Posted By: andrea77
3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 10/22/08 11:35
Hi,
what are the differences between 3D GameStudio and C4?
what are the differences between 3D GameStudio and C4?
3D GameStudio vs. C4
Posted By: Machinery_Frank
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 10/22/08 12:55
This post is in the wrong forum section. This section is for A7 engine only. But I guess a moderator will move it later to tools where competitive products are allowed to be mentioned.
There are a lot of differences between both. I try to write some of them down:
Source Code: You don't get source code for A7 but you get C4 source code.
Indoor: A7 comes with an ABT scene management. This is good for outdoor but does not help much with indoor sceneries. The pro edition supports BSP for indoor. But I did not see an A7 project using it in bigger worlds so far.
C4 has portals for efficient indoor scene management to render only visible geometry and lights on screen. So it can handle big indoor worlds better. You can use many more shaders, lights and shadows this way.
Outdoor: A7 has height map terrain. You need shader materials for multi-texturing. A real-time terrain editor is missing.
C4 will get a real-time terrain editor with endless voxel based terrain in next release. So it will allow you even to create steep hills and caves. And it uses background streaming from disc, gpu memory and RAM. But this is not finished yet.
Materials / Shaders:
A7 is open to add your own shaders and materials but does not have a real-time feedback material editor.
C4 comes with a nice material editor and allows to see all changes in real-time for things like normal, parallax, environment mapping and much more.
Coding:
Gamestudio uses a C-like scripting language and you can program via SDK in C++ or Delphi.
C4 needs good skills in C++ and provides a graphical node-based scripting editor very similar to Kismet (the scripting editor from Unreal Engine). Some users even created Poker games with this scripting editor.
Import:
A7 reads a lot of formats like 3ds, obj, fbx, tga, pcx, bmp. Only fbx can read animations. It has some minor issues here and there with different import formats.
C4 reads only DAE (collada, with animations) for meshes and TGA for images.
Shadows and Lights:
A7 uses stencil shadows for dynamic lights and static baked shadows for level geometry made in WED. C4 knows much more lights (point, spot, parallel, directional lights) and shadows (dynamic and static) and it gets new real-time shadow mapping with next update.
Optimization / Render Speed:
A7 renders small worlds fast enough. As far as I experienced the speed with lots of entities in big worlds need some better scene management. Shadows are not optimized.
C4 uses good scene management if you place enough portals. It can use some optimizations like static flag for stencils (it renders the stencil buffer only if necessary and not every frame) and much more. Shadows are tested if they are visible or if they reach into a portal.
In C4 you can constrain the distribution of fog, light, sound or shadows with cubes to certain areas. This helps to render only what you have to render in a certain area and block lights or sounds to get into neighbor areas.
Support:
C4 support is the best support of all indie engines. You get replies very fast and even the developer helps frequently.
Prices are both affordable.
License:
You need to spend money for a new license for every new major upgrade of Gamestudio.
C4 licenses are for a life-time. You get all updates / upgrades for free.
Summary:
At the end C4 is more professional and offers more options but it also is more comprehensive / sophisticated and needs more learning and good programming skills. A7 can be the better tool for a total beginner with the option to switch later to another engine. But A7 can also create nice (but smaller) games even in a commercial way. Especially for smaller casual game projects you could choose it.
There are a lot of differences between both. I try to write some of them down:
Source Code: You don't get source code for A7 but you get C4 source code.
Indoor: A7 comes with an ABT scene management. This is good for outdoor but does not help much with indoor sceneries. The pro edition supports BSP for indoor. But I did not see an A7 project using it in bigger worlds so far.
C4 has portals for efficient indoor scene management to render only visible geometry and lights on screen. So it can handle big indoor worlds better. You can use many more shaders, lights and shadows this way.
Outdoor: A7 has height map terrain. You need shader materials for multi-texturing. A real-time terrain editor is missing.
C4 will get a real-time terrain editor with endless voxel based terrain in next release. So it will allow you even to create steep hills and caves. And it uses background streaming from disc, gpu memory and RAM. But this is not finished yet.
Materials / Shaders:
A7 is open to add your own shaders and materials but does not have a real-time feedback material editor.
C4 comes with a nice material editor and allows to see all changes in real-time for things like normal, parallax, environment mapping and much more.
Coding:
Gamestudio uses a C-like scripting language and you can program via SDK in C++ or Delphi.
C4 needs good skills in C++ and provides a graphical node-based scripting editor very similar to Kismet (the scripting editor from Unreal Engine). Some users even created Poker games with this scripting editor.
