Torque 3D Concerns
by Ray Gebhardt · 03/25/2009 (6:38 am) · 31 comments
Torque 3D looks awesome and I am excited about the new release. The new features sound really cool and it looks like this will be the best release of Torque yet. I also think for the features you get, the price of the engine is reasonable. I have already preordered the engine and I can’t wait for it to be released. Despite my excitement about the new engine release I do have a few concerns.
The first issue I have is redistribution of the editors. There is one single value add that PC games have that no other platform has. That is moddability. I remember reading Masters of Doom and Id Software was amazed by how many people modded Doom, even though they really didn’t have anything built in to mod the engine. Their users would hack binaries and do all kinds of other crazy stuff to put stuff into the game that Id Software didn’t even think was possible. With every game they made after that, they made sure that there was plenty of functionality that modders could play with.
Moddabilty was one of the greatest things about previous releases of Torque. When you sold your game you could include all of the editors and let your users run wild, making anything they wanted with your game. It really added value to many games. Some examples of moddable games are Marble Blast, Minions of Mirth, Determinance , Blockland and yes of course Tribes. ;) Blockland was modded so much that the developer of the game had to improve the security Torque to prevent mods from doing nasty things. I think moddability is probably the biggest unique selling point that Torque had. No other “indie” game engine I have heard of includes that feature.
My next issue is concerning the EULA. I read in a previous blog that artists can buy Torque Basic and use compiled binaries of Torque Pro, but you would only be able to do it because the EULA would be vague enough to allow for it. If artists must buy Torque Basic to use the editors I think it should be less vague. Smaller teams should be able to feel confident that they are not breaking the EULA. There also seem to be other grey areas with such a EULA. If someone is just doing script work, do they need a Torque Basic license, or no license at all if they are not using the editors?
Since we are on the topic of Torque Basic, I would like to bring up a few issues I have with it. In my opinion it will not be possible to make a “real” game with Torque Basic. Going by my knowledge of TGEA (and going by the blogs Torque 3D hasn’t fundamentally changed the engine architecture), anything that has to do with custom movement code, object picking, AI, etc is impossible without the source code. In other words with a base Torque, without source, the only game you could make is a very basic multiplayer FPS. You couldn’t make an RTS, puzzle game or anything else that didn’t fit the predefined game type.
Engines like Unity let you make pretty much any type of game, even with their “indie” license. The reason why it’s possible to make any type of game is because the engine lets you do anything from their compiled scripting languages. In fact that’s the only way you can make a game. Since the scripts get compiled to native code, you can do things like physics, without modifying the source code. I think anyone that buys Torque Basic will be very disappointed, especially at the $250 cost point, unless they are looking to make a Tribes clone.
I really liked how Torque used to make the binary version free. This allowed people to get their feet wet, and when they really got serious about making a game, they would have to purchase the engine. Were there some people that never bought the engine? Of course. At the same time I think it introduced a lot of people to the engine, and created a lot of good will towards GarageGames.
The last item on my list of issues is culling. I watched a video of the new poly soup code and almost instantly fell in love. Seeing how the poly soup meshes could be relit and all that stuff was really cool. The problem I have with poly soup is culling. One of the really nice things about interiors was that you could create portals, which could restrict what was rendered. The poly soup code doesn’t seem to do anything related to culling (at least there was no mention of it in any of the blogs I have read). It might not be an issue with Marble Blast or Legions, but many games require good culling in order to keep them performing well. Are there any plans to implement features to help developers will culling geometry? I read a blog about blockers, and that seemed like it could be part of the solution. I was just curious if GarageGames had any plans on developing a solution for culling with poly soup geometry.
Well those are the issues I have with the new release. I don’t mean for this post to sound like I am complaining. I just wanted to get my honest feelings out there about the new engine. I am still very excited about the new engine and glad that the money I put down for the prerelease could help fund the development of it.
