Combat Starter Kit 1.0 Released

Submit your own resources!

chris newman   (Feb 14, 2008 at 07:20 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Holy s%#t!!!!!

Tim Heldna   (Feb 14, 2008 at 08:02 GMT)   Resource Rating: 1

Who said you could sell my helicopter code? :P

Gianfranco Barone   (Feb 14, 2008 at 08:28 GMT)

Just two questions:

When you buy the starter combat kit, you get all source files to integrate in to your own TGE build or you are selling a modified build of tge (just the exe) ? I just ask to know if i can integrate my code in to the SCkit.

What about a TGEA a version ?

P.S.
Great work !
Edited on Feb 14, 2008 08:30 GMT

Eikon Games   (Feb 14, 2008 at 08:31 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

That looks amazing!! I remember you saying that a TGEA version would follow shortly after the TGE version. I guess the upcoming update to TGEA has changed quite a lot of stuff within the engine but do you have an anticipated release date for the TGEA version yet?

Edit: What he said! (points up...)
Edited on Feb 14, 2008 08:31 GMT

Ashley Kelley   (Feb 14, 2008 at 09:20 GMT)

The TGEA version is in the works but I don't have an ETA on it. This is full source code. A lot has been changed from stock tge code. For instance the helicopters... they have gravity. Thats right helicopters that actually fly like helicopters. :P

Alex Resendes   (Feb 14, 2008 at 09:31 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Good job! You should change the name to Battlefield starter kit though. ;)

H.W. Kim   (Feb 14, 2008 at 10:05 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Great! What I looking forward to see!

Maxim Lyulyukin   (Feb 14, 2008 at 10:55 GMT)

oooohhh... good,good now i have sandbox where i can test my cyborgs,robots and other stuff
will buy it ...

Eikon Games   (Feb 14, 2008 at 10:57 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

One more question regarding the TGEA version - will it be a completely standalone product at full price or will there be an upgrade cost from the TGE version? I have both engines and can't wait to take a look at the product!

Aaron E   (Feb 14, 2008 at 11:13 GMT)

@Tim H.

:)

Gareth Fouche   (Feb 14, 2008 at 12:42 GMT)

Looks freaking fantastic, will be picking this up. :D

H.W. Kim   (Feb 14, 2008 at 12:56 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Is the art assets such as .dif files and models of original DCC file also available?
(I wonder the content pack includes .max file either or not)

Tim Heldna   (Feb 14, 2008 at 13:48 GMT)   Resource Rating: 1

@ Arron E

They deny it's my code however I played the beta and know that it is, adding a simple gravity flag doesn't change that. ;)

Oh, and the helicopters hardly fly like helicopters. A Torque flying vehicle with Z plane maneuverability is not the pinnacle of helicopter physics (nor are the severe collision issues and highly unoptimized network code of that vehicle class). They also used my sound effects for the beta (chaingun sounds) which were not free for commercial use (as stated on the resource page) but hey, some people are cowboys and others are not.

This whole kit is simply a bunch of resources from this site loosely stitched together. If that works for you, have at it. Otherwise, caveat emptor.
Edited on Feb 14, 2008 14:04 GMT

Ian Roach   (Feb 14, 2008 at 14:14 GMT)

Nice pack, seems like alot of resources bundled together but still cool. Will definetely wait on a tgea build, will make a nice starter kit since alot of ppl are looking for battlefield esque games.

Since this has database support, does that mean it supports logins/persistant stats e.t.c ?

Gareth Fouche   (Feb 14, 2008 at 14:22 GMT)

@ Tim : "This whole kit is simply a bunch of resources from this site loosely stitched together"...

Even if that's the case (and I don't believe it is), that many resources "stitched together" represents many hours of me not having to sit there and get outdated or buggy resources playing nice with the latest TGE and each other. That is more than worth it at that price.

Mark Dynna   (Feb 14, 2008 at 15:33 GMT)

Most of the time when a contract Programmer job is posted, the work requested is to "integrate resources." Almost anything that one would want to do with Torque has already been done as a resource at SOME point in time, but a lot of the most useful ones were done at least 2-3 years ago. It requires a non-trivial amount of work and knowledge to adapt those to work with the latest version of Torque.

