I’m going to start by saying that I’m completely for the Apricot game project. Its great to finally get a professional game going, and i cant wait to see the finished game (and play it of course) Hopefully it gets a great deal of attention to Blenders game development as well.
But, I’m a bit frustrated with the way that crystalspace is being used as the primary GE.
Aren’t we trying to get Ogre involved with Blender?? I’m pretty sure that Ogre is the engine which is currently being looked at for integration, so why is Apricot specifically using crystalspace?
I feel like one major point of the Apricot project is to move the Blender GE forward in development, but this seems to me like a step in the wrong direction, or even completely backwards. We could be getting some serious work done on Ogre integration and showing what could be possible in the future.
So thats just my point of view, I’m interested in hearing what everyone else has to say about this?
Ogre is just a rendering engine, To get it up to par with all the features of CS would take them way too long.
CS is a complete game engine with 10 years worth of work behind it.
Crystal space is more stable and complete than Ogre integration currently. I’m still working on bringing Ogre into blender,
but I’m just one person and sometimes progress is really slow.
To me it makes more sense to use a stable and complete environment like cs.
After all Ogre is just a rendering engine, all the other sub systems need to be written…
Ok, that clears it up a lot then. Ive just always thought that Orge was the way to go, seems like CS is another (currently more complete) option for Blender.
I hope you can get some more support Snailrose, keep up the good work. I’m glad theres people out there working on the Blender GE.
Imho It would be great to have a CS plugin for blender, so you can do all the development in one app but maybe this wouldn’t work I dont know enough about how it all works to see all the pro’s and con’s.
I really hope they work on the painting to make it tablet friendly right now its mouse friendly only; out of frustation I tend to only paint in blender with the mouse if I use the paint tools. This would make creating the color map simpler for people who would like to do it in blender with a tablet… its takes less time with a tablet. Creating game content inside of blender would be more pleasurable. (this issue is if you drag the tip the paint “stackes” likely do to the slight variations in pressure during a motion so you get WAY more paint than you should with every moving stoke. Unless you want to paint with dots like who ever that artist was its pointless to have a sensitivity option. 2.44 this was the case haven’t blend in awhile)
also can’t wait for some nice brush options for sculpt, texture paint, etc. what the hell lets get greedy a decent eraser not just an alpha modifier … or really greedy layers and blending options. Or hell a solid connection to gimp using verse. Blender never stayed connect for longer than 30 seconds for me but gimp stayed connected for eva.
I really hope that someday there’s enough interest in the development of the internal BGE to bring it to at least last-gen standards. Apricot is somewhat exciting to me but I would much rather see a project more devoted to the internal GE. Maybe things will change in the future… I hope.
bring it to at least last-gen standards
Yes, that would be pretty good, if you check out some of the stuff from Ogre and CrystalSpace then its pretty damn close, if not last gen already. Ive been researching it all a lot today after posting this thread.
CrystalSpace looks very nice, and I’m working on getting it running on my laptop now. It will at least let me make the standard of games I’ve been wanting to do while i wait for the internal GE to develop (however that will happen)
Problem is that just adding new graphical features to BGE doesn’t help much when there’s serious memory leaks, logic system is outdated and full of bugs and there are propably only couple persons who really know how the code works. As much I like the simplicity of BGE I’ve begun to believe in plugin based system. Plugin system allows good expandability, but it won’t be as easy to use as the integrated engine.
As a side note I just hope CS would start using Bullet physics. Only reason why I haven’t yet switched to CS plugin is that BGE has the great Bullet vehicle script.
is it some Cs good game demo ? I mean even if apricot project is going to be done on cs I’ haven’t seen any game or decent project made on this platform. Someone made a comparison between ogre and cs and what I understood is there was almost equal but ogre was just a rendering engine and you should have to create all you tools. So ogre look hader to use but I’ve so many project on ogre and maybe only one on cs so I’m asking people using cs if there is some game or demo and not only core- thing ( the tech demo).
…but it projects shadows correctly only on flat surfaces so it is really useful only in indoor scenes. It still quite an achievement and I don’t want to diss Remi’s great work.
As a side note I just hope CS would start using Bullet physics. Only reason why I haven’t yet switched to CS plugin is that BGE has the great Bullet vehicle script.
You can use Bullet, ODE, and newton ,I think with CS right now.
Not quite as easy to implement as in the BGE, but it still exists.
You can also use Collada for your player models… If I am not mistaken they have physics bounds for the armature bones, so you can easily make a ragdoll
I would also love to see the logic system in the BGE working more efficiently , seems like 99.999% of all abandoned projects are from some sort of logic lag.
Exactly. You’d think it’s something that everyone would be clear on at this point.
That’s really the key point here. The hard to fix logic problems, and the increased difficulty resultant from the serious lack of expertise specific to the BGE.
If wikipedia is to be trusted, there were only two people who developed the BGE initially. Erwin Coumans was one of those people, and Gino Van Den Bergen was the other. Now, did Erwin work on the engine in general, or was he just the “physics guy”? If the latter ware to be the case, then I’d say that most of the BGE shortcomings we see today are less of a surprise, because that would mean that Gino Van Den Bergen is pretty much the only person in the world who would have the “complete picture” when it comes to the BGE source code.
Or at least, those would be my assumptions.
I agree.
Actually, I think one could argue that the “CS pipeline” is pretty much the only reasonable option at this point. In part because it’s so logically sound, and also because it’s the only option that is fully backed by the blender foundation (Ton). -> A privilege that the BGE never really enjoyed.
All I’m waiting for at this point is for Apricot to deliver on a set of stable tools & methods (“the pipeline”), and then I would gladly switch.
You’d think it’s something that everyone would be clear on at this point.
True, but i haddnt researched into the reasons behind Apricot before posting this (at least outside the forums), which was the main reason why i posted it. It was just a little frustrating misunderstanding which i could have cleared up doing a bit of research beforehand I’m guessing.
Problem is that just adding new graphical features to BGE doesn’t help much when there’s serious memory leaks, logic system is outdated and full of bugs and there are propably only couple persons who really know how the code works.
Thats a good point. in my experience i can keep a good framerate with just models and terrain etc but the second any ‘decent’ logic gets involved the whole project comes crashing down.
Hopefully Apricot will point us in the right direction and give us all a means into more complex logic. -And of course
a set of stable tools & methods (“the pipeline”)
Not to mention the better graphics bonus.
BGE needs a ton of work before it could be used professionally, which is what this project is about. It’s obscenely outdated in terms of logic (I still think the best course of action is to reintegrate logic bricks as nodes, but I know shit-all), as well as just integration with Blender itself. Blender’s evolved incredibly, but in order to use current works in BGE, you have to revert your work to older systems (armature system, for example).
I am curious; we have semi-working GLSL shaders in our viewport, how hard would it be to have BGE use the materials on the object much like the shaded view, as opposed to requiring a script?
It’s too bad that the BGE is underdeveloped and it has to have so many problems, but from what I see people like Zaghaghi can fix and optimize the engine. I know Zaghaghi is working on volumetric material for Peach, but he’ll be coming back to the engine, I just want to know the status on what he’s working on now.