The first issue I have is redistribution of the editors. There is one single value add that PC games have that no other platform has. That is moddability. I remember reading Masters of Doom and Id Software was amazed by how many people modded Doom, even though they really didn’t have anything built in to mod the engine. Their users would hack binaries and do all kinds of other crazy stuff to put stuff into the game that Id Software didn’t even think was possible. With every game they made after that, they made sure that there was plenty of functionality that modders could play with.
Moddabilty was one of the greatest things about previous releases of Torque. When you sold your game you could include all of the editors and let your users run wild, making anything they wanted with your game. It really added value to many games. Some examples of moddable games are Marble Blast, Minions of Mirth, Determinance , Blockland and yes of course Tribes. ;) Blockland was modded so much that the developer of the game had to improve the security Torque to prevent mods from doing nasty things. I think moddability is probably the biggest unique selling point that Torque had. No other “indie” game engine I have heard of includes that feature.
My next issue is concerning the EULA. I read in a previous blog that artists can buy Torque Basic and use compiled binaries of Torque Pro, but you would only be able to do it because the EULA would be vague enough to allow for it. If artists must buy Torque Basic to use the editors I think it should be less vague. Smaller teams should be able to feel confident that they are not breaking the EULA. There also seem to be other grey areas with such a EULA. If someone is just doing script work, do they need a Torque Basic license, or no license at all if they are not using the editors?
Since we are on the topic of Torque Basic, I would like to bring up a few issues I have with it. In my opinion it will not be possible to make a “real” game with Torque Basic. Going by my knowledge of TGEA (and going by the blogs Torque 3D hasn’t fundamentally changed the engine architecture), anything that has to do with custom movement code, object picking, AI, etc is impossible without the source code. In other words with a base Torque, without source, the only game you could make is a very basic multiplayer FPS. You couldn’t make an RTS, puzzle game or anything else that didn’t fit the predefined game type.
Engines like Unity let you make pretty much any type of game, even with their “indie” license. The reason why it’s possible to make any type of game is because the engine lets you do anything from their compiled scripting languages. In fact that’s the only way you can make a game. Since the scripts get compiled to native code, you can do things like physics, without modifying the source code. I think anyone that buys Torque Basic will be very disappointed, especially at the $250 cost point, unless they are looking to make a Tribes clone.
I really liked how Torque used to make the binary version free. This allowed people to get their feet wet, and when they really got serious about making a game, they would have to purchase the engine. Were there some people that never bought the engine? Of course. At the same time I think it introduced a lot of people to the engine, and created a lot of good will towards GarageGames.
The last item on my list of issues is culling. I watched a video of the new poly soup code and almost instantly fell in love. Seeing how the poly soup meshes could be relit and all that stuff was really cool. The problem I have with poly soup is culling. One of the really nice things about interiors was that you could create portals, which could restrict what was rendered. The poly soup code doesn’t seem to do anything related to culling (at least there was no mention of it in any of the blogs I have read). It might not be an issue with Marble Blast or Legions, but many games require good culling in order to keep them performing well. Are there any plans to implement features to help developers will culling geometry? I read a blog about blockers, and that seemed like it could be part of the solution. I was just curious if GarageGames had any plans on developing a solution for culling with poly soup geometry.
Well those are the issues I have with the new release. I don’t mean for this post to sound like I am complaining. I just wanted to get my honest feelings out there about the new engine. I am still very excited about the new engine and glad that the money I put down for the prerelease could help fund the development of it.
About the author
#2
03/25/2009 (6:56 am)
Any chance we could see the EULA for T3D? If the EULA isn't finalised yet, will it be available before the pre-order discount ends? 
#3
03/25/2009 (7:20 am)
Here's my Torque3D concern: I'm quite shocked that they didn't include a physics engine......? I'm mean really......no real physics? It seems all game engines these days either use Havoc, PhysX, Bullet, Ode.....something. I really hope that GG adds a feature that allows you to toggle a real physics system on or off at some point.....OR throw up a resource with steps to integrate something like Bullet or Havoc or anything. There currently is a PhysX but that was for an older TGEA which is no longer really supported........sigh.....Is it really worth that much when an important aspect (in today's game engine world) is missing?.....*shrug*. 