Ed Johnson   (Feb 14, 2008 at 16:34 GMT)

Great Job Ash & Team!

Tony Richards   (Feb 14, 2008 at 17:04 GMT)

Awesome job guys and gals!

Dave Young   (Feb 14, 2008 at 17:09 GMT)

@Tim, I'm fairly confident that if you diffed the source you would not be able to easily back up that rather strong set of statements. If resources were used for a beta or to gain ideas from, I would think that it would be flattering. The team was under instruction not to use any stock resources without permission and several passes were made after beta with this in mind. I invite you to check it out, please contact me privately via my profile email to arrange it. If a mistake like that was made it will be corrected immediately.

Just in case, we will disable the product until I have a chance to verify the note about the sounds.
Edited on Feb 14, 2008 17:47 GMT

Thomas Oliver   (Feb 14, 2008 at 18:21 GMT)

@Tim - You do realize that 80% of the Programming Contract work done is a request of putting a bunch of resources togeather and getting them to play nicely with each other.

@Ashy and rest of the team - Great job on the Combat Kit here and keep up the great work. This is going to save alot of people many many hours of work and is a great step into getting a fast prototype up and running for just about any type of FPS game out there.

Trenton Shaffer   (Feb 14, 2008 at 18:58 GMT)   Resource Rating: 3

$99 is a little high IMO. The Indie license for TGE is $150. The features in this pack really don't warrant such a high price. I understand this can be argued from many different levels and I clearly see that, but due to the price I will not be purchasing this pack. I would say $50 is a good maximum pricing point. I can go buy ARMA: Armed Assault for less than $50 and have a WAY better combat simulator with complete control over missions via scripting. Obviously I can't make my own game to sell with that, but I could make a MOD for others to use. My point is that a commercial combat simulator with hundreds of models, weapons, vehicles, etc costs less than half of what your scripted add-on pack for TGE costs. If you want to charge $99, at least polish up your models so they look ready for a commercial game. Take a look at Timothy Aste's packs, he does outstanding artwork that is well polished and ready for commercial release. The soldier pack would be a good example of a player model that is fairly well polished.

The Comabt pack itself is pretty cool, looks like a great resource for the community. Especially for those in the community that are having trouble getting a game together due largely to limited programming knowledge.

I would rate this a 3 out 5.

Morrie   (Feb 14, 2008 at 19:41 GMT)

I would be nice if the Models were polished. It would also be nice if there was a TGEA version.

J.P. Berry   (Feb 14, 2008 at 19:48 GMT)

Have all of the bugs been fixed since beta? I specifically remember terrain/collision problems, spawning problems (players would spawn on land with parachute unable to close it), and server crashes due to vehicle collisions... Has all of this been properly fixed?

Julian R   (Feb 14, 2008 at 19:50 GMT)

It's a starter kit. If a starter kit like this can save you 3-6 months of development time models/resources/whatever then it's worth $99 IMO. Or if you are using it to enhance what you have already with some additional features you'd not get this for $99. So worthwhile purchase either way. If only I had this starter kit when first starting out a couple of years back, the amount of research and development time taken to come up with a prototype would have been most beneficial, even if many of the resources or similarities are freely available.
Edited on Feb 14, 2008 20:03 GMT

Dave Young   (Feb 14, 2008 at 20:02 GMT)

JP, The team used the beta feedback and bugs to put a few more months into changing out artwork, adding all new interiors and a new player model, new vehicle models. They've resolved all the major bugs of Beta (including those you named) and will continue to work on other known issues.

We believe it's priced well in the bargain range, the team has put almost a year into it and there are some major features in the kit that aren't available anywhere else. The price reflects the work that went into it and a tiny portion of its value to a developer. It's impossible to get that back in return on investment but was well worth it. To a developer using the kit to jumpstart development, you've saved yourself a very large number of hours of work. I'm guessing those who argue about product prices in general haven't been down that road and can't yet accurately provide metrics on: "what is the value to me?"

