Anyone uses Ogre 3D render engine in VB6 ?
MutosHi 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...
MutosHi all, No answer to my query ? So i'll just post the urls of all render engines I konw. I just discovered TrueVision, another engine which seems to be easy to use & provides builtin integration w/ VB6. WebDriver http://www.wildtangent.com/ Ogre http://http://ogre.sourceforge.net/ TrueVision http://www.truevision3d.com Hope this'll help anyone w/ same problem of finding suitable engines.
PeterI think one more choice you have is Revolution 3d. I think its at www.revolution3d.de If thats not the right link try looking on the links page.
cbxHere is another good vb6 game engine [url]http://www.revolution3d.org/[/url]
MutosHi Peter & cbx, hi all, Thanks for ur answer, i'll try Revolution3D & tell u what I think of it...
ShannaraTruevision was open source for a long time, until the source code was stolen to create the closed-source Revolution engine. Since then, the TV team closed their source and starting converting things to ASM and C. I still have the open source version of the engine laying somewhere around here.. As for TV as of now, it's pretty useless as in reality, they have yet to reach a real 1.0 version. They claim to be on v6, w/ no features implimented that was planned for 1.0 over 1 - 2 years ago. So I hold on faith in that engine at all. I used Genesis3D back before it was bought out by Wild Tangent. Once it was sold, I left. Never heard of Orge though.. I dont touch Rev3D, because Im not about to support theives :)
cbx
quote:
Originally posted by Shannara I dont touch Rev3D, because Im not about to support theives :)
OOhhh juicy back story to Rev3D. I have been opserving the progress of both truvision and rev3d for a few years now myself. Unfortunatly it's news to me (about the theft), so until I hear more about the details, I cant concur weather or not there is any thruth to it. But besides that and for anyone reading this I too also have the source for truevision. I believe it's version 3.7 if i'm not mistaken. I think I also have a couple of example apps for that perticular version also. It's written in vb5/6 but if anyone would like a copy for curiosities sake, I would be happy to track it down and provide it to you. All hail the software pack rat king! [:D]
Eric ColemanTruevision is more of a DirectX wrapper than it is an Engine. If you look at the list of "features", its pretty much the same features as DirectX such as "lighting," "shaders," and ".x file" support. The only thing they have that's even remotely related to a game engine is loading a bsp map. Being able to render a quake level does not make truevision a game "engine." A game "engine" is much, much more. For starters a game engine is genre specific. For example, you can't use a Quake or Doom engine to create a tile based RPG or RTS game., just like you can't take the Starcraft engine and create a FPS from it. A game engine must be able to do more than just load map file format from some other game. What would an old style SNES RPG need with bsp files? An engine needs to have a bunch of different systems that all work together. For starters, you need some type of kernel to keep everything working together. The kernel of a game engine is responsible not only for graphics, but for AI, game mechanics, animations, sounds, music, scripting, etc, and keeping them working together. Of course, not all games require a game engine, Pong and tic-tac-toe are examples of that. Game engines are complicated programs. The reason for a game engine is to allow you to reuse the code you've created to create a similar type of game. To switch games you only need to change the resources, which are the graphics, sounds, music, anything an artist would create. Consider Quake 2 and Half Life, they use the same engine. The only difference is content. I'm generalizing when I say that, but I'm sure you know what I mean. If I mixed up Half Life with some other game, then you'll just have to forgive me because I'm not much of a FPS fan. Truevision not only requires you to create the game content, but you actually have to create the game engine to handle the content. Its really nothing more than a fancy DirectX wrapper.
ExcaliberThats where TrueVision gets its power. Its a wrapper for DX, nothing more. It makes programming DX easier, and thus simplifies the nit-picky details of 3D programming. It does not limit you to what genre the gamemaker (ewww) was made for, nor does it limit you to what the capabilities of said gamemaker can do. TV allows you to program and create your own creature. You have full control, and much easier than with straight DX. yet you have all the functionality at the same time. </rant>
sdw
quote:
Thats where TrueVision gets its power. Its a wrapper for DX, nothing more. It makes programming DX easier, and thus simplifies the nit-picky details of 3D programming.
Maybe so, however you still need to distribute the truevision dependencies with your application. So that's something like 1.5 mB already, which is not good. You may not even be using all of the features of the wrapper anyways, so there's just wasted space. It's always better to just write your own little wrapper functions that make sense to you instead of learning someone else's. Besides, wouldn't it make you feel like a better coder/programmer to have done everything by yourself? :D
Dan
quote:
wouldn't it make you feel like a better coder/programmer to have done everything by yourself? :D
No not really, Its good to learn how things work - but using a tool that helps speed up the development process is a good thing. The new TV6.5 Wrapper (Currently in Closed Beta - for which I'm a tester) offers alot more besides simply wrapping directx to provide rendering. It caters for the flow of assets in to the game world by providing additional tools. for example Newton Physics has been integrated to provide ragdoll and rigid bodies, Exporter plugins for Caligari's gameSpace, 3D Studio Max, XSI, and Maya work well to create .x or .tvo models, A pre game model viewer that allows you to compute Shadow data, generate normalmap, add effects, assign texture, compile morph data, add animation sets, merge animation sets, etc. , A Shader FX Tool for developing and testing HLSL Shaders And Network code for adding a multiplay dimension. Why keep reinventing the wheel when there are greats tools out there that help... my 2c's
sdwInstead 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.