#4
03/25/2009 (8:22 am)
@Dalo: There are new physics in Torque 3D. They haven't released the details on them yet though. 
#5
Regardless of my concern, I'm really excited about the new engine.
03/25/2009 (8:48 am)
My biggest concern is the fact I have a ton of interiors finished in .dif format via 3DWS. If .dif isn't supported, I'll have tons of work to redo. On the plus side though, alot more texture detail can be achieved using .dts.Regardless of my concern, I'm really excited about the new engine.
#6
as well as:
PhysX hybrid system.....? I understand that physics would be very difficult in terms of networking, hence my comment of a possible toggle of some sort. With single player games it would be great, multiplayer games would have to be carefully designed if using physics.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they come out with..... :-)
03/25/2009 (9:03 am)
@J.C. Yes, that is correct, they did post this comment:Quote:For example, we're planning to include updates to Physics
as well as:
Quote:We'll probably do one of these blogs just on physics too, but physics is one of the least well-defined features for release. We have a sort of PhysX custom hybrid system (aslo based on networked ODE, which nearly got finished in and of itself) thats mostly networked.
PhysX hybrid system.....? I understand that physics would be very difficult in terms of networking, hence my comment of a possible toggle of some sort. With single player games it would be great, multiplayer games would have to be carefully designed if using physics.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they come out with..... :-)
#7
03/25/2009 (9:14 am)
Yeah, i'm curious myself. 
#8
03/25/2009 (9:17 am)
There is some great physics stuff that will be highlighted down the road. Implementing Havok, which would be tres cool, would require quite a huge change in asset setup and development and touch many, many places in the codebase. One of the things that is so cool about Havok is that it is so complete, but it is an almighty monster as well. 
#10
So a depth-only prepass and some occluders will take care of most of that. If you're pushing millions of triangles in a complex interior system then you may need some portals, though using the walls as occluders could be sufficient in many cases too. I suspect for anything portalized with polysoup you'll need a custom solution. I've got something along those lines in TGEA, and will be porting it to T3D, so if there turns out to be a real need for it I could always make it another pack :P
03/25/2009 (2:54 pm)
With modern hardware the old BSP model for poly culling is really obsolete. Triangle count isn't much of an issue anymore, pixel overdraw is, especially when you're doing a lot of per-pixel effects.So a depth-only prepass and some occluders will take care of most of that. If you're pushing millions of triangles in a complex interior system then you may need some portals, though using the walls as occluders could be sufficient in many cases too. I suspect for anything portalized with polysoup you'll need a custom solution. I've got something along those lines in TGEA, and will be porting it to T3D, so if there turns out to be a real need for it I could always make it another pack :P
#11
I figure part of the reason they did this is for the new web publishing. It's probably unlikely that mods will be possible, depending on the implementation. So, they've moved "mods" to the optional category.
But with the basic version of T3D, it's become a conflict of interest, so they pretty much have to make it expensive as heck to make your game modable... otherwise your game sales would cannibalize the sales of their new engine!
03/25/2009 (3:45 pm)
Yeah, the tool licensing issue is what made T3D a no-buy for me. I am willing to pay $505 to upgrade to it, but it's not that simple. Because the license of the toolkit is "email us", that means it would cost A LOT more for a TRUE upgrade. IMO, there's no reason to release any PC games that have no modability.I figure part of the reason they did this is for the new web publishing. It's probably unlikely that mods will be possible, depending on the implementation. So, they've moved "mods" to the optional category.
But with the basic version of T3D, it's become a conflict of interest, so they pretty much have to make it expensive as heck to make your game modable... otherwise your game sales would cannibalize the sales of their new engine!
#12
03/25/2009 (8:23 pm)
yes well i like how its going to be easy to do web publishing. i think of using it my self for beta but on release. i do not know yet as its only going to be 1 player game don't really see why people would want to play on the web just for a 1 player game. online though is fine easy access and can get on from anyplace in the world. 
