"I've started my project many years ago, and long behold"

That's the point
Like every people you'll grow up I hope at least !!

Work, real life, girls ... what you want will take you up from "virtual" if it's not part of your job , or if your'ne not in a team or make solid things.

you'll have less and less time to put in game making even if it's remain a passion. All you want it's the tools for today Next Gen things and some new coming out.
Tools as easy as Cryteck Sandbox or others : do all easily, import directly models, just code AI,behaviour.

Like some people can't wait five more years for Conitec to bring up the engine,
even if already here, always here ... there are rivals and serious ones like
Torque (in some ways), Unity, TV3D ,ogre3D ...already Next Gen ready.

I used 3DGS from 4 years (or 5??), things change quickly in life within 5 years, (i hope for you all at least), the more it goes, the less you waste
time waiting stupidly (i hope , life exists to live it the more you can in bad and good)

a link :
page comment

were you can read that :
Well if you are like alot of us(well those old enough) you have a job, and that job takes 70% of you r time, then if you like even fewer of us, that writes programs all day long for a living, then the last thing you want to do is write a engine, I am so sick of people messaging me and saying, hey I am writing my own mmorpg engine, wanna help? Heck no! Why would I waste my time? So by the time i finish it, the graphics will be out of date? Or someone else will come along and make one exactly like it faster? Making a good game does not require you having to write the engine also, but it does require some coding. I think makers are the greatest. makes it easy for those of us that program so much we get sick of it. I write at least 2000 lines a code a day at work. The last thing I wanna do is deal with a dang engine for a game. Just my opinion though. I give props to anyone writing their own engine. *poke *poke

Yes enought waiting , if some engine in indie domain is ready ,right price for lonewolves to use it, entirely artist workflow , some of us will pick it up and let down 3DGS , even if it prooven , always present
(but not Next Gen ready , or show me a demo with the next gen tools .

I doubt FBX to be the revolution that will solve 3DGS problems and
make it totally shaders/lights/shadows/tools/interfaces integrated and today
generation instead of having lot of old things in it.

People that can wait some years can wait for A8, me no
3DGS would need to be entirely rewritten, team is too small sadly, updates are steel far from fast like promised.
Shader editor for more than one year announced ..., light and shaders integrated ?? , real terrain editor like competitors engines (not some bad MED
interface mesh) ... etc .. etc ..

Can't wait stupidly any more , just use A6.60 for simple good 3D , not shader , not next gen , just simple 3D and it does the job, not incredibly but do it.

Quote:

---

Yes enought waiting , if some engine in indie domain is ready ,right price for lonewolves to use it, entirely artist workflow , some of us will pick it up and let down 3DGS

---

I agree with that... IF all I wanted out of 3DGS was to make art! But here's my problems with all your comments TheExpert: you aren't a game maker! By your own admission you are exclusively an artist and I've never seen anything to the contrary from you. So all your opinions AGAINST 3DGS (which comprise 90% of your forum participation BTW) should be seen as coming from somebody that is purely interested in the Art Pipeline/Workflow and not in making games.

I'm not saying that the art workflow is not important nor am I argueing that 3DGS is even close to the best, but when you say that 3DGS is not ready or that you are sick of waiting, it seems to me that you have no perspective on the countless other factors that must be weighed in making a game. There are many other workflows including the scripting, the level design, and in a loose sense, the moneyflow, that all have to be weighed when judging an engine's usefulness for your project. So it makes sense that you would pick the flashiest, newest engine that is out there because your timelines are short, on the order of how long it takes to make a model. But making a game requires a lot more than flash and catchy buzzwords like "next gen"... it's requires stability in both engine and company, a fact that you seem to overlook or outright dismiss!

So to everyone that reads your comments about 3DGS's workflow as compared to other engines: take them with a grain of salt. They come from someone that AFAIK isn't interested in making games, but rather is content to merely test all the game engines out there not to make games, but to make models... and dog 3DGS along the way!

