|
Iodiplin
Knave
USA
67 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 13 2004 : 7:30:30 PM
|
Exactly. My dad already had VS 6.0, I just had to learn the language. If I had been forced to BUY VB...I wouldn't be writing this right now, that's for sure. Even now, the price for VS 6.0 (let alone .NET) is too high for me to handle.
You're exactly right, except that I wouldn't have even bothered to program and I certainly wouldn't have bothered to learn ASM (I didn't even know what that was when I started VB).
Many of us (including me) are PURE hobbyists. VB came to us because it was somehow available, and we liked it. If you're a developer, you're PLANNING on making money, so you can gamble a little and spend some hoping you'll make it back in profits. I have never completed an entire game before, and when I do (WHEN), it probably won't be good enough to sell. If it is, it won't get more than $100. Who's gonna buy it? Friends? Family? Some chance internet surfer most likely isn't going to look at a "cheap" VB game and consider buying it unless the price is pathetically low. 1) We're not big companies who can guarantee money back if the product is faulty, 2) We can't guarantee anything, really 3) Since we're not big time programmers, who knows if the game is actually going to WORK on their system. I'm just thinking of people who will seriously consider the risks when buying from a no-name like a hobbyist. Downloading for free is a different matter, there's nothing to loose. Of course, then I don't get any money. So which do I want? Players or Money? Money = Fewer players, No-money = more players. A good idea, in my mind, is to make a free game, and THEN make a commercail one, that way people will at least have something to credit you by.
So, sure. Spend to your hearts desire. In fact, in a way, by spending you're only helping the odds that your game is sale-worthy, because the engines/wrappers/music/graphics you buy will probably be better quality. But there's ALWAYS that gamble, and you have to have the time to put into making the game pefect.
Believe it or not, I do plan on selling my upcomming game to some friends. Unfortunately, "friends" consists of about 5 people. At an expensive $10 a game (I've gotten old commercial games for less than that), that's $50. Wowzers, 1/3 to my goal for getting that license! LOL 
|
Environment Makes All the Difference. |
 |
|
|
sdw
Warrior
USA
160 Posts |
Posted - Sep 13 2004 : 7:56:24 PM
|
quote:
but the whole point of using an engine, a library, a wrapper or whaterver you call it is to save time writting renderig code and more time developing a game.
Thats true, however I think most people will agree when I say that DX code is reuseable, and they reuse DX code themselves.
quote:
Now now, when it comes to incapability, it's a whole different story. I am personally not good enough at math to write a good physics engine, so using another's is perfectly fine in my book. Even if I did there's nothing WRONG with doing it, just less hono(u)r.
Same here. In my opinion, the physics engine required more work to make than the tv3d wrapper.
quote:
The money spent on the piddly $150 makes up for the months of labor to create a wrapper for your game that does similar.
Again, reuse old code to save time. There are a lot of other things I could do with a "piddly" $150 than spend it on a wrapper because I was too lazy to learn DX and game techniques.
quote:
Sure, you *could* write your game in ASM. After all, why pay for VB when you can write it all out in ASM or C++ for free (assuming you dont use VS)? You have chosen VB (assuming you have chosen VB, it is a VB site after all) because you know it and it is a RAD. So why not integrate a RAD language with an engine that was designed with VB in mind?
Lets not stray from the point. I'm arguing that whatever's done with TV3D (with the exception of the physics engine) can be done just as easily yourself in VB. As it was stated in another post here, the features of TV3D already come with DX. They're only redefining how to use DX in a simpler way.
And if you're using that logic, why stop at VB? Why not use some Game Maker application instead? That should knock off some development time as well because it was built with making only games in mind. Also, who ever said we all paid for our copy of VB? :D
quote:
It all comes back to time. You can spend a few months (and thus a few months of time wasted, and time wasted = money wasted) to make a probably subpar engine, or use an existing one and fork out a tiny amount of money.
No you won't make a good engine with that attitiude :P So again, reusing code and building some DX wrapper functions does not take months to produce.
To me, $150 is not a tiny amount of money. I'm in the same boat as Iodiplin, I'm just a highschool student and don't have the time to work much more than 10-15 hours a week. 10-15 hours at barely more than minimum wage, you do the math. Also, I'm more concerned with saving up for my education and other more important things than spending money on a wrapper.
quote:
If you game isn't going to bring in at least $150 then you shouldn't be developing it anyhow.
