (only the results matter, unless you're trying to run a long-term service), working on the Torque 3D repo is Product Development. Anything that goes in can affect hundreds of people and their games.
Is this the most general solution? Is this even the correct solution? How does it impact game development work flow? What affect does it have on all of the various components that make up the engine? These and more are the types of questions you need to answer about each and every change that is merged into the repo. Untested solutions (or hacks) cannot be used as, honestly, we have trouble getting people to help out with our known bug list as it is. Merging and expecting known issues to be resolved down the road just leads to long term instability. Small, easily testable chunks are easier to work with than everything-and-the-kitchen-sink solutions.
So a qualified person is also someone that follows a philosophy of Software Engineering and Product Development.
If you would like to be that person then please send me an email about yourself. A group of us at GarageGames will review all requests for write access to the T3D repo so the decision doesn't lie with any one person.
Alternatively, if you know of someone that would fit in this role then please encourage them. We (at GarageGames) know of a few companies that are using Torque 3D for their game development, and I'm sure there are many more that we don't know about. We have always hoped that they would step forward to help out as the continuing development of T3D is in their best interest.
Thanks!
- Dave
01/21/2014 (9:53 pm)
Greetings!Lots of great discussion here so I'll just jump right to it. The Steering Committee as it previously existed is on indefinite hold. The Committee took quite a time commitment from everyone involved, and GarageGames has moved to a Service model with all hands-on-deck. For a while now I've moved away from programming and more into a Producer role to help with this work, and there isn't anyone else with the time available to manage the Committee.
But we have taken notice of the recent pick-up in activity from the community and this is great! As Scott mentioned, we had a meeting today to discuss this activity and what we could do to help it along. We decided that we could open the main T3D repo up to qualified community members to deal with Pull Requests and merging.
'Qualified' is a broad term so what does it mean? Well, as we're mostly talking about dealing with code here, the person would need to be an experienced programmer. They should also be very familiar with the Torque 3D code base as they would need to be able to either know what impact a particular Pull Request would have on the engine as a whole, or know enough to be able to track that information down by reading and tracing code, debugging results, etc.
A qualified person would also be responsible for ensuring that the code base remains stable. The Committee may have seemed by some to have been plodding along and taking forever to accept Pull Requests. Sometimes, this was true, due to time available to its members. But many times this was due to internal debate about the impact of a Pull Request and how that would affect the community at large.
Unlike most Game Development where you are given some freedom to just get something done regardless of it being the best solution (only the results matter, unless you're trying to run a long-term service), working on the Torque 3D repo is Product Development. Anything that goes in can affect hundreds of people and their games.
Is this the most general solution? Is this even the correct solution? How does it impact game development work flow? What affect does it have on all of the various components that make up the engine? These and more are the types of questions you need to answer about each and every change that is merged into the repo. Untested solutions (or hacks) cannot be used as, honestly, we have trouble getting people to help out with our known bug list as it is. Merging and expecting known issues to be resolved down the road just leads to long term instability. Small, easily testable chunks are easier to work with than everything-and-the-kitchen-sink solutions.
So a qualified person is also someone that follows a philosophy of Software Engineering and Product Development.
If you would like to be that person then please send me an email about yourself. A group of us at GarageGames will review all requests for write access to the T3D repo so the decision doesn't lie with any one person.
Alternatively, if you know of someone that would fit in this role then please encourage them. We (at GarageGames) know of a few companies that are using Torque 3D for their game development, and I'm sure there are many more that we don't know about. We have always hoped that they would step forward to help out as the continuing development of T3D is in their best interest.
Thanks!
- Dave
#28
So we are to send you the emails? Not saying me but I may know a few people that definitely would fit. I just want to make sure I lead them to the right place, given they are interested!
01/22/2014 (3:21 am)
Dave, So we are to send you the emails? Not saying me but I may know a few people that definitely would fit. I just want to make sure I lead them to the right place, given they are interested!
#29
Yes, that's correct. Please send any email to me and I'll act as point for the team.
- Dave
01/22/2014 (7:31 am)
@Kory:Yes, that's correct. Please send any email to me and I'll act as point for the team.
- Dave
#30
Paul and I had a discussion about tossing our hats into the ring for Dave's position.
