Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 221
  1. #161
    Originally Posted by Ratchet View Post
    Most indies won't make it, like Blender modeling tools , most of them are users not Blender developpers.

    Well, there is the other important show stoppers that won't make it happen anyway.
    None of them are "showstoppers". Nothing of that stops you making a game with the BGE. You do not even need the latest version of Blender to make a game. You can use a Blender 2.37, 2.49 ... .

    You might not be happy with the mentioned points but they are not stopping you from making a game.

    The real showstopper for the planned interactive mode as game engine is in many ways different: You can't make games with it. Because ... it does not exist yet.


    Btw. The blenderplayer is open source. Your assets are not open source unless you distribute them as open source via licence or by binding them to the blenderplayer.



  2. #162
    Moderator Monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,676
    Originally Posted by Fred/K.S View Post
    I would like to see more Updates to the Good all time BGE if its still going to be there in 2.80 and i like the way you've mentioned it here i think that BGE is unique and will always be in future blender builds !!!!

    BUT we need it updated to UPBGE Level.

    Until the interactive Engine is refined and completed and super stable i would like to make an official AAA Title just to test and see what content can be created !!!!

    Fred/K.S
    As far as I understood the plans UPBGE will not be the engine of the official product. With the introduction of the interactive mode (basically a new game engine) the old BGE will no longer be part of Blender starting with 2.8.

    From there I can imagine two ways:

    A) the UPBGE will continue as fork acting as improved BGE. This was the intention of the UPBGE developers already. The downside is that keeping the Blender (asset creation) part in-synch with the official Blender might not be possible anymore.

    B) Blender acts as platform for different game engines. This would enable the UPBGE team to restructure the game engine in a way to plug into Blender 2.8.



  3. #163
    Member Thatimster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,863
    Originally Posted by Monster View Post
    B) Blender acts as platform for different game engines. This would enable the UPBGE team to restructure the game engine in a way to plug into Blender 2.8.
    I would like to see this. It seems to be the cleanest solution to a messy problem. With the modularization of eevee and the clay renderer hopefully it will be easy to do this. The only issue would be the introduction of the new layer system.
    My BGE Tutorials | 98 free nature Assets | My BGE Sprite Addon | Facebook Page | Contact
    Stay inspired!



  4. #164
    Member sdfgeoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Kalpana One
    Posts
    5,121
    With the introduction of the interactive mode (basically a new game engine) the old BGE will no longer be part of Blender starting with 2.8.
    Quick note: As I understand it, the interactive engine will be coming later than 2.8. "Normal" BGE is in blender 2.8. (At least, if you download 2.8 you can switch to "blender game" mode)

    B) Blender acts as platform for different game engines. This would enable the UPBGE team to restructure the game engine in a way to plug into Blender 2.8.
    Yes, the multi-engine approach is something the BF is heading for, and so I imagine this could end up happening.
    "Someone applied a roof texture to that wall" - martinsh

    Website: www.sdfgeoff.space



  5. #165
    Member BluePrintRandom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NoCal Usa
    Posts
    18,330
    what if upbge takes a diff approach to modeling?

    panzergame was working on a mesh editing api
    (for adding and removing geometry)

    if we could build bvhtree and kdtree from meshProxy without itterating py ...

    and also had a few nice accelerated bvhtree commands

    obj.meshes[0].brushStroke(operation, [kdtreeNearReturn])

    one operation would be sculpt(vector,falloff)
    another would be paint vertex color = paint(color,falloff)
    another would be paint uv texture channel = (image,falloff)


    with this and the ability to dump KX_meshProxy back into a blend and save them and people could share tools as objects

    'tool tips' and 'custom pies' are my thoughts so far.


    in no time we will have a tool superior to zbrush I think.
    Break it and remake it - Wrectified
    If you cut off a head, the hydra grows back two.
    "headless upbge"



  6. #166
    Moderator Monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,676
    Originally Posted by BluePrintRandom View Post
    what if upbge takes a diff approach to modeling?

    This is up to the developers of upbge.

    The new interactive mode is supposed to run the 3D-Modeller. I guess this game engine will get components that contain all the modelling abilities. Currently I do not see a reason why it should not be available within own games.



