about another engine

I was looking some engine using python when I found this http://www.panda3d.org/

the graphics don’t look atonishing and it don’t seems to be easy as blender but I would like to know if some people used it. I don’t know if it’s the right place to speak about this but I hoping to have some kind of feed back.

I am not trying to set up a sort of comparison on engine, but just asking if people used it and what was their opinion about this panda 3d ( i’ve never heard about it before)

cheers

I used Panda before. It’s not bad, but it needs alot of work. It isn’t as easy to use as blender but you can make an full game out of 100% python. However, it’s not as advance as Blender is and it is about 2 times slower.

it’s slower than blender ? how come ? I didn’t think it was possible ! but thanks ! anyone has tried this one ?

it’s slower than blender ? how come ? I didn’t think it was possible ! but thanks ! anyone has tried this one ?

Are you joking? There are dozens of game engines slower than blender. The 3D function in GameMaker is nearly 40 times slower. Plus, if you know how to use Blender it can be nearly as fast as Irrlicht. Most people look at Ogre and other “next gen” game engine and take blender’s speed for granted. It’s not that blender couldn’t be faster, but the speed it does have, we take for granted.

I don’t know how you use blender but for my part when I put all my scene and my script ( I’m not using so much logic) if I had some panar shadow an simpel ai and £ or four character it won’t be more than 15 fps which is ridiculous. An engine as 3dgs which is notfor me an next gen one run a way faster than blender 17 models with each 4500 poly and water shader runs at 50 fps or above and I think this is impossible. Many engines ? I was talking about valuable one not oudated or engine mader 5 years ago. For me blender is a good engine since you don’t have to fight to buil something but the speed issue is a really big problem. You are telling me blender can be speed as irrlicht. I don’t know if its even possible.

anyway it wasn’t the point of the topic but if you said blender is faster as you said I would like to see how because the speed issue is one of the reason i’m thinking to change engine.

The BGE’s speed gets a big boost in raw rendering power with Ovidiu’s display list optimization and C-106 Delta’s BPPplayer may get rid of excess overhead to speed up the BGE even more.

I’ve used GameMaker, but it’s made for 2D games, not 3D, basic 3D is only there for beginner 3D game making, not any serious use as I can see.

I do think judging from what people say, the animation part could use some optimization, but sometimes it’s just you doing a logic brick setup or python in a very inefficient way.

if I had some panar shadow an simpel ai and £ or four character

There’s more or less efficient ways to do pretty much anything in the BGE, in my AI example with left, right, and vision objects I posted a while back I put in 15 of the simple AI cubes at the same time just now and when I ran it got nearly 60 FPS. My objects don’t have armature animations, but at the rate I was going I could’ve put 4 times the number of AI objects and had it run at nearly 4 times the FPS.

You are telling me blender can be speed as irrlicht. I don’t know if its even possible.

You really think so? Well, I can Prove Blender can run faster than Irrlicht if you know how to use blender correctly. Here is an image I think you might find interesting:

http://uploader.polorix.net//files/418/IrrlichtvsBlender.PNG

Keep in mind that the top program is a Blender game. The bottem one is an Irrlicht game. The little yellow number is the framerate of each (sorry my computer is really slow. The frame rate should be faster than in the picture). The stats of each is:
Blender game:
-55,000 poly scene
-143 senors/ 131 actors
-7,000 lines of Python
-light mapping

Irrlicht game:

  • 60,000 poly scene
  • 5 lines of C++ code for camera
  • no light maps
  • no collisions
  • no physics

I have noticed some odd slow downs on linux (Ubuntu), though. But most of these slow downs are caused by the overhead.

which version of irrlicht are you using ? it’s seems kind of weird

irrlicht community for example made some raytracing demo and was running at 70 fps on my laptop

Irrlicht just released a bleeding edge version.

You can make some very impressive worlds with Irrlicht, they have quite a few ways for the camera to cull map geometry.

Another cool thing about Irrlicht is that you are not just limited to 1 language to use it…
you can use any .NET language you want :slight_smile: so all you BASIC and pascal,and C#, and JAVA programmers out there are not left out :slight_smile:

and last but not least!! with the NEW SDK they include a blender exporter!!!

as soon as I am done with Scorched 3d, I am thinking about a few test Irrlicht projects … I am verry impressed with the real time stencil shadows, with a nice soft falloff!!!

@mmph, have you tried python ogre ?

If you make the test with two different levels, it can’t be called a test. And with your computer it is kind of unreasonable to make the test if you are not getting framerates like 40 to 70 to compare. Also irrlicht level editor has light mapping and if my memory serves me right, irrlicht has a default collision system also.