@Trenton, if it was only scripted work one might agree. The lengthy description clearly marks a huge number of engine modifications. That's why it requires engine ownership verification to purchase.

The port to the new TGEA version is well under way but it is a large effort.

Also, we've verified that some of the sound assets were not for commercial use (Tribes2 sounds!) and need to be replaced before we put the product back online.
Edited on Feb 14, 2008 20:10 GMT

Johnny Hill   (Feb 14, 2008 at 20:06 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Great!! been waiting for this one. its a great for starting base for some assets I been building. The only other thing I prbly add later is the yak pack for a little NPC interaction.

mb   (Feb 14, 2008 at 20:41 GMT)   Resource Rating: 1

Hmm.. this does seem to be a bunch of resources put together. Not sure how you can sell free resources... I know people allow you to put their resources into your game, but your not selling a game your selling the code someone else wrote. I'd hate for someone to sell code that I wrote with the intention of giving it to the community for free.

mb   (Feb 14, 2008 at 20:58 GMT)   Resource Rating: 1

For example:

Teams Implementation: www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=2312
Helicopter Resource: www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=9263
Capture the Flag Triggers: www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=2799
BF2 Style Capture the Flag II: www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=1243...
Multiple Player Class Selection: www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=1173...
Commander Map: www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=5277
Guided or Seeker Projectiles: www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=6778
Turret & AITurret classes, Version 1.20: www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=5345

Dave Young   (Feb 14, 2008 at 21:36 GMT)

@mb, Appearances can be deceiving, just because something looks the same or shares a system name does not mean it is the same. Offhand, I have firsthand knowledge of the commander map implementation, and it's nothing like the one you linked here. mb.

For the record, it is our general rule of thumb to NOT use resources without permission in a sold product without significant modification, though there is almost always NO legal precedent or EULA not to. It's just a matter of professional courtesy. We aren't out to make a profit from other people's hard work.

I definitely consider it to be insulting to call this a loosely package of resources, or a 'bunch of resources put together', and kindly ask you to gain firsthand knowledge before you say such things.

@Tim, as of 2/18/2007 there was no warning against commercial use against sound assets in your resource, it looks like it was added since then, after the project was well under way. These things are usually recorded by people who do research, so the presence of the sound files would not have been noticed in the QA pass to remove such things.

I've invited you both to review the pertinent areas.

John McGlamory   (Feb 14, 2008 at 23:28 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Congratulations guys. I am sorry people had to blast your big announcement in public instead of taking it to a private venue to iron out the details in a respectable manner, but... ah well.

Regardless of the concerns raised, I am certain this pack will be a great benefit to many people who are not code inclined, like myself. You've done great work here and I think you all deserve some thanks for the time you put into this. Thank you!

Mike Pearson   (Feb 14, 2008 at 23:37 GMT)

Looks like it would go well with the ModMaker Weapons Kits <- Shameless plug!;)

Jacobin   (Feb 14, 2008 at 23:43 GMT)

Quote:

---

For the record, it is our general rule of thumb to NOT use resources without permission in a sold product without significant modification.

---

What does that mean exactly? Something doesn't seem quite kosher about that.

Especially considering you initially denied your copter code had anything to do with the posted resource, now only to admit you're using his chaingun sound effect? If the copter code wasn't based on the resource, how did the resource's sound effect end up in your product?

Are you significantly modifying someone else's work in order to obfuscate your derivation of it and thereby try and claim original material? If so, that's quite foul.

Candice Streavel   (Feb 15, 2008 at 00:01 GMT)

Nice Job!
Edited on Feb 15, 2008 00:04 GMT

J.P. Berry   (Feb 15, 2008 at 00:04 GMT)

@Mike, Hopefully this pack has less bugs and better support than the ModMaker pack... <-- Bitter Plug :(

@Dave, Is there an ETA for this to be back online?

Ashley Kelley   (Feb 15, 2008 at 00:42 GMT)

I know dave is handling the specific comments from some people here but as the Project Manager I feel like I need to say a few things. First, the helicopter code we are using has as much in common with Tim Heldna's code as his Helicopter code has in common with stock flying vehicles. We have offered already to provide him with proof of that. As for the sounds. I have changes heli sounds and gatlin gun sounds several times. I actually had that conversation during a beta test with Tim and changed the sounds afterwards. As for how the sounds evermade it in in the first place, we did look at the resource and use it as a placeholder. It is a great resource but it didn't solve many of our design problems so it was completely overhauled.