VBBRNot really. For example, R3D enables you to access the internal DX objects if you're using C++ or .NET.
sdwWhy use a wrapper at all if you're using C++? I would think there'd be some speed issues there.
cjb0087
quote:
Originally posted by sdw
Why use a wrapper at all if you're using C++? I would think there'd be some speed issues there.
because Dx in C++ is a *female dog*, i.e. very hard and chucks fits all the time. Many people woudnt be bothered learning the API, so they just use a wrapper.
cjb0087on the subject of engines, i had an opengl library for VB6 a while back, but i seem to have lost it. would any of you happen to have it?
sdw
quote:
because Dx in C++ is a *female dog*, i.e. very hard and chucks fits all the time.
I really don't know what "chucks fits all the time" means but oh well. Really it's not so difficult. Those people who can't be bothered to learn the API are not going to make a game. Damn slackers :D Seriously, how hard is it to read a few tutorials on how to do something with directx, then make a nice wrapper function to it, and then re use it over and over like you would do in vb. You won't understand it instantly, you gotta work at it. I'm sure you know since you had to learn it for your games.
Dan
quote:
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 don't think that I'll be able to convice you otherwise SWD. Graphics are a in my opinion a very small part of the game engine, yet is somthing that can consume alot of time. The use of wrappers help SPEED UP the process by providing tools and methods for achieving common projects tasks such as Asset management, collision detection, physics and particle systems, forcefeed back and input management, Landscape and enviromental management... etc. And the fact the underlying Directx objects are available at any time mean you can add any additional coding you wish. Although most wrappers are comprehenive enough not to need to touch these objects. It's not a question of finding the Directx Wrapper to difficult to understand, more a fact that using a wrapper allows for a quicker development time and an already development means to load art assets in to the game world.
BrykovianI agree with Dan ... you use a pre-built wrapper or game engine instead of writing your own for the same reason you use a high-level language (like VB) instead of machine or assembly language ... it speeds up the development time. It depends a lot on your viewpoint ... do you want to be a programmer who happens to be working on a game, or a game-maker who happens to be able to program? -Bryk
jviperWho thinks Revelotion3D is a better 3D engine than TrueVision3D is? One thing that I would point out about TrueVision3D is that, if you aren't registered, there is this watermark that shows up every time you use it's rendering features. to me, it's a bit annoying, either that or maybe I shoud just stop wineing and just register the damn thing, I'm I right? What so you think? Oh, one more thing: first of al the whole reason why I'm bothering to look for these 3d engines is because, while I was is process of trying to learn directx, I started to realize how much bullshit I would end up getting into just to do collisions. Am I on the money, or what? J Bray at jviper2004002@hotmail.com; drop me a line.
VBBRRegarding the Rev3D "theft"... If Revolution3D is but a copy of the old TV3D code, this must be back in the times Rev3D was written in VB. News for you guys, since version .89 Revolution3D was entirely rewritten in C++.
IodiplinIt's also the issue with "Programmer's Hono(u)r." I could use someone elses wrapper/engine, but who wants to make a game and not be able to claim credit for the graphics programming? I wrote my own wrapper and I think it's quite nice. It's not perfect, no, I've got bugs here and there. But I'd rather live with those bugs and work with my own code than have to feel ashamed that I was too lazy or "wasn't good enough" to write the code myself. I do use other people's code for little things, but I can still say I wrote the graphics programming, basically. Not to mention it's ALWAYS easier working with your own code (unless you stink at programming and give yourself more bugs than are necessary [:P]). And it's always good to know the low-level part of it even if you're using yours or another's wrapper SO that you can make additions and enhancements. But, as long as you've found a good wrapper, I see nothing wrong in using it, if you want. EDIT: And one final note, about learning the low-level stuff in DX. It's not easy. I tend to disagree with SDW that you can just "read some tutorials" and be on your way. It took me over 6 months to get a good wrapper for DX together and it STILL has bugs. Not to mention my wrapper is for 2D ONLY. 3D adds a whole new dimension of potential problems. [:)]
MutosHi all, It's been some months I use TV3D now & I'll tell u I've found the 3D engine I'll keep ! I tried WildTangent, was good but a bit slow. TrueVision has the same level of user-friendliness but is way faster, I checked on similar apps and same X files. As for the watermark, I just don't care. If & when I ever go comm, I'll buy the licence and add a splash screen and a checkbox in the options to disable the watermark ^-^ And TV3D being a DX wrapper doesn't bother me either, I'd rather use a simple & fast wrapper & lose 1% FPS instead of loosing months of dev mastering the arcanes of DX... As for honour, mine lies in the creation of the universe and its rendering in an app, not for the engines themselves. Now I'm seeking physics and AI engine. The specs are the same : easy to use from VB6, free for demomaking and fast enough for my simple needs... For physics I've seen Tokamak, but for now I've not implemented anything using it, just seen a couple of VB6-TV3D demos using a wrapper & that seems quite good. Seen a few others but none marked me as Tokamak for now... For AI I've seen SpirOps, a french engine based upon a quite interesting thesis (waouh, the printer is still aching after the 300+ pages...) & encountered its creator. Really seems a great engine but for now I don't really know the licence terms.