However you have to turn those on to use them? Correct? So he is saying he hasnt coded them to run during the test.

Interesting and fun stuff.

7000 lines of python! What game is this? Can I download it and play it? Im just curious because I havent seen very many full length games.

Thanks, just curious of course! smile.

Also irrlicht level editor has light mapping and if my memory serves me right, irrlicht has a default collision system also.

I know how to use them, but like ititrx said, they have just been turned off.

If you make the test with two different levels, it can’t be called a test.

They are two different level, yes, so you could get different results. But considering that the Irricht game has LESS code running, more polys and few textures, wouldn’t this give the Blender game a disadvantage? And it still runs faster!

And with your computer it is kind of unreasonable to make the test if you are not getting framerates like 40 to 70 to compare.

If that is true, then what is the point of using a game engine if it only works well on high end computer? I don’t know about you, that might draw alot of people away from your game.

7000 lines of python! What game is this? Can I download it and play it? Im just curious because I havent seen very many full length games.

Data will not be released about this game until the proper time.

I’m sorry but its seems that blender don’t does better but If I remember well blender is far to be an next gen engine. Moreover most of the comercial game are using shader and stuff even old game like doom 3 or hl2. So I don’t think using an engine as irrlicht would draw away people as you said ( it’s not an next game engien as unigine or S2)
I don’t know how old is your computer but even a 3 years old laptop can handle irrlitch with 100 000 poly with 20- 30 fps I made the test.

about the physics engine they all run smoothly this example try it and tell how many you have with 200 entities in blender and then on irrilicht

http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=24827&sid=a7b5a7bebe66ebe2240901207da6b8b0

cheers

Irrlicht is optimized for demanding scenes, not a bunch of boxes. Drop in skeletal animated models, real stencil shadows (Ooops! Not possible in GE), post process shaders (Bloom, motion blur. Oh… wait) while rendering a properly culled scene. Blender will probably freeze and crash, where as Irrlicht will produce a definitly acceptable framerate. In you’re demo above, you have a scene not showing NEARLY as much triangles as the Irrlicht one. They’re all being culled and not rendered. I’m not sure, but I’d bet that you’re not using a camera with proper culling set up, Please, draw the same amount of triangles in both screens.

This test is a load of bullsh*t.

  • Irrlicht is always set up to render complex scenes. These scenes are not comparable ontop of that. Irrlicht is set up to run well with real-time stencil shadows, and post process shaders (motion blur, bloom) with proper culling. Blender can not do these, so you couldn’t even render a nice Irrlicht scene in Blender! Blender gets 0 FPS, and Irrlicht gets upwards of 60 on a average machine.
  • Culling! I’m almost certain you didn’t properly set up culling in Irrlicht. To my knowledge, Blender GE doesn’t currently have culling. Load the same scene in Irrlicht (Export it), and turn on culling. It’ll only draw the Polygons that are in view giving probably a good 50% FPS boost. That is using Irrlicht the way it’s meant to be used. No one cares if Blender is faster and rendering without Culling, since there’s no reason to not turn it on in Irrlicht.
  • There’s a 1 FPS difference. This doesn’t mean it’s a 7:8 ratio, it’s just one fps. This doesn’t scale!
  • You have both of them running at the same time, I’d say Blender is hogging most of the resources leaving much less for Irrlicht.

>>>>However, it’s not as advance as Blender is and it is about 2 times slower.
>>>it’s not as advance as Blender is
>>not as advance as Blender
Small spelling fix
>Not as advanced as Blender

Are you crazy? Did you do any research at all? Blender doesn’t have dynamic skeletal animation (Moving joints based on script), real post-process shaders (Motion blur, Bloom), Dynamic realtime softshadows which selfshadow on models (yes, Like those found in Crysis are in Panda), Built-in networking (Blender has python sockets, Panda has real game networking code that has been proven and is used in two MMORPGs to date. Don’t believe me? Panda is used by Disney for Disney’s Toontown Online, and Pirates of the Caribbean Online), Real culling… the list goes on. Blender GE can’t even render a image texture straight. Please do your research before lieing to everybody. Panda is an amazing commercial game engine, and much faster than Blender if set up properly. You said if you know how to use Blender properly it’s very fast, while that may be true if you learn to use any recent engine properly it’s 10 times as fast, with 10 times the potential. Panda has full documentation and is very easy to use if you’re willing to read the documentation.

hi will happy to see someone so pssionate !

Blender is an esiest gme engine ever made but is not fitted to big scale game as many other engine.

