Game Development Community

dev|Pro Game Development Curriculum

T3D Beta - Initial Impressions, Level Editing

by Gareth Fouche · 05/04/2009 (12:12 am) · 70 comments

Well, the T3D beta is upon us, as I'm sure everyone knows. Like all the other pre-order Torquers, I opened up the Warrior Camp and Physics demos and "oohed" and "ahhed" at the shiny. But last night was the first real opportunity I had to sit down and play with T3D so I decided to start at the beginning and create a level from scratch. Shiny is nice, but how does the new engine "feel"?

Luckily, the answer is "slick". :) I'll post up my initial impressions here.

First off, the Toolbox doodad is actually quite helpful. When I initially heard about it I wasn't amazingly interested, I can navigate around my folder structure, this app would be nice when I eventually wanted to publish but I didn't think I'd have much call to use it, day-to-day. I was wrong, having a central launchpad for anything you could want to do just makes things quicker. Having it sit in your toolbar while deving, ready to launch any app you need, is handy.

The first thing that you notice with T3D is how much quicker it loads. MUCH quicker. No more browsing the net while I wait for stage entry. :)

On to world editing. I created a new project, deleted the basic level objects (ground plane, skybox etc) and began to add stuff in one-by-one.

The most obvious thing to comment on is how pretty it all is. T3D is visually on par with any other engine now, no more snide comments from developers using other engines about how outdated Torques graphics are! :D The new shadows and lighting are fantastic, crisp and detailed without being too crisp, completely dynamic, updating instantly in real time. The real time updates make playing with the lighting of your level SO much easier and more time-efficient.

Speaking of real time updates, object properties update as you change them, no more needing to hit "apply". Yay!

World editing is a more subtle change. A few people have said something along the lines of "well, that doesn't look much different to the old way!". But it's all about "flow". There are lots of subtle changes which add up to a much better work flow, and pretty much eliminate that feeling that the editor is trying it's hardest to fight you. Things like the new toolbars, the brush sliders and the snap toggles mean you spend much less time navigating multi-level menus and more time painting the level. Small changes like the splitting of the scene browser and the asset library out into 2 tabs allow you to quickly switch back and forth from creating to editing without losing your place in the navigation tree. The hints that show whenever you edit an object property, explaining function and indicating the variable type. Small changes that add up to a much nicer vibe. :)

It's clear a good deal of thought has been given to how to make the experience more friendly. The addition of waterplanes is a good example of this, simple but at the same time a godsend. Every coastal level I've made in TGEA I've had to plonk down a water block, fly around stretching it out, adjust until the player can't see the edge of the block, etc etc. Small addition but a nice time saver.

Anyway, it's very early beta still but I'm thoroughly impressed. In the end, I'm left facing one question : How can I go back to TGEA after playing with this beauty? Man, but I hope porting my code is relatively painless!

I'll end off with some shots of the level I made, a little island. Just playing around, all basic assets and textures from the warrior camp example level, nothing custom. All credit to Apparatus for the cool meshes, I'm SO poaching some of those for SoW. :)

scarsofwargame.com/DevBlog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/screenshot_001-00001.jpg
scarsofwargame.com/DevBlog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/screenshot_001-00000.jpg
scarsofwargame.com/DevBlog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/screenshot_005-00001.jpg
scarsofwargame.com/DevBlog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/screenshot_005-00003.jpg
scarsofwargame.com/DevBlog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/screenshot_005-00005.jpg




#21
05/04/2009 (10:30 am)
@J.C.

1) Yes, Unity3D, even if it has closed source, it's not a big deal - the engine is quite stable, a lot can be done with scripting to add functionality, you can make plugins for things you cannot do in c#/javascript/boo. Unity team is fixing bugs fairly quickly.
2) Let's mention Ogre even if it's just a rendering engine. It's not that difficult to add other components to it to make it a full engine, tho it lacks tools (there are few in development and reaching stable condition). I went this path, but abandon due to my time constraints. Ogre has an amazing rendering pipeline and material system, no engine has it except maybe Unreal/Crytec.
3) C4


#22
05/04/2009 (10:50 am)
Thanks a lot, Gareth, for posting some thoughts. Those of us without the beta (somehow lost my Associate status since the site change) have to hold our Atlas terrains close at night ;)
#23
05/04/2009 (11:01 am)
Tau, I wouldn't compare a game engine to a rendering engine.

OP: How much FPS are you getting in that first shot? Looks like 04.4 to me.
#24
05/04/2009 (11:03 am)
Quote:Here's a question for those of you posting positive responses. Do you think the Basic license is now justified after using the new editors and tools?

You are touting most of the features that come with Basic (with the exception of advanced lighting), so what are your thoughts now on the lower cost license?

No
Basic removes the lighting as well as the river / road tools & Webdeploy, which are the main reasons to get T3D / the new features in T3D. With them beeing removed from Basic you basically have TGEA with a new editor but without sources and that at nearly the same cost as TGEA and for more than Unity 3D Indie. Does not really work out for me and I definitely wouldn't buy Basic as a single developer nor recommend anyone to do in that situation.

Basic only makes a sense if you are a designer (non programmer) and part of a team with a Pro owner who provides you with recompiled exes.
#25
05/04/2009 (11:06 am)
My guess is that's 84.4 FPS. Reason being, his MSPF looks like 11.8. ;)
#26
05/04/2009 (1:43 pm)
@Tau: I enjoy C4, owned a license for a couple of years now. But I choose to use TGEA 1.7 over it. C4 as a rendering engine was solid, but that's all that it was. In my opinion 1.7/1.8 of TGEA was the better overall engine. I loved the Lighting/Shadows though in C4. It was legitimate competition to TGEA, but I'm not sure about it "finally playing catchup" to C4 or to Ogre. Prior to 1.7, you could say that though.

Considering that Unity Pro though to TGEA considering it cost 5x as much? Unity Pro and T3D is a better comparison. Unity is the only engine that I personally would enterain being a better all around engine to TGEA 1.7/1.8, but it came at a much higher price and with no source code. It's advantages were that it was easy to use and has great editors. But to say that Torque finally caught up to an engine that was 5x the price, doesn't have source code, and didn't have windows editors until a couple months ago, that's stretching it a bit.
#27
05/04/2009 (1:44 pm)
Great to see these initial thoughts. It's actually more positive than I'd expected considering the Beta is, by all rights, really an Alpha. It's neither feature complete nor free of bugs known to us. By the time we get to that stage, I think we're going to be talking about another very big leap in productivity over what you guys are used to. With what we have, I'd call us about 70% of the way "done" right now.
#28
05/04/2009 (2:34 pm)
I have to say that I like the new engine. It was worth the money. I know the few bugs in the beta will be fixed so I am not worried, thats what beta is for.

I do still fear that many folks will not be able to afford it, and it will decrease the number of people contributing to the community.
#29
05/04/2009 (2:37 pm)
While that might be an issue John, a lot of what people might be working on in both T3D and TGEA will be useable in either engine. There will be resources that will be geared toward either engine as there are still resources coming out for people using TGE.
#30
05/04/2009 (4:34 pm)
IMHO even with the current bugs (which are to be expected as its Beta 1 and Brett says its closer to an alpha) I'd say its much more productive than the previous versions.
Now I will admit to never really liking the previous version editors so the new style/paradigm just feels more right to me, but its stable already, runs well on both higher and lower end machines (Basic lighting is enough for me to edit on a crappy IGP laptop, advanced on a 8800 GTS is awesome) and the work flow is very nice.
Still plenty to do of course, but great job everyone working on it :D
#31
05/04/2009 (4:55 pm)
Quote:
b) Waivable Torque Splash Screen [...] will FORCE me to get T3D Studio [...] If I have money, I'll choose Unreal/Crytec over T3D with close pricing.

Ever see an Unreal game that doesn't have a "Powered by Unreal" splash screen?

This just seems like such a non-issue to me.
#32
05/04/2009 (5:48 pm)
Quote:If it's aimed at dabblers, then I can understand removing the advanced art tools. However, it doesn't come with scripting. For dabblers I'd let them try their hands at creating and altering scripts, I think the odds of really creating a finished game without touching source are very low.

What do you mean when you say it doesn't come with scripting?
#33
05/05/2009 (12:01 am)
@ Neill : Yes, I get between 75-90 fps on that level. Quite frankly the framerate was smooth enough that I didn't even consider trying to test it until I browsed that forum thread and wondered what I was getting.

Quite frankly, T3D feels faster overall to me than TGEA. But maybe that's just the much decreased loading time! :D
#34
05/05/2009 (2:01 am)
@ Sean : I'd gotten the impression that Basic doesn't ship with script editing capability, ie the scripts are precompiled. Am I incorrect thinking that? I must admit, I've been paying most attention to the Pro version since source access is a necessity to me. Have I got it wrong?

Brett, could you clarify?


@ Gerald : "Ever see an Unreal game that doesn't have a "Powered by Unreal" splash screen?

This just seems like such a non-issue to me. "

Completely agreed. I haven't played a single mainstream game in over a decade without at least 3 logos and something like a "Powered by NVidia!" video. How anyone can begrudge GG a few seconds of logo is really beyond me.

It also seems silly to me to complain about the $250k annual limit and then complain about how T3D Studio is expensive. Seems to me that if one of those is a problem for you then the other shouldn't be.


#35
05/05/2009 (7:01 am)
Sweet bejeebuz! I've only just discovered the animated sunlight! That's awesome, but what a thing to find with a hangover...
#36
05/05/2009 (7:04 am)
Wait...animated sunlight?

You mean a mobile sun? I thought we had to code that ourselves! Share!
#37
05/05/2009 (8:28 am)
Insert an fxsunlight object (under environment in Library) tick the animateElevation and untick animateAzimuith. And right at teh bottom set ElevationTime to something higher, like 180.

#38
05/05/2009 (8:35 am)
@Steve - Don't get attached to that object. Last I saw, another World Editor object is replacing that one which is more powerful and flexible.
#39
05/05/2009 (8:40 am)
more powerful and flexible
That's a description I like.
#40
05/05/2009 (8:53 am)
"Don't get attached to that object. Last I saw, another World Editor object is replacing that one which is more powerful and flexible."

You sir, are a shameless tease!

Seriously though, that's fantastic. T3D just keeps getting more awesome.