#13
03/25/2009 (9:21 pm)
@Chris: The terms for using the editors in Torque 3D are no different for using them in TGEA, TGE, TGB, or any past version of Torque. We've always disallowed the wholesale redistribution of editors in a way that could be construed as a competitive game making tool set. Pretty much every engine / toolset I know of does this too. I don't know where you're drawing this perceived distinction in the license for Torque 3D from. It doesn't exists. It's the same as it ever was :)
#14
03/26/2009 (4:48 am)
It was my understanding that you could redistribute the editors with TGE and TGEA, but not with TGB. The only restriction on TGE and TGEA was that you could only make games with it and not a game engine.
#15
Torque 3D appears to disallow redistribution of editors... period. Hence, to regain that functionality, you must pay much more. Which is why Torque 3D will cost much more than just $505 for that, because that essential piece of functionality is missing.
edit: actually, I just want to clarify this so you don't misconstrue what I'm saying... by "my understanding", I mean, it's been brought up in the past and the old GG employees confirmed that you were able to redistribute the editor with an honest to goodness GAME for modification purposes. Hence, the wording of the license says that you can't make a "game making" package, competing with Torque. Obviously, that also covered you making your own editors and such... you couldn't do that either.
03/26/2009 (6:09 am)
Indeed. My understanding is that you could redistribute the old editors with the understanding that you weren't going to market it as a "game maker"... it was alright for modding your game (e.g., make a new multiplayer map).Torque 3D appears to disallow redistribution of editors... period. Hence, to regain that functionality, you must pay much more. Which is why Torque 3D will cost much more than just $505 for that, because that essential piece of functionality is missing.
edit: actually, I just want to clarify this so you don't misconstrue what I'm saying... by "my understanding", I mean, it's been brought up in the past and the old GG employees confirmed that you were able to redistribute the editor with an honest to goodness GAME for modification purposes. Hence, the wording of the license says that you can't make a "game making" package, competing with Torque. Obviously, that also covered you making your own editors and such... you couldn't do that either.
#16
03/26/2009 (6:40 am)
That is my understanding as well. Can we have clarification on this in reference to T3D, because mod ability is a big thing for many indie's game/community success.
#17
03/26/2009 (9:04 am)
Moddability was allowed in previous versions of TGE and TGEA (www.garagegames.com/community/blog/view/16727/3#comments). You were just not allowed to make a tool that competed with Torque. In other words you couldn't make a tool that was considered a game engine / game maker.
#18
03/26/2009 (10:03 am)
So.. no more modding communities allowed for our games with T3D, unless some form of special licensing/higher cost of some kind?
#19
03/26/2009 (10:26 am)
That's the way that they've explained it. It's an "email us" price ... which pretty much means it's completely out of my budget. 
#20
If you make a game that has such a huge fan base that a mod community develops around it then it is probably a trival matter (even if it costs thousands of dollars, the number of sales / size of your community will likely be huge) to get whatever special licensing you need to distribute whatever particular tools are necessary to mod your game.
Its somewhat premature to start worrying about releasing mod tools if 1) you don't have a game complete yet and 2) you don't have a huge fan base for your completed game.
03/26/2009 (11:19 am)
In cases like this it seems that some may be putting the cart before the horse. Even huge AAA titles like Oblivion and Left 4 Dead didn't have editors available untils months after their release (I don't even think the L4D editor is available yet).If you make a game that has such a huge fan base that a mod community develops around it then it is probably a trival matter (even if it costs thousands of dollars, the number of sales / size of your community will likely be huge) to get whatever special licensing you need to distribute whatever particular tools are necessary to mod your game.
Its somewhat premature to start worrying about releasing mod tools if 1) you don't have a game complete yet and 2) you don't have a huge fan base for your completed game.
Torque 3D Owner Edward
such as this one.
www.garagegames.com/community/forums/viewthread/87837