TSE Linux?

#1 I think the dev team are wanting to get the GFx features done and stable in directx/windows before they port it over to opengl , could be wrong tho

#2 I believe that it's an issue of OpenGL standard versus implementation of the standard currently being the GL issue.

#3 We are waiting for TSE on DX to be done before porting it. No sense doing major dev work AND porting at the same time.

We're also waiting for GL to stabilize, especially on OSX. That's naturally less of a constraint than when we started our plans, but it's still an annoying problem.

#4 Ok thanks.

#5 I bought TSE specifically for using (eventually) with OSX and Linux.. I'm still waiting. I don't really feel like paying to upgrade my 1.4 version to 1.5 since my focus has been TSE.

Any updates?

#6 No sense doing major dev work AND porting at the same time.

@Ben: I respectfully disagree.

#7 I have always wondered why many who have systems running on windows and linux, make it based on directx for windows and opengl for linux, why not make everything opengl from the start and save a bunch of porting.

Im not a programmer so i dont know the pros and cons of opengl and directx, but i guess that id software has proven that opengl can get good graphics.

Im just very curious why people decide to port rather then go pure opengl?

#8 Why not use OpenGL on windows: Try TGE / TGB on a onboard GFX and the answer is simple.

Its a question of broad support, compatibility (thanks to extensions there are features that are handled differently on ATI and NVIDIA, something not possible on DX) and "standard"

OpenGL is standard to OSX and Linux
DX is standard to Windows

Don't offer it and you ask for problems.

#9 Sorry, but your excuses seems no sense.
Extension in OpenGL were always different from seller ( ATI , NVIDIA, etc).
Your TGEA code has Visual C++ intrinsecs, non ANSI- 14882 , non AT&T inline assembler, etc.
The project were not builded in gcc/mingw style.
Could make sense if you have a normalized code working with DX GFX.
Then, It's a matter of plug a OpenGL GFX.
If you build a Windows application , It's difficult to make it portable in the near future.

#10 Who is interested in GCC style?
The OpenGL is for OSX

GG has stopped officially supporting Linux quite some time ago. All engines offer only Windows or Windows + OSX.
So the important thing is that the Visual Studio solutions and XCode projects work, at least for those few wanting to have OpenGL + crossplattform.
Although I assume anyone wanting to have OSX + Windows uses Unity and comes from OSX originally not Windows.

#11 OSX is a variant of FreeBSD, gcc style works fine.
This not aswer the major questions: Visual Studio intrinsecs steps, non ANSI-14882, etc, in TGEA.
The XCode project works fine with TGE.
Thanks for mentioning the Unity, I am moving my project for this engine.

#12 Looking at their website, it isn't clear to me. Do you get the source with their engine?

#13 Unity? No. You do not get the source. To use the SDK, you have to be a professional licensee, I believe. It has been a while and I haven't upgraded my license yet. It's a pretty mifty WYSIWYG engine, though you must play in their sandbox. It's a big sandbox, though.

It is a Mac OS-based engine that can publish to Mac or PC in ways similar to the Shockwave publishing model. It can publish to Mac, PC, OSX Widgets, or their web player.

#14 Yes, the source code comes only with the pro license.
But the question is: U$1,500.00 is or is not a great deal to get Source Code , OpenGL, Mac and Web ?
I buyed TGEA in trust that GG will build the OpenGL and the Mac version.
Now with the InstantAction, I have my doubts.
First because is a huge work to make documentation and solid tools for artists, what is crucial to InstantAction develop content.
Second because if OpenGL 2.0 or 2.1 is not mature, it's very simple to implement to NVIDIA, wich have the best OpenGL support, and leave the community make other ports, what is fair
Third with Windows, DX and Visual Studio, the development was accelerated in the cost of portability.
If I continue to port TGEA to a UNIX environment (Linux/Mac) and finish the OpenGL GFX, I was made the GG job, not my job.
If someone have some idea when the Mac port will come, I would like to know.

#15 You do not get the engine source with the pro license. You get SDK access to create plugin's. You also do not get the source for the web player. Do not be confused about what you are getting:

Quote: * Windows deployment
* Realtime soft shadows
* Render effects (bloom, motion-blur, ...)
* Reflection and refraction
* Render-to-texture based effects
* Streaming video support
* Low-level rendering access
* C/C++ plugins support

You do not get the source. You get access to the SDK to extend the engine through plug-in's. You do not get the engine source or the webplayer source or the editor source code. You will not be porting Unity to Linux unless you become a key member of their staff looking for publishing to Linux the same way they publish to Windows or Macs. Unity's a great engine, but I don't want you to buy it (especially at the pro cost) and not get what you are thinking you're going to get.

There is no word on when a Mac compatible version of TGEA will come, or if it will. If it is a primary requirement for your project, you should continue. Just like if accurate physics was a requirement, you should implement Physx or some other advanced physics engine.

#16 Unlike TGEA you do not need the engine code as well.

Similar to how T2 is planned (at least from Stephens blog), Unity allows you to use the engine without recompiling it like 500 times with your additional classes etc that you normally would link against the DLL instead of hardcoding it just to make it vulnerable to any engine update / breakdate.

#17 It's the same concept as modding for Unreal or creating a game in RPG Maker XP and extending functionality through Ruby. Lawmaker, BeyondVirtual, Unity, etc create a sandbox of functionality and reveal that functionality to the scripting engine. You do not have to recompile the engine, but if it does not support a feature, you will have to wait for the developers to implement it into the core engine and reveal it to the scripting engine.

I don't believe Unity is component based, but then I also do not have the source code to the engine. I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but there's no way to tell without seeing the source. T2's component architecture is based around being able to add/remove things like the renderer, a physics engine, and AI engine, etc. That way, if you can code it, you can probably componentize it for use in the engine. Unity doesn't use the same concept exactly. It's closer to the plug-in system for Photoshop, and I don't think it touches the core engine functionality but extends the code functionality. Most SDK-enabled engines perform this way. A5/6/7 is a good example of extending engine functionality through the SDK.

I, sadly, haven't seen many plugins released, though, so I'm not sure about how far it can be extended. I do think that most of their licensees are not using the pro version, however, so that could be part of the release issue for plugins. Very cool community, though.

#18 but if it does not support a feature, you will have to wait for the developers to implement it into the core engine and reveal it to the scripting engine.

This is my problem with all closed source engines. That's all find and good if you're just screwing around, but if you're at all serious about what you are doing, it's just not good enough.

Sure, three quarters of the time I still am waiting around for GG to fix something or for some community member to do it and share it, but I know that it is possible, always, to do it myself.

#19 David, You were right about the license.
No AGEIA, is only for Windows.
Perhaps ODE, with optimizations, if necessary.

#20 Newton Dynamics also has a Linux version.