So how much money are YOU bringing in off your games? I'm not planning on selling any of my VB works, but plan on selling at least one game. I code for fun and the experience. And once I'm done, I want to share that fun (and the knowledge gained, if possible) to anyone who wants it, free of charge.
quote:
Months of effort or $150 and 3 lines of code. Hmm...
And finally, reuse any old code!
7 quotes, I think thats a new record for me. I think I'm going to give up this debate because we're looking at it from 2 perspectives: I look at it from a programmer/coder point of view while you're looking at it from a game maker's point of view. I'm interested in understanding why it works while you just want it to simply work.
I'm glad you found what you were looking for, Mutos :) |
|
|
|
Excaliber
Squire
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - Sep 14 2004 : 9:15:25 PM
|
quote:
No you won't make a good engine with that attitiude :P So again, reusing code and building some DX wrapper functions does not take months to produce.
Sure, wrapping basic features can be done in ten minutes. Try wrapping all of DX into a nice easy package and you have quite a different story, plus the addition of new features that make life easier.
quote:
And if you're using that logic, why stop at VB? Why not use some Game Maker application instead?
And this is where your logic breaks down. VB, despite being a RAD and simpler to use, is still a programing language that is complete and capable of doing mostly what any other language can. Likewise, a DX wrapper (TV3D) can do what any other wrapper can, as well as DX. It simplifies, but does *NOT* take away power. Game Maker is a "Game System". It makes games. TV is a DX wrapper, it displays graphics. There is QUITE a difference. As you stated, TV has the same features as DX, but simplified. Game Maker DOES NOT have the same features as DX, or at least in an accessable manner.
Find me something DX can do that TV cannot. TV can do everything DX can simply and easily. The same cannot be said for Game Maker.
I am quite tired of hearing people compare wrappers to "game systems" such as Game Maker and Torque. There is a very large difference. Wrappers allow you to program and code, game systems give you prepacked carbon copy games that can be edited.
quote:
There are a lot of other things I could do with a "piddly" $150 than spend it on a wrapper because I was too lazy to learn DX and game techniques
Firstly, I'm offended that you would call me lazy, but I can get over that. BUT, just by using a wrapper does not mean I am not "learning" "game techniques". I'm skipping the tedium of graphics display so that *I CAN* focus on game techniques. When graphics routines are simplified, that means more time spent on writing code that deals with gameplay, ai and networking.
Lastly, you constantly mention to reuse code. Firstly, code reuse does not appear out of nowhere. To write code, you have to spend time, which ultimately means time writing DX functions (whether now or then). In the end, it is still months of hard labor to produce a GOOD engine, not one that can display a mesh and add a light.
What is ironic is that a wrapper such as TV is the apex of code reuse. Why reinvent the wheel, as you have mentioned in so many words, when you can use prewritten code? Good point. Oh wait, TV is prewritten code. Hmmm...
And no, I'm not too lazy to learn DX. In fact, I use DX regularly for added effects. Yes, in TV no less. TV gives access to the internal objects, so I can play with DX to my hearts content. |
Edited by - Excaliber on Sep 14 2004 9:38:52 PM |
|
|
|
Iodiplin
Knave
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - Sep 14 2004 : 10:54:19 PM
|
True true. You're both right. I do think SDW was correct in pointing out that we're coming from different perspectives. Excaliber is coming from the perspective of a game developer, SDW and I are coming from the perspective of a hobbyist programmer.
And to be ULTIMATELY truthful, having to program all the nitty-gritty stuff (like DX) without the wrapper is, in a way, an excuse to NOT have to program or develop the game. Even though writing a game is way more fun, it's harder. Not in that it takes more time, it just requires thinking, instead of programming DX, where, though you might have bugs to overcome, you always know WHAT you have to do WHERE and WHEN. However, I'm not saying that SDW or I am actually USING it in that way, but it is a possibilty that could play a factor.
Nevertheless, it does boil down to what your hobby is: programming, or game design. They are two entirely different things. I'm guessing, though, that Excaliber wouldn't rather someone else do the programming for him so he can SOLEY design. Why? Because I believe his hobby is a mix between the two, just he leans MORE towards game design. All of us at this forum are a mix actually, just whether we lean more towards programming, or towards the design itself is what determines our oppinions about wrappers/engines/purchases.
