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T3D is visually on par with any other engine now, no more snide comments from developers using other engines about how outdated Torques graphics are!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




Page«First 1 2 3 4 Next»
#61
05/07/2009 (12:31 pm)
Forgive me for going off topic Gareth, but my 2 cents on the pricing/kit debate:

I'm really loving Torque 3D so far (have no access to beta, basing my opinions on the blogs, videos, user comments, etc) but It's a little disappointing (kit pricing) for us level designers to have to pay the 1,000 for the extra stuff (web publishing, genre kits, source code) we don't need. The basic kit (or artist kit as others refer to it as) is great for someone just wanting to import and test assets in-game, but is severely lacking for us level designers. What I would really love to see is a combination of the basic kit with added stuff focused towards level designers that includes the road/rivers tools and advanced lighting.

Also, hiring full-time (or even part-time) on-site artists is very difficult for us (indie devs). If there was some sort of small model viewer that we could send to contract artists to quickly just view their models with the torque renderer that would really be great. If there were tools that would really help us indie devs out, that would be one of them.
#62
05/07/2009 (12:49 pm)
@ Gareth: Sorry we're highjacking your blog, man. =)

@ Brett Seyler:
Quote:"...If you were looking at making your technology choice only on the planned $51 separating 3D Basic from Unity Indie, we (GG & Torque) would probably not be a good fit for you in the long term.

Like Sean H. mentioned, you seem to have missed the qualifiers here: "for the first time with a limited budget" and "similar". Unity Indie and T3D Basic appear to have very similar features. If the potential game developer is shopping for an engine, and the features appear very similar, which are they going to try first? I don't care who you are or what your budget is, if you're smart, you try the least expensive engine first. And if it meets your needs, the others (e.g. T3D Basic) never had a chance.

And this "...we would probably not be a good fit..." Seriously?! From a business standpoint, I don't see any clear reason for GG to take an attitude like this. GG is out to do one thing: sell game engines. Nothing sells (or doesn't sell) better than a customer's previous experience with a company and its products. (Brand loyalty, right? It's the reason I'm still here...)

For example, consider the "starving student", "hobbiest", "person-who-likes-to-buy-other-things-besides-game-engines", etc. who decides to purchase the Unity Indie engine (or C4 or whatever) simply because it's cheaper; he likes it and later wants to upgrade. It's highly unlikely that he's going to upgrade to T3D Pro out of the blue! No, he's familiar with Unity and will stick with Unity. Likewise, if he purchases T3D, he's pretty likely to stick with T3D in the future.

So my point was (and is), y'all need to:
A) Bring T3D Basic's price in line with the price of the competition.
B) Sell T3D Basic better, i.e. make it very clear exactly why it's $51 better than the competition. ('Cause I don't think it is very clear ATM...)
C) Both A and B.




#63
05/07/2009 (3:47 pm)
@Kevin: Not miscontruing anything here. I see the context. I see the point of looking at a $50 difference, and I'm saying that the person who will look at Unity Basic and Torque 3D Basic, look at their features and license, then choose Unity first based on the price difference alone (as in, the other differences don't compell them to try Torque 3D first, or at the same time), well, we're just not that interested in competing for that customer. Customers with that much price sensitivity, and that level of knowledge about what they are buying are typically impossible to please, expensive to cater to, and very vocal when displeased. I'd rather focus on people who know enough about what they are doing, and recognize what choosing the right technology will save them in time and money, to evaluate their choices based on more than a $51 difference. Users in this price range still have many good choices with GG. There's TGB, Torque X, TGE, and TGEA, but Torque 3D is our technological spearhead, and I'm not in favor of shaping it's license, feature set, or price to cater to the lowest common denominator.
#64
05/08/2009 (8:49 am)
Ppl, Brett has a point, who cares about the difference of $51 ?!! That's not the main point... I tell you what, I'm in business for about 10 years and the price difference of $51-$500 does not play the major role when a person is thinking about buying a tool (even poor students are eager to save up and get it - I was like that back in uni), they look at
a) hype around the product
b) feature list
c) stability
d) other people experience
e) list of produced products/games using the tool
f) how many hits Google return with the tool name (is there a community to fallback to for questions?)

The reality is: when "rubber hits the road" and you game is finished, the #1 main question is: "How many users can run your game on their systems and it will be stable/not-sluggish?" BTW, this relates directly to low- and high-end support range for video cards and memory consumption, engine stability as well.

Unfortunately, we are not here to compete with big AAA studios and cannot dictate a user to upgrade their machines just to play our game - that's the very important point constantly forgotten by the starting indie game devs. If you loose 50% of market holding low-end cards - you have no chance to get traction for your game.
#65
05/08/2009 (12:02 pm)
Unigine supports alpha blending AND translucency? Hold the phones! I think I already know who's going to take the 2009 Frontline Engine of the Year award...
#66
05/08/2009 (9:25 pm)
@Luke Lamothe: hehe, come on man, give me some slack, I was trying to reference something at least a little more specific than just "graphics/rendering features". Yea, those 2 things probably shouldn't be on my grfx-suggestions-list like that.

However, with the example of "alpha blending AND translucency"... What I was thinking about was 1: how the artists used an alpha channel for the tree leaves (yes I realize this is the art demo not the engine/code), and 2: effects of light going through water (caustics) and effect of light going through a colored transparent material resulting in a colored shadow. For example, if you shine a light through a green transparent material, you can get a green shadow.

I was just trying to suggest some specific ideas, make a comparison, gather more info. Not actually totally sure which of these things (if any) Torque 3D doesn't at least have some version of. Also, I think it looks like Torque 3D has a lot of good graphics effects stuff too, and is better in other ways besides just a few particular high-end graphics effects.

#67
05/08/2009 (9:26 pm)
Oh, and I saw this link about the Engine vs. Engine comparisons:

http://www.garagegames.com/community/forums/viewthread/91217


#68
05/12/2009 (5:03 am)
i hope this is the right place for a general question (or two) about Torque 3D...

1- i noticed in the River Construction Editor video that the water vertices actually move with the waves (thank you gods :) )... is this going to be available for TGEA anytime soon...

2- if not, then is it available with the Indie license of Torque3D seeing as there is no river editor option there?

thx in advance...

--Mike

#69
05/13/2009 (5:58 pm)
The river/road editor is for Torque 3D Pro (not TGEA or Torque 3D Basic). However, I think you should be able to load a map/mission created with Torque 3D Pro in Torque 3D Basic.
#70
05/21/2009 (2:20 am)
I hope GG rethinks the different package structures. Basic seems like an art tool that is missing the largest (lighting) art feature.

Please consider including the visual tools in the Basic package before release.
Page«First 1 2 3 4 Next»