Unfortunately, due to our current work schedule we don't have the spare time to dedicate to the job at hand.
But to add to Dave's post I think a little structure could go a long way.
We have a person who specializes in each aspect of the engine. One person is good with scripts, one person specializes in graphics, another in the console, network, etc. All of this gets coordinated with Paul and I at the helm. Yes sometimes a developer goes out and does something awesome on there own (Lucas) and we are fine with that.
But for the most part, a road map is defined for what we want to do. It is then cut into little pieces and those pieces are assigned. As people finish one piece, we assign the next.
I think Greed has this right as well. I like the fact that they have put forth a road map for what they want to implement. Because without a road map and corralling of programmers you end up with a hodgepodge of code which at best is thrown together.
The code needs to seem seamless, to do this you really need to develop as a team with putting the teams goals ahead of your own.
Hopefully in the near future our our time will free up and we will be able to contribute more to the T3D development branch.
Vince Gee
Winterleaf Entertainment L.L.C.
01/22/2014 (8:43 am)
I don't usually get involved in politics and such. So I won't. Paul and I had a discussion about tossing our hats into the ring for Dave's position.
Unfortunately, due to our current work schedule we don't have the spare time to dedicate to the job at hand.
But to add to Dave's post I think a little structure could go a long way.
We have a person who specializes in each aspect of the engine. One person is good with scripts, one person specializes in graphics, another in the console, network, etc. All of this gets coordinated with Paul and I at the helm. Yes sometimes a developer goes out and does something awesome on there own (Lucas) and we are fine with that.
But for the most part, a road map is defined for what we want to do. It is then cut into little pieces and those pieces are assigned. As people finish one piece, we assign the next.
I think Greed has this right as well. I like the fact that they have put forth a road map for what they want to implement. Because without a road map and corralling of programmers you end up with a hodgepodge of code which at best is thrown together.
The code needs to seem seamless, to do this you really need to develop as a team with putting the teams goals ahead of your own.
Hopefully in the near future our our time will free up and we will be able to contribute more to the T3D development branch.
Vince Gee
Winterleaf Entertainment L.L.C.
#31
Sad news.
It's sad to see David Wyand with Garage Games, leaving the command of the steering committee of the Torque 3D and know that the steering committee is on hold indefinitely, leaving behind a release (3.5) with a couple of bugs, in particular, those related to the grenade launcher.
Game Over!
Respectfully,
01/22/2014 (9:12 am)
@Dave,Sad news.
It's sad to see David Wyand with Garage Games, leaving the command of the steering committee of the Torque 3D and know that the steering committee is on hold indefinitely, leaving behind a release (3.5) with a couple of bugs, in particular, those related to the grenade launcher.
Game Over!
Respectfully,
#33
I am glad to see that things are put in place. You can count on my apply to the committee.
01/22/2014 (10:06 am)
Quote:@Ron... you win!!! That someone close the thread... there isn't much more to say jejejejeje.
Kinda sad, we went from Garage Games to Garage Game Engines....
Quote:@Francisco, I approve this.
>> Game Over!
What a good game!! Come on, let's play again. ;)
I am glad to see that things are put in place. You can count on my apply to the committee.
#34
I think you would make a good fit :)
**EDIT: I'm NOT a great programmer, otherwise I would but no worries I'm talking to various people now. I've also posted a status on FB..Hopefully some others would take interest in this opportunity!
01/22/2014 (10:49 am)
LuisI think you would make a good fit :)
**EDIT: I'm NOT a great programmer, otherwise I would but no worries I'm talking to various people now. I've also posted a status on FB..Hopefully some others would take interest in this opportunity!
#35
I also agree with Kory here, I'd hate to see many "factions" arise due to individual implementations of the engine. We're all using the exact same engine, even if we have our own little customizations for it. I really hope this "revival" of the committee and the numerous new addons and fixes for the engine sort of bring T3D into the light in terms of getting the word out. This would honestly help most of us (3rd party pack developers) out the most, and it really helps and drives us to continue to bring forth our products to you guys.
