|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
|
| Mutos |
Posted - Oct 19 2003 : 01:17:50 AM
Hi all,
I'm in search of render engines. For now I use Wild Tangent's Web Driver, which is easy to use from VB6. I've recently discovered Ogre, which seems to me quite good & which I'd like to test. But for now I've found no way to integrate it into VB6.
So, did anyone has any hint on this ? Thanks in advance...
|
| SuperDre |
Posted - Mar 14 2005 : 05:10:13 AM
But how about the original post?
Is there a wrapper for OGRE or has anyone used OGRE with VB? |
| BYTE-Smasher |
Posted - Jan 13 2005 : 09:46:28 AM
Whoops... didn't realise this was a 4 page topic when i posted... :s....
and, as a side note, TV3D is also great for hobbyists... considering the fact that its free to download and use... you just have to put up with the logo in the corner of the screen...
and, as a re-iteration, I just don't see the point in spending all my time hacking out directx code when I can do it so much quicker in tv3d... it just doesn't make sense to me... sdw still hasn't answered why taking 10 times longer to code your games is better.... |
| BYTE-Smasher |
Posted - Jan 13 2005 : 09:30:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by sdw
Instead of taking time to learn someone else's wrapper you could take time to learn the API yourself, which will benefit you most. After you've learned the api you can do anything you could do with the wrapper, only more. If learning how to use DirectX is too difficult, then maybe making games isn't the thing for you. IMO wrappers limit what you're able to do with your game.
I disagree completely. I've been using TrueVision3D for some time now, and I do so by coice. It may not have every single little functionality that directx does, but it's got 90% of it. And there's something you need to do that TV3D doesn't have the ability to do, you can always use the DirectxInternals interface that allows you to access all of the internal directx objects.
The reason I use a wrapper is simple: What takes 1000 lines of code in pure directx takes 100 lines of code in TV3D... this means that my development cycle is much faster than that of someone using pure directx. I've got more time to spend on gameplay/graphics/storyline/program stabiliy/whatever(IE: I can make BETTER games).... this is more important to me than being an "elite purist"...
If that wasn't enough as it is, TV3D 6.5, the new version of the engine, which is now in beta, has a plethora of features that directx DOESN'T offer, such as a VERY powerful physics engine, an MMO level networking engine... in fact, here are some (just some) of the features:
Automatic managed lighting System
Fast Terrain Rendering System with quadtree
Landscape LOD
Octree maps
Depth of Field
Volumetric lights
Offset, Tangent-Space, and Object-Space Bumpmapping support
Highpoly normalmap support on lowpoly models
Advanced ray collision detection for accurate collisions
Skeleton-based, Keyframe-based, or Morph-based animations
Attach child meshes to bones
Animate via custom bone rotations
Physics Integrated directly into the TV3D Engine for ease of use
-Build rigid bodies with primitives including sphere, box, cylinder, cone, and (yes) Convex Hull
-Simple and easy ragdoll and rigid body physics support
-Complete and automated collision support
-It's FAST
Network Engine:
-Optimized for real-time game networking
-Client/Server, or Peer-to-Peer support
-Reliable and Unreliable UDP Socket support
-Automated ping function with lag detection
-Integrated bandwidth throttling
-Optional bandwidth limits for hosts and clients
-Multiple packet channels
-Lightweight yet powerful, without DirectPlay overhead
In fact, before you bash it, why don't you try it out SDW? You can download and try the 6.2 version for free... I'd like to hear what you think after trying it... Here. I'll even give you the link:
http://truevision3d.com (Don't click this link! you will be forever tainted! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!) |
| Iodiplin |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 10:30:21 PM
I remember some demos working on my comp but one specifically gave me an FPS of 1. Yeah, 1. I can't remember what demo it was, but it was more advanced (fully 3D, lighting, guy walking around in a fenced in area).
I think TV looks pretty good. However, I already basically wrote my 2D ONLY wrapper so I'll stick with that. Besides, I like it when engines log way too much, and mine does. hehe.