The thing is we are not tyring to get rich here using other peoples hard work. We are trying to provide indie developers who have limited programming knowledge a good place to start. Everyone on this team has worked hard over the last year on this project. We have done so much more than piece together a bunch of resources. It is so very hurtfull to see some of the things people have said here.
Edited on Feb 15, 2008 00:42 GMT

Dave Young   (Feb 15, 2008 at 00:50 GMT)

@Jacobin, I haven't denied that, I said that if he were to diff the source he would not be able to say it was a loosely thrown together pool of resources. Please do not put words in my mouth. During the course of research for helicopters to begin with I'm sure many different approaches were taken, including taking a close look at how Tim made his and adding needed features. At the time there was no mention of not using any sounds for commercial use on his page, it was added later as I'm sure he will confirm. If there was mention, it would have been noted and the sound removed when we did the pass to remove such things last fall. Also, it would be foul to obfuscate anything. It also reflects a point of view not present in the construction of this kit or in my company, which is to construct new things not change old things and sell them for profit.

If there was something that already worked quite well, like turrets, or guided projectiles, that was used and modified, is it offering more value to the developer to not integrate it, and to say hey do it yourself? That's not adding value, that's taking it away. Like I have said before, if a resource was used stock and not improved upon it's our policy to make sure we have permission, and if there was an oversight with specific cases it will be remedied.

A simple look at the code would show what's original and what's been used from other places and what's been added to those things to improve upon. All of tightly wound into a single package with tremendous value. Until then it's all bothersome conjecture. If you feel that this kit is not for you, please avoid it. If you have some other issue, email me privately.

Anyway, I have come to realize that this is probably just instigation. If there was any real issue here with potential resource usage, the people involved in it would have replied to my contact, or contacted me privately to begin with instead of simply posting defamatory remarks and hiding behind Internet anonymity.

Ben Sparks (Warspawn)   (Feb 15, 2008 at 01:03 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Great job! Try not to let any of those nay-sayers get ya down!

Thomas Oliver   (Feb 15, 2008 at 01:20 GMT)

I just want to add here that the CSK is a great kit for anyone wanting a jump start to making a Battlefield style game or just any FPS in general that needs these features.

With that said when you are looking at purchasing something like a starter kit or any content pack in general you are not paying just for the source code and everything. You are paying for the time it took them to create this kit. If you where to contract me or any number of other people that advertise themself's for contracting here on GG or any website. You will see that we would ask for alot more then $99. Just by looking at the resources in question, the amount of bugs in alot of them, putting it all together and then my time bug fixing all of it. You would easily be looking at between $400-$800 worth of contract work there. And that does not include models, building, ect. My average rate (and its below what alot of people charge) is around $15/hour and the amount of work (just roughly estimating I would say would be around 20-40 hours of work.)

So anyone that does NOT think they are getting there moneys worth you would be sadly mistaken.

Dave Young   (Feb 15, 2008 at 01:42 GMT)

The pack is back online, with the sounds in question replaced. Thanks for your patience!

Click here

Ian Roach   (Feb 15, 2008 at 02:31 GMT)

This is very tempting :) I still have all my old tge Models that would drop right in and could have a scifi battlefield within a few days.

contemplates....

I assume this has been tested in large multiplayer sessions ?

Ramen-sama   (Feb 15, 2008 at 02:33 GMT)

Looks great! Even if these were resources on GG, the fact someone spent the time to put them all together/debug is worth the cost. But if they are resources used without permission or something that's a whole other story.

Edward   (Feb 15, 2008 at 03:34 GMT)

Yes, this kit has been tested with multiplayer. As for large? You need to define what is large to you, 12 players, 64 players? 12 players is easy, if you have alot of stuff going on the screen. I would say you could put 32 even if you watched your pixel counts and objects/LOD/Portaling.

