unhappy with 2.5?

i got the svn version yesterday, and started editing some of my bge files in 2.5 (which might i add was very difficult considering the new layout).

so here is the story.

anyways, i was trying to do a multi mat in the GE, and could not figure out how to do it in 2.5… so i went back to 2.49b to do it, to find that 2.5 had completely screwed over the .blend file. i had no Actions for armatures, no ipo’s and even had some rendering issues during gameplay… i just finished fixing the file this morning…

i am not happy with 2.5 (and not just the bugs, mind you, but the entire layout and organization of menus has been stupified)…

so be careful when moving your .blends to 2.5, it really is different.

could someone tell me iff they have had similar issues, or if they know what in hell is supposed to be so great about 2.5? cause it can’t just be the realtime editing and the smooth camera transitions.

if anyone else feels this way, speak up.

this is why it is called alpha now. Also the bge devs do not recommend to switch to 2.50 for a while.

yes, i understand, i’m not super upsett about the ruined blend, but more with the new layout and stuff… i mean, i understand that some of the old files wre really old, and needed to be updated, but what are the REAL improvements?

In blender 2.50a the main accent was put on bledner itself. Game engine so far still under revision, because the goal is to make node based logic like in UE3. This is why most of people in GE forum are using 2.49b, while the rest - 2.50

so you are basically telling me, that there are no desireable changes to the game engine in 2.5 yet? well that sounds about right.

oh well

When Erwin’s GameKit rolls around we’ll all be pressing ‘P’ to run our BGE games in that player rather than the one built into Blender. It will give you a choice of game renderer which would be either OGRE or Irrlicht. Since you won’t have to redo any of your logic and still create your logic in Blender itself, it may make even the Blender to Unity pipeline look clunky.

Benoit’s new logic manager to run things like the upcoming node logic uses a Zlib license rather than GPL so it can be re-used for the GameKit.

now, THAT sounds like something to be excited about!

when is it due? i haven’t really heard of that project yet, but have often thought that something like that would be a good idea…

thanks man,

Yeah I think 2.5 sucks. Like theuncool1 said, it’s not just the glitches, but the layout too. It was more of a down-grade than an upgrade, all they did was change the version number. They screwed with the layout thinking it’d look neater and more organized. Some users like this ONLY because it is a change and I guess change is good to them. (that is the users who think that way, I’m not stereotyping). I personally think the layout change is like throwing a bucket of tacks in my Game Developing path and forcing me to tip toe around them. Not really forcing me to though, we still have 2.49.

I made a post about this too on the Blender.org forums… hoping that a Blender Developer would see it. I was talking with a friend and he said:

“But in my opinion there’ll be no changes - cause your voice is ‘just a single voice’, and new design is quite advanced…”

If one person makes a complaint about a problem, nothing will happen. If lots of people make 1 complaint each, it will get noticed. Blender Dev’s rely on Blender users for suggestions on new content and layouts etc. so if they get enough people concerned with the Game Engine, something might be done about it.

It seems some people don’t like it purely because it has changed and are not prepared to make any effort to accept it. When you look at 2.5 the basics are not very different, just more logically organised. You should be able to pick up these basic changes very easily.


I don’t believe that Game Engine physics needed to be moved from the Logic panel to the physics tab under it’s own separate “district” from the other physics such as particles and smoke, and the Logic panel didn’t need it’s own window. It seems more organized according to Name rather than Group. Game Physics and Render Physics both have Physics in common, which is organization by name. Game Physics and Logic Bricks/Properties is categorization of functions with a common interest, the Game Engine.

Switching from Blender Render to Blender Game isn’t hard, but it is unnecessary. Organization is relative, so is the term Logical apparently. Logical as in alphabetical/related words or logical as in branch/category? Workflow may be higher on a list of priorities compared to organization. Organization depends on how obsessive one may be over tidiness while the workflow speed is constant with the rate at which one prefers to work.
Workflow is also relative but a higher priority, unless one wants to gaze at how organized Blender looks.

To justify that organization is relative and a lower priority, one would not use Game Physics directly to make a smoke simulation, they are separated into divisions by the drop down box at the top center of Blender. You would not use Fluid Simulation settings to program a Cube to move along the Y axis when Up arrow is pressed.

I encourage those who do not want the extra processes of switching from Blender Render to Blender Game and also switching to the Logic Window or cutting the screen in half to do so just to set Game Logic to voice their opinion.

I’m going to search it out, but could someone point the direction towards or start a thread disscussing Erwin’s GameKit.

just found this from erwin.