I wish i would have realtime engine preview in the WED. With shaders. Oh, wait, this is evil next gen Workflow

Quote:

---

I used 3DGS from 4 years (or 5??), things change quickly in life within 5 years, (i hope for you all at least), the more it goes, the less you waste
time waiting stupidly (i hope , life exists to live it the more you can in bad and good)

---

I wouldn't consider game development a waste of time if it's something you enjoy, even if you can only work on it weekends or less. The basic truth is, anything you start can be finished given the right amount of time and work. If you have no time, then do something really small.

Luckily, I'm afforded the luxury of being able to work full time on my project. And I will see it through. This is what I meant by a proven engine, if your in for the long haul, you will need one. You will also need the engine staff to be committed to finding bugs and communicative. 3dgs fulfills this. I don't really think a thread like this is constructive anyways, judging by the beta's and forecast, I think JCL has a pretty good idea of what 3dgs needs.

Alright, after reading at great length;this topic, I have to share some of my views, albiet from a different POV.

Q: Why do people use Blender?
A: Becuase its one Integrated Development Env.

Q: Why Do people use 3dgs?
A: (In my opinion) its because even though its not one complete IDE, for the results that can be achieved,it uses a much more straight forward approach than other systems/languages; ie: Scripting.

I must admit dissapointment after downloading the new demo of Lite-C, because my expectaions for it where infact much higher, or maybe just misguided. I expected that by now we would have everything so common to game development needs in this day and age, such as fully integrated terrain creation/manipulation tools, next-gen built in shader library and editor(not just a set of fx scripts), etc, etc ad infinum.

The point I'm trying to make (and its a good one) is that in the past (at least 4-5 years), I've watched this entire community hunt for 3rd party or user-made development tools just trying to piece together what they need to produce what is already standard in terms of today's games.

So Whats the point? where is the solution?
I know the real answer is in scrapping both MED & WED, and moving all such
development to the engine itself(realtime/runtime env.), and creating everything there. Dont agree?, I know better. I mean honestly, why does everyone need to go hunt for John_Doe's TerrainMaker, just so they can export a relief map that inturn has to be imported, textured, perhaps otherwise modified, etc.(thats alot of work) only to then end up with guess what, a PIECE OF GROUND. If conitec would just realize this and follow the roadmap, we could have every single possible need met in a very short amount of time(like inside of 6 months). They already give us a level compiler, so why not make level editing in realtime (blocks), and as far as static shadow-mapping, just create a light representing entity like a light-bulb, move it to where you want, set its properties through an iterface(light range,color) then click a button, and the shadowmaps are updated and the level refreshed. The same goes for models, if they can make a MED, they can build it into the runtime engine. And the solution to overloading the engine with editor interfaces, is have the designer's engine as one application, and the actual game engine a second application, bare-bones that can read/load all the designed data.

I have my self, using nothing but C-script created many tools that try to bring some sort of realtime editing to gamestudio, for instance scrapping the bones system for a real-time hierarchy entity system, including its own keyframer, realtime cutscene tools(that uses the same keyframer), etc.

Gamestudio will never reach its full potential until both its users and creators address the need to meet all the shortcomings with a simple,effective, all-in-one solution.
----------------------------------------------------
PS: I didnt want to ramble into a HUGE post, but I have come up with a true solution, and will be presenting much data about my theories on my new website in the weeks to come,so stay tuned.

If you could choose between gamestudio in its current form, and the one that I have eluded to, which would it be? single choice
	gamestudio thier way
	gamestudio our way
Votes accepted starting: 10/19/07 08:07 You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

@fastlane69 :
but when you say that 3DGS is not ready or that you are sick of waiting


I don't want to use files.fx for shaders not compatibles , or other or code just ot try to apply a normal map and use some dynamic lights in the level,
lightmaps and soft shadows, projection maps.

"All that shoudl be done in some clicks "

That's all

And yes i'm an engine collector, my game i would like to do a shoot em up
with 3D models: normal map shaders and specular on them ,
dynamic lights , refraction effects, water shader all that by clicks and choosing shaders on a panel list

Just to make the shoot game looking today and great
With 3DGS not possible Next Gen easily or it's a head break t ofind the good
action files, resolve dynamic lights, water ???
Unity supported formats and automatic conversions

physics and easy ragdoll

terrain features

All that features integrated into the editor and that's only ones, when
3DGS to do same thing ?

