|
|
Re: A7 vs A6
[Re: Why_Do_I_Die]
#145495
09/04/07 06:49
09/04/07 06:49
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Matt achieved more with Sphere and in less time , Sphere plugin would be a better upgrade as an engine than A7
Thanks for the compliment, but I think you are missing the point. Sphere isnt a complete game engine, just a rendering add-on. An engine is much more than a renderer.
Also, why are you so vehement? it sound like you are taking this all personally..
|
|
|
Re: A7 vs A6
[Re: Why_Do_I_Die]
#145497
09/04/07 07:31
09/04/07 07:31
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
JibbSmart
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
|
Quote:
Jutst like Unreal Engine 3 is not an upgraded Unreal Engine 2 , look at the big giant massive difference in the engines.
i hope you're not talking about graphics, because then you'd have to be stupid. that's shaders mate, and all the underlying non-graphical differences are things that most of us can't compare because many of us have never used either engine.
Quote:
8 light limit is gone , but , we get the same discusting , blocky , and downright hideous dynamic lights we already had , why would anyone need more shitty looking lights , I'd rather have 8 good looking ones.
that's directX for you mate. you want better? use a shader. people have contributed dozens.
that not good enough for you? the interactive shader editor is in alpha at the moment.
you want an AI solution? AUM covers many basics, or you can buy intense X. and the fact that you need to do that is by no means wrong, because a7 is a generalised game engine, while AI solutions are usually quite specific to certain types of games.
Quote:
And then the C-Style Lite-C , well we all know what I think of this , if I wanted to program in C-Style I would program in C++ and go look for a better engine to program in. I dont see how anyone could defend this , it was made in 2007
you've been using mostly C-style syntax for as long as you've been using C-script. seriously, take a good look at Lite-C. there's almost no difference to current C-script projects.
Quote:
You all would have to be really stupid to actually belive what you put. Yes , lite-C is one of the biggest new features , which to me , and most non programmers is useless
that first bit doesn't even make sense. lite-C is good. if it isn't much use to you, too bad. but that doesn't stop it from being good and if those who can use it are stupid, what does that make you?
Quote:
Wow , like they couldnt have just upgraded to A6 Pro if they really needed those extra pro features ?
pro's way more expensive than A7 comm. some of us can't afford it.
things like "Sphere 2, intense X , Seed_IT, Dyna_Lights, and Ice_X editor" specifically cater to certain needs which many users don't require. while some people don't use all the engine's features it already has, the fact that these plugins/editors are more than worth their prices is indicative of how well they cover thier particular specialty. no one wants to pay for specialist software they aren't going to use.
and don't say lite-C is specialist software you don't want to pay for -- it's free. the A7 upgrade cost covers the other features it has now and will have for the rest of its lifetime.
Quote:
I dont see how anyone could defend this , it was made in 2007 : \ It really looks like it was made in 1995.
that's brilliant because C++ first appeared in 1985. what exactly looks like it was made in 1995? the paragraph it's in implies you're talking about the script language, but the most popular one used today is older. if you're talking about your game's visuals, that's your own fault. if you're talking about the editors, they cover your basic needs but you're mainly paying for the engine. go download blender.
julz
Formerly known as JulzMighty. I made KarBOOM!
|
|
|
Re: A7 vs A6
[Re: Why_Do_I_Die]
#145499
09/04/07 07:49
09/04/07 07:49
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819
U.S.
Why_Do_I_Die
Warned
|
Warned
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 819
U.S.
|
JulzMighty , well mate , if you could take your head out of ur ass for one second you would see what i'm talking about. None of your answers are relevant ,
"that's directX for you mate. you want better? use a shader. people have contributed dozens." True , and i can do this with A6 ,
"you've been using mostly C-style syntax for as long as you've been using C-script. seriously, take a good look at Lite-C. there's almost no difference to current C-script projects." So i can do without Lite-C
"that first bit doesn't even make sense. lite-C is good. if it isn't much use to you, too bad. but that doesn't stop it from being good and if those who can use it are stupid, what does that make you?"
Sure , it's good , but so is C-Script
"pro's way more expensive than A7 comm. some of us can't afford it."
Still dont see how thats an actual upgrade to the engine , other than a licensing change.
"things like "Sphere 2, intense X , Seed_IT, Dyna_Lights, and Ice_X editor" specifically cater to certain needs which many users don't require."
I can assure you most people would benefit a lot more from those plugins than from Lite-C. I can assure you everyone would vote on having a gamestudio with all those plugins integrated is way way better than what A7 is now , and if you dont agree , then your a complete mongol. This things should already be implemented in gamestudio , we arer paying more for the suite with tools than just the engine , how many free engines are out there right now ? If we are going to have to make all this plugins ourselves we might was well just get a free engine , and develop all the tools for it. Thats the point , gamestudio has always been this cool easy to use engine , I just A7 was going to be way way more user friendly and upgraded , both engine and user interface. I mean , we've all complaied about all this things before , but no one seems to listen.
|
|
|
Re: A7 vs A6
[Re: Why_Do_I_Die]
#145500
09/04/07 08:15
09/04/07 08:15
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
JibbSmart
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
|
Quote:
JulzMighty , well mate , if you could take your head out of ur ass for one second you would see what i'm talking about. None of your answers are relevant
that's more than a tad hypocritical, hence my need to point you in the right direction where you've misunderstood me:
Quote:
"that's directX for you mate. you want better? use a shader. people have contributed dozens." True , and i can do this with A6
and you do this with any other engine too. some have shader libraries built in; there's one in forecast, with some of its components already released.
