Atlas Terrain Quagmire
by Richard Wermske · in Torque Game Engine Advanced · 05/07/2007 (5:31 pm) · 3 replies
I apologize up-front if my tone is colored with frustration. Perhaps, it's simply my gross misunderstanding of TGEA's target demographic or too high an expectation for the altruistic mindset or false logic comparing apples and oranges (big budget commercial tools and flower-power indi-toys).
The lack of ability to live edit atlas terrains at runtime or within a consolidated environment deeply concerns me. Third party tool combinations are passable for gross work, proof-of-concept, or hobby quality output. But, fine, detail adjustments are only practical when one has non-terrain references available for QA/QC.
Iterative cycles can explode spend. Efficient, front-loading reference opportunities to plan map design before integration are simply not available. The insult to ludites in the slide rule and paper ledger geoscience community is unfortunate, but necessary.
TGEA has opportunity and offers splendid features for a juvenile offering; however, serious work with the tool ends up costing more in staff burn. Even with determined focus on optimized workflow and processes, the time consumed by developers going in and out of tools or importing and exporting files is simply unacceptable.
The Atlas news is inconsistent and half-measure confusion appears to be the leading story. Marketing fluff brags huge terrain capabilities; however, there is no mention of the hoops-of-fire one has to jump through to make practical use of the capability. Even L3DT is struggling to export huge atlas terrains...
Is GG leading in this space or should we simply accept the inability of GG to deliver commercial grade and hope for maturity to emerge elsewhere? Where is a definitive answer for live Atlas terrain editing tools? ...how about a feature roadmap... straw man vision... drunken paper-napkin sketch?
Only the game sector of the software industry displays this degree of flagrant disregard for stakeholders. Is there anything to demonstrate that business acumen and market savvy in GG exceeds the the skill required to manage a lawn service?
Staff and resources are the number one cost control mechanism for responsible project planning. Currently, a huge amount of waste appears to be built into the pipeline. All the wizbag internals are nothing if the creativity pipeline is compromised by inefficiency.
Cheap tools + ((staff + immature documentation) * inefficient workflow) == Expensive Product
Costly tools + staff == Expensive Product
Is anyone in GG capable or willing to provide business cover for advancing TGEA outside the kindergarten framework?
Cheers,
Rich Wermske
[edited grammar]
The lack of ability to live edit atlas terrains at runtime or within a consolidated environment deeply concerns me. Third party tool combinations are passable for gross work, proof-of-concept, or hobby quality output. But, fine, detail adjustments are only practical when one has non-terrain references available for QA/QC.
Iterative cycles can explode spend. Efficient, front-loading reference opportunities to plan map design before integration are simply not available. The insult to ludites in the slide rule and paper ledger geoscience community is unfortunate, but necessary.
TGEA has opportunity and offers splendid features for a juvenile offering; however, serious work with the tool ends up costing more in staff burn. Even with determined focus on optimized workflow and processes, the time consumed by developers going in and out of tools or importing and exporting files is simply unacceptable.
The Atlas news is inconsistent and half-measure confusion appears to be the leading story. Marketing fluff brags huge terrain capabilities; however, there is no mention of the hoops-of-fire one has to jump through to make practical use of the capability. Even L3DT is struggling to export huge atlas terrains...
Is GG leading in this space or should we simply accept the inability of GG to deliver commercial grade and hope for maturity to emerge elsewhere? Where is a definitive answer for live Atlas terrain editing tools? ...how about a feature roadmap... straw man vision... drunken paper-napkin sketch?
Only the game sector of the software industry displays this degree of flagrant disregard for stakeholders. Is there anything to demonstrate that business acumen and market savvy in GG exceeds the the skill required to manage a lawn service?
Staff and resources are the number one cost control mechanism for responsible project planning. Currently, a huge amount of waste appears to be built into the pipeline. All the wizbag internals are nothing if the creativity pipeline is compromised by inefficiency.
Cheap tools + ((staff + immature documentation) * inefficient workflow) == Expensive Product
Costly tools + staff == Expensive Product
Is anyone in GG capable or willing to provide business cover for advancing TGEA outside the kindergarten framework?
Cheers,
Rich Wermske
[edited grammar]
#2
There are also very nasty lighting issues with Atlas terrains as shown in a few recent threads. Property maps would be nice too. It should also be noted that the description of a "beautiful, limitless terrain" is somewhat worthless if your avatar starts twitching like he has turrets syndrome as soon as he gets a moderate distance from the world origin. Atlas terrains may be totally useless in most game projects, but hey they sure do look good.