Jacobin   (Feb 15, 2008 at 04:59 GMT)

Quote:

---

For the record, it is our general rule of thumb to NOT use resources without permission in a sold product without significant modification.

---

Dave, I wouldn't have posted a thing if it were not for that curious statement. You still haven't addressed it and so I'm still at a loss as to what it means.

It may just be me, but that statement suggests something underhanded. That you couldn't get permission in some instances to sell for profit something someone originally intended to give away for free. In those instances you made 'significant modifications' to that original work to obfuscate the derivation.
Edited on Feb 15, 2008 04:59 GMT

Jaimi McEntire   (Feb 15, 2008 at 05:21 GMT)

@Jacobin -

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't use the resources if we intend to sell the fruits of our labors?

J.C. Smith   (Feb 15, 2008 at 06:51 GMT)

Personally, isn't that the entire idea of resources? To share code with people? Credits should of course be given where they are do, but IMO if someone creates a resource, it's there to be used. Simple solution, if you don't want others using your code then don't release it publicly.

Thomas Oliver   (Feb 15, 2008 at 08:15 GMT)

I think it is a mute topic. As it is a GG sanctioned product and GG has given them permission to sell it. There for rather any resources here where used or not is no longer a valid argument. As all resources submitted to the GG website becomes joint ownership with GG for them to do with as they please. That includes but is not limited to copyrighting the work, saleing the work, using the work in there own products/projects, ect. That agreement you agree to superceds any other licensing you may have put on the work before hand.

Since there is no evidence here that they are using anyones work without there permission then theres really nothing to talk about. If you think otherwise then pickup the code and do a dif and check for yourself. I think you will be surprised that your concerns are misplaced.

Jacobin   (Feb 15, 2008 at 08:22 GMT)

Quote:

---

@Jacobin -

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't use the resources if we intend to sell the fruits of our labors?

---

Not at all. That's what the authors of the resources hope when they create them, that someone finds them useful for their -games-.

However say you come out with, say a submarine resource. It's rather nifty and some people use it. I come along and release a 'submarine code pack' at the low price of $99! This code pack being nothing more than your resource with 'significant modifications.' Hell, I even used your klaxon sound when my submarine dives! The very one you said that wasn't allowed to be used for commercial purposes in your resource's description.

That's drastically different than if I had released a submarine game that used your resource. That is the gray area that Tim Heldna raised an eyebrow over earlier in this thread, about his Helicopter resource.

If this is all 100% original work, then it's a great codepack. Probably the best ever to come out. If they are selling other people's uncredited work as their own then it's something a bit different. If not for his quote about "significant changes" to resources he couldn't get permission to use, I would give Dave the benefit of the doubt, with all the amazing resources he churned out for RPG people last year.

Gareth Fouche   (Feb 15, 2008 at 08:22 GMT)

@ Ash : Try not to let them get you down. :)

"We are trying to provide indie developers who have limited programming knowledge a good place to start."

I am not a beginner, far from it, I'm a skilled programmer, and I see HUGE value in this product. I have the skills but what I don't have is the time. This product provides me with a massive jumpstart in development. And the price is a bargain.

A professional game you can mod...that isn't a very logical comparison, sorry Trenton. If I wanted to mod games, why would I buy TGE in the first place? If you wanted to buy that engine you talked about, assuming the developers would be willing to sell it, the price would be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Dave and the gang, don't be discouraged by a vocal minority. Most of us are aware of how much work you guys must have put into this. Keep it up! :)

Rafael A. Rico Gonzalez   (Feb 15, 2008 at 12:28 GMT)

where can i see the EULA of this kit ?

thanks.

Don Hogan   (Feb 15, 2008 at 14:51 GMT)

All questions regarding resources aside, I'd have to say $100 is a really good price for this much code work.

As an artist, it's easily worth that to me. I've been looking at other engines strictly because I can't do what I want to with Torque because I can't integrate the resources for my desired features. In fact, last night I was wondering what I could get from a contract (Torque) programmer for the couple hundred bucks it would take to pick up another engine. My conclusion was 'not much', so again I'd have to say the value in this pack is quite high.

