Can Torque do this?
by Drew Kario · in Torque Game Engine · 02/19/2007 (10:09 pm) · 13 replies
Hi, im a newbie game designer and im currently shopping around for the best bang for my buck.
BASICLY, what i would like to know is this; Can I build a planet in Torqe, have buildings and whatnot, and be able to launch to space form said planet without changing between designs? e.g. i walk around on the planet, get in my ship, shoot a couple holes in the ground, then go to space and land on a bigger ship/spacestation.
Im looking to build a game with continuity between land and space, with as little loading as possible to break up the sections. Preferably i would load up a single planet and its surrounding space in one 'sector' and only need to load when i leave said space.
i know its alot, but thats why im asking before i spend money. Any comments would be greatly appreciated, or directions to something like what i want to build.
Thanks.
BASICLY, what i would like to know is this; Can I build a planet in Torqe, have buildings and whatnot, and be able to launch to space form said planet without changing between designs? e.g. i walk around on the planet, get in my ship, shoot a couple holes in the ground, then go to space and land on a bigger ship/spacestation.
Im looking to build a game with continuity between land and space, with as little loading as possible to break up the sections. Preferably i would load up a single planet and its surrounding space in one 'sector' and only need to load when i leave said space.
i know its alot, but thats why im asking before i spend money. Any comments would be greatly appreciated, or directions to something like what i want to build.
Thanks.
#2
There are some limitations on the size of the land you can use, and I wouldn't expect any spherical planets with TGE, although you could probably just paint the ground on the edges black to make it appear more round. TGEA allows for much larger terrains and would allow something more like this, but I don't think anyone has actually done it yet.
Someone correct me if I'm off base on this...
02/19/2007 (11:15 pm)
I think it depends on how you define the space, and the view of the planet.There are some limitations on the size of the land you can use, and I wouldn't expect any spherical planets with TGE, although you could probably just paint the ground on the edges black to make it appear more round. TGEA allows for much larger terrains and would allow something more like this, but I don't think anyone has actually done it yet.
Someone correct me if I'm off base on this...
#4
Newton and ODE (and PhysX and Havok and Tokamak) are not game engines that are physics based. They are physics engines that can be hooked into by an existing game engine.
EDIT:
@Drew
I thought I should probably answer the question as well as make a clarification.
Out of the box, TGE (and no engine that I know of off the bat) can do precisely what you are asking. This is mainly because of specificity of what you are trying to accomplish. At least not without some major tweaking or faking it (and most of it is faking it anyway, even in large, expensive commercial engines with a dedicated team of programmers).
You would have to tweak the engine for procedural content loading (for example, TGEA's chunked terrain) but would need to be very precise in your design specifications to understand exactly what you need to program in your streamed content sequence. Adding landing sequences or atmosphere breaking sequences or mission information (communications, etc) between landing are common ways to trick the player into a seemingly seamless transition from planet to stars.
02/20/2007 (7:48 am)
Point of clarification:Newton and ODE (and PhysX and Havok and Tokamak) are not game engines that are physics based. They are physics engines that can be hooked into by an existing game engine.
EDIT:
@Drew
I thought I should probably answer the question as well as make a clarification.
Out of the box, TGE (and no engine that I know of off the bat) can do precisely what you are asking. This is mainly because of specificity of what you are trying to accomplish. At least not without some major tweaking or faking it (and most of it is faking it anyway, even in large, expensive commercial engines with a dedicated team of programmers).
You would have to tweak the engine for procedural content loading (for example, TGEA's chunked terrain) but would need to be very precise in your design specifications to understand exactly what you need to program in your streamed content sequence. Adding landing sequences or atmosphere breaking sequences or mission information (communications, etc) between landing are common ways to trick the player into a seemingly seamless transition from planet to stars.
#6
02/20/2007 (12:56 pm)
I thought David's post was well within the realm of constructive information. I'm not goint to play 'moderator' because that's not my job, but let's please try to keep it civil.
#7
what Drew is asking about was done in Tribes 1.
02/20/2007 (1:17 pm)
Why couldn't this be done in torque out the box? as long as Drew doesnt require a mobile spacestation, he should just be able to make it a dif placed high in the air. He didnt mention anything about atmospheres, distance, or spherical planets.what Drew is asking about was done in Tribes 1.
#8
When choosing an engine, I think it's important to understand the limits of an engine and how much work you'll have to do yourself.
I confess that I have a similiar idea that I may have stated exactly as Drew did, so my own game ideas color the spectrum a little in my answer. My idea has spherical planets, so I mentioned that specifically, as that's the reason I purchased TGEA. I originally pitched the idea to a team of guys at Blizzard, but they thought it would be far to hard with the current technology at that point in time. Technology has come a long way since then, as has TGEA from TGE. I even modified a plugin for L3DT that would help solve this problem. TGEA will eventually support almost any way of doing what Drew wants, but TGE will probably never support certain features, like spherical planets. I just wanted to make this clear to Drew so he didn't purchase TGE when he really wanted TGEA or another game engine.
I think it's also important to let Drew know it may require a significant amount of work to get what he wants, and that he may need to modify his ideas to fit what the engine can/can't easily do if he chooses to purchase TGE.
As for me, if the GG team doesn't eventually add all the features to TGEA for spherical planets, I will. However, I'm currently in no rush, so I can afford to wait and see how far the GG guys get before I have to do more work than I have to. Currently, I'm waiting for the TGEA L3DT plugin and Constructor to be released, and then I'll re-evaluate.
-Tim
02/20/2007 (1:45 pm)
Sean, you are correct. As I mentioned above, it depends on how you define space and the view of the planet. When choosing an engine, I think it's important to understand the limits of an engine and how much work you'll have to do yourself.
I confess that I have a similiar idea that I may have stated exactly as Drew did, so my own game ideas color the spectrum a little in my answer. My idea has spherical planets, so I mentioned that specifically, as that's the reason I purchased TGEA. I originally pitched the idea to a team of guys at Blizzard, but they thought it would be far to hard with the current technology at that point in time. Technology has come a long way since then, as has TGEA from TGE. I even modified a plugin for L3DT that would help solve this problem. TGEA will eventually support almost any way of doing what Drew wants, but TGE will probably never support certain features, like spherical planets. I just wanted to make this clear to Drew so he didn't purchase TGE when he really wanted TGEA or another game engine.
I think it's also important to let Drew know it may require a significant amount of work to get what he wants, and that he may need to modify his ideas to fit what the engine can/can't easily do if he chooses to purchase TGE.
As for me, if the GG team doesn't eventually add all the features to TGEA for spherical planets, I will. However, I'm currently in no rush, so I can afford to wait and see how far the GG guys get before I have to do more work than I have to. Currently, I'm waiting for the TGEA L3DT plugin and Constructor to be released, and then I'll re-evaluate.
-Tim
#10
Tim is quite right about what i want to accomplish, although i would have settled for just a plain planet landscape and space surrounding it. However this physics engine gives me hope for my original dream game.
Sean is right about what i was considering, making an immobile platform very very very high up in the air, and just calling it a space station, and that encourages me that Torque is the right engine for the job. Unfortunatly, i am still a newbie at this, so I think TGEA is a bit too ahead of me just now.
Also, and this is a total newb question, what do you mean by Modular Structure based on Libraries? It sounds almost as promising as tweaking the procedural.
02/20/2007 (9:27 pm)
Alright guys, thanks alot for the advice and the references. A thought crossed my mind though, Newton can be plugged into TGE? It seems to be the sort of collision/reaction system i would have ended up looking into next. As i said, im a newbie game designer and torque was reccomended in my class as a good starting point.Tim is quite right about what i want to accomplish, although i would have settled for just a plain planet landscape and space surrounding it. However this physics engine gives me hope for my original dream game.
Sean is right about what i was considering, making an immobile platform very very very high up in the air, and just calling it a space station, and that encourages me that Torque is the right engine for the job. Unfortunatly, i am still a newbie at this, so I think TGEA is a bit too ahead of me just now.
Also, and this is a total newb question, what do you mean by Modular Structure based on Libraries? It sounds almost as promising as tweaking the procedural.
#11
Tim is quite right about what i want to accomplish, although i would have settled for just a plain planet landscape and space surrounding it. However this physics engine gives me hope for my original dream game.
Sean is right about what i was considering, making an immobile platform very very very high up in the air, and just calling it a space station, and that encourages me that Torque is the right engine for the job. Unfortunatly, i am still a newbie at this, so I think TGEA is a bit too ahead of me just now.
Also, and this is a total newb question, what do you mean by Modular Structure based on Libraries? It sounds almost as promising as tweaking the procedural.
02/20/2007 (10:01 pm)
Alright guys, thanks alot for the advice and the references. A thought crossed my mind though, Newton can be plugged into TGE? It seems to be the sort of collision/reaction system i would have ended up looking into next. As i said, im a newbie game designer and torque was reccomended in my class as a good starting point.Tim is quite right about what i want to accomplish, although i would have settled for just a plain planet landscape and space surrounding it. However this physics engine gives me hope for my original dream game.
Sean is right about what i was considering, making an immobile platform very very very high up in the air, and just calling it a space station, and that encourages me that Torque is the right engine for the job. Unfortunatly, i am still a newbie at this, so I think TGEA is a bit too ahead of me just now.
Also, and this is a total newb question, what do you mean by Modular Structure based on Libraries? It sounds almost as promising as tweaking the procedural.
#12
I would have posted the clarification regardless of the who the poster was as the products you mentioned are physics libraries and not game engines. You did clarify a rendering engine, but for a game you would need to create (or use) a game engine to give the physics engines something to do and the rendering engine some reason to show off what the physics engine is doing. Depending on the project, the game engine code could be minimal or an extensive project.
The physics engines are designed to hook into simulation products, including game engines. All of the engines listed, even with a rendering engine such as ODE would require game state control for the gameplay; even if you are making a physics-based game such as the Incredible Machine. They make game and simulation engines stronger. That is their purpose. Just like rendering engines make things pretty (as long as the artist gives them something pretty to render.
@Sean H
Good call. I was thinking of the posts I see requesting SWG-like functionality for spherical planets.
02/20/2007 (10:02 pm)
@BerserkI would have posted the clarification regardless of the who the poster was as the products you mentioned are physics libraries and not game engines. You did clarify a rendering engine, but for a game you would need to create (or use) a game engine to give the physics engines something to do and the rendering engine some reason to show off what the physics engine is doing. Depending on the project, the game engine code could be minimal or an extensive project.
The physics engines are designed to hook into simulation products, including game engines. All of the engines listed, even with a rendering engine such as ODE would require game state control for the gameplay; even if you are making a physics-based game such as the Incredible Machine. They make game and simulation engines stronger. That is their purpose. Just like rendering engines make things pretty (as long as the artist gives them something pretty to render.
@Sean H
Good call. I was thinking of the posts I see requesting SWG-like functionality for spherical planets.
Torque 3D Owner Sean H.