… mh… i know that with bgl module (is a alias of GLSL? i not know)
is possible draw a triangle black with 10 lines more or less of code .
without use any mesh that already exist .
i just suppose that as is doable one triangle black is doable also a plane then a cube, make this cube red,blue, move , rotate etc.
this seem a perfect base to make particle effect.
just a idea
about the integration , all good, i hope that pressing P i can see my usual abundant 60FPS (not 6 :D)
i just suppose that as is doable one triangle black is doable also a plane then a cube, make this cube red,blue, move , rotate etc.
this seem a perfect base to make particle effect.
Mind boggling…Why would you make 3D objects (well not make since you can only represent by a projection) in 2D environment? Also solid color is pretty far from textures with alpha that most particles would need. Obvious problems with world clipping and interaction as well since we’re dealing in screen x,y coordinates rather than x,y,z world coordinates.
I can’t say if that would be even performing faster than shadeless/halo face operating straight in C++ not to mention the ease-of-use side.
If the two lines of code you posted is a “particle system”, then yeah, you have. You’ll find many people disagree with your definition of “particle system” though.
Yeah, clearly I don’t understand particle systems because I don’t refer to some GUI components of Panda3D particle system. Words like “particle, factory, emitter, renderer” are not really universal standards of particle systems.
They kind of are standard terms. But OK, not all engines might use the same terms.
FYI in Blender for example there is no division you’re describing.
Blender doesn’t even have a realtime particle system though.
All you have ever seen and used are particle systems that come ready coded and polished with GUI for the ignorant end user who can never bother with technicality.
I know the “technicality”. Ever GUI option in Panda’s particle editor corresponds to a Python or C++ function. Sometimes I just write the particle system settings by code because I don’t bother running the particle editor program for a a simple effect.
Calling people ignorant for using something which works for them and saves them a lot of time is just silly.
Using them requires no expertise
This is not only true but offensive to artists who spend lots of time creating content on editors like this. What are you going to say next? Level editors don’t require expertise because you don’t manipulate the objects by code instead?
and you’re limited to what the particle system creator has enabled you to do.
Ugh. As you are when you choose to use a game engine instead of writing your own.
I highly doubt there’s something you won’t be able to achieve with the particle systems which come with Unity or Panda and maybe in future in Blender (same way I highly doubt there’s something you can’t achieve with the mentioned game engines and will need to write your own game engine). But if you somehow manage to think of something, add it to the system or contact the developers of the game engine about that. Or write your own and don’t use the built-in one. For the rest of us it works for everything we need. Don’t say it’s not needed and spoil it for the rest of us.
Your reason that BGE shouldn’t have a particle system included is it might not work for everyone for every case. That is just silly, you could say that about every component of the engine.
Yes it is. It’s not Panda3D GUI particle system polished for the ignorant end user ™ but it spawns particles. Frankly you don’t even seem know what the two lines of code do. You got everything wrong in your interpretation. No, I did not create an empty.
You just created an empty object (not “Empty” with capital “E”) and wrote in the comments how to “spawn” it when needed as a “particle”.
No, it’s not for holding or parenting the particles.
You’re misquoting me, I didn’t say it is doing that, I said it could be used for that.
No
No, they don’t. Most engines only have what’s been programmed into them for the flagship title.
…
If you want more it’s going to mean C++ and PhotoShop.
That’s just nonsense.
Oh, so this is where you base your claims on. Comparing BGE to Unity, bravo!
They are both game engines and I’m comparing basic game engine features, genius.
Really, go learn python / BGE / graphics programming theory before trying to understand what it is. You’ve got some nerve coming here as total noob telling others what their scripts do.
“Total noob”? Grow up.
Since only use GUI/WYSIWYG approaches that makes you an expert on nothing.
Panda3D is a game library, not a WYSIWYG tool, actually. Seriously, just go read the homepage and first manual page of Panda3d before you make assumptions about it and me.
“Panda3D is a 3D engine: a library of subroutines for 3D rendering and game development. The library is C++ with a set of Python bindings. Game development with Panda3D usually consists of writing a Python or C++ program that controls the Panda3D library.”
I think you’re off into nothing but world of disappointment when you demand out-of-the-box for this and that and come raging on forums.
Funny how others agree with me that a particle system and editor are indeed a missing feature of BGE and you’re the only one thinking like that.
Raging? I’m not raging, I’m just telling you why you are wrong. This thread had a specific question and people have answered it. But of course for a fanboy every time someone says their tool of choice has some missing feature it seems to them as raging.
