Hello guys,
here is a video of the actual Blender conference 2017, I was positively surprised as Ton mentioned the BGE at 26:40min.
I personally think, he will do everything to keep (t)his baby inside Blender.
The last sentence, I find interesting:
The Foundation has a budget for actively supporting the whole game engine integration.
let’s just put the entire thing out there!
as much as i love blender and i would find it safe to say that everyone who uses blender would say the same…the blender foundation would lose a LOT of support…most being active users…if they let go of the game engine.
sure there will be loads of people who would try their best to update the game engine after that ( UPBGE, Armory etc) but it would just feel better to always have the built-in feature! i LOVE BGE and i dont want it to ever go away!
oh. and if you can optimize eevee for BGE??? that would be SICK!
thanks!
GO BLENDER!
The fate of the BGE is tied to the progress of UPBGE and whether its developers can successfully work together with the BF to provide not just a vastly enhanced engine for game creators, but a tool that will have use for general DCC work as well.
So far, there’s been both promising developments and setbacks, but things appear to still be moving forward.
@Ace Dragon:
BGE’s future is not necessarily dependant on UPBGE. Ton has expressed his interest in an interactive engine/in the continuation of BGE, and that is nothing to do with UPBGE. So unless you have more information than the rest of us, your assumption that the future of BGE is dependant on UPBGE ‘proving something’ is pure speculation.
What we do know is that the foundation tried to get the UPBGE devs on board to support their idea of the future ‘game engine’ but there is a difference between what the foundation sees as the ‘future bge’ and what the UPBGE devs things it should go. But [I speculate that] seeing as how the GE was mentioned at the BConf, I do not think they will let it drop without some future replacement.
Eh, seeing as I’m at the conference, maybe I should ask him to provide some written proof of his intentions regarding the GE. All this speculation for the past two years has done no favour towards attracting users of the current BGE.
He clearly mentioned his intentions several times already, which is the so called interactive mode. So far it was not a priority and there were no developers interested in collaborating with the Blender foundation to either bring this concept or the game engine itself forward. This seems to be starting to change. His intentions on the other hand don’t seem to have changed.
I don’t agree that the speculations are the cause for the lack of users. There are clearly more relevant reasons, like the outdated technology, the lack of development and very likely even the license itself has more of an impact on the user base. I would even argue that if there would not have been any commitment from Ton, there would even be fewer users right now.
According to our interpretation of things the BF said regarding BGE (none of the UPBGE team members speak proper english, so we can misunderstand things), their definition of game engine is not fully correct. That’s why we had a small conflict of ideas.
Eh, seeing as I’m at the conference, maybe I should ask him to provide some written proof of his intentions regarding the GE. All this speculation for the past two years has done no favour towards attracting users of the current BGE.
Please, do ask! This is important…
What an incredibly weak statement from Ton. Simultaneously better than nothing and worse than nothing.
Ok, show me a written record of his intentions that isn’t more than a year old, and I’ll update my opinion.
I don’t agree that the speculations are the cause for the lack of users. There are clearly more relevant reasons, like the outdated technology, the lack of development and very likely even the license itself has more of an impact on the user base. I would even argue that if there would not have been any commitment from Ton, there would even be fewer users right now.[
WHen I hunt for software, I browse the forums to see what issues people have, and how active the community is. How would you feel browsing forums and seeing that on the first page are generally negatively-inclined discussions about the BGE forums. Normally the BGE forums have lots of new people passing through, but not recently.
According to our interpretation of things the BF said regarding BGE (none of the UPBGE team members speak proper english, so we can misunderstand things), their definition of game engine is not fully correct. That’s why we had a small conflict of ideas
That I understand. Yes, the GE/Interactive mode is nothing like what the GE currently is. Either we can get on board with the new one, or hang-on to the old blender like what happened at the 2.5 UI changover.
I’d rather the new GE used blenders internal depsgraph, even if it isn’t optimal for a game engine. I’d rather the GE used the viewport renderer, and the GE team focussed on making them fast enough for real-time use. It may not be an optimal GE, but it will be amazing. I want to be able to use bpy in the game engine, or to creat native GE particle systems, or use the displace modifier. Things like that are possible with what I understand of the “interactive engine” but not with any extension of the current GE.
What I heard about “interactive mode” is that it will not be possible to play the game outside blender. There will not be blender player stand alone. That would be a deal breaker for me.
His intentions at the moment are that the BGE uses Eevee as much as possible. That’s what he mentioned at the conference and that’s what you find in the mailing list. That’s already a significant undertaking. He wants in general to bring the code from the game engine closer to Blender. Just because he does not repeat those intentions again and again does not mean that they are changing.
That is certainly the case for some people, but saying that this is the central reason is simply speculation. We don’t know. It could also be that the game engine is too far behind the state of the art and people get suspicious that they have to download something else than the official Blender release to get the best out of the game engine. All of that is pure speculation and it is not possible to say what the actual reasons are.
That’s pretty much what I believe is the goal of Ton as well.
+1 , stuff like grease pencil and constructive solid geometry out of the box will aid alot more to learning game design even though they are gonna perform badly in any real time game
Well Upbge 2.8 already uses Eevee. 
As i understand, Ton wants depsgraph and a new logic system for animation. Something like in UE4 cinematics for interactivity.
TBH what they would need to do is decouple Eevee like they have done in cycles, then an addon would allow users to still publish a game…this would also help in the general modular approach of blender development. I personally see this as the road forward…allowing the interactive mode and a lightweight vis tool with interactivity.
I was also surprised to see him mention BGE in the keynote....I'm just wondering when they will get a new venue for the Conference. :)It uses parts of Eevee and you know that.
streamline using a bpy socket to save ge data, or call up new meshes etc.
connect the heads and make a hydra.
recreate logic editing ui in game
‘apply changes’ sends logic down pipe, bpy creates object blender game accesses from shared mem space or libLoad etc.
adds ability to write ge mesh to .blend and we could edit mesh in game .
we need
KX_meshProxy.kdstroke(function,[kdNearReturnList])
to acceletate sculpting and vertex painting in the ge
kdNearReturn = [positionVect, index, distance]
with this we could paint and sculpt, or animate waves etc in game.
radius - distance
or
1 - (radius - distance)
makes a nice gradient
I think connecting bpy to the ge and the ge return data to the viewport should be the goal.
commands that interact with bpy server
own.scene.newObject()
own.scene.saveBlend([object,layer])
and of course in game ui to back up a in game logic editor.
Excuse me please, what does (ge) mean?
KX_meshProxy.kdstroke(function,[kdNearReturnList])
to accelerate sculpting and vertex painting in the ge
and I think you have a syntax error in accelerate