Just my 2c. Remember, you need both programming AND game design to make a game, so there's nothing wrong with being in either category. |
Environment Makes All the Difference. |
Edited by - Iodiplin on Sep 14 2004 10:57:37 PM |
|
|
|
Eric Coleman
Gladiator
USA
811 Posts |
Posted - Sep 14 2004 : 11:22:28 PM
|
| My game design skills are horrible, but I enjoy learning about directX. Of course, I, like most people, have never really completed a game that uses DirectX. As a wise man once said, it's not the destination, but the journey that makes things worth the effort. As long as you're having fun, I don't think it matters if you're using TrueVision, Revolution3D, IM, RM, or anything else. |
|
|
|
sdw
Warrior
USA
160 Posts |
Posted - Sep 15 2004 : 7:26:26 PM
|
I know, I know, I said I was going to quit with this thread. But it's turned into Jerry Springer!
quote:
Sure, wrapping basic features can be done in ten minutes. Try wrapping all of DX into a nice easy package and you have quite a different story, plus the addition of new features that make life easier.
I don't want to wrap all of what DX has to offer into a wrapper. I'm only going to use what I need. Therefore I don't have a whopping 1+ mB wrapper DLL to distribute with my game.
quote:
Find me something DX can do that TV cannot. TV can do everything DX can simply and easily. The same cannot be said for Game Maker.
I thought we were looking for things TV can do that DX cannot?
quote:
Lastly, you constantly mention to reuse code. Firstly, code reuse does not appear out of nowhere. To write code, you have to spend time, which ultimately means time writing DX functions (whether now or then). In the end, it is still months of hard labor to produce a GOOD engine, not one that can display a mesh and add a light.
Knowing how to use TV3D also does not appear out of nowhere. It would take longer to learn DX than TV3D, but IMO it would be more beneficial to learn DX. You and I have very different opinions of what "hard labor" is :\
quote:
Firstly, I'm offended that you would call me lazy, but I can get over that.
Isn't that what laziness is? Not wanting to do the work? I didn't mean to offend anyone, we're all guilty of laziness.
quote:
BUT, just by using a wrapper does not mean I am not "learning" "game techniques". I'm skipping the tedium of graphics display so that *I CAN* focus on game techniques. When graphics routines are simplified, that means more time spent on writing code that deals with gameplay, ai and networking.
Graphics display is a big part of games. Equally as important as the gameplay. I'm sorry you find it so tedius.
Also, how much slower is it to use TV3D than regular DX?
|
|
|
|
Excaliber
Squire
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - Sep 15 2004 : 8:55:20 PM
|
You are right, its becoming a mud slinging match.
But....
quote:
I don't want to wrap all of what DX has to offer into a wrapper. I'm only going to use what I need. Therefore I don't have a whopping 1+ mB wrapper DLL to distribute with my game.
To make a decent game, you will be using a large portion of DX anyhow, so your argument that TV has "more than you need" and therefore is bloated is quite silly. Anyhow, 1MB in terms of games is realistically quite small. A single level's worth of 3D meshes, textures, normal maps, luminescence maps, scripts, etc would far exceed 1 MB. 1MB is extremely small, unless you are making a tetris clone or other small puzzle/arcade game. Even most free or sharware games have much larger download sizes than that.
And, if you are using VB, you already have a 6MB dependancy due to the runtimes. Whats 1 more MB? Ahh, but you cry "What about the dial-up users?!" Yes, I use to have a modem as well, and only have had broadband for a bit. I can assure you, I would never consider downloading any game that was more than a meg, which effectively eliminates almost ALL 3D games. So in the end, what does it matter if my broadband users download one more meg or not?
quote:
I thought we were looking for things TV can do that DX cannot?
No, we have never looked for that. Game Maker looks for that. Game Maker is a "game creation system", as I've tried to point out. TV is a Wrapper. It makes DX easy to use. Quite a difference, as already stated.
quote:
You and I have very different opinions of what "hard labor" is :\
No, I don't think we do. We both agree that learning DX would take alot of time, trial and error and bug chasing. That is hard labor (albiet fun). I enjoy doing that myself, and have already several times. But it is still hard labor. Which leads into my next point:
quote:
Isn't that what laziness is? Not wanting to do the work? I didn't mean to offend anyone, we're all guilty of laziness.
You are correct, laziness is not wanting to work. But I *AM* working. I'm working on my game, and most importantly the *GAMEPLAY* of the game. I'm not triffling with graphics (which as you pointed out may be fun for others), but working on the soul of a game. The game itself.
If you wish to think like that, perhaps *you* are the one that is lazy? Or perhaps not lazy, but not motivated enough to work on the finer art of game design? After all, creating DX routines and functions is rather straightforward (although difficult and time consuming) work. You are implementing features of DX, working through tutorials and SDK's. Not much thinking involved there.