I think I'm done with this topic.  |
| Excaliber |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 7:05:21 PM
Heh, this is quite true. And who says flame wars aren't good? :)
sdw: Not sure about the techdemo, to tell you the truth. Everyone I've talked to says it runs fine on their comp, as does on mine (we all have different ranges of computers, from great to crap). Odd. |
| sdw |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 6:05:23 PM
At least the topic is making people somewhat active. If you lock it wouldn't it mean less activity? |
| VBBR |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 5:55:09 PM
No, who could say this is going completely off-topic?
(...that's irony)
But seriously, this topic is really becoming a mess. |
| Eric Coleman |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 5:49:58 PM
Am I going to have to lock this topic? |
| VBBR |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 5:34:56 PM
I would speak it "sdw" but as everyone was saying "SDW" anyway... It also bothers me a little when others call me "vbbr", in small letters.  |
| sdw |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 5:32:20 PM
it was the tech demo that didn't run very smoothly during a lot of the 3d scenes: http://truevision3d.com/downloads.php
|
| sdw |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 5:26:48 PM
lol, so was I. Now you're making me look silly by having my quotes reference a post that doesn't exist :\
Also, what I meant by "STOP SHOUTING AT ME" is that everyone feels the need to capitalize the letters in my name, so it looks like they're shouting at me. (Another joke :)) |
| Excaliber |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 5:24:17 PM
Ok, one last point. And this is more of an answer than an attack, I promise :)
quote:
I mis-interpretted what was being compared. Lets forget the game maker, it's not important. The point I was trying to make is that if you're trying to go for simplicity and decreased development time then you might go so far as to use a game maker type of application. After all, you did have to spend more time learning VB than it would have taken to learn DX. What's a month or two learning DX if you had already spent so much time learning VB itself?
Simplicity and decreased development time are great and exactly what I'm looking for, but not at the expense of power. This is why I've been fighting the Game Maker scenareo you gave so vehemetly, almost as much as the wrapper issue itself. Game Maker, Torque, etc all take away power from the programmer. You are no longer programming a game, you are editing one that is premade to look more like what you want. Every game made with Torque is basically a Tribes rip off, with different graphics and perhaps some new features. Game Maker is much the same way.
quote:
Doesn't that depend on whether you've already got pre-made wrapper functions ready to REUSE
But that assumes you've already written it, meaning you've already spent time on that that could have been on the game itself (gameplay, etc)
quote:
So I'm not sure for what reason I'm lazy.
I'm not paying someone else to do the portion of it I think isn't worth my time.
Two more points, and I'm done. First, we all know that many hobbiest programmers suffer from amount of time available. If we are limited to time, I'd rather spend my time working on the actual game itself. Therefore, in my eyes, spending time on stuff like wrapping DX functions is lazy because it is much easier to coast through that then hit the meat of the game.
Secondly, I would like to touch back on the time issue. Time *is* limited, both for hobbiests and for commercial developers. Rewriting DX functions keeps me away from the game itself, and so therefore is *not* worth my time.
Lastly, what tutorial/sample in the TV framework didnt run well (just out of curiosity, no hostility intended)
THERE, now I'm done. Feel free to respond any way you feel, I promise I won't quote/post back in a hostile manner. We obviously have different views, and thats peachy. To each his own :) |
| VBBR |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 5:21:57 PM
I was just kidding. Sorry if it offended you.
(post removed) |
| sdw |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 5:05:12 PM
quote:
And I believe you are right in that every one is right. With the exception that some are more right than others
Thats it, lets take this outside buddy! ;)
quote:
(next, SDW comes in with a 50 lines post arguing about everything again )
That doesn't really sound like what I would do, does it?
btw- STOP SHOUTING AT ME! |
| Iodiplin |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 3:15:39 PM
Bravo! Well said, and I agree completely!
I'm glad we're finally starting to be able to appreciate each other's work, no matter what category it's in. |
|
|
| VBGamer |
© |
 |
|
|
|