Dan
quote:
As for honour, mine lies in the creation of the universe and its rendering in an app, not for the engines themselves
Well said.
quote:
Now I'm seeking physics and AI engine.
TV6.5 uses the Newton Physics engine (http://physicsengine.com/). It is very easy to use and setup. You simply add the meshes you wish the physics engine to control. Setup the relationships between different materials and choose the joints required and Newton does all the hardwork for you . It currently supports rigid body and ragdolls and is planned to have Car physics as soon as it becomes available in Newton. I wish I could share with you some of the videos from the beta testing as some stunning results are possible with very little coding required. ( Iodiplin and SDW would hate it ;) )
ExcaliberI've seen several of the videos (from Javin) and they are quite spectacular. I about passed out when Javin informed me it took roughly 13 lines of code for the entire simulation (many bricks and a baseball, you can infer the rest)
sdwYes, that Newton Physics Engine does look cool. So whats the deal with that anyways? The Newton engine is free to use and tv3d is integrating it with their wrapper?
quote:
I wish I could share with you some of the videos from the beta testing as some stunning results are possible with very little coding required. ( Iodiplin and SDW would hate it ;) )
Well yeah, thats what wrappers are intended to do ;) And you're right, I would hate to pay $150 for some DX wrapper :P
DanThe deal with the new physics engine is that it is built in to the core of TV, meaning that physics can be applied to standard TV objects very efficiently and quickly. Sure you can use the newton engine direct with out going through TV, but you would need to write a wrapper class to be able to use it with VB As I believe a wrapper only exists for Delphi. TV is free to use during development. Apps can be distributed with a watermark showing. The $150 is for a comercial licence that allows you to remove the watermark. Yes, you could argue that you don't pay anything if you were to use directx directly. 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. I don't know how much value you put on your time but for me $150 for 3 developers full time input & a well established community makes perfect sense.
IodiplinNow 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. Also you must realize that many of us (including me) are young and stupid. That implies that we either don't have a job (in that we're young), or have a lame one (in that we're stupid). I work in retail. I get 70 bucks a week, minus tax. I have to pay for car insurance, etc. Buying a $150 license isn't my first choice. Only a few months ago, I only got money for mowing my lawn, so $150 would be a month's work. I'm not saying that all guys my age are stupid, or even young (ahum)...well actually I am, that is, in comparison to you ol' folk, some of you.
ExcaliberThe money spent on the piddly $150 makes up for the months of labor to create a wrapper for your game that does similar. Sure, if you are doing this as a hobby, its not a big deal. But when you are producing a game and have actual intentions to sell it, have a budget to work around, people and resources to pay for, and capital venturists that you have to please in a *timely* manner, you would appreciate this kind of thing. 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? 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. If you game isn't going to bring in at least $150 then you shouldn't be developing it anyhow. Months of effort or $150 and 3 lines of code. Hmm...
VBBR
quote:
Originally posted by Excaliber <br>After all, why pay for VB when you can write it all out in ASM or C++ for free?
Who said you need to pay for an original copy of VB? [:p] Hehe, just kidding. [:D]
ExcaliberHeh
IodiplinExactly. 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 [:)]
sdw
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
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.
IodiplinTrue 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.
Eric ColemanMy 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.
sdwI 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?
ExcaliberYou 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.
sdw
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.
IodiplinHaha, 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?
ExcaliberLol Iodiplin. Alright, I'm done. To each his own, eh? As to Ogre, I've considered it in the past, it looks nice. :)
DanMy my, such vemon. [B)] 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 [:o)] 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!
IodiplinBravo! 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.
ExcaliberOk, 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 :)
sdwlol, 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 :))
sdw
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!
VBBRI was just kidding. Sorry if it offended you. (post removed)
sdwit was the tech demo that didn't run very smoothly during a lot of the 3d scenes: [url]http://truevision3d.com/downloads.php[/url]
VBBRI 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. [;)]
Eric ColemanAm I going to have to lock this topic?
VBBRNo, who could say this is going completely off-topic? (...that's irony) But seriously, this topic is really becoming a mess.
sdwAt least the topic is making people somewhat active. If you lock it wouldn't it mean less activity?
ExcaliberHeh, 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.
IodiplinI 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. [:)]