I’m not going to be like you and call you a noob. But when it comes to particle systems, you have almost no idea about the subject and just sound like a fanboy.
Go waste someone else’s time. This thread is solved. I’m done trying to explain why your assumptions and knowledge on particle systems are wrong.
If the two lines of code you posted is a “particle system”, then yeah, you have. You’ll find many people disagree with your definition of “particle system” though.
Obviously what I write for my own games take hundreds of lines. But not thousands since I’m not making a GUI for it. And them I actually can call particle system where I have parametrized things like velocity, spawn type, fade-in-out and created internal types for spark, smoke, rain, etc. I can call from other parts of my script. I purposely made a bare bones particle setup in order to drive my point about the triviality of the problem.
They kind of are standard terms. But OK, not all engines might use the same terms. Blender doesn’t even have a realtime particle system though.
Blender has a particle system which I was referring to. I was not referring to BGE. And it doesn’t use the terms you were after. Learning the exact names and concepts for particles and looking for them on another engine is pointless because no other particle system is going to be like Panda3D particle system, or particle systems made on Unity. Everyone has slightly original and reworked approaches to them. As you create a particle system you learn about what you need to know about DIY particles, not by configuring the GUIs of one or two of them. If you ever go that far personally.
I know the “technicality”. Ever GUI option in Panda’s particle editor corresponds to a Python or C++ function. Sometimes I just write the particle system settings by code because I don’t bother running the particle editor program for a a simple effect.
You have merely customized existing systems, whether you made it by a checkbox or changing around function variables or actions. Get that.
If you really were comfortable with core mechanics of particle programming you wouldn’t be here complaining about a missing feature in BGE. You would be happily coding your own particles from scratch having realized how little a difference prebuilt particle system makes for you.
You’re misquoting me, I didn’t say it is doing that, I said it could be used for that.
Forgive me, but that was the only way your comment had any content. All objects in BGE could be used for parenting or holding. So really you’re able to say about the two lines that there are objects involved. Nice.
You just created an empty object (not “Empty” with capital “E”) and wrote in the comments how to “spawn” it when needed as a “particle”.
Where did I create an empty? Show me. Was it the first or the second line? You’re not able to distinguish between comment instructions describing the setup and actual code that is processed in-game so I suggest you leave the interpretation to other people.
I highly doubt there’s something you won’t be able to achieve with the particle systems which come with Unity or Panda and maybe in future in Blender (same way I highly doubt there’s something you can’t achieve with the mentioned game engines and will need to write your own game engine).
Let’s say I want to emit a smoke trail that gets distorted by wind which I’ve implemented myself to affect what I want (such as meshes topology and normals, shaders for example). I want the smoke trail also to sense objects moving through them and distort it with location, orientation, scale, color, alpha according to curves that are defined by me.
For another game I want fire that is affected by custom wind, does damage, is able to catch between objects.
For another game I want volumetric mist that is spawned and moved by custom wind in flat and shallow parts of my procedurally created terrain.
I could go on and on. Whether this is actually possible in some engine is trivial.
Making a particle system that offers this scope of things with GUI would probably take 50-100 times the amount of code you need to make the specific thing yourself from scratch. And no matter how versatile you make it, there are always people that come crying how they can’t do the exact thing they want to. You have to understand why (almost) no self-respecting programmer find this job lucrative.
They are both game engines and I’m comparing basic game engine features, genius.
GUI particle editor is not a “game engine” feature. Game engine per se has what you need to play the game. As you expand beyond that, offering open tools for development on that engine you should be talking about game development environment or commonly known as IDE.
You can (and most beginners often do) compare BGE or any engine to Unity and say it’s missing this and that and “everything else has it because Unity does”. If BGE had particles the discontent would be about Android/iOS exporting, Asset store, GLSL. If that is the scope of your game engine knowledge go read the wiki article on them. Technically even that list is biased because it doesn’t list every game engine ever made, just the ones that are offering tools to be actually viable for basing your game/mod on.
Funny how others agree with me that a particle system and editor are indeed a missing feature of BGE and you’re the only one thinking like that.
OFC particles are missing feature of BGE because it’s just not there. Simple technicality that is not for arguing. You have been pointed many times to 3rd person scripts that make the job for you if you really can’t do it yourself. That’s what people do in your situation, it’s nothing serious.