Indeed, that last point was a low shot below the belt, but you've had it coming to you for a while. Apologies.
quote:
Graphics display is a big part of games. Equally as important as the gameplay. I'm sorry you find it so tedius.
Hmm, doesn't it make sense then to use a proven wrapper like TV to enhance your ability to program? If what you say is correct (I personally don't believe so, but thats my opinion), it would make sense to use whatever advantage you had to get the best graphics possible. If in the end you are going to write, say, 6000 lines of code for graphics routine, "denser" code gets more done. By this I mean for each line, you accomplish more. In 6000 lines of TV, you could have a superb looking game with all the features. In 6000 lines of DX, you get a subpar, half constructed wrapper (due to the undisputable fact that native programming takes more code than TV). Just an example of course, but proves a point well.
And finally, TV3D is not slower than DX. I work with it through VB.Net via Interop. VB works through an ActiveX wrapper that communicates with the C/C++ DLL of TV. In many cases, despite the several layers of communication, this proves much faster than VB alone (working via DX ActiveX) as TV can leverage it's C/C++ speed (and inline assembly code).
ActiveX is painfully slow. Which means that every native call to DX in VB must pass through ActiveX. As we've already established, there is alot more coding to be done if you program DX natively in VB. That means alot of calls to ActiveX, alot of slow down. Not to mention VB's poor math abilities, etc. In TV though, you make many less calls than native (one line to initialize DX instead of 20), which is then handled in the much superior and faster C/C++/ASM DLL. There are also many math functions available through TV that far exceed VB's own speed. |
Edited by - Excaliber on Sep 15 2004 9:03:32 PM |
|
|
|
sdw
Warrior
USA
160 Posts |
Posted - Sep 15 2004 : 11:10:57 PM
|
quote:
Anyhow, 1MB in terms of games is realistically quite small. A single level's worth of 3D meshes, textures, normal maps, luminescence maps, scripts, etc would far exceed 1 MB.
It's actually more like 1.7megs, and yes, that is a lot for code alone. Yes, resources then will take up more than a meg.
quote:
And, if you are using VB, you already have a 6MB dependancy due to the runtimes. Whats 1 more MB? Ahh, but you cry "What about the dial-up users?!" Yes, I use to have a modem as well, and only have had broadband for a bit. I can assure you, I would never consider downloading any game that was more than a meg, which effectively eliminates almost ALL 3D games. So in the end, what does it matter if my broadband users download one more meg or not?
I almost agreed with you until I realized that most users would already have those dependecies installed.
quote:
No, we have never looked for that. Game Maker looks for that. Game Maker is a "game creation system", as I've tried to point out. TV is a Wrapper. It makes DX easy to use. Quite a difference, as already stated.
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?
quote:
No, I don't think we do. We both agree that learning DX would take alot of time, trial and error and bug chasing. That is hard labor (albiet fun). I enjoy doing that myself, and have already several times. But it is still hard labor. Which leads into my next point:
No, it doesn't take long to set up DX. And no, it's not hard labor for me. It's a way to relax sometimes and get away from things. Kind of like a puzzle, it's not hard labor to put a puzzle together because you're doing it for fun at your own pace at your own will.
quote:
If you wish to think like that, perhaps *you* are the one that is lazy? Or perhaps not lazy, but not motivated enough to work on the finer art of game design? After all, creating DX routines and functions is rather straightforward (although difficult and time consuming) work. You are implementing features of DX, working through tutorials and SDK's. Not much thinking involved there.
Indeed, that last point was a low shot below the belt, but you've had it coming to you for a while. Apologies
You're right, it's not a lot of thought to implement the features of DX. This is why it's very easy to get through all the DX coding and straight to the game coding. So I'm not sure for what reason I'm lazy. Because I code the DX myself, or because I make the entire game myself, without the aid of someone else's wrapper :P Because you see, I think I made it fairly clear that I AM willing to do the work involved with making a game. I'm not paying someone else to do the portion of it I think isn't worth my time.
quote:
In 6000 lines of TV, you could have a superb looking game with all the features. In 6000 lines of DX, you get a subpar, half constructed wrapper (due to the undisputable fact that native programming takes more code than TV). Just an example of course, but proves a point well.
Doesn't that depend on whether you've already got pre-made wrapper functions ready to REUSE :P Of course you're going to be using some wrapper functions to limit the amount of redundant code, it's a matter of whether using your own or someone else's.