Import:
A7 reads a lot of formats like 3ds, obj, fbx, tga, pcx, bmp. Only fbx can read animations. It has some minor issues here and there with different import formats.
C4 reads only DAE (collada, with animations) for meshes and TGA for images.
Shadows and Lights:
A7 uses stencil shadows for dynamic lights and static baked shadows for level geometry made in WED. C4 knows much more lights (point, spot, parallel, directional lights) and shadows (dynamic and static) and it gets new real-time shadow mapping with next update.
Optimization / Render Speed:
A7 renders small worlds fast enough. As far as I experienced the speed with lots of entities in big worlds need some better scene management. Shadows are not optimized.
C4 uses good scene management if you place enough portals. It can use some optimizations like static flag for stencils (it renders the stencil buffer only if necessary and not every frame) and much more. Shadows are tested if they are visible or if they reach into a portal.
In C4 you can constrain the distribution of fog, light, sound or shadows with cubes to certain areas. This helps to render only what you have to render in a certain area and block lights or sounds to get into neighbor areas.
Support:
C4 support is the best support of all indie engines. You get replies very fast and even the developer helps frequently.
Prices are both affordable.
License:
You need to spend money for a new license for every new major upgrade of Gamestudio.
C4 licenses are for a life-time. You get all updates / upgrades for free.
Summary:
At the end C4 is more professional and offers more options but it also is more comprehensive / sophisticated and needs more learning and good programming skills. A7 can be the better tool for a total beginner with the option to switch later to another engine. But A7 can also create nice (but smaller) games even in a commercial way. Especially for smaller casual game projects you could choose it.
Posted By: andrea77
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 10/22/08 13:55
Thank you a lot for your suggestions.
Since I have to develop a demo (a robot moving in a cavity) and I have less than 3 months to complete the work, which one do you think is more appropriate: C4 or GameStudio?
Sorry if I chose the wrong plce topost my question.
Since I have to develop a demo (a robot moving in a cavity) and I have less than 3 months to complete the work, which one do you think is more appropriate: C4 or GameStudio?
Sorry if I chose the wrong plce topost my question.
Posted By: Sajeth
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 10/22/08 13:59
GameStudio.
Posted By: Machinery_Frank
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 10/22/08 14:00
This sounds like a very small world. Gamestudio is sufficient for this project at my mind. And you can finish the coding fast enough because of the huge amount of documentation and examples available.
Though I don't know what graphical goal you want to reach. Maybe you need some help of a good shader programmer.
Though I don't know what graphical goal you want to reach. Maybe you need some help of a good shader programmer.
Posted By: andrea77
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 10/22/08 14:21
I woul dlike to create a 3D model inMay and then import it in 3D GameStudio.
I am anewbie at game developing.
I would like to inser the robor in a textured-cavity which should be the landscape.
Is it possible to create suac a textured cavity with 3D GameStudio?
I am anewbie at game developing.
I would like to inser the robor in a textured-cavity which should be the landscape.
Is it possible to create suac a textured cavity with 3D GameStudio?
Posted By: Lane
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 11/08/08 16:27
where are the C4?
Posted By: wh1t3_w1d0w
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 11/08/08 21:21
What does C4 stand for. I want to try it out, because 3d gamestudio is getting on my nerves and I just purchased the pro version.
-Thanks Alot
-Thanks Alot
Posted By: Sajeth
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 11/08/08 23:20
Originally Posted By: wh1t3_w1d0w
What does C4 stand for. I want to try it out, because 3d gamestudio is getting on my nerves and I just purchased the pro version.
-Thanks Alot
-Thanks Alot
Sure...
Posted By: wh1t3_w1d0w
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 11/09/08 01:44
Seriously soon im going to call management. But that post was spam, dont do it again?
-Do not post spam!!!!!!
-Does anyone know what C4 stands for?
-Do not post spam!!!!!!
-Does anyone know what C4 stands for?
Posted By: Frederick_Lim
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 11/09/08 04:56
C4 stand for C4 Engine, try search in google.