Having a builtin system there might make BGE more lucrative in the eyes of beginner but in reality as you start making your game the particles are nothing but dumbened-down path to eye candy and visuals. There are more grave areas of improvement BGE needs work on that really bottleneck development of impressive games. By the time you have a game you want to polish with particle effects you already have enough knowledge to make your own particles or particle systems. The only thing a builtin particles might benefit BGE are in optimization where it could be done in C++ instead of user scripted python to make particles more efficient though limited in expression in these cases.
The other posters might want to resonate with you because of 1) and that’s why I also want to bring 2) to the discussion because of the undertone in your posts. The rest of the community simply ignores you bashing the BGE and maybe I’ll grow tired of defending against ignorance some day as well.
But when it comes to particle systems, you have almost no idea about the subject and just sound like a fanboy.
Go waste someone else’s time.
The only thing I have no idea about is anything Panda3D-specific, feel free to insult me on it. But about graphics programming or particles in general you have yet to show where my expertise fails.
Then you have a created a simple particle system for your game. GUI is not what takes up good portion of the code.
Blender has a particle system which I was referring to. I was not referring to BGE. And it doesn’t use the terms you were after.
And I’m saying this twice already, it’s a non realtime system supporting features not possible to do in realtime. No wonder it’s structured differently.
Learning the exact names and concepts for particles and looking for them on another engine is pointless because no other particle system is going to be like Panda3D particle system, or particle systems made on Unity.
This is so silly.
It’s like saying learning terms in the game engine you are using is pointless because other game engines you might use in the future might call them differently. You learn the terms for using the engine, like you learn the function and class names, to not open the API reference every time when writing code.
You have merely customized existing systems, whether you made it by a checkbox or changing around function variables or actions.
Don’t try to guess what I’ve done before. Claiming how much more you have went than me doesn’t prove your point, it’s a logical fallacy.
If you really were comfortable with core mechanics of particle programming you wouldn’t be here complaining about a missing feature in BGE. You would be happily coding your own particles from scratch having realized how little a difference prebuilt particle system makes for you.
Again, you could say this about every feature of every game engine. “If you knew how to do it yourself, you wouldn’t post it as a missing feature here and just code it yourself”. How many times do I have to explain to you that time is an important factor for you to get this.
Where did I create an empty?
Not an “Empty”, an “empty object”. I’m repeating myself yet again.
Let’s say I want to emit a smoke trail that gets distorted by wind which I’ve implemented myself to affect what I want (such as meshes topology and normals, shaders for example). I want the smoke trail also to sense objects moving through them and distort it with location, orientation, scale, color, alpha according to curves that are defined by me.
…
For another game I want fire that is affected by custom wind, does damage, is able to catch between objects.
You’ve used so many vague terms here. What do you mean by “distorted”, “affect” topology, normals and shaders, “sense” objects, “custom wind”. And instead of “does damage and is able to catch between objects” you could just use the standard terms “particle collisions”. Yeah, that’s possible, btw.
I could go on and on. Whether this is actually possible in some engine is trivial.
facepalm that was the point. You said there might be things not possible to do with a built-in particle system that’s why one is not needed then say whether it is possible or not is not the point. That’s the whole point. You can do that. Think of something which you can’t do before saying that’s the reason a default particle system is not needed. The burden of proof is on you.
And yet again, because something won’t work for everyone doesn’t mean it’s not needed. It is, like many agree.
Making a particle system that offers this scope of things with GUI would probably take 50-100 times the amount of code you need to make the specific thing yourself from scratch.
Nonsense, where did you get those numbers?
And if you’re using the particle system which comes with the engine, you’re not writing the code, what’s your problem here?
And no matter how versatile you make it, there are always people that come crying how they can’t do the exact thing they want to.
And I’m repeating myself yet again. Saying something is not needed because it might not work for everyone is silly, you could say that to everything in every library.
You have to understand why (almost) no self-respecting programmer find this job lucrative.
Says you.
GUI particle editor is not a “game engine” feature.
Says you.
If BGE had particles the discontent would be about Android/iOS exporting, Asset store, GLSL.
I wouldn’t.
Except GLSL (aka shader support).
If that is the scope of your game engine knowledge go read the wiki article on them.
I would suggest you do the same.
OFC particles are missing feature of BGE because it’s just not there.
Tautology.
Having a builtin system there might make BGE more lucrative in the eyes of beginner but in reality as you start making your game the particles are nothing but dumbened-down path to eye candy and visuals.
Nonsense.
By the time you have a game you want to polish with particle effects you already have enough knowledge to make your own particles or particle systems.
Ugh. You’re kidding right? You still don’t understand that development time is an important factor when choosing an engine?
