Is T2D still going to get full networking support?

#21 Matt: I guess I was being a more than a little unfair when I insinuated that GG changed T2D behind the scenes. It just seemed to me that Melv was no longer in control of it, and that features that he once felt was important to the engine (as seen in the quotes above) aren't going to make it into the base engine. I'm just frustrated that full networking was dropped at some point with the only indication being a bullet point on the website. A post like Stephen Z. just made would have went a long way to heading off this whole thread for some I guess. Without an explanation like that, the whole thing simply looked like a way to cut a corner and get it finally released.

I bought into the idea of T2D way back at the start and tossed my money in to support the development, even though I knew that I wouldn't really get around to seriously using it until it moved out of the early adopter phase. I guess I was being naive at the time, but that support was based on what I perceived to be the finishing point of T2D. Somewhere along the way it morphed into a Game Builder. Ah well...

At the end of the day, I've got the C code to do whatever I want with and thats cool.

#22 Also if the fast-twitch-Torque-Networking were ever implemented, then TGB games would take MUCH longer to launch. It takes time to initialize that whole client-server layer that TGE and TSE use. In addition to lighting the scenes, this Networking layer is why TGE games take so long to launch. Just goes to show- you can't please everyone :-) Personally if I ever wanted to make full-twitch networking 2D then i would use TGE instead of TGB and use billboard sprites or some other way make it "look" like a 2D game.

#23 @Matthew

Thanks for replay. Good to hear that the future is bright, even for old ladyes that learn slow (like me). he he

Looking forward to whatever TGB updates, that will make my "life" easyer. :)

#24

Quote:
I simply saw you quote people and reference there names and then say you weren't pointing fingers.

To quote, it's proper etiquette to name the origin. It's of no value to a quote someone if you can't say the name. So then I guess I am pointing fingers, but not in a negative way.

Thanks for your email and have a nice day.

#25 It seems to me there's a bunch of nice people here, with the best intents, trying to get along. Hugs. :)

It does seem though that an odd line of dicussion has appeared in this thread which I just thought I'd take the opportunity to talk about.

Since I started working on TGB with GG, I've had nothing but good experiences (apart from the long hours)!

I can say quite honestly that if GG took the first step, I've followed but equally, if I took my own step, GG followed that one and we've pretty much been in lock-step ever since. Those were the early days when I was involved in the mother-load of core engine design/implementation. Nowdays, the emphasis is on the tools (and quite rightly) and although I wrote some of the early tools such as the particle/tile editors, it's definately not my raison d'etre.

Since the game-builder front-end started flying on its own, I took a step back from it. The reason for this was that there were guys who had a clear vision on what they wanted to achieve and are much better and writing these tools than I could ever be. Besides, people like Justin, Matt, Adam, Josh, other Josh (you know who you are) were developing the tools at a crazy pace and doing a fantastic job and I struggled to keep up; something I witnessed when I visited earlier in the year. Sorry, but I don't get many chances to publically get all mushy to the GG guys. ;)

It's funny, during my career I've only had a single job where I was customer-facing and that was selling computers in my teens. My other is what I would consider my presence on these forums post T2D EA release. I've been guilty of nieve postings, technically inaccurate ones, hell even flaming but I can say that with regards to the networking side of things, that it became apparent, after our honest intent to implement 'twitch' networking, that we would struggle to find ways to transparently/cleanly put in such a system. Whatever we thought of greatly increased the complexity of "just getting it running". This didn't fit with the simple script model we wanted. It's far from impossible, it's just a resource hog to get the system implemented.

As someone has quite rightly pointed out, I'm not a GG employee so this post isn't official in any sense but I would say, for the future, that GG rarely say never! If a good proportion of customers were to ask for such a system (and could justify it) then you'd probably have it. The networking 'issue' has generated very little noise on the forums as compared to all the other stuff which is where the main effort has gone. In the end though, it really comes down to resource limitation.

It may not look like it sometimes but GG is heavily customer focused with a healthy sprinkling of industry experience.

Right now TGB is about to go hit the streets with its shiny final-release badge on. The thing I don't like about that term is the word final. It's a misnomer at best to say final!

At the risk of teasing; you ain't going to believe what's on the roadmap!

Nuff said.

- Melv.

#26

Quote:At the risk of teasing; you ain't going to believe what's on the roadmap!

It better be that fxFannyPack you promised long, long ago! ;-)

#27 Oh man, that brings back memories. :)

Nice one. :)

- Melv.