Speaking as an artist, I'd address the comments about the art content in 2 ways. 1) I consider it to be strictly placeholder art, to illustrate functionality of the systems. (My sincere apologies if that hurts any feelings.) 2) I think that it's exactly the appropriate level of art to provide because anyone using this kit (for a game to publish) should be doing a full replacement pass anyway.

The one comment I would be most concerned about is regarding any remaining (or newly discovered) bugs. With the team having done so much work on the kit, it seems like it would be non-trivial to find myself faced with a code issue that I have no skill to resolve. So basically, I'd be most worried about any known issues the team is still working on, and how long the team will continue to support the kit now that it's launched.

So, congratulations on completing a *huge* undertaking!

Mike Pearson   (Feb 15, 2008 at 14:51 GMT)

@J.P.-There are no bugs in ModMaker. The support issue you refer to were user generated.

Ashley Kelley   (Feb 15, 2008 at 15:20 GMT)

We plan to continue to support CSK for the foreseeable future. We understand that a lot of the code changes will take some explaining to people who need to modify the engine. Also there are a number of changes that would need to be made with even stock vehicles to work corectly in CSK. The set up documents are included for adding additional models.

The Weapon ModMaker would be an awsome addition for people purchasing this kit. Tim Aste and Brave tree also have great content packs that can be easily modified to work in the kit.

Dave Young   (Feb 15, 2008 at 17:21 GMT)

Jacobin, I keep addressing the question and rephrasing it, I'll try again for you. We do not intentionally use resources without modification as a means to profit. Sometimes the team looked at so many resources by the same person that they just asked the guy to join the team! Sometimes when putting together a kit a resource gets used that needs no significant modifications and that triggers a professional courtesy permission request. That's the nature of it, not: "how can we modify this significantly enough", but rather "oh, looks like Joe Dev used the XXXX resource here, let's compare it and see." Then, "eh, it's been changed quite a bit, there's no issue", or "it's pretty much the same as the original, let's get in touch with the author".

Here is the rights assignment that we all sign when we Submit a Resource:

I, the Contributor ("Contributor") own, and have sufficient rights to contribute the source code and related material intended to be compiled or to be used with the source code for the Torque Game Engine, or other Torque products (the "Contribution") delivered, and which GarageGames, Inc. ("GG") has accepted, for incorporation into the technology made available as Free Resources for Torque Owners. I, the Contributor, hereby assign to GG joint ownership in all worldwide common law and statutory rights associated with the copyrights, copyright application, copyright registration and moral rights in the Contribution to the extent allowable under applicable local laws and copyright conventions. I, the Contributor, agree that this assignment may be submitted by GG to register a copyright in the Contribution. Contributor retains the right to use the Contribution for Contributor's own purposes. This Joint Copyright Assignment supersedes and replaces all prior copyright assignments made by Contributor to GG under the Free Resource for Torque Owners project. Contributor is legally entitled to grant the above assignment and agrees not to provide any Contribution that violates any law or breaches any contract.


Which enlightens several things:
1) There should never be any posting of things which don't belong to you (ie sounds from other games)
2) You grant joint ownership rights to GG
3) You are making it available to Torque Owners as a Free Resource. Free as in free, unencumbered.

There is no other license or exclusion for use implied.

That being said, you can look at it any way you want that satisfies your temperament. If a resource was used in a product and then sold as a minor part of that product, you would hope that at least professional courtesy was applied and a head's up or permissions obtained, or more. In which case the consumer would look at the inclusion of the code as a convenient integration of a free resource, and the value is in the integration. In the majority case for the Starter Combat Kit, new code was written and the value is in code not available elsewhere. This is where we try to do right by others, and the modus operandi of the business case for a Starter Kit.

If a product was released that consisted entirely of submarine code based entirely on a submarine code resource, that's not even a grey area that's slimy. This is OBVIOUSLY not what our product is, and we would never need to do that. Thanks :)
Edited on Feb 15, 2008 17:22 GMT

Vashner   (Feb 15, 2008 at 18:33 GMT)

Looks good.

Eikon Games   (Feb 15, 2008 at 23:02 GMT)   Resource Rating: 5

Regarding the TGEA port - are you building it against the current 1.0.3 code or do you have access to the upcoming large update?

Andy Hawkins   (Feb 16, 2008 at 08:53 GMT)

This is an awesome pack Dave, and I'm not just saying that so you pick my game BRAVE to win your comp ;-) If a programmer values their 'life' hourly rate (especially those with kids) at $50 an hour (which you should) you would never write all this stuff in 2 hours. What I'm saying is that the amount of content and code in this, will give you a life away from the computer for a change.

I think I'll buy it - it might even bring me closer to finishing BRAVE because my game is so combat-focused.

This pack is awesome, and no, Dave's not paying me to say this.

Regarding 'borrowing' other people's code, I don't think he's done that. It looks like he grabbed all the resources required, and finessed them till they shine and then produced a pack.

Sure you could grab the a resource here at GG for free, but it doesn't have the hours and hours of 'tweakage' ontop that Dave and his team have provided - this is why you want the pack.

Content packs give you your life back, and let you focus on gameplay. Nice work - a bit screen heavy though ;-) ( Dave you can always donate money to me here if you feel so inclined based on my raving review... Feed a starving artist )
Edited on Feb 16, 2008 08:54 GMT

Christian S   (Feb 16, 2008 at 15:14 GMT)

Very nice work, really awesome!

I do though think the texures could have been prettier ;)
But to say that this pack sucks (price wise) compared to Asthe's packs is a bit foolish, his packs might look stunning but besides that...

And all this fuzz about selling a pack based on a GG engine, and code ideas / ressources thats freely on the site -to be used as one see fit makes me wonder why all these beefs arent in the (compared to this pack) quite useless book threads around here.

-Once more: Great job Ash, Dave and whoever else contributed!

Mark Berry   (Feb 16, 2008 at 16:30 GMT)

@ Mike "The support issue you refer to were user generated."

Oh man, that made my day! I'm going to totally rip that off and use it at the earliest opportunity :-)

Julian R   (Feb 16, 2008 at 20:39 GMT)

Great pack... but anyone having problems running it under Vista? It's ok up to the point of Joining a team, then selecting your spawn point (crash)
Edited on Feb 16, 2008 20:43 GMT

Dave Young   (Feb 16, 2008 at 21:19 GMT)

Someone else posted that as well, there is a workaround posted on the support forums, and the team is trying to figure out why this happen with some video cards under Vista.

Julian R   (Feb 16, 2008 at 22:19 GMT)

Ok thanks for this Dave :)

Sorin Daraban   (Feb 17, 2008 at 00:43 GMT)

Is there any AI for someone who wants to play single player?

Ian Roach   (Feb 17, 2008 at 00:59 GMT)

Just wondering is the tank the bravetree tank pack ? i already own that pack, are you allowed to sell other peoples packs ?

Dave Young   (Feb 17, 2008 at 02:11 GMT)

Of course not Ian :)

Ashley Kelley   (Feb 17, 2008 at 03:08 GMT)

AI are really easy to add. Took me like 20 minutes and I'm no programmer. The tank isnt even close to Bravetree. You can modify their tank pack to work in CSK by adding a few nodes and changing the script. In order to get the turret to work across the net we changed a lot of code and script.

Any vehicles will work in CSK but there will need to be modifications made to the models. There are documents inside the pack to explain what needs to be done to make each type of vehicle playable in CSK.

Andy Hawkins   (Feb 17, 2008 at 03:27 GMT)

Quote:

---

Is there any AI for someone who wants to play single player?

---

Now that's what I want. Would it be possible to merge this in?

When You Wish Upon A*

Sorin Daraban   (Feb 17, 2008 at 03:43 GMT)

To Ashley:

What did you mean by it took you only 20 minutes to implement AI.
Which AI are you talking about? Is there one already implemented in CSK or is there one I should look at?

Ashley Kelley   (Feb 17, 2008 at 07:15 GMT)

I placed aiguard and aipatrol in a version of CSK so I would have something to shoot at during long hours of testing. That resource is quick and easy to addition to add.