Jaimi, I'm glad you still have faith that GG can deliver on their key technologies. It's been about two years since it was supposed to be included in the next update.
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=32763
Richard: I doubt you'll see an official comment from garagegames on your concerns. They have no concept of their responsibilities to you as a developer. They have no concept of best practices change management. There is a very unprofessional and haphazard feel about what they do. They may be very skilled professional programmers, but they seem to be missing a skilled and professional software developer in their office. Hell, can you even find something as basic as an SLA document anywhere on GG's site? Of course not. That's why there is zero transparency. They have come to the conclusion that the less they say the better.
05/08/2007 (7:15 am)
Jaimi: You should include cutting holes in atlas terrain for below ground difs.There are also very nasty lighting issues with Atlas terrains as shown in a few recent threads. Property maps would be nice too. It should also be noted that the description of a "beautiful, limitless terrain" is somewhat worthless if your avatar starts twitching like he has turrets syndrome as soon as he gets a moderate distance from the world origin. Atlas terrains may be totally useless in most game projects, but hey they sure do look good.
Jaimi, I'm glad you still have faith that GG can deliver on their key technologies. It's been about two years since it was supposed to be included in the next update.
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=32763
Richard: I doubt you'll see an official comment from garagegames on your concerns. They have no concept of their responsibilities to you as a developer. They have no concept of best practices change management. There is a very unprofessional and haphazard feel about what they do. They may be very skilled professional programmers, but they seem to be missing a skilled and professional software developer in their office. Hell, can you even find something as basic as an SLA document anywhere on GG's site? Of course not. That's why there is zero transparency. They have come to the conclusion that the less they say the better.
#3
@Jacobin - It's sad, but I think you are spot on. I don't really expect a responsible answer from GG. The lack of business depth is painfully obvious on every front. Unfortunately, while successful developers can innovate and revolutionize markets, they rarely translate the development practice into successful, sustaining business models. To their credit, I do respect that they may have recognized this gap and are advancing effort to broaden their skill sets. Unfortunately, I fear their marketing search may focus too heavily on technical skills at the expense of the more desperately needed soft skills.
Great ideas, truely visionary ideas, need the support of equally gifted programme, marketing, customer service, accounting, and leadership staff. More than half the battle is managing the message and presenting an organized front.
Currently, chaos is the message of the day. Dozens of people, each managing the perceptions of the company wrapped in self-interested advancement gives the impression of mob rule. Private silos, centered on cult-of-personality, steal wealth from branding and corporate identity. The opportunity costs of personality driven success may not be immediately obvious. However, human resource management may be loathe to make necessary staff changes or steer behavior for fear of public scrutiny. Product expectations and delivery requirements are compromised when they are subject to public debate. I have no doubt that aspect of the model lend support to morale in the face of potentially devastatingly low compensation. But, that is the business. If one wants to make substantial money, the game industry isn't the place to play.
There seems to be a belief that supporting an indi-community means that low expectations are both normal and acceptable. This might be fine for a FOSS model or even passable for hobbyists. But the economics of suitable substitutes demands a bit more maturity. The window of opportunity to secure market share and garrison up against emerging competition is being flushed down the drain. The frustrations that GG foists upon their stakeholders tempers and educates future challengers to build a better mousetrap. It's not a leap of fantasy to see opportunity in GG's horrid post-sale follow through. And it's unlikely that they are capitalized sufficiently to withstand a well financed frontal assault on their business model. What's frightening, is the potential risk this opens up to all the stakeholders (including a potentially altruistic community of supporters). GG simply hasn't crossed the threshold of pain to be taken seriously by competition, yet.
Perhaps this is an actual corporate objective. Security though obscurity. In the end, I have to remind myself that this is a startup and growing pains are not only typical, but necessary. Being an armchair CEO, COO, or CMO is easy when one isn't faced with the plethora of compromises required every day.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
Cheers,
Rich Wermske
05/08/2007 (11:26 am)
@Jaimi - All good ideas. I appreciate the added detail.@Jacobin - It's sad, but I think you are spot on. I don't really expect a responsible answer from GG. The lack of business depth is painfully obvious on every front. Unfortunately, while successful developers can innovate and revolutionize markets, they rarely translate the development practice into successful, sustaining business models. To their credit, I do respect that they may have recognized this gap and are advancing effort to broaden their skill sets. Unfortunately, I fear their marketing search may focus too heavily on technical skills at the expense of the more desperately needed soft skills.
Great ideas, truely visionary ideas, need the support of