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?