Quote:
"you've been using mostly C-style syntax for as long as you've been using C-script. seriously, take a good look at Lite-C. there's almost no difference to current C-script projects." So i can do without Lite-C
if you were a programmer you might understand what difference structs make, among other lite-C changes. that's not intended as an insult; i know there are many non-programmer users here. still, my point was that there's almost no difference if you're converting. if you make use of lite-C's advantages, however, you'll never be able to go back.
Quote:
"things like "Sphere 2, intense X , Seed_IT, Dyna_Lights, and Ice_X editor" specifically cater to certain needs which many users don't require."
I can assure you most people would benefit a lot more from those plugins than from Lite-C. I can assure you everyone would vote on having a gamestudio with all those plugins integrated is way way better than what A7 is now , and if you dont agree , then your a complete mongol. This things should already be implemented in gamestudio , we arer paying more for the suite with tools than just the engine , how many free engines are out there right now ? If we are going to have to make all this plugins ourselves we might was well just get a free engine , and develop all the tools for it. Thats the point , gamestudio has always been this cool easy to use engine , I just A7 was going to be way way more user friendly and upgraded , both engine and user interface. I mean , we've all complaied about all this things before , but no one seems to listen.
first: i made the point already that lite-C is free, so there's no need to compare it with these plugins.
secondly: of course heaps of people would want this integrated. i never disagreed with this. but that would probably affect the pricing. people want lots of things; if you look at the forecast page conitec's making some alternatives.
thirdly: i don't know what it takes to make an engine, but conitec's doing a great job. they can't cater for the programmers and non-programmers at the same time. they started with programmers (lite-C) and now they're working on non-programmer's (interactive shader editor, interactive level editor, soft-shadows, decal management, shader library). if you don't think A7 is worth it until they've done both, then wait. but you have contributed nothing of worth to this topic, which began in german anyway. what on earth are you even doing here?
julz
Formerly known as JulzMighty. I made KarBOOM!
|
|
|
Re: A7 vs A6
[Re: Why_Do_I_Die]
#145501
09/04/07 08:21
09/04/07 08:21
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
Quote:
...wouldnt it be nice to have A7 have a Sphere like rendering addon
already implemented , and maybe even better ,with fallbacks and better
compatibility?
Oh, yes. Absolutely! I would love it: A Sphere renderer with fallbacks, better
dynamic shadows, scene-management and directional lightmapping for additional
use of static shadows.
I also understand the discussion of lighting: per-vertex-lighting is ugly
indeed. Per pixel-lighting should be standard today.
I always wondered why Lite-C got so much priority. If I give a game demo to my
friend, to a publisher or anyone else then nobody will ask what language I use.
They will look how good shines and how good it plays.
WhyDoIDie is a bit harsh to you but in some points I have to agree with him
(and this is the first time I do so  ). He judges the engine on their tools.
But there is nothing wrong since it is called Gamestudio (STUDIO, remember).
The tools are a big point for this package.
But at the other hand you all are right, when you hope to get a better studio
after getting GameEdit, a fixed shadow compiler, shader editor. If that happens
then we really get a promising A7. At the moment I understand some people
waiting.
Most artists dont use Gamestudio because it is moving more and more to an
engine developed for programmers. Most updates are made for new Lite-C
commands, variables, flags, structures, whatever. Just look at the beta-list
and you will realize it. Changings regarding tools are very seldom.
But this is the way. I do not complain. I just want to be objective and show a
clear picture. You will have the same problems with other tools. TGEA took much
time and is still not finished (but they called it early adopter a long time,
this is more honest against the customers). Beyond Virtual takes much time for
new shaders, Unigine is still not finished and the Windows-port of Unity3d is
just in the beginning.
So this is the way and we have to accept it.
But yes, why not paying Matt to extend the renderer in a Sphere-style?
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
Re: A7 vs A6
[Re: Machinery_Frank]
#145502
09/04/07 08:35
09/04/07 08:35
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
JibbSmart
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,538
WA, Australia
|
you're right, the tools it comes with aren't great. i think MED is particularly bad, but i don't have WED-like experience with other tools to say how bad it is.
i think little updates to lite-C are easier to add than features in the editors or other stuff.
i'm sure any non-programmer can appreciate the forecasted addition of radiosity. and i know soft-shadows has been there for ages, but it will happen sooner or later. Sphere is great, but i think conitec is going for a different approach to the same easy-results -- hence the shader editor and interactive level editor.
i think some built-in post-processing effects would make a lot of artists happier.
as much as Why Do I Die has some valid points, they're put across poorly and aren't helpful. the later posts were more intelligent and more relevant, but his first two or three posts were of no use to anyone.
Why Do I Die: if you just want to express your opinion and seek arguments, the Morbius forum is more suited to that.
julz
Formerly known as JulzMighty. I made KarBOOM!
|
|
|
Re: A7 vs A6
[Re: JibbSmart]
#145503
09/04/07 08:45
09/04/07 08:45
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
Machinery_Frank
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,121
Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
|
Yes. I agree with that. The approach of Conitec might differ from Sphere. But I still do not see how I can achieve something like that with A7:
A level with static lights and shadows plus normal-mapping applied using 2 uv-sets. The only idea I get is to make the level with models, use the plug-in from Ventilator to access the second uv-map via a second model and write a shader to multiply the shadowmap on top of a normal map.
But to be honest: Isn't this a bit hard for every newcomer? It is even hard for me or most of you.
Do you see any chance of rendering your level with static lighting (you mentioned radiosity) plus current shaders to bring metal to shine, to get per-pixel-lighting, to have specularity, to light little bumps realistically?
I personally would like to have this and I am still waiting.
And you all know that every decent game uses those techniques since every cheap graphic card supports it.
Models, Textures and Games from Dexsoft
|
|
|
|
