LawMaker info
by Morrie · in General Discussion · 10/01/2006 (6:04 pm) · 54 replies
Can I export XSI into LawMaker and do I get the source code, also do I get unlimited downloads.
#22
I said if you buy the $300 version you might as well buy the Unreal Editor.
10/02/2006 (12:13 am)
@MarcusI said if you buy the $300 version you might as well buy the Unreal Editor.
#23
The Source Code might be the difference between your game and one already on the market: Example: Physics, you might want your bullets to act like real bullets and have gravity. AI, you might have a better way you would like the AI that works better your game.
10/02/2006 (12:20 am)
@AlienforceThe Source Code might be the difference between your game and one already on the market: Example: Physics, you might want your bullets to act like real bullets and have gravity. AI, you might have a better way you would like the AI that works better your game.
#24
Come on... there's always the first shipped game for any engine out there. And who cares about non-windows first person shooter games. And be honest... LawMaker beats C4 and that basic something engine. I would say that TAT might be shoulder to shoulder if it weren't for the lack of Physics and... well... the tools just look cleaner to me in LawMaker. That's a really big deal to someone who wants to create a game at a high level(as in, as opposed to source coding). And then there are the video tutorials. Man... they are doing alot right. BUT they are charging for it too. I have to admit... I wish that TAT were charging that high. And that it had a better name. But mostly... I wish GG would stop this low price indie stuff. I would rather pay 10 times more for them to hire bigger teams and add more core features like Physics and a better Art Pipeline and some Video Tutorials! That would be great! And while they are at it... buy Torsion and include it the way they did with TLK. More for more money. That's what I'd like to see!
10/02/2006 (4:28 am)
@Tom SpilmanCome on... there's always the first shipped game for any engine out there. And who cares about non-windows first person shooter games. And be honest... LawMaker beats C4 and that basic something engine. I would say that TAT might be shoulder to shoulder if it weren't for the lack of Physics and... well... the tools just look cleaner to me in LawMaker. That's a really big deal to someone who wants to create a game at a high level(as in, as opposed to source coding). And then there are the video tutorials. Man... they are doing alot right. BUT they are charging for it too. I have to admit... I wish that TAT were charging that high. And that it had a better name. But mostly... I wish GG would stop this low price indie stuff. I would rather pay 10 times more for them to hire bigger teams and add more core features like Physics and a better Art Pipeline and some Video Tutorials! That would be great! And while they are at it... buy Torsion and include it the way they did with TLK. More for more money. That's what I'd like to see!
#25
10/02/2006 (4:51 am)
Actually, I'm sure Mac & Linux users care about non-windows first person shooter games. I know I do.
#26
I really, really, really should write that article I've been thinking of for many days now: understanding the Macintosh game market.
STef
10/02/2006 (5:04 am)
@Anton: I do agree with Keith. The Mac community will gladly welcome any FPS dedicated to their (our) platform. That's what Bungie's achieved with Marathon.I really, really, really should write that article I've been thinking of for many days now: understanding the Macintosh game market.
STef
#27
10/02/2006 (5:58 am)
I thought that both Macs and Linux can run Windows applications now?
#28
You should have recieved notice of this with the memo about TPS report cover letters. You DID get that memo didn't you? Here. I'm sending you the Memo. I'll ask a few others around here to send it to you, just to make sure you get it. By the way. Yeah. I'm gonna need you to come in this saturday and sunday for some extra...
10/02/2006 (6:06 am)
@Tom SpilmanQuote:Did someone call "opposite day" and fail to inform me? ;)
You should have recieved notice of this with the memo about TPS report cover letters. You DID get that memo didn't you? Here. I'm sending you the Memo. I'll ask a few others around here to send it to you, just to make sure you get it. By the way. Yeah. I'm gonna need you to come in this saturday and sunday for some extra...
#29
There are some things I'd love to see happen with TSE. It'd be nice if GG would add a basic version of TGB to it for an improved UI layer. A more advanced physics solution would be handy, and the ability for voice chats would be really nice as more and more people get DSL or better. An automatic shader script writer would be great (ie, if it detects a new material a window pops up with all the options and saves accordingly).
I'm sure there's more ...
The trouble is that the more they do to it, the more narrow the field of games becomes. Great physics might be overkill and weighty for some games, and not all games are multi-player and need voice chat. I seem to recall people complaining that TGE (then just called "Torque") was too FPS oriented. Multiple branches are probably too much trouble to maintain.
Lawmaker looks good (at least via screenshots), though unproven, but competition is a good thing.
10/02/2006 (6:06 am)
While it's unfortunate they don't have a public demo (of the engine or the game they made, also called Lawmaker, it does look interesting. There are some things I'd love to see happen with TSE. It'd be nice if GG would add a basic version of TGB to it for an improved UI layer. A more advanced physics solution would be handy, and the ability for voice chats would be really nice as more and more people get DSL or better. An automatic shader script writer would be great (ie, if it detects a new material a window pops up with all the options and saves accordingly).