Personally, I don't qualify myself as much of a software developer so I think I'll need to sit on the sidelines in terms of the new committee, not to say I don't love working on this engine (my 10+ years with it says that), but I just don't think I have the open time and skillset needed for the job, not to mention I'm sort of working on my own tech at the moment. ;)
01/23/2014 (8:20 am)
I'm also keeping a close eye on the "reboot" of the community. I'm liking how things are starting to turn back towards more engine related development and how we can step in to help fix the numerous problems with it.I also agree with Kory here, I'd hate to see many "factions" arise due to individual implementations of the engine. We're all using the exact same engine, even if we have our own little customizations for it. I really hope this "revival" of the committee and the numerous new addons and fixes for the engine sort of bring T3D into the light in terms of getting the word out. This would honestly help most of us (3rd party pack developers) out the most, and it really helps and drives us to continue to bring forth our products to you guys.
Personally, I don't qualify myself as much of a software developer so I think I'll need to sit on the sidelines in terms of the new committee, not to say I don't love working on this engine (my 10+ years with it says that), but I just don't think I have the open time and skillset needed for the job, not to mention I'm sort of working on my own tech at the moment. ;)
#36
01/24/2014 (3:09 pm)
Is this going to be a new repository, or will you add users to the existing GG repo? And what has happened to Mike's script template work? Do you think that will see a release with the committee on hold?
#37
@Joao:
I would still like to get a v3.5.1 release out. The bouncing grenade fix is already checked into the development branch for people to make use of. I would also like to include my Bullet physics impulse fix that is floating around in another thread, as well as check into this issue with Triggers that seems to have cropped up with 3.5. Unfortunately, even a small release still takes as much time to test and bundle up as any other release, and I need to find time on my own to do it.
@Vince and Robert:
Roadmaps work well when you have an organised work force. It will be up to those that are given write access to decide how organised they wish to be. There will be a new Committee only if they choose to organise that way. I don't see GarageGames imposing any kind of organisational structure on them, as then we'd have to manage it.
@Daniel:
The intent was to have write access to the main T3D repo. Of course, anyone can feel free to fork the main repo and advance things on their own timeline, just like the GREED project is doing.
It's up to Mike to decide what to do with his template reorganisation work. No one owns it but him, and I haven't talked to him recently.
- Dave
01/24/2014 (9:46 pm)
Thanks to those that have submitted themselves for write access to the main T3D repo. We're going to let things sit for a few days to see who else will come forwards (not that this is a one time deal) and then we'll meet internally to discuss it.@Joao:
I would still like to get a v3.5.1 release out. The bouncing grenade fix is already checked into the development branch for people to make use of. I would also like to include my Bullet physics impulse fix that is floating around in another thread, as well as check into this issue with Triggers that seems to have cropped up with 3.5. Unfortunately, even a small release still takes as much time to test and bundle up as any other release, and I need to find time on my own to do it.
@Vince and Robert:
Roadmaps work well when you have an organised work force. It will be up to those that are given write access to decide how organised they wish to be. There will be a new Committee only if they choose to organise that way. I don't see GarageGames imposing any kind of organisational structure on them, as then we'd have to manage it.
@Daniel:
The intent was to have write access to the main T3D repo. Of course, anyone can feel free to fork the main repo and advance things on their own timeline, just like the GREED project is doing.
It's up to Mike to decide what to do with his template reorganisation work. No one owns it but him, and I haven't talked to him recently.
- Dave
#38
01/24/2014 (10:25 pm)
Ok, I've sent him an email. 
#39
01/25/2014 (5:36 am)
@Alfio - Could you elaborate, please?
#40
What I suggest is to main start off Daniel's barebone branch. With verve added in as a base start. With things like Jeff's behavior/component system and other's work would just be wasted! It would just be a centralized local for new active development on the T3D engine? Just an idea, if anyone is interested, let me know.
jstanleynwo@yahoo.com
01/25/2014 (2:55 pm)
I propose this until a decision is made with the steering committee a few of us open a group to push development moving along for the T3D engine branch?What I suggest is to main start off Daniel's barebone branch. With verve added in as a base start. With things like Jeff's behavior/component system and other's work would just be wasted! It would just be a centralized local for new active development on the T3D engine? Just an idea, if anyone is interested, let me know.
jstanleynwo@yahoo.com
Torque Owner Jeff Raab
[ghc]games
Good to hear