Please keep the engine in Blender

Game Engine, Players & Web Plug-in, Virtual Reality, support for other engines

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

rcas
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:08 pm
Location: Portugal
Contact:

Post by rcas » Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:37 pm

kAinStein wrote:What do you mean with interface? User interface, programming interface? And in what manner?
User and Programming Interface.
How to use a Blender:
Put your model, rig, animation and textures in the Blender, turn the Blender on and wait for it to Render, then turn the Blender off and show it to your friends.

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein » Sat Apr 16, 2005 11:39 pm

Still not sure what you mean, sorry. I can only guess. :?
And I can't see how it solves our problem. Using another framework for the game engine needs a good knowledge of the framework itself and integrating it into Blender needs good Blender knowledge. It would nevertheless be a complete rewrite of the game engine and not a plug and play solution. The new engine would need to be designed and written because the basic mainloops provided definitely would not fit into the Blender context. Sound and physics would be needed in addition, etc., etc.
That's not as easy as you might think it is! Unfortunately...
:(

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:16 am

I'm afraid you are right.
There is no ready game engine we can plug into blender.
So none of us (what 4?) is going to be able to do it, I have far too less time to put into this, and far to many ideas to be really helpfull.

It's just that I've seen these (crappy) game engines that take some scripting and some model and some audio and you're ready to play a FPS.

Blender still lacks big parts to making a game.
The one you hear alot is normal mapping, but that's just a gimmic.
What about levels, save game, keeping score, AI, path finding, enemy behaiviour, the list is endless. Currently the user has to make that all in python, that's not how the GameKit was ment to be. And frankly I have no idea if blender will be able to do that someday. It's no longer the ambition of the blender foundation, that's what I know for sure.

On the games writting side there is not much interest in writting 3dgame interpreters (or so it seems), so I have no idea how to get this project going

OTO
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 8:51 pm
Contact:

Post by OTO » Mon Apr 18, 2005 12:54 pm

Joeri I agree with you
Game Blender is great
It only lacks "system?" Logic bricks:
Save and Load, graphic settings, "media" manager and some others....
Bye

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri » Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:37 pm

OTO wrote:It only lacks "system?" Logic bricks:
Save and Load, graphic settings, "media" manager and some others....
These were planned, but 8 man could not implement that in the limited time of 2 years. :P

malCanDo
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 1:44 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Post by malCanDo » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:23 pm

The GE is great as is, for 3D artists wanting to step into basic game prototyping, but not having access to a programmer etc.

Taking it up a level, with a good python scripter, it's pretty powerful.

With a working, stable physics solution ( could be in the works, eg wip proper integration with ODE ), the GE could ship with a few basic game prototypes ( eg a FPS controller, maybe even a 3rd person prototype / vehicle prototype ).

Then, artists could use these to create their artwork around, and learn from the available scripts etc.

Mal

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein » Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:39 pm

malCanDo wrote:The GE is great as is, for 3D artists wanting to step into basic game prototyping, but not having access to a programmer etc.
It's great for prototyping or just trying out, if a model fits into a game the way it is supposed. It's great for doing smaller interactive stuff - like for example presentations or neat, little games for advertising and stuff like that. Would be even great for web applications if the browser plugin was better. So there's nothing really wrong with the Blender game engine. That's why I don't really understand that it should be removed. Not further developed, ok. No developer, no development. But why remove it? Better a "crappy" engine that allows you to try things out directly in Blender than no engine at all...
Taking it up a level, with a good python scripter, it's pretty powerful.
Fully true. But it still lacks some small features like access to the memory management the way that you could load/unload object, meshes, scripts, textures, etc. That would allow you to make much better games... Or more complex presentations...
Then, artists could use these to create their artwork around, and learn from the available scripts etc.
True.

Joeri: Nothing wrong with having lots of ideas! ;) But we all have another big problem: Too many artists and no developers!

Anyhow: I still can't understand why to remove the engine...

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:14 pm

kAinStein wrote:
Joeri: Nothing wrong with having lots of ideas! ;) But we all have another big problem: Too many artists and no developers!

Anyhow: I still can't understand why to remove the engine...
I don't think it's the amount of developers is the problem, it's the focus of development.
And that's probably why they want to remove the game engine, so other parts of blender can be re-written ( to have same functionality but with other code ) without having to keep the game engine compatible.

I can imagine that an IPO rewrite is easier if it does not need to care about the GE. Same goes for IKA and NLA.
It would be a shame if the game engine was taken out of blender, but on the other side, better animation tools are an absolute must for blender to me.
Going back to basis... Create an animation suite for the small film/video pro. I think that will be the BF theme for this year.

harkyman
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2002 2:47 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Contact:

Post by harkyman » Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:44 pm

And thank the hoary beard of Zeus for that.