  7. #167
    Member JustinBarrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Trier(near), Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    I'm really fond of the idea of the UPBGE team taking that route...e.g. an addon style approach to plugin their own logic, or publishing or whatever....even render engine improvements and speedups.
    "The crows seem to be calling my name." Thought Kaw.
    Myrlea, "The Shepherd's Quest" formerly "Valiant" [project]



  8. #168
    Member Akira_San's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    1,859
    The Upbge devs does not have such a resources to make Upbge an addon. BGE/UPBGE is integrated in blender, making it into a separated tool will take too much time, so its not worth. So far UpBge works in 2.8 using the new viewport shading Eevee, as a testing alpha. I dont think, that bge in 2.8 works. I dont think, that they will make the bge to work in 2.8, because of its messy code.
    Also i dont consider the news about IM engine as a replacement of bge. I think, its crazy! Its more like UE4 cinematic tool = make my movie button.
    anime, manga, blender3d



  9. #169
    Member JustinBarrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Trier(near), Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    I agree that interactive mode will not be a game engine...I think it will be like you said...geared towards interactive cinematics...and, if I am being honest, that sickens me.

    in IM I do not see them adding optimizations that you would expect for a game engine...but in the end, only time will tell and speculation doe not really reflect what may actually come to pass...I just have a gut feeling that it wont be good.
    "The crows seem to be calling my name." Thought Kaw.
    Myrlea, "The Shepherd's Quest" formerly "Valiant" [project]



  10. #170
    I'm finished with BGE after BGMC 20 and the future's for UPBGE not very sure too - very few people developing...not full time dev..etc.
    ....I switched to great Godot engine.......interactive mode? that's all other than the real game engine...thanks
    I get it like...BGE is old - slow and it must end in the new versions of Blender.
    Last edited by Mistran; 14-Nov-17 at 14:30.



  11. #171
    What I am not understanding is why a lot of people here write that the Interactive Mode would not be a game engine. As far as I can see, the functionality should be almost identical, with a greater potential of being extended in the future. Of course, it was mentioned that the Blender Player might be removed. But I believe chances are high that it is kept alive if there is some actual demand.
    If the Blender Game Engine is considered to be a game engine and the Interactive Mode would basically have the same possibilities, why isn't it a game engine?



  12. #172
    I don't get the idea that this interactive mode wouldn't be a game engine either, even if it wouldn't have "game engine" in its title. I mean, it sounds like it would have features a game engine would have: Logic being used to control all sorts of events, like simulating physics, or letting keyboard input control various animations in real time, etc.

    The question, however, is the scope the project would have - and it doesn't help that we don't even have a real codebase of such engine in the first place.

    ---

    Now, I have been thinking about what potential features the IMBGE could have, if there was effort to making it a great engine. I consider it a best case scenario, should we consider the mission of the whole engine being based on Blender itself:

    1. The device input system of blender could see a nice upgrade to match the features of game engines. For instance, perhaps we could plug in an Xbox controller and use it to navigate the blender interface as a byproduct of improving the system for making games. Or touch screen support in blender could help create smart phone ports easier... Maybe I'm stupid a person to think that, but having the IMBGE use blender's input/keymap system as its sensors sounds interesting, should coders enhance it to make the engine work properly.

    2. The Blender 101 Project could be extended for very customized interfaces for such game engine. In this way, we could create our own level editor interfaces with it, or even prototype UI's.

    3. A potential new Asset manager I've heard of could be used as an assistant for managing inventory in a game one makes.

    4. The engine could power all simulations that are used in animation effects - cloth, water, smoke, etc. - And in return, the same effects could be used for game creation as well.

    5. Animations the engine helps to create could also easily be integrated back into our own games and assets we'd make in the engine.

    6. The engine could simply add upon the node interface to recreate its own new 'logic brick system' once more, although with its own way of handling such logic. And any improvement to the node system unlocks potential to find a better visual interface than tangled logic bricks.

    7. There could be a way to export all non-code aspects of your game into a special type of securely encrypted file format to separate from the Blender code and scripts. Such file could then be relicensed however you want - and you could distribute the source code script you've made separate from that asset file. All games would run in blender still, and this would make a more standard way to comply with the GPL, all while keeping your assets your own. Much less uncertainty!

    8. The engine could have a new renderer optimized for games - but also could specialize in non-photorealistic rendering, too! Maybe use it as a way to specialize in cell shading, freestyle effects, toon shading, etc. as a byproduct to being super fast. I mean, I understand the idea of using the standard viewport as the IMBGE - the engine could still use it for creating interactive content. But for publishing content, there could be an optimum game renderer, much like what Godot, Unity, etc. use.

    9. Eevee for really graphically intense games, though not necessarily for mainstream games.

    10. All improvements to speed and support in blender would apply to the engine - like multithread support from using the Dependency graph.

    11. Almost all known logic features in the existing UPBGE could be used in the IMBGE. Some technical issues could appear, due to their different architectures, but it could do what it can.

    Understand, of course, these are just some (crazy) ideas for a best case scenario. It would be for if the foundation took the IMBGE seriously as a game creation tool. So far, though, we don't have much happening in the IMBGE yet - just the features, like Eevee, the engine could potentially use.
    Darkness cannot stop darkness. Only light can do that. Hatred cannot stop hatred. Only love can do that.



