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!