Page 1 of 2

Future of GameEngine

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 2:21 am
by rezfan
Hi everybody. I was wondering if those who are developing the Game Engine can provide more info about the future of it.

As I'm reading the forums and the web site seems that Ogre3d is going to replace GameEngine. But at the same time I see that there are physics, shaders and other support added to GameEngine in the last releases. Does that mean that there is some kind of compatibility plan (as using GameEngine as a high-level system and Ogre3d as the low-level engine), or will the entire engine be scrapped?

Specifically I'm asking because I would like to learn the GameEngine myself. But I'm not sure if I should start now, or wait, or learn PyOgre (?)...

Any hints will be really appreciated. Cheers,

Juan

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 4:39 am
by z3r0_d
the new physics, crystal space, and ogre versions of the game engine were/are all being developed by different people. I don't believe there is a unified plan.

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 5:40 am
by LetterRip
The improved physics is being done by Erwin, Ogre integration is being done by Charlie with Erwins assistance. Crystalspace work is being done by Jorrit but most of his efforts are focused on the main Crystalspace. After Charlie finishes making the engine interface plugable, crystalspace integration will probabably go much quicker.

LetterRip

Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 11:10 pm
by erwin
There is a unified plan, and it's not that complicated:
The game engine is slowly improving.

1) - physics is being replaced by Bullet (work in progress, already in 2.41, ongoing work)
2) - graphics is being replaced by Ogre3d (work in progress, not in cvs)

So Ogre3d will only replace renderer/graphics, it is not a game engine.

Apart from that, there are plans to support _other_ game engines through a plugin system. But that is a seperate story, not directly related to the current game engine.

Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:03 pm
by flim
erwin wrote: 2) - graphics is being replaced by Ogre3d (work in progress, not in cvs)

So Ogre3d will only replace renderer/graphics, it is not a game engine.
So is it difficult to replace the graphics engine? compare to replace the physics system?

Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:02 pm
by calli
So where can we get information about the progress of integrating Ogre into Blender?

Carsten

Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:05 pm
by intrr
Yeah, I was wondering that too 5 months after the initial announcement of the Ogre3D integration. The web page about it (http://blenderogre.home.bresnan.net/) has nothing new since 5 months, so, I guess this is filed under "yet another dead project" :-(

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:20 am
by LetterRip
I'll ask Charlie if he could post an update, last I talked with him things were progressing well.

LetterRip

Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:23 pm
by snail
Hey all,
This project is still in the works, I'm basically learning as I go along which has
led to a few rewrites. It will be ready as soon as possible, but I can't really
set a date or anything because I just don't know.

The Crystal Blend project looks like a really good thing. It is so much more
mature than the Ogre integration is at the moment. So I'm looking forward to
that as well.

Thanks,
Charlie

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:28 pm
by irnyad
There is need of development on a number of aspects with the
creation of exe files with blender. For one, save dynamic runtime
does not work, but save runtime does.
Plus the physics engine is a little bit dodgey. eg a cube inside a cube
will fall out if you apply a lot of force to it.
Sometimes things fall through the floor.

But most importantly. The graphics problems with exe files.
Alpha values don't get carried through to the exe.
I can't make invisible objects!!!!
Plus shadows aren't good looking in exe files.
And many other vital aspects of good graphics are not displayed with
the exe files.

Also the physics engine is not fast enough. It causes some lag when there
are lots of objects.
Say about 50 objects

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:16 pm
by erwin
Ogre3D should improve shadows and graphics performance.

Check out the new lightmap demo too:
http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet ... .php?t=752

On a modern machine, a few hundred active physics objects should be fine, less then 30% CPU time. The Bullet-house3.blend has over 200 objects:
http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet ... .php?t=752

Bullet physics is always being improved, and this year you can expect large performance improvements.

Erwin

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:51 pm
by joeri
Any plans for the Game Logic part ?

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:08 am
by snail
Yes. There is also some experiments with import/export XML logic
http://home.bresnan.net/~snailrose/tmp-del/example0.txt

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:16 pm
by joeri
That looks promising.

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:19 am
by flim
erwin wrote:Ogre3D should improve shadows and graphics performance.

Check out the new lightmap demo too:
http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet ... .php?t=752

Erwin

So is the beta include Ogre3D or still using old engine?