One thing I like is how it deal with shader, from their form, the engine author said
You should be concerned when an engine says that it does support text-based shaders, because such a feature will limit you to a single platform, and it will not provide a clean separation between lighting/fog properties and material properties. Think about it -- suppose you make a custom material shader for some kind of object in a text-based shading language like Cg or HLSL. Now, what types of light source do you want it to work with? Point lights, spot lights, infinite lights, lights with projected texture maps, lights with shadow maps? You'll need a separate version of your shader for each one of those. And what about fog? If you want your custom material to work in different fog environments, you'll need to write additional versions of your shader to handle that, multiplied by the number of light sources. With the current number of light types and fog types supported by the engine, you'd be writing 24 variants of your custom shader just to ensure that your material works correctly in all possible environments. Do you see the problem here? And then what happens if a new light type is added to a future version of the engine (and they will be)? All of a sudden, there are cases in which your custom shader doesn't work at all. Better go back and write a few more variants for every shader that you've already written.
.
.
.
The nice thing is that the engine still generates the final shader code on the fly and adds the appropriate lighting and fog code automatically. Because you don't use text-based code, shaders created with the shader graph editor are still future-proof -- they'll continue to work when new light types are added to the engine, or even if the underlying shading language is completely replaced. Furthermore, shaders created this way will work on the PC, Mac, and Playstation 3 without you having to lift a finger to port from one platform to another.
C4 comes with a meterial editor now, and a new "visual shader graph editor" will release this year. So you edit shader using graphical editor instead of write your own.
One thing I like is how it deal with shader, from their form, the engine author said
Quote:
You should be concerned when an engine says that it does support text-based shaders, because such a feature will limit you to a single platform, and it will not provide a clean separation between lighting/fog properties and material properties. Think about it -- suppose you make a custom material shader for some kind of object in a text-based shading language like Cg or HLSL. Now, what types of light source do you want it to work with? Point lights, spot lights, infinite lights, lights with projected texture maps, lights with shadow maps? You'll need a separate version of your shader for each one of those. And what about fog? If you want your custom material to work in different fog environments, you'll need to write additional versions of your shader to handle that, multiplied by the number of light sources. With the current number of light types and fog types supported by the engine, you'd be writing 24 variants of your custom shader just to ensure that your material works correctly in all possible environments. Do you see the problem here? And then what happens if a new light type is added to a future version of the engine (and they will be)? All of a sudden, there are cases in which your custom shader doesn't work at all. Better go back and write a few more variants for every shader that you've already written.
.
.
.
The nice thing is that the engine still generates the final shader code on the fly and adds the appropriate lighting and fog code automatically. Because you don't use text-based code, shaders created with the shader graph editor are still future-proof -- they'll continue to work when new light types are added to the engine, or even if the underlying shading language is completely replaced. Furthermore, shaders created this way will work on the PC, Mac, and Playstation 3 without you having to lift a finger to port from one platform to another.
C4 comes with a meterial editor now, and a new "visual shader graph editor" will release this year. So you edit shader using graphical editor instead of write your own.
Posted By: Sajeth
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 11/09/08 08:59
Posted By: tkunze
Re: 3D GameStudio vs. C4 - 11/09/08 19:50
There is not much to add to franks review however some comments which are based on my experience with C4.
At the moment i see terrain as a weekness of the C4 engine and the mentioned voxel based terrain is something which will come in the future but it is not implemented yet.
I never became a friend of the C4 node tree where you need to minimize the items to select them but with this scale factor you're not able to read the text anymore.
So sometimes you have to be very skilled with your mouse to pick the right item ;-).
Picture: Node Tree in C4 to select a terrain
You need good programming skills (C++) to survive with the C4 engine and you have to work very clean (which is good for a professional project and a problem for fast prototyping).
In regards to support it reaches the state where i think it is acceptable especially with the Beginners Guide for C4 but the API Documentation is still a pure listing and lacks helpfull samples i got used to in the 3dgs documentation.
Personally C4 did not convinced me to move away from 3dgs because my project is an outdoor project and i am more the person who wants to see fast results.
However this might change if the voxel based terrain is available.
At the moment i see terrain as a weekness of the C4 engine and the mentioned voxel based terrain is something which will come in the future but it is not implemented yet.
I never became a friend of the C4 node tree where you need to minimize the items to select them but with this scale factor you're not able to read the text anymore.
So sometimes you have to be very skilled with your mouse to pick the right item ;-).
Picture: Node Tree in C4 to select a terrain
You need good programming skills (C++) to survive with the C4 engine and you have to work very clean (which is good for a professional project and a problem for fast prototyping).
In regards to support it reaches the state where i think it is acceptable especially with the Beginners Guide for C4 but the API Documentation is still a pure listing and lacks helpfull samples i got used to in the 3dgs documentation.
Personally C4 did not convinced me to move away from 3dgs because my project is an outdoor project and i am more the person who wants to see fast results.
However this might change if the voxel based terrain is available.