I'm sure there's more ...
The trouble is that the more they do to it, the more narrow the field of games becomes. Great physics might be overkill and weighty for some games, and not all games are multi-player and need voice chat. I seem to recall people complaining that TGE (then just called "Torque") was too FPS oriented. Multiple branches are probably too much trouble to maintain.
Lawmaker looks good (at least via screenshots), though unproven, but competition is a good thing.
#30
"For the latest release, there is no C++ SDK. At DarkRoom, there have been discussions of providing an C++ SDK sometime later this year."
Now I know these guys are very attentive to what the communities wants and needs. And im sure sooner or later they will put out the source code.
10/02/2006 (6:26 am)
Here is a quote made in Aug from one of the darkroom guys."For the latest release, there is no C++ SDK. At DarkRoom, there have been discussions of providing an C++ SDK sometime later this year."
Now I know these guys are very attentive to what the communities wants and needs. And im sure sooner or later they will put out the source code.
#31
10/02/2006 (8:01 am)
I have to agree with Anton; I would pay another 150 to 200 for some tools and physics engine.
#32
10/02/2006 (9:18 am)
I would be nice to have some a physics engine for a FPS, but for now I'm working on my own. I want my bullets to have gravity. I'm really content with reality in a FPS,what goes up must come down.
#33
Exactly
10/02/2006 (9:31 am)
@MorrieQuote:I have to agree with Anton; I would pay another 150 to 200 for some tools and physics engine.
Exactly
#34
Only supports pixel shader 1.1 - 1.4? That's really bad. Think of how much you're limiting yourself by not supporting pixel shader 2.0. LawMaker looks nice, no doubt about that but that's mainly because it has a large scale game to show for itself. TSE doesn't yet.
Edit: After emailing them about this concern I've learned that there isn't a limit on shader models.
10/02/2006 (9:38 am)
From their technology list:Quote: Shader system that supports both the fixed-function rendering system in DirectX and new shader based system (support vs1.1 - 3.0, ps.1.1 - ps.1.4 and HLSL).
Only supports pixel shader 1.1 - 1.4? That's really bad. Think of how much you're limiting yourself by not supporting pixel shader 2.0. LawMaker looks nice, no doubt about that but that's mainly because it has a large scale game to show for itself. TSE doesn't yet.
Edit: After emailing them about this concern I've learned that there isn't a limit on shader models.
#36
10/02/2006 (10:13 am)
I think another big problem is that we're not seeing as advanced things from TSE users. 
#37
To me it's like spending nearly 400$ for the 'priviledge' of MODing the engine...?!?
They list Ms3d and others as content builders...I asked for a Milkshape exporter to check the Pipeline...ah, you have to pay the entry level to get any tools to really 'evaluate' the engine or it's Pipeline. It's very much like UnEd...I never liked that system. Recompiling to add art content, b'ah.
I sent a few emails asking a LOT of questions...was told I ask GOOD questions...the answers were not good enough for me....at that pricing point. Seemed to have a lot of Classes and Entities...the 'door' I operated was very weak. Things have probably 'advanced' since I looked into this product.
10/02/2006 (10:44 am)
I evaluated this engine, could not evalute the art asset Pipeline.... It's my opinion they're asking too much money[Weekend Warrior 'Package'] for basically a game engine[with some rough edges...] that you can't modify/or produce for profit.To me it's like spending nearly 400$ for the 'priviledge' of MODing the engine...?!?
They list Ms3d and others as content builders...I asked for a Milkshape exporter to check the Pipeline...ah, you have to pay the entry level to get any tools to really 'evaluate' the engine or it's Pipeline. It's very much like UnEd...I never liked that system. Recompiling to add art content, b'ah.
I sent a few emails asking a LOT of questions...was told I ask GOOD questions...the answers were not good enough for me....at that pricing point. Seemed to have a lot of Classes and Entities...the 'door' I operated was very weak. Things have probably 'advanced' since I looked into this product.
#38
Still, I do want to try their demo out.
10/02/2006 (10:49 am)
It has nice screenshots. However, remember that's all their content. The problem with tech demos is that they're made by extremely skilled people who created the product. User-made demos are much more interesting to look at.Still, I do want to try their demo out.
#39
You sound like a real open minded guy.
10/02/2006 (10:55 am)
@MattQuote:Still, I do want to try their demo out.
You sound like a real open minded guy.
#40
10/02/2006 (11:01 am)
I did the same with C4. Again, very interesting. I especially liked their post processing effects but ended up integrating that into TSE. 
Torque Owner Alienforce
DLN
There is actually no really need for it. If you have any suggestion/need for a specific function you just have to
talk to the developer team.. And if your ideas are "realistic" the function will be in the next build.
The guys behind the LawMaker are very concerned about helping their licenses to complete their projects.
You dont just buy license and thats it. You get 100% help, backup from the developers.