Using T2D as a cross-platform _library
by Raigan Burns · in Torque Game Builder · 04/10/2006 (2:06 pm) · 5 replies
Hi,
We've finished prototyping a (non-tilebased) 2D game, and currently we're in the process of trying to figure out what we're going to use to develop the actual game.
How easy would it be for us to treat T2D (or Torque) as a platform-independent game-centric graphics/sound/file IO/etc. library?
For instance, Blitzmax is another solution we're looking at --- we just want something that will let us write the game ourselves once and compile for mac/pc/linux, without having to write all of the most low-level components (i.e graphics and sound systems). T2D seems especially attractive since it would let us write our engine in C++ and our game in torquescript.. however, i can't tell how easy this would be -- i.e if we don't want to use the built-in scenegraph, but _would_ like to use the swept-polygon queries, how much of a pain will it be?
I can't seem to find any real info about T2D (i.e a documentation describing classes/functions).. all of the good resources seem to be private. It seems a bit ridiculous that in order to determine if purchasing T2D is worthwhile, I'm required to purchase it.
Also, is there any sort of ETA on the non-EA version? Even a very rough estimate would be fine -- i.e weeks, months or years?
raigan
We've finished prototyping a (non-tilebased) 2D game, and currently we're in the process of trying to figure out what we're going to use to develop the actual game.
How easy would it be for us to treat T2D (or Torque) as a platform-independent game-centric graphics/sound/file IO/etc. library?
For instance, Blitzmax is another solution we're looking at --- we just want something that will let us write the game ourselves once and compile for mac/pc/linux, without having to write all of the most low-level components (i.e graphics and sound systems). T2D seems especially attractive since it would let us write our engine in C++ and our game in torquescript.. however, i can't tell how easy this would be -- i.e if we don't want to use the built-in scenegraph, but _would_ like to use the swept-polygon queries, how much of a pain will it be?
I can't seem to find any real info about T2D (i.e a documentation describing classes/functions).. all of the good resources seem to be private. It seems a bit ridiculous that in order to determine if purchasing T2D is worthwhile, I'm required to purchase it.
Also, is there any sort of ETA on the non-EA version? Even a very rough estimate would be fine -- i.e weeks, months or years?
raigan
#2
04/11/2006 (2:43 pm)
Just curious but why not use the built in scenegraph? The engine is fast and efficient. If you use BlitzMax you will have to write a lot more engine code yourself, or buy some user created libraries to do things already working in T2D. The support for BMAX is not great... the author almost never posts to his forums. Here the developers constantly discuss issues, give coding help, and take input on how to improve the engine. Blitz is also another language to learn. Personally I think it's better to use T2D, especially if you have C++ experience. Either way is not easy, but the editors and flexibility of T2D help a lot when prototyping. It's in beta now, I can't imagine it taking more than a year longer for a final. It's been powering commercial games since pre Alpha.
#3
I agree that Blitzmax definitely seems much less full-featured and robust; it _does_ has the major benefit of having some real info available -- I was able to read through the language reference, learn how to use the features, and get some tests running in the demo.
My main problem with using a large, complex engine for a 2D game is that it seems pretty unnecessary; I would much rather write our own simple engine which only does what we need it to do -- the engine and game code itself isn't likely to be very complex.
Gish certainly isn't driven by a complex, possibly-over-engineered 2D engine, and it's none the worse for it; I doubt Super Mario World had a generalized scenegraph in it.
Also, it would be nice to have the option of releasing all or part of our source code.
What we'd like to avoid is having to write a lot of low-level code dealing with graphics/sound/etc.. we really only need to be able to create a window/context to draw to, draw lines/polygons, play sounds, and read/write files. Being able to write the game logic in torquescript would also be a huge benefit.
It seems like T2D should be a great solution for this, because it's much more robust, feature rich, and tested than anything we'd be able to write in a short period of time.
My question in this thread was directed at people who had access to the c++ source -- we really just want to pull out the graphics/sound/etc. parts, as well as the ability to interface with torquescript.
The best-case scenerio is that things are setup nicely so that the "engine" part of T2D sites on top of a library of lower-level hardware-abstracting routines, and we can simply use those same routines without having to use any of the engine-y bits that we don't need. The worst-case scenario is that everything is tied together, and if you want to eschew part of the framework, you'll have to weed through everything fixing it up.
If anyone has any experience with this sort of thing, it would be nice to hear about it. Possibly we could just use regular Torque, however from the experiences I've read it sounds even harder to adapt to your own needs.
Thanks for all the info so far.
04/12/2006 (12:07 pm)
The main reason for not wanting to use the scenegraph is that we're not using sprites/tiles for the graphics..I agree that Blitzmax definitely seems much less full-featured and robust; it _does_ has the major benefit of having some real info available -- I was able to read through the language reference, learn how to use the features, and get some tests running in the demo.
My main problem with using a large, complex engine for a 2D game is that it seems pretty unnecessary; I would much rather write our own simple engine which only does what we need it to do -- the engine and game code itself isn't likely to be very complex.
Gish certainly isn't driven by a complex, possibly-over-engineered 2D engine, and it's none the worse for it; I doubt Super Mario World had a generalized scenegraph in it.
Also, it would be nice to have the option of releasing all or part of our source code.
What we'd like to avoid is having to write a lot of low-level code dealing with graphics/sound/etc.. we really only need to be able to create a window/context to draw to, draw lines/polygons, play sounds, and read/write files. Being able to write the game logic in torquescript would also be a huge benefit.
It seems like T2D should be a great solution for this, because it's much more robust, feature rich, and tested than anything we'd be able to write in a short period of time.
My question in this thread was directed at people who had access to the c++ source -- we really just want to pull out the graphics/sound/etc. parts, as well as the ability to interface with torquescript.
The best-case scenerio is that things are setup nicely so that the "engine" part of T2D sites on top of a library of lower-level hardware-abstracting routines, and we can simply use those same routines without having to use any of the engine-y bits that we don't need. The worst-case scenario is that everything is tied together, and if you want to eschew part of the framework, you'll have to weed through everything fixing it up.
If anyone has any experience with this sort of thing, it would be nice to hear about it. Possibly we could just use regular Torque, however from the experiences I've read it sounds even harder to adapt to your own needs.
Thanks for all the info so far.
#4
Well I have the T2D source, and have modified much of it to suit my needs. It is well organized and in many cases well commented. There is a "T2D" folder that contains the rendering parts, and that sits on top of the core Torque engine. As for interfacing with scripts, there are community resources to show how to do this step by step and many other patches too. Also you can use 3D models in T2D - one reason they are changing the name to "Torque Game Builder".
04/12/2006 (1:08 pm)
I know what you mean about wanting your own simpler engine. I spent years coding an SDL engine, which I know I can still use for small projects. But I'd rather work on games than engines so I'm not sorry I stopped work on that. Well I have the T2D source, and have modified much of it to suit my needs. It is well organized and in many cases well commented. There is a "T2D" folder that contains the rendering parts, and that sits on top of the core Torque engine. As for interfacing with scripts, there are community resources to show how to do this step by step and many other patches too. Also you can use 3D models in T2D - one reason they are changing the name to "Torque Game Builder".
#5
04/12/2006 (3:08 pm)
Thanks -- I suppose for $100 I might as well just buy it and see, it's just somewhat irksome that there's no other way to evaluate it ;) 
Associate David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake