Torque and the FPS Template Debate

#21 @Bloodknight - I believe the intent of bringing Blender into the discussion was as an example of a paradigm which Torque should strive to achieve, not as a "Torque and Blender are the same because they're open source" argument. Which was why a store was brought up - one that belongs to Torque and not GarageGames. Then Torque could begin moving toward a point where it could actually afford full-time programmers and artists - funded by sales and donations, as Blender is. Adding Blender to the art workflow might even start to bring Blender users to Torque, potentially generating more revenue.

I feel that the SC is doing what they can as best they can. I also feel that, until there is some way to actually get full-time staff on the problem we are always going to see improvements in fits and starts as people add them to their own projects.

#22 My $.02...

Torque3D isn't an FPS-centric engine. Reasons being:

- Up until a few years ago, you couldn't use a dedicated weapon model for first person view
- Several games made with Torque3D clearly aren't FPS's. Frozen Cortex, Blockland, Marble Blast, Penny Arcade Adventures, Buccaneer, DHL, Think Tanks, a few MMOs, etc.
- The engine is specifically designed around expansive outdoor area scenes as opposed to close quarter buildings common in the FPS genre.

There is already a great example of a barebones game: t3d-bones.

To be truly useful a game engine needs to be proven, and the only way to do that is to make a game with it. Or failing that, encourage users to backport changes into the main engine. Without either of this happening IMO the project will turn into another one of those "Cool engine that does X Y Z but is actually pretty shit at making games" projects.

Of course, contributing back changes can have its problems. Hopefully we can trust the Steering Committee to ensure quality. Although sometimes I admittedly have my doubts such as when that "you can now use the names of some common colours instead of specifying RGB values" change was flaunted in the latest changelist. ;)

I don't think turning Torque3D into RPG Maker is the best of ideas. Anyone who seriously wants to make something quick and fast is going to want to use something popular, proven, and well supported. This is not something developers working in their spare time on a budget of $0 can compete with.

Making Torque3D more modular on the other hand is a good idea, assuming this means moving features out of the core and making them optional. That way they can be improved independently leaving the core engine team to deal with maintaining a reliable base.

These conversations on improving things can indeed get pointless, but given there is always a chance it might inspire someone to do something about a core problem, I am happy enough to participate even if my efforts bear no fruit.

#23 I think the best solution to grow and improve these engine is to do like other eng dev.... charge small feed to keep it going i see dev here providing great free support fixing and adding future to the eng but if we charge small amount to support those dev on there free time is a good incentive for them to dedicate more good quality time. Im willing to paid T3D same feed i paying to UE4 now..why not these is a great engine with lot potential..And i would love to see it grow.

#24 James - in our defence, it was just about the only user-facing change we made ;P. So many pull requests for minor fixes or process improvements (e.g. cmake :P). And hey, the change was quality ;).

That is indeed the sense of 'modular' that we want, though we're wary of making maintenance difficult by decoupling the codebases from each other. I think short-term modularity means making it easier to remove unwanted pieces of the engine by improving the folder hierarchy and disentangling ShapeBase from everywhere. Long-term it means components, a small(?) and stable engine core with a defined API, and so on.

Ramon - donations would be cool, and I guess we should think of providing an avenue for people to do that should they choose. I wonder whether it's best to go the ad=hoc route, using some sort of funding website for specific projects (like Luis providing a paypal link on his linux posts), or whether there should be something more centralised.

#25 Double post.

#26 If you're going to do that (donations, I mean), might as well continue to follow the Blender paradigm and set up a Torque Foundation non-profit corporation with the "purpose and intent to maintain and improve the Torque family of game engine software." There's a ton of other legal mumbo-jumbo, and your mileage will vary from country to country, but then the effort will have a solid base to build from. Perhaps even go as far as to ask the Blender guys for advice and information on what they did - I'd be interested if they'd put together a book that talked about their history and operations, actually....

#27 I agree w Richard. IMO that would be a great way to go. it would even allow for other means of funding also besides "Donate" button.

but by doing this youll most likely need a business man on the SC to start handling all this. itll be opening up the SC a bit more.

#28 I agree also :)