So I tottaly agree with you. Blender is not capble of what irrlicht is. Anyway you answer to my question about panda. Because I’m looking for an engine for a big scale project( till tonnist finish blendX) which use python and this the way I found panda. Do you know which one is more stable between python ogre and panda ? I just test a couple of demo of panda so you cannot judge on something like that.

So I was wondering if you had try both

anyway for blender user It’s not an offense or anything to take by heart

Blender GE is good for what it’s good for, but large projects isn’t it. I’d say go for Panda3D. It’s much more mature than Python-Ogre. Python-Ogre is nice, but it’s documentation is lackluster at the moment.

Irrlicht is optimized for demanding scenes, not a bunch of boxes. Drop in skeletal animated models, real stencil shadows (Ooops! Not possible in GE), post process shaders (Bloom, motion blur. Oh… wait) while rendering a properly culled scene. Blender will probably freeze and crash, where as Irrlicht will produce a definitly acceptable framerate.

I’m sorry but its seems that blender don’t does better but If I remember well blender is far to be an next gen engine. Moreover most of the comercial game are using shader and stuff even old game like doom 3 or hl2. So I don’t think using an engine as irrlicht would draw away people as you said ( it’s not an next game engien as unigine or S2)

Yes, it is true that other game engines can run skeletal animations and a few other features faster than BGE, but I was referring to running polys in general. It is also obvious that blender is not a next generation engine. It doesn’t have all those nice features like real stencil shadows, post process shaders, the list goes on…

about the physics engine they all run smoothly this example try it and tell how many you have with 200 entities in blender and then on irrilicht

Yea, I agree on the physics. Other game engines can run large amounts of physics enabled objects better than blender.

I don’t know how old is your computer but even a 3 years old laptop can handle irrlitch with 100 000 poly with 20- 30 fps I made the test.
http://irrlicht.sourceforge.net/phpB…0120 7da6b8b0

cheers

Well, my computer is about 4 years old but it can only run about 60,000 polys at 7 fps. :frowning:
By the way, the irrlicht physics demo was really cool with all those real-time shadows. It ran about 8 fps on my computer. But than again, the demo you gave me runs off of DirectX, not OpenGL.

it(panda) is about 2 times slower.

I was not lying. The python tutorial with that panda in the woods scene, for example, runs about 20 fps on my computer. I know that blender could render a similar scene faster than that… unless I’m missing something important.

  • Irrlicht is always set up to render complex scenes. These scenes are not comparable ontop of that. Irrlicht is set up to run well with real-time stencil shadows, and post process shaders (motion blur, bloom) with proper culling. Blender can not do these, so you couldn’t even render a nice Irrlicht scene in Blender! Blender gets 0 FPS, and Irrlicht gets upwards of 60 on a average machine.
  • Culling! I’m almost certain you didn’t properly set up culling in Irrlicht. To my knowledge, Blender GE doesn’t currently have culling. Load the same scene in Irrlicht (Export it), and turn on culling. It’ll only draw the Polygons that are in view giving probably a good 50% FPS boost. That is using Irrlicht the way it’s meant to be used. No one cares if Blender is faster and rendering without Culling, since there’s no reason to not turn it on in Irrlicht.
  • There’s a 1 FPS difference. This doesn’t mean it’s a 7:8 ratio, it’s just one fps. This doesn’t scale!
  • You have both of them running at the same time, I’d say Blender is hogging most of the resources leaving much less for Irrlicht.
  • Well first, I can’t even get more than 8 fps on the demo black reaper gave me. Getting 60 fps would be impossible (atleast on my computer).

  • Second, the culling was used on the irrlicht game, and culling is also used in blender games too. When I look away from the high poly scene in Irrlicht, the frame rate increases. The same also happens in the blender game displayed above.

  • Third - yes, the ratio will change based on the amount of polys features used and/or computer. I just showed the results of my computer.

  • Last, I did think about this. When I changed the window to irrlicht instead of blender the frame rate stayed the same. The blender game was not hogging the resources. I’ll upload an image in a moment if you don’t believe me.

I noticed you have Norton running in the screenshot, which is a performance killer to the max. If culling was used in blender, then it’s no wonder that scene would do better. The hills and stuff are culling other objects in the scene, where as the boxes probably aren’t set up to cull in Irrilcht. Also polygons aren’t everything. If an engine is slow at everything but polygons, it’s even worse than if it was just slow at polygons! I’m going to change my argument and say they’re uncomparable because BGE’s feature set is really small, where Irrlicht is meant for shaders and such. Also the scenes were not the same and therefor not set up for bench marking (though you couldn’t run a good Irrlicht scene in Blender).