The only thing a builtin particles might benefit BGE are in optimization where it could be done in C++ instead of user scripted python to make particles more efficient though limited in expression in these cases.
Nosense. It is a good reason why you shouldn’t write one in Python and why we should have a particle system and maybe also a GUI for it, but that’s not the only reason.
The rest of the community simply ignores you bashing the BGE and maybe I’ll grow tired of defending against ignorance some day as well.
And what are you, a psychic? You know why others aren’t posting? This is so childish.
But about graphics programming or particles in general you have yet to show where my expertise fails.
I’m not going to waste my time repeating what I’ve already said. If you don’t get it, or disagree, so be it.
Then you have a created a simple particle system for your game. GUI is not what takes up good portion of the code.
You can do a lot with particles with 100-200 lines when you don’t have to make (and debug) a b c d variations with i j k options and GUIs. That is my point. Even if GUI particle system made for general use took 5000 lines of code you could still make your 3-4 (very impressive!) particle types with 500 lines yourself because you don’t have to opt for what you don’t use.
Yes, GUIs take a good portion of the code with particles. The entire system is about taking all of the variables in various data types from the user and inputting them to your particle system functions that in itself are straight forward. Move, rotate, scale, color according to set of data acquired from user. Even harder things like deform, collision and gravity are already handled by Bullet in best efficiency just by making your particle source object type accordingly.
Just take it from people that know BGE and have actually created both particle systems and GUIs. I realize it’s hard to hear but I keep saying that just because every time I explain some tech in detail you get more and more tangled up in it with “it can’t be because my end user experience” attitude or get stuck with some wording instead of processing the explanation itself.
The other thing that takes coding is the variance and flexibility you have to offer to someone who might need it even though you don’t. In practice it is still never flexible enough for some and you’ll hear about it.
It’s like saying learning terms in the game engine you are using is pointless because other game engines you might use in the future might call them differently. You learn the terms for using the engine, like you learn the function and class names, to not open the API reference every time when writing code.
What is pointless is you coming here and judging some 3rd party BGE particle systems according to which Panda3D features it has and report the rest missing in Panda3D terms. Also insulting my expertise based on the fact that I don’t structure and call elements of particle system the same way Panda3D does.
Don’t try to guess what I’ve done before. Claiming how much more you have went than me doesn’t prove your point, it’s a logical fallacy.
I was referring to what you said you have done and pointing out it was not creating a particle system and doesn’t give you the expertise. You don’t know the tech behind the buttons you press on GUI nor do you have to understand the functions you change not to mention the entire particle system code base and approaches. Making such thing from scratch does require you to understand the whole and that’s what I have done. Arguing about it is pointless.
Again, you could say this about every feature of every game engine. “If you knew how to do it yourself, you wouldn’t post it as a missing feature here and just code it yourself”. How many times do I have to explain to you that time is an important factor for you to get this.
But I don’t, only for the ones it’s valid for. Making your own particles and particle systems in the extent you need according to your specs is only efficient and sensible.
Not an “Empty”, an “empty object”. I’m repeating myself yet again.
Those mean the same in everyday talk on Blender/BGE and it doesn’t matter which you said. I didn’t create either of them. You’re mixing comment instructions with what the script actually does. Do you really need more face rubbing on that?
You’ve used so many vague terms here. What do you mean by “distorted”, “affect” topology, normals and shaders, “sense” objects, “custom wind”. And instead of “does damage and is able to catch between objects” you could just use the standard terms “particle collisions”. Yeah, that’s possible, btw.
It’s possible with coding of course but not with GUI which was my point. Enabling a GUI for such complex systems would require “visual programming” approach such as the node system. Either way a huge amount of coding in addition to the script itself that does the in-game particles. That is not efficient or rewarding (links to first paragraphs I wrote in this post).
facepalm that was the point. You said there might be things not possible to do with a built-in particle system that’s why one is not needed then say whether it is possible or not is not the point. That’s the whole point. You can do that. Think of something which you can’t do before saying that’s the reason a default particle system is not needed. The burden of proof is on you.
There ARE things that are not possible. Such as those that need to link to something abstraction I’m programming myself like wind in this case. It could be magnetism. It could be yin and yang. You can’t link to it in GUI editor because the GUI author has no idea how people are going to program whatever they want the particles to interact with and they have no idea how and which properties they want to link to it.