And finally on the speed note, I only bring it up because the TV3D demo really gave me some low framerates (all the way down to 6 fps on an ATI 9200se) during certain 3d scenes but sustained a 300 or so fps with still images. |
|
|
|
Iodiplin
Knave
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - Sep 15 2004 : 11:47:29 PM
|
Haha, this is hilarious. Here's MY opinion:
You both have your own opinions, neither of you are lazy (you just like working on different aspects of game programming) and BOTH your opinions are right when looking on them with your perspectives, which happen to be different.
Example:
SDW is arguing that 1 = 1.
Excaliber is arguing that 2 = 2.
I am arguing that 1 = 1, 2 = 2, 1 <> 2, and 2 <> 1.
Great! You're both right, and so am I! You're just using different numbers.
So...DOES anyone use the Ogre 3D render engine in VB6? |
Environment Makes All the Difference. |
Edited by - Iodiplin on Sep 15 2004 11:49:02 PM |
|
|
|
Excaliber
Squire
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 05:18:17 AM
|
Lol Iodiplin. Alright, I'm done. To each his own, eh?
As to Ogre, I've considered it in the past, it looks nice. :) |
|
|
|
Dan
Squire
United Kingdom
29 Posts |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 05:31:59 AM
|
My my, such vemon. 
a valiant effot by Iodiplin for trying to cool the thread down. And I believe you are right in that every one is right. With the exception that some are more right than others 
I can understand your point SDW, You wish to be the sole creator of what ever you create and be able to claim full credit for your work. Power to your elbow and I wish you the best of luck. It was an opinion I also held. I've since spent 4 years studing and 11 years working as a contract programmer and in that time I've learnt to leaverage anything to your advantage. I've always been interested in games and since DX7 have been pluggin away to make my own game. The problem is that in the last 4 years or learning and programming DX, I've done little more than produce small techdemos using 'retro' rendering techniques.
The cause of which boils down to Time, or lack of it to be more precise. I work long hours, Have a family and partake in outdoor pursuits that demand alot of my spare time. leaving only a few hours a week to spend on my game making hobby. I've always been interested in other aspects of games such as the AI and the Graphical art (Not the rendering process but actual content).
Switching to use TV3D, I am empowered and my creative output from the few hours a week have increased 10 fold, Infact it has encouraged me to spend more time on the PC in the evenings (Despite the rebukes from the wife).
I can attribute this fact partly to increase in the number of tools I can use to create content. I still get to use .NET to write my games. Infact with the TV 6.5 Managed code base, I find it runs faster than VB6->DirectX via Interop. I still get to work with DirectX which means I get to use all the shader tools developed by Nvidia and ATI. Using the TV Plugin for 3D Studio max 6, I can export content directly to TVM / TVA model formats (For which exists it's own viewer). and load in to my game world with a few lines of code. I can use Quake world editing tools because these can be read directly by TV. Collision detection is made much easier and in some cases is virtually automatic. I get full use of a great physics engine and bespoke Net code. I can create landscapes, sky domes, waterplanes, reflections within a few calls, I can create particle systems that react to physical contraints, Apply shaders with ease and manage world objects, cameras and lights with the knowledge that if I require additional features I can either add them myself or place a request to TV. But most importantly almost every line of code I add to my projects now relates to gameplay mechanics. I've finally been able to work on the path finding algorithms I've been jotting down and contemplating on numerous train journeys home after work I've also now had the time to start developing some advanced AI routines. In short I am finally working more on the 'game engine' rather than the 'Graphic engine'. I'm no less 'Lazy' for it.
Since using TV, I have been able to utilise my rather large investment in 3DSMax6, and the models I have spent many hundred man hours working on are starting to filter through to form the start of development on a project I've been wanting to achieve for a very long time.
as Eric has already stated and I agree completly, There is nothing wrong with whatever tools are used, As long as your having fun. For me, I see TV3D as just another Tool. And one that I could not be without for it has allowed me as an individual programmer the hope that I actually might be able to achieve what many hobby programmers strive for... A completed project!
|
|
|
|
|
Iodiplin
Knave
USA
67 Posts |
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. |
Environment Makes All the Difference. |
|
|
|
sdw
Warrior
USA
160 Posts |
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! |
|
|
|
VBBR
Moderator
Brazil
617 Posts |
Posted - Sep 16 2004 : 5:21:57 PM
|
I was just kidding. Sorry if it offended you.
(post removed) |
Whatever. Who knows... |
|
|
|
Excaliber
Squire
USA
28 Posts |
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 :) |
|
|
|
|
Anyone uses Ogre 3D render engine in VB6 ?