GameKit is an new .blend gameplayer just like BGE, it is not a converter. One of the main benefits of GameKit over BGE is its more liberal BSD/MIT/Zlib style licensing, but other benefits such as better performance and other feature could make it more suitable for developing and publishing games, compared to the current BGE.

GameKit benefits from existing open source, such as Irrlicht for Win32/Linux/Mac and Oolong Engine for iPhone. We might also try out Ogre or other open source graphics engines.
If Irrlicht and/or Ogre happens to be faster than the BGE, it is a nice side effect.


I have quite the opposite opinion to you, I believe this new ‘Blender Game’ mode is a step in the right direction.

The BGE and the normal Blender (where you would set up a scene and render it) are very different, but in pre 2.5, Blender made no distinction of this. Now that the devs have recognised this surely (hopefully?) a smoother game orientated work flow will be easier.

As for the physics buttons being moved, they are a property, hence they belong in the properties window. Also, a goal of durain will be to use bullet physics out side of the game engine. So creating 2 areas for (very similar) physics would be a bit silly no?

And as for the GE being a bit shunned, thats because there is a plan. Its kind of logical as well. Do the majority of blender uses make games or make renders? Once the animation system, BMesh and the render system get their TLC I’m sure the GE will get some as well.

My sentiments exactly.

@Richard Marklew, You don’t understand were we’re coming from unless you use the game engine. Even though you must agree that In 2.5 it takes a lot of clicking and scrolling to do the same things as 2.4x because everything is spread out or in its own separate window, taking a lot more screen space.
2.4x was much more compact.

Having to select “Blender Game” from a drop down menu is just a plain bad idea.

Putting an object’s game logic settings in its own window was also bad.

Not to mention the bad color scheme (the lack of any), the lack of contrast, and illegible text, things I guess we’re supposed to fix ourselves?

This is the time to give feedback and make changes, while it is still in Alpha.

EDIT: I don’t mean to complain, I know a lot of things are still being worked on and changed, this is just my impression so far.

The BGE and the normal Blender (where you would set up a scene and render it) are very different, but in pre 2.5, Blender made no distinction of this. Now that the devs have recognised this surely (hopefully?) a smoother game orientated work flow will be easier.

Maybe I didn’t fully understand what’s being changed with this option. I can see that it may be good to remove the material settings that aren’t use in the game engine. But it also removes settings for baking textures.
It just seems weird to have to switch.

I think Blender having a seperate mode for the BGE will be looked at as a better idea then you initially thought it was if Blender ends up having a large number of BGE physics settings like having a fuller set of Bullet features and a number of BGE only features. (slow parent is one). Otherwise newcomers will be asking questions like refraction and volume rendering doesn’t work in the BGE and so on and so forth if it was only one mode.

When I first downloaded 2.50 I opened it, looked at the cube, scaled it, decided that instead of wasting my day trying to figure out how to work 2.50 I would just go back to 2.49 and continue working with that.

If you managed to figure out the 2.4x blender mess of an interface you can sure as hell figure out the 2.5.


I like the idea of setting my own shortcuts. I actually enjoyed messing around with 2.5, but it’s not even a serious option for me until I’m able to export an executable for my game.(as well as have my scripts work in it, like mouselook and such.)

“Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him.” -Albert Einstein

1 Like

Just one thing about moving the game physics from the logic tab to the physics area.

AFAIK the goal is to do away with the logic tab entirely, encorperating the logic into the nodes window. One of the key concepts behind the nodes is the ability to re-use nodes for multiple objects and even multiple games. To do this they segregated the logic from the object.

Physics of an object are still local to the object. They are a part of it.

While it made sense to edit an objects logic and it’s physics together in one tab it doesn’t make sense to edit general logic and an objects physics in the same area. Because of this I think that moving game physics in with the other physics is a good idea.

Perhaps a happy compromise would be to include a “Game” layout with the game physics and the node logic open in similar areas so while they remain in seperate windows it’s a standard set up that allows easy access for game design?

That sounds like a good improvement. I sort of got ahead of myself earlier, I’m just a bit upset that the drop down switch is the only way to get to the Game Physics. The Logic Bricks being put into Node mode is an awesome idea, I hope that comes around in 2.6.

Also it would be helpful if the Game Logic was included in a side panel (say left of the logic bricks/nodes under the properties panel), but still have its same location in the Physics button just under the “Blender Game” mode. What I’m saying is the Game Logic be included in both places and linked together, so when one option is changed in Blender Game mode it changes in the Game Physics next to the Logic Bricks/Nodes also. (Blender 2.5 has the collapsible menu’s also, so Game Physics in the logic system could be collapsed if not needed at any time).