I said it is trivial not because I thought they might be possible but so you wouldn’t get stuck on this. Claiming there is a GUI for particle system or whatever component that caters whatever idea anybody is able to come up with it is absurd. What is made into a GUI has limits, human imagination doesn’t. It’s like saying there is a man who is strong enough to lift anything. I don’t have to go find him a rock he can’t lift because everyone can understand the claim has no basis and he only asks hoping to get the other guy give up and admit to falsehood. But I’ve still entertained you and your rigorous claim with my examples and even explained how they can’t be linked to GUIs freely. And this is exactly what I meant by “stuck”.
Nonsense, where did you get those numbers? And if you’re using the particle system which comes with the engine, you’re not writing the code, what’s your problem here?
My humble estimation having experience in both fields. But depends on how versatile you make your particle systems. And I was referring to the reason there isn’t particle system for BGE yet ie. why nobody (probably) wanted to implement it yet. I have competency to make estimations on that because I’m already somewhat in the position where I could contribute to it if I saw potential in it. But I can’t speak for everyone, we just know that it hasn’t been implemented yet.
GUI particle editor is not a “game engine” feature.
Says you.
Says the definition of game engine. Every game has an engine and only handful of games were made for modding and actually developed good IDEs with tools like particle editors.
Tautology.
It was my point. I don’t argue against things that are simply true. There is no builtin particle editor in BGE.
Having a builtin system there might make BGE more lucrative in the eyes of beginner but in reality as you start making your game the particles are nothing but dumbened-down path to eye candy and visuals.
Nonsense.
Well it’s true. Visuals are secondary for technical functioning of a game engine also considering both the gameplay and the creation pipeline.
Ugh. You’re kidding right? You still don’t understand that development time is an important factor when choosing an engine?
BGE is currently DIY in some aspects and you’d best accept it. Teaches you a lot about game development (versus game design) and that’s exactly why many people love BGE. Your attitude about game engine has flared strongly enough here to give all the warning signs about using BGE. That’s why I’m recommending Unity to you.
You talk about wasting time, what are you trying to accomplish? You’ve already been told to switch from “Blender Render” to “Blender Game” and referred to 3rd party particle systems. Your thread is solved. If you have personal quarrel with me send a PM instead.
Okay. Where do I disagree?
Yes, GUIs take a good portion of the code with particles.
50-100 times is a huge overstatement though.
Just take it from people that know BGE and have actually created both particle systems and GUIs.
You do realize there are people in this thread like that who don’t agree with you?
In practice it is still never flexible enough for some and you’ll hear about it.
I’ve heard and I’ve heard the opposite from a lot more people.
What is pointless is you coming here and judging some 3rd party BGE particle systems according to which Panda3D features it has and report the rest missing in Panda3D terms.
Not just Panda terms, don’t make assumptions.
Also insulting my expertise based on the fact that I don’t structure and call elements of particle system the same way Panda3D does.
Straw man right here.
Arguing about it is pointless.
You’re attitude to everything really.
But I don’t, only for the ones it’s valid for.
Which seems to be only in your opinion so far.
Do you really need more face rubbing on that?
Do you really need to be mentioned how childish and desperate you seem by making these insults?
There ARE things that are not possible. Such as those that need to link to something abstraction I’m programming myself like wind in this case. It could be magnetism. It could be yin and yang. You can’t link to it in GUI editor because the GUI author has no idea how people are going to program whatever they want the particles to interact with and they have no idea how and which properties they want to link to it.
So? Generate a particle configuration file, load it, then edit the settings needed.
Claiming there is a GUI for particle system or whatever component that caters whatever idea anybody is able to come up with it is absurd.
You sure love straw mans. I’ve already said what I think about situations when a particle system can’t do what you want, don’t make me repeat myself, several times already.
It’s like saying there is a man who is strong enough to lift anything.
Except you are the one who says the word “anything” should be put there.
And I was referring to the reason there isn’t particle system for BGE yet ie. why nobody (probably) wanted to implement it yet.
Assumptions, assumptions.
I have competency to make estimations on that because I’m already somewhat in the position where I could contribute to it if I saw potential in it.
Yeah, right.
Says the definition of game engine. Every game has an engine and only handful of games were made for modding and actually developed good IDEs with tools like particle editors.
yet another nonsense.
What is a “game engine”? Do you have a definition? Here’s what wikipedia editors have to say:
In many cases game engines provide a suite of visual development tools in addition to reusable software components.
Wikipedia is unreliable source? Fine, what’s yours? Let’s assume a particle editor isn’t part of a game engine. The fact is even if it isn’t it comes with the game engine. Most game engines have one. Does it matter in practice if it’s part of the engine or included with it? No. Most game engines have a particle system and particle editor, period.