Sorin Daraban   (Feb 17, 2008 at 18:18 GMT)

What do the Place WayPoint and Target Marker do?
Is waypoint used for pathfinding?

Gibby   (Feb 20, 2008 at 07:39 GMT)

I'm curious what sort of file structure you're using. Is it the stock TGE model where there's the 'Cpmmpn' folder and the game is an additional mod folder [starter.fps], or does it use the Tribes model. The reason I ask it that a number of folks, myself included are using the Tribes-style file structure. It took a fair amount of effort adapting AFX to that model [though well worth it] and I'm curious how much effort would be involved adapting this one.

My other question is whether you could elaborate on 'Multiple Instanciations'. By this do you mean that it spawns multiple instanciations of the engine, or can you run multiple levels simultaneously in a single instanciation of TGE?

-Gibby

J.P. Berry   (Feb 21, 2008 at 17:25 GMT)

@Gibby, The file structure (someone correct me if I'm wrong) is the stock TGE model, with a common folder and a starter.combat folder. Also, you can run the program more than once without getting the "Copy of Torque already running" message. I assume this is so that you can test multiplayer.

All in all, I have enjoyed playing with this pack. There is a messload of code, scripts, resources, etc. to keep me busy for a long time. It has definitely shaved a large portion of development time off of my prototype, and well worth the money spent.

JPaxson   (Feb 22, 2008 at 17:27 GMT)

Dave, congratulations. Very feature rich pack. I sent you an e-mail with a couple of ideas I am interested in getting your take on. Drop me a note when you get a chance.

John E. Nelson   (Mar 05, 2008 at 16:07 GMT)

This is a great job of putting together a much needed starter kit. It only took minutes for me to get it setup, and it works great. Well worth the investment!

wiseman2   (Jun 02, 2008 at 23:09 GMT)

Just curious if work has been started to get this to tgea 1.7?

Will Zettler   (Jun 04, 2008 at 21:38 GMT)

i ordered your kit a while back from your web site, will you offer it to be added to my account here at gg or do i do any updates through your site? how will this work? I would really prefer to get my updates from GG here if at all possible. Please let me know, and btw great kit.

Will

SETTIMO TUDOR EUGEN CRISTIAN   (Jul 22, 2008 at 22:52 GMT)

Need conversion to tgea...!

I think the final conversion to tgea can be the next evolution in make fps with tgea..


"i have selected your starter kit about i think is real starter kit about anyone want!"..

Must have tgea version with many pack !" for example.. more vechile pack.. more soldiers pack.. more building pack." and with this pack addon can any have big game. "
Lol.. with any modfication to skin etc.. "

Integrate license to it " about any game maker can modify texture and all for have realy game for sell or give free using tgea.."

Thank you and sry about i have post more..!
I think post can be the diferences abot what one have selected one mod/starter kit....and why anyone must have it if want to make fps..."...


PS: lobby system idea is good for integrate.. "using mysql php" for player registration etc.." this can be the future for ban system.. for control user.. for update.. for have unique player name..etc.."

Thank you and sry about i have post more..! "i love this starter kit""!!!!:..

Alexander B   (Jul 30, 2008 at 10:13 GMT)

I am interested in buying this pack. Is it truly worth the $99 or should i just read some resources? I am also downloading the demo. Hopefully that will impress me to buy it.

Alexander B   (Jul 30, 2008 at 10:48 GMT)

There are no servers running in the demo. Can someone please setup a server. I am really thinking about buying this pack.

SETTIMO TUDOR EUGEN CRISTIAN   (Jul 30, 2008 at 22:11 GMT)

if organise one convert team anyone can help for have tgea version fast.
I propose to start tgea team porting :)
Lol.. for this project.. organised .. one convert character.. one heli..one hamvee.. etc..

And this cost=0
Speed= 1000%...

Anyone think is good solution to build / make one gg converter team..
IN this team many members can work for convert model and script for the tgea from tge..


I think is good solution.
Speed and cost ZERRRO..

Thank You.

You must be a member and be logged in to either append comments or rate this resource.

Home | Products | Solutions | Downloads | Support | Search | About Us
Copyright © GarageGames.com 2000 - 2008 All Rights Reserved