  13. #173
    Member JustinBarrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Trier(near), Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    simply put game engine logic and the underlying engine itself are designed to be fast at the cost of some fidelity......if you are making an interactive movie/cinematics engine, it is designed to look great at the cost of a bit of performance(like when you watch cutscenes in games...they often look better, but run slower)...I feel interactive mode is will probably head in the direction of the latter....


    I have already stated this is just my opinion...I base this off the fact that the general push in blender development has always been for animation and CG....while Eevee may seem like a step in a different direction, it is still not clear that this new direction will be very beneficial to making games whilst inside the blender interface...or if it will be designed more around the cinematics....in any case you generally do not have both...fast and amazing looking..there is a trade off in every game engine.

    That being said...I think it is a great thing to have interactive mode...opening up more of blender to python while in interactive mode is an awesome plan...aside from that I still think the same.
    "The crows seem to be calling my name." Thought Kaw.
    Myrlea, "The Shepherd's Quest" formerly "Valiant" [project]



  14. #174
    Originally Posted by JustinBarrett View Post
    simply put game engine logic and the underlying engine itself are designed to be fast at the cost of some fidelity......if you are making an interactive movie/cinematics engine, it is designed to look great at the cost of a bit of performance(like when you watch cutscenes in games...they often look better, but run slower)...I feel interactive mode is will probably head in the direction of the latter....


    I have already stated this is just my opinion...I base this off the fact that the general push in blender development has always been for animation and CG....while Eevee may seem like a step in a different direction, it is still not clear that this new direction will be very beneficial to making games whilst inside the blender interface...or if it will be designed more around the cinematics....in any case you generally do not have both...fast and amazing looking..there is a trade off in every game engine.

    That being said...I think it is a great thing to have interactive mode...opening up more of blender to python while in interactive mode is an awesome plan...aside from that I still think the same.
    Right now the development of Eevee is focusing on getting the best possible visual quality. They are consciously giving the performance a lower priority. The reason is that they have to start somewhere.
    From a technical point of view, Eevee is very close to actual game engine renderers. There are tons of possibilities in game engines to improve the performance and the same is true for Eevee. Historically, it is a goal from the Blender developers to make the tools available to as many people as possible and as such, I am absolutely certain that we can expect lots of work being spent on improving the performance.

    Of course you can't have the best looking and fastest solution at the same time. But in game engines, you have the opportunity to tweak a huge amount of settings to find the compromise that works best for you.
    When it comes to movie making, they will most likely need to have this sort of ability too. A visual artist wants to get a quick preview of the scene and would like to get the best possible visual quality, while e.g. animators who are supposed to work within the same scene, need to have the best possible performance in order to interact fluently with the characters or environment.

    I am pretty irritated because Eevee is making use of a huge amount of techniques that are standard these days, which are not used in the BGE at all. Thanks to the dependency graph, updates in the scene graph can be executed in parallel. The rendering code uses newer versions of OpenGL which already gives considerable performance improvements. Further it has the potential to make use of Vulkan, which would give it another boost.



  15. #175
    Member JustinBarrett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Trier(near), Germany
    Posts
    2,177
    To be clear...I am super stoked about Eevee and getting more integration....but I am very upset about blender not having a dedicated game engine...and I fully understand their predicament...I know they are not developing this specifically for us game engine 'cave dwellers'
    "The crows seem to be calling my name." Thought Kaw.
    Myrlea, "The Shepherd's Quest" formerly "Valiant" [project]



  16. #176
    Blender's chance to be a dedicated game engine was threw a few years back...aiming to CGI and animation/films...I'm not saying that's wrong..just stating a fact.
    .....and BGE happened gradually uncomfortable....it's over...not real dedicated engine...only interactive mode
    Why the name interactive mode why the name not stays the same...the improved engine in Blender...called interactive mode?...this is a joke right?

    ....and why BF and Ton for BGE doesn't mean much and it's all smoke....why the hell BF not say exactly...."Guys do'nt worry, there will be a great better engine for full game development and easy publishing for all platforms"....i didn't hear this.
    Last edited by Mistran; 15-Nov-17 at 14:59.



  17. #177
    Member mataii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    444
    Ton often tend to be specific and call things by it's name, so: Interactive Mode ≠ Game Engine

    Sadly I have not much hope in Ton Roosendaal words, also when the Apricot project was announced back in 2007 he decided to use CrystalSpace because it was the better choice for the project (at least for Ton Roosendaal), wich we all know it was not the best choice (anyone who had tried to use CS before 2007 can tell the same) we also tell him in the forums that CrystalSpace was a horrible election. At the end all end up working in the project and upgrading the bge in a rush (2.49x) to accomplish the goal, and let me guess.. in "crunch time" just because a BAD decision was taken.

