game logic redesign discussions [Interactive Mode]

Soon, The discussion about how to proceed with game logic needs to be reached and a coder needs to code this interactive mode.

I have been watching all of the engines, and logic systems over time,
what I have found, is that visual logic tends to become cluttered and hard to navigate in most engines. (blueprint for example)

PGI logic nodes for the game engine are similar to blueprints but in the end code python, so they are not as fast as a native C solution.

what I purpose, is to mimic such a system as pgi nodes in C,
and have a split definition at first [interactive and game engine]

and work to make bge and bpy mix into a friendly python api.

the only feature I would add to such a system is folders, to contain logic that can collapse, and also have states. (nodes change when state changes)
user can define inputs into the folder, along with a state input and output,

This would allow the user to compartmentalize and fold complexity,
as wellas it would allow for flexible behavior.

of course there will be python script nodes*

Regarding your node folder idea, the Blender nodes interface already contains something very similar called node groups (which allow you to create re-usable components with custom input/output sockets and can be nested as many times as you need).

I imagine if UPBGE finally did get node-based logic (which I assume would also have script nodes), having the group nodes available should be more useful than a generic folder system.

If there’s anything that really needs to be improved now, it’s the way that reusable assets work. There are two ways to do it right now (either by way of group instances or through links to external files). We need a way to be able to quickly browse through and organize instance files without leaving the currently opened scene and we need a way to quickly switch between .blend files and iterate on them without going back and forth through the file browser.

a group node with states is the same as a folder with states right?

can you put a group inside a group?

That’s exactly the same as my mention of being able to nest groups, so yes.

This could finaly get the ‘everything nodes’ idea off the ground…in any case…I’m all for it…I don’t care(as I’ve said before) what it’s called or if there are even two distinct implementations(interactive/bge) I would be fine with one tbh…I think BF would prefer to just have one(interactive)…and so long as it can behave like a game engine(self executable)I would be fine with that…maybe more people would get behind it too…

Just like you can write bad code you can write bad blueprints. If you split things into functions that only do one thing and also split things visually they’re not cluttered and hard to navigate.

yeah, but a state machine that was a blueprint folder / nodegroup would allow for a single agent to have mutiple behavior states without adding clutter/complexity.

I code python that is pretty well orginized and performant.
This is more for the next generation to open up possibilities.