"I wonder if Conitec would be willing to buy/pay for 3rd party tools / plugins to fully integrate it into the 3D Gamestudio suite"

How many times have I said exactly the same thing ?

"Please let us make steps forwards and not backwards... we are talking about the workflow of the engine and not about complaints of edgy people which tend to freak out a little bit too often - seriously."
Thats what we're talking about , that the A7 workflow is the same as the A6 one , exactly the same. No need to explain it here , as there's been countless discussions on next gen shaders and the like for A6.

I quote from Beyond Virtual web page
quote

True WYSIWYG World Editing & Object placement
One-button game launching / testing; One-button Game export!
No level compiles, instant game previewing
Auto-reloading of modified Content (3d geometry, 2d textures)
Interactive Camera Path Editor complete with VCR-style controls, path smoothing (adjust bias for keyframe transitions), time controls, independent camera targeting control, and much more


In-game debugging tools for Collision Meshes, Occlusion, Pathfinding, Object Interaction Zones (triggers, mission scripting, character/object interaction)
Object Previewer
Preview models, animations & textures how they will appear in-game
Edit materials
Apply normal / specular maps
Preview objects with per-pixel realtime shadows

unquote

I remain of the opinion that this is the correct approach
A game engine should provide just an "INTERFACE" with 3dthird party tools as well as to take care of " on the fly" graphic issues such as dynamic lighting and shadowing
You can not expect to have built_in advanced graphic features ,not at least for 200 usd
A game engine top priority must be the engine, sorry for the tautology

Anyway I agree that I did not see so many porogress from A6 to A7 as far as workflow is concerned

Absolutely. I can fully agree with that. The most important part of a game engine is the ... you might expect it ... the game engine, the render kernel, scene management, lights and shadows, handling of models, animations, im- and export, sound handling, particles, execution of scripts.

So there is really no problem if MED is not as good as blender, Lightwave, XSI or Silo. We can live with that and just get another tool. More important is the render kernel.

But I wonder why I see in every new beta release only improvements of Lite-C. Did you see that Lite-C gets classes in the future? Let us think about it: Lite-C uses pointers, structs, C-syntax and soon it supports classes. Do I smell C++ here? Why should one research and develop several years to make a C++ clone? Why not improving the renderer in this time and just provide a C++, C# and Java SDK plus a LUA scripting port?

Gamestudio becomes a multimedia-programming-language.

As a programmer familiar with Delphi, C#, Java and many script languages I learned C++ this year to better understand engines like Irrlicht, Ogre and C4. And I realized that Lite-C just becomes something like that. At the end I am able to use all the other engines but with faster rendering, second uv-set, static and dynamic shadows and modern shaders.

I think this is dangerous for Gamestudio. It starts to compete with those free and cheap engines. You need the same amount of programming knowledge. Scripting is not easy anymore. But the renderer is not really better. The advantage of gamestudio to deliver all tools and provide a very easy scripting port vanishes and thus it should at least outperform the competition in rendering capabilities.

As a resume we see that workflow did not become better it could even become more complicated for scripting newbies. MED became more difficult in terms of texturing and uv-mapping, the compiling options for WED became more difficult and Lite-C offers way more traps for newbies in terms of memory leaks, wrong pointer usage, lowercase vs. uppercase and much more.

All this can be accepted if you get more performance and more options at the end. Ask yourself if that is the case.

I have nothing to add to what you said
I was just answering to some professional complainers in this forum
Usesless to say that costructive critics are positive

Blatt salat said that Conitec shoud be forced to finish at least a small game from the scratch

You agreed
I agree

However also end users should be forced to do it before writing a review about the last game engine in town

How many times we have read something like

" Fantastic...it can make this...and...this...why that bloody 3dgs .."
and some monthes later
" Forget it , it so buggy that you can not even finish a small game "

I dont want to start another jaded debate, Im only posting to help 'workflow issues' become solved in areas that, whether or not every individual is familiar with or accustomed to, are infact relevant issues that need addressing and have for years. I keep going back to the cutscene thing only because it, like all other workflow increasing tools, to be really good and useful it requires:
#1: fully encompassing range of options definable, and
#2: an easy in-out method of usage.

Its true that no one can forsee every type of project another user might be trying to create, but its also true that with only so many properties exsisting for each type of element (camera, entities, panel, particles), what CAN be forseen are all the properties the user can possibly manipulate, therefore a univeral interface can be created. Therefore, certain tools address certain issues, like the seeding thing, for worlds that the engine cannot render all at once, it is a real solution.
Therefore, I think our best option for actually 'moving forward and not backward' is:
create a list of game design aspects that need camp-able solutions, then work from this list to develop a set of master tools. If people could just see what they have in common instead of what they don't, I think this forum and its user could become much more coherent and productive.
[ie: Why worry about every other game engine out there when A5/A6/A7 people use it because what they want to create can be achieved, with some effort.]

PS: I havent released CS-Tools yet because Im waiting to see where this thread is going, while putting the finishing touches on it.

The term "next gen workflow" is a little bit confusing. The better term is "user friendly".

What do we really need? A All-In-One-Package !!!

- Start WED
- the A7-Renderer is now active
- select the 3D-Brush and paint/texture your terrain
- place your models or...
- paint your models like grass, plants and trees
- you should now see shaders in action
- place static and dynamic lights and see the results in Realtime (with Shadows)
- if you want: create your own cutscenes with an integrated editor
- same with Particles (no external application)

These points have nothing to do with "Next gen". Only with "user friendly".
GameEdit is good but far away from a All-In-One-Package.

The current price of the Pro-Edition is a joke. Nothing more.
You don't believe me? See Unity Engine 2

I agree totally with you Wicht

If they come with the Windows version in 2008 i'll be in line for purchase Only downside is something about that license and porting to other platforms.