I think you are too young to understand what i'm saying about waisting time
In my case i prefer to do nothing if im' not sure to go fast , easy with all tools !
Don't want to loose time trying resolve things you can't do or that can't be done !

Well enought talk for my part.
I hope it can be somewhat constructive and push up the great 3D engine that
is 3DGS indeed

Quote:

---

I think you are too young to understand what i'm saying about waisting time

---

LOL No, I'm pretty sure THAT'S not the problem. No, I'm old enough to now that if I sit around waiting for the world to make my life easy...

Quote:

---

Inmy case i prefer to do nothing if im' not sure to go fast , easy with all tools !

---

...then I'll be waiting forever! If you are looking for a single engine that will have the perfect workflow so that you can acheive the mythical "make game" button, then you're wait will be a long one. Bottom line is that you don't want to make a game for if you did, you would not be LOOKING for the FASTEST solution, you would be USING the BEST solution for your project.

I do understand what you are saying: nobody wants to waste time clicking 5 times when they can click once. And if your passion isn't making games, then yeah, you can wait till the end of the world waiting for the "make game" button to appear on some game engine. Honestly I get you.

But here is what I hope I can make you understand: if you TRULY want to make a game (and not collect engines forever), then there will be times in every engine when you'll have to click 5 times instead of once. With 3DGS, it may be in the Art Pipeline... with Torque it may be in the C++ pipeline... in Crytek, it will be with the Bank Pipeline.

It's all a balancing game, my friend. Some engines will have better workflow than 3DGS but at higher cost. Other engines will have worse workflow than 3DGS but perhaps limited in the types of games you can do. Remember, 3DGS to game engines is what GURPS is to role-playing games: a blank slate upon which you can build anything. Just like GURPS, you'll have to put more work into it than say using D&D or Shadowrun, but then again you aren't restricted.

There is no sense in asking a Honda Civic to perform like a Lamborghini Diablo if the Civic can get you to the same destination... just slower and cheaper!

Quote:

---

As long as it's able to handle ALL kinds of games no matter how crazy, then it would be fine with me.

---

This is why MED and WED have to remain: because not only should it be able to handle all types of games, but also all types of game making abilities.

I'm not an artist so when I started making games, I used MED to make simple balls and houses and the like. They weren't good and it was a pain in the ass, but I did it, I learned, and I advanced; It was enough to give my vision shape, to show it to collegues and friends, and kept me going. If I had to use some other program where I had to figure out how to export and how to import and all that, it would have been 10 times worse than it was.

That is why MED and WED should remain in the system, as a way for people that aren't artists or level designers to have tools that are guaranteed to work and integrate into the engine. Take them away and you are SEVERELY hindering the workflow of newbies (and oldies who are used to the system). Besides, by the time you realize MED is outdated, your skills have likely progressed to the point where you can use Blender and so it all works out!!!

I recognize you perfectly right fastlane69

For my part, if i'll never make a game, why not , perhaps better than begin and never finish ??

Don't want to may more for 3DGS , A7 that is not as complete NExt Gen as Unity Engine
Unity to have all features need to pay very big and Editors for PC version not here at the moment , buyt it's the engine i like ,
and very easy language and engine code to use, lot of formats supported :
like Blender with animations directly,
more than 40 shaders, water,glow ,refraction,normal maps ,full screen effects ...

But you have said the right points fastlane69 even in the end when comparing with cars
But perhaps you forgot some points :

-The Ferrari will attract all people eyes and the old civic , not a lot will look at.
(i mean next gen graphics)

And tunning your old Civic , even more fast etc ... won't reach how
comfortably/easy/fast you can go with Ferrari
( i mean editor/workflow/engine).

The joy is not the same using a ready engine ,and another lacking today things/workflow.
(when lightmaps mixed with shaders ,lights , and shadows automatically?)

Well i stop , like you said, i should do some models instead of typing it should be less time wasting