    So, IMHO, besides and despite all the issues the game engine is dragging for the last years (being a mess and complicated to upgrade) are just because the lack of attention... 2007 may have been a good start to think about the real future of the BGE, like the 2.5x release. As from then we could have had a nice BGE upgrade for 2017, but there is no interest nor vision in that way for Ton... pretty clear to me.

    There are more alternatives and, better ones? yes, Godot maybe, and also I've worked more in UE than Unity as a professional, but I preffer to work in BGE for me and my projects.

    I dont use sculpt mode just because ZBrush is better, there is no comparison but nonetheless BF keeps sculpt in blender, upgrading/improving, not at the same pace as ZBrush but there we have it in blender because people still using it, so it deserves attention, but not the same for the BGE.

    Hopefully there are some people here with a different vision (UPBGE team and other users), no matter some others call them crazy, what really matters is conviction. There is no need to agree in everything with Ton (or any other person), so my full support for the UPBGE team and thanks for all the time invested in the project.

    P.S. I've read all the comments and this is my first and last comment here in the thread, I just wanted to express myself.



  18. #178
    Originally Posted by mataii View Post
    Ton often tend to be specific and call things by it's name, so: Interactive Mode ≠ Game Engine

    Sadly I have not much hope in Ton Roosendaal words, also when the Apricot project was announced back in 2007 he decided to use CrystalSpace because it was the better choice for the project (at least for Ton Roosendaal), wich we all know it was not the best choice (anyone who had tried to use CS before 2007 can tell the same) we also tell him in the forums that CrystalSpace was a horrible election. At the end all end up working in the project and upgrading the bge in a rush (2.49x) to accomplish the goal, and let me guess.. in "crunch time" just because a BAD decision was taken.

    So, IMHO, besides and despite all the issues the game engine is dragging for the last years (being a mess and complicated to upgrade) are just because the lack of attention... 2007 may have been a good start to think about the real future of the BGE, like the 2.5x release. As from then we could have had a nice BGE upgrade for 2017, but there is no interest nor vision in that way for Ton... pretty clear to me.

    There are more alternatives and, better ones? yes, Godot maybe, and also I've worked more in UE than Unity as a professional, but I preffer to work in BGE for me and my projects.

    I dont use sculpt mode just because ZBrush is better, there is no comparison but nonetheless BF keeps sculpt in blender, upgrading/improving, not at the same pace as ZBrush but there we have it in blender because people still using it, so it deserves attention, but not the same for the BGE.

    Hopefully there are some people here with a different vision (UPBGE team and other users), no matter some others call them crazy, what really matters is conviction. There is no need to agree in everything with Ton (or any other person), so my full support for the UPBGE team and thanks for all the time invested in the project.

    P.S. I've read all the comments and this is my first and last comment here in the thread, I just wanted to express myself.
    Sorry, but that's pretty lame. Usually forums are a discussion platform. You made plenty of vague statements with which I don't really agree, but who cares, you are not going to answer anyway.



  19. #179
    Originally Posted by Mistran View Post
    .....and BGE happened gradually uncomfortable....it's over...not real dedicated engine...only interactive mode
    Why the name interactive mode why the name not stays the same...the improved engine in Blender...called interactive mode?...this is a joke right?
    Why should that be a joke. Ton answered that question long ago:
    https://code.blender.org/2013/06/ble...-8-and-beyond/
    What should then be dropped is the idea to make Blender have an embedded “true” game engine. We should acknowledge that we never managed to make something with the portability and quality of Unreal or Crysis… or even Unity3D. And Blender”s GPL license is not helping here much either. On the positive side – I think that the main cool feature of our GE is that it was integrated with a 3D tool, to allow people to make 3D interaction for walkthroughs, for scientific sims, or game prototypes. If we bring back this (original) design focus for a GE, I think we still get something unique and cool, with seamless integration of realtime and “offline” 3D.

    Originally Posted by Mistran View Post
    ....and why BF and Ton for BGE doesn't mean much and it's all smoke....why the hell BF not say exactly...."Guys do'nt worry, there will be a great better engine for full game development and easy publishing for all platforms"....i didn't hear this.
    Because that is neither true, nor is it the goal. It is not even possible to publish on certain platforms like iOS and many consoles due to the GPL.



  20. #180
    ...for game prototypes....for who?.....I can create fast game prototype in Godot engine which I use.
    I use Blender for the model assets..i don't care.

    .....fortunately there are guys with UPBGE.....so fingers crossed
    Last edited by Mistran; 15-Nov-17 at 16:56.



Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •