Rts - Tse
by Allan Brown · in Torque Game Engine Advanced · 12/17/2004 (9:05 am) · 38 replies
Hi,
Ive noticed there is info on here on how to move the FPS example into TSE, any such information on the RTS? ;)
Ive noticed there is info on here on how to move the FPS example into TSE, any such information on the RTS? ;)
About the author
#22
http://www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=43899
Didn't port over the terrain circles, and it's using legacy terrain. But it can get you started.
07/24/2006 (12:42 pm)
I haven't had time to fiddle with the RTS stuff in a while, it was mostly just something I did over a couple of days while bored, but you can find code and information from myself and others in this thread:http://www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=43899
Didn't port over the terrain circles, and it's using legacy terrain. But it can get you started.
#23
08/01/2006 (9:47 am)
I posted a solution here : www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=43899 for Atlas2 terrain, but I'm still have trouble to ask the engine to ignore pixels outside UV coords out range [0..1]. So if someOne can tell me how to adjust UV Coords. (I Know there is a solution with GFX->something, but I'm not able to find it again... Grrrr!)
#24
*bump*
-Jac
10/13/2006 (3:14 pm)
Quote:Stephen Zepp
Employee Posted: May 28, 2005 11:34
There will be a port of the RTS-SK in the future, but a few milestones in TSE should be completed before hand to make it a one-time port requirement.
*bump*
-Jac
#25
10/16/2006 (8:41 pm)
I'd like to know how the RTS port to TSE has come along as well. Or even to TGE 1.5.
#26
10/16/2006 (11:17 pm)
The RTS Kit honestly hasn't been updated since just after it was first released, despite numerous posts to the contrary. I'm a fan of GG and their products, but I wouldn't be surprised if it never was updated again. It is the bastard child of GG. 
#27
10/17/2006 (12:19 am)
I wouldn't say bastard child. Just overshadowed by things like Constructor and TSE. I don't really think they should put effort into converting the RTS kit into TSE until TSE is actually complete ;) . After all, things could change and you'd have to do it all over again.
#28
10/17/2006 (4:20 am)
I don't mind them concentrating effort in other areas, TSE is the more useful product... but considering that RTS Kit was never updated for 1.4, was never updated for TSE, and never received any of the updates that were promised to it years ago (such as the vismanager), I'd say that it's a bastard child . It's an unsupported product, where every now and then people whine enough that GG says "we'll get to work on this when we get a chance" and then another year goes by with nothing done to it. You can sugarcoat it however you want, but that's the cold hard truth.
#29
10/17/2006 (5:33 am)
I have to agree somewhat, I do feel a bit like I've been ripped off with the RTS kit. It's also rather expensive for what it includes, I really hope GG will make it upto us someday by offering us the TSE version of it free or something along with a bunch of updates for it like the vismanager and such. I'll be really annoyed with GG if they expect us to pay for a TSE version of the RTS kit.
#30
If you honestly feel that 3 man-months of your own time isn't worth $50, then I guess I can see why you would feel as if you migth have been "ripped off".
Personally, I value my personal time as >>> $50/hour, much less $50/3 months.
It's a starter kit, not a "press the red button to make your RTS game", just like all of our products.
10/17/2006 (7:56 am)
Just for the record, the RTS-SK as it stands gives you more than 3 man-months worth of part time "indie schedule" style development work.If you honestly feel that 3 man-months of your own time isn't worth $50, then I guess I can see why you would feel as if you migth have been "ripped off".
Personally, I value my personal time as >>> $50/hour, much less $50/3 months.
It's a starter kit, not a "press the red button to make your RTS game", just like all of our products.
#31
-Do I need this feature(s)?
-If yes, how long would it take me to do it?
-Multiply the number of hours it would take me by how much I earn.
-If that number is greater than the cost of the pack, then its worth it.
I earn more in a day than the RTS-Kit price, and it would have taken me me longer than a day to get that stuff in, so....its worth it for me.
10/17/2006 (8:11 am)
Have to agree with that. Thats how I judge all my content/code pack purchases. I ask myself :-Do I need this feature(s)?
-If yes, how long would it take me to do it?
-Multiply the number of hours it would take me by how much I earn.
-If that number is greater than the cost of the pack, then its worth it.
I earn more in a day than the RTS-Kit price, and it would have taken me me longer than a day to get that stuff in, so....its worth it for me.
#32
10/17/2006 (9:04 am)
It's worth the price of admission if your doing an RTS or if you were curious about some of the implementations. I didn't and don't mind paying the price for it. But it doesn't live up to the quality and support of the other products here at GG.
#33
If you marketed it as, "Fancy selection routine only half the price of torque itself!", it wouldn't be so bad. But you are marketing it as a starter kit. While with a starter kit people don't expect to press a red button and out pop a game, they do expect basic routines inherent with all similar games to be there. I can't think of a single RTS I've played where my avatars were able to run straight up a verticle cliff face and through a building I just placed.
Compare the level of completness of the RTS kit with say, the FPS starter kit. It's akin to the FPS kit being nothing other than an avatar running around, not being able to mount weapons or shoot at people. But then you look in the source code after wondering why it's not working only to discover, "// insert clever weapon mounting code here." Other than your selection routines, there's not much meat on the bones.
And btw, people expect it to work out of the box for half the price of torque. Not read about unfulfilled promises of maintaining the product going back two years. You people at GG keep skipping right over commenting on your responsiblity to maintain the products you are selling.
10/17/2006 (11:43 am)
Quote:Just for the record, the RTS-SK as it stands gives you more than 3 man-months worth of part time "indie schedule" style development work.
If you honestly feel that 3 man-months of your own time isn't worth $50, then I guess I can see why you would feel as if you migth have been "ripped off".
Personally, I value my personal time as >>> $50/hour, much less $50/3 months.
It's a starter kit, not a "press the red button to make your RTS game", just like all of our products.
If you marketed it as, "Fancy selection routine only half the price of torque itself!", it wouldn't be so bad. But you are marketing it as a starter kit. While with a starter kit people don't expect to press a red button and out pop a game, they do expect basic routines inherent with all similar games to be there. I can't think of a single RTS I've played where my avatars were able to run straight up a verticle cliff face and through a building I just placed.
Compare the level of completness of the RTS kit with say, the FPS starter kit. It's akin to the FPS kit being nothing other than an avatar running around, not being able to mount weapons or shoot at people. But then you look in the source code after wondering why it's not working only to discover, "// insert clever weapon mounting code here." Other than your selection routines, there's not much meat on the bones.
And btw, people expect it to work out of the box for half the price of torque. Not read about unfulfilled promises of maintaining the product going back two years. You people at GG keep skipping right over commenting on your responsiblity to maintain the products you are selling.
#34
++ Keep List ++
TGE - I would like to see AI, advanced physics, and TorqueCinema added.
TSE - I would like to see AI, advanced physics, and TorqueCinema added.
Constructor - Fills a large void in Torque technology.
-- Abandon List --
TorqueX - I understand why it is being made, but it still spreads the company thinner.
TGB - This is a great product, but I feel it spreads them thin. Still sell it, just don't invest any more time in it.
RTS Pack - Seems to be quite incomplete on the features.
I am sure a lot of people will disagree with me but I would like to see higher quality products than more products. Quality is better than quantity, IMHO. :)
10/17/2006 (12:04 pm)
First off I would just like to say that I think TGE & TSE are wonderful products. The things GG has done for the Indie community are amazing. On the other hand, I fear that perhaps GG is spreading itself so thin that it can't possibly support all of the products they are offering. The list seems to grow longer by the months. I would like to see GG get back to the core of their products.++ Keep List ++
TGE - I would like to see AI, advanced physics, and TorqueCinema added.
TSE - I would like to see AI, advanced physics, and TorqueCinema added.
Constructor - Fills a large void in Torque technology.
-- Abandon List --
TorqueX - I understand why it is being made, but it still spreads the company thinner.
TGB - This is a great product, but I feel it spreads them thin. Still sell it, just don't invest any more time in it.
RTS Pack - Seems to be quite incomplete on the features.
I am sure a lot of people will disagree with me but I would like to see higher quality products than more products. Quality is better than quantity, IMHO. :)
#35
I would add TGB to the keep list. It is a great product for indie developers. They can make a game with a small crew, get on portals, and begin making a meager income (or a good one if they are extremely lucky). The less resources you spend making a game, the more chance you have to earn them back if it is a good title.
What I would add to the list, rather than AI or fancy physics would be the component design model that was proposed a while back. That would make adding in Havok or PhysX or Newton or ODE or Tokamak much easier and you could leverage as much of a honed library as needed. You could also use a number of AI solutions.
I think a core componentalization (probably not a real word) would be beneficial to developers and the technology. Much more than dropping products.
10/17/2006 (1:22 pm)
Personally, I see TGB as one of the highest quality product on GG. TorqueX nudges up the in that XNA offers, which is huge in comparison to any other in that has been offered in the past by console manufacturers (including PS2 Linux and the Net Yaroze). But I can see how it would annoy many who have invested in TSE and TGE over the years. Especially since TGB started as a fun "side project" adventure for a dedicated Torquer and ended up as a mature 2D development suite.I would add TGB to the keep list. It is a great product for indie developers. They can make a game with a small crew, get on portals, and begin making a meager income (or a good one if they are extremely lucky). The less resources you spend making a game, the more chance you have to earn them back if it is a good title.
What I would add to the list, rather than AI or fancy physics would be the component design model that was proposed a while back. That would make adding in Havok or PhysX or Newton or ODE or Tokamak much easier and you could leverage as much of a honed library as needed. You could also use a number of AI solutions.
I think a core componentalization (probably not a real word) would be beneficial to developers and the technology. Much more than dropping products.
#36
10/17/2006 (1:44 pm)
TGB is definately a keeper. It's a great product. I don't plan on making anything with it, but I bought it and love it. Think it's great for indie developers who are getting started, it's so much easier to work with, you can write a prototype in a day.
#37
I agree with you. My point is that it is still another product that they have to try and support. It is another product that competes with TGE/TAT for time. I have no problem with adding new products; I just think that TGE/TSE lack a few features that newer engines are including out of the box. I have invested my time in Torque so I am here to stay. With a few additions Torque technology would go from being good to great.
edit: My poor spelling and grammar. :(
10/17/2006 (2:18 pm)
@David and J.C.I agree with you. My point is that it is still another product that they have to try and support. It is another product that competes with TGE/TAT for time. I have no problem with adding new products; I just think that TGE/TSE lack a few features that newer engines are including out of the box. I have invested my time in Torque so I am here to stay. With a few additions Torque technology would go from being good to great.
edit: My poor spelling and grammar. :(
#38
10/17/2006 (9:51 pm)
The problem is... If you make a product, you support it. With regards to TGE/TSE features missing out of the box. What engines are you comparing them to? IMO one of the strengths of TGE/TSE is all the things they give you out of the box. You might find better rendering quality or rendering features in the other low cost engines, but you won't find the array of features. 
Torque Owner Logan Baranowitz