I know that a certain amount of people use the GE, but can anyone seriously say that it's anything more than a toy? If the separation of the GE gives the coders more freedom and focus in providing the bedrock tools that Blender needs, then so be it.

rcas
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:08 pm
Location: Portugal
Contact:

Post by rcas » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:15 pm

harkyman wrote:And thank the hoary beard of Zeus for that.

I know that a certain amount of people use the GE, but can anyone seriously say that it's anything more than a toy? If the separation of the GE gives the coders more freedom and focus in providing the bedrock tools that Blender needs, then so be it.
I have to agree with you.

The GE should be separate from Blender, thus why I said that it could be done with an existing GE such as Yake.
How to use a Blender:
Put your model, rig, animation and textures in the Blender, turn the Blender on and wait for it to Render, then turn the Blender off and show it to your friends.

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:19 pm

Ok, Joeri - that's a good point.
harkyman wrote:And thank the hoary beard of Zeus for that.

I know that a certain amount of people use the GE, but can anyone seriously say that it's anything more than a toy? If the separation of the GE gives the coders more freedom and focus in providing the bedrock tools that Blender needs, then so be it.
I know that a certain amount of people use the NLA, but can anyone seriously say that it's anything more than a toy? :roll:

There are *many* architects in the last few months that were *very* interested in it for walkthroughs - take a look into the forums. Arangel uses it in a very nice project. I use it for testing objects for a (hobbyist) game because it fits perfectly into the workflow. And there are probably more than those examples! It's definitely *much* more than a toy!

But there's the 2nd big problem: The GE is too much underestimated and there are too much people that name it 'just a toy' - be it out of arrogance or out of ignorance... :roll:

LetterRip
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:03 am

Post by LetterRip » Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:11 am

Is the GE well suited for architectual walkthroughs? I would think that the quality of materials and textures that can be used in the GE (at least from the games I've seen) isn't sufficient that architects would be willing to use it...

Also if the ketsji GE is made external, Ton would bring back the Enji GE (A simple engine that is adequate for walkthrough stuff).

As to the motivations for possibly removing the game engine - it is more that the bug count is relatively high with few coders who know the code and have the time and willingness to fix the bugs. Thus for releases we either have to wait till Kester (and possibly Erwin) have time to fix the engine (which could seriously delay a release) or release Blender with the game engine whenever the rest of Blender is ready for release and thus release Blender in a state where part of it has known bugs which can reflect poorly on Blender as a whole.

Also the work needed to make the Game Engine external would also likely make integration with other Game Engines easier.

LetterRip

Money_YaY!
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 2:47 pm

Post by Money_YaY! » Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:08 pm

whatever is done, why can it not start happening ? This talk of removing it is waisting time to. Just remove it and see what happens. Or start working again on it. It ios so far behind the times now for render quality and such.

Is there anyway to speed up this choice? I am more for removeing it to see if it can get faster support. Cause keeping it in and seeing it go no where and have no use anymore is just to sad for it. I really hop[ed it would be kick @ss by now but it just sits there like a rock

kAinStein
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 3:08 pm

Post by kAinStein » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:06 am

LetterRip wrote:Is the GE well suited for architectual walkthroughs? I would think that the quality of materials and textures that can be used in the GE (at least from the games I've seen) isn't sufficient that architects would be willing to use it...
I don't know if it's really well suited for architects - I'm no architect. But there were some guys asking for it in the forums (here and elysiun) in the last past months. To the materials: The materials and lighting actually can compare to stuff like Anark for example.
Also if the ketsji GE is made external, Ton would bring back the Enji GE (A simple engine that is adequate for walkthrough stuff).
That's something different now! If it's going to be substituted by Enji then it would be ok from my point of view (Though it probably would be disturbing to create sectors first). But I don't make stuff with the engine, I just use it as a tool to see if things fit the way they're supposed to do...

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:12 am

kAinStein wrote: I know that a certain amount of people use the NLA, but can anyone seriously say that it's anything more than a toy? :roll:
hahaha, yes, I feel the same way. Most of the time that kind of argumentation is easy to revert. The NLA is probably more a toy than the game engine. Ofcourse depends on how we define toy, but GE is the only unique part of blender, and bringing game development to artists certainly is a very serious issue,( becoming more and more important because programmers will only come up with another version of doom or frogger but then on a cellphone). It's much more important then animation tools, there are already lots of them. But is it a job for the BF? Maybe not just yet.
No offense to RVO, (who did a crazy job, re-writting A:M in 6 weeks) but nobody understands that code, and it needs a re-write, breaking many links to the BGE.

My hopes are on X3D (or what it's called, VRML with a trendy name?)
Maybe some developer will get interested in writting a window in blender that can set logic and convert blender objects and the (new) logic into X3D.
I'm to stuppid to write that, but I can see it as a path that could be taken.
Money_YaY! wrote:whatever is done, why can it not start happening ?
2 things: 1. If it's not in the way (GE) then it can stay 'cause gamers can benefit from new model tools. 2. It is happening. Don't over-estamate the power of our chit-chat. Blender development does not get decided in this forum.

Post Reply