It was my point. I don’t argue against things that are simply true. There is no builtin particle editor in BGE.
Well no shit Sherlock. Who was arguing about that? Me and others argue that there should be one.
BGE is currently DIY in some aspects and you’d best accept it.
facepalm.
If you’d calm down and control your fanboy emotions, you wouldn’t waste so much of our time. Have I said BGE isn’t a DIY in some aspects? No. All I’ve said is it doesn’t have to be that way. And you keep on saying that it is better this way, when no one would force you to use it if it ever existed and so many people would benefit from it.
You talk about wasting time, what are you trying to accomplish?
…
If you have personal quarrel with me send a PM instead.
The last thing I’d want is to waste my time with a fanboy like you.
But I don’t want people reading your claims about how particle systems don’t work for many people even though practice shows otherwise, believing this nonsense and wasting their time learning and writing one.
50-100 times is a huge overstatement though.
I was comparing code needed for making your own 3-4 or however many particle types you need against programming a particle system that tries to cover most of what anybody might want.
So? Generate a particle configuration file, load it, then edit the settings needed.
That is coding. Making your own particles is easier than trying to master some system only to be able to take things apart and reconfigure according to program-specific structure, syntax and naming. That’s what you have learned and now when there’s no Panda3D on Blender and your knowledge that bases on the specific Panda system you’re looking for someone to take your frustration on.
Avoiding situations like this is why I don’t use 3rd party addons that hide the core mechanics and make me learn something I could develop and LEARN for myself. I learned particles (for example) the right way now I can go learn a syntax and API in any language / engine and make any kind of particles I want.
I’m not fighting straw men either. You have questioned my expertise in the matter on many occasions. You have also demanded proof of the fact that there is something you can’t do with prebuilt GUI particle systems.
This has degraded into nothing that can be considered intelligent or even meaningful. You barely address my text and the little parts you dare touch you try to one-line chapters of text in a witty way. FYI replies like “yeah, right”, “says you”, “nonsense” are worthless on their own in any discussion or debate and will gain you anything but justification. I’m better than this and there are people that need my help.
To sum it up and if there’s any sane person reading to the bottom of this I just want to stress that BGE does not have GUI particle editor builtin and that is relatively fine. When the time comes you are likely to be able to make your particles, just start by fleshing out the core parts of your game, I can assure you particles will be easy by the time you need to implement them. Even if you want something really nice you can’t do yet you can look into examples of other people to learn or use addons like easyEmit.
If you’re a real game developer, you’re going to make different games and you’re going to end up making more than 3 or 4 effects. At that point, you’re going to want to create a real, reusable and configurable particle system.
That is coding. Making your own particles is easier than trying to master some system only to be able to take things apart and reconfigure according to program-specific structure, syntax and naming.
This is yet again, only an opinion shared by you.
That’s what you have learned and now when there’s no Panda3D on Blender and your knowledge that bases on the specific Panda system you’re looking for someone to take your frustration on.
Yet again, you make assumptions. No, my knowledge is not limited to the Panda or Unity engines.
And finally, for the love of god, quit it with the straw mans. This thread had a specific question and it has been answered. I didn’t come here to whine about Blender lacking a particle system. I just mentioned it doesn’t have one and then you came along and started acting all fanboy and defending your beloved BGE from a supposed attack, making claims like writing your own particle system is easy and posting 2 lines of code and calling that a “particle system”. And you’re the only one who thinks like that.
Avoiding situations like this is why I don’t use 3rd party addons that hide the core mechanics and make me learn something I could develop and LEARN for myself.
Well if that’s what you want, go spend your time learning low level stuff if you feel it’s important for you. Don’t make false claims about what is and is not needed in a game engine which nobody agrees on.
I’m better than this and there are people that need my help.
Yeah, right. (lol!). Well go ahead.
To sum it up and if there’s any sane person reading to the bottom of this I just want to stress that BGE does not have GUI particle editor builtin and that is relatively fine. When the time comes you are likely to be able to make your particles, just start by fleshing out the core parts of your game, I can assure you particles will be easy by the time you need to implement them. Even if you want something really nice you can’t do yet you can look into examples of other people to learn or use addons like easyEmit.
For anyone reading this here’s what I have to say:
When choosing any engine there’s two things to take into account: time and your skill level.
If there’s something the engine doesn’t have outside of the box and you can’t write yourself, or if it will take a lot of your development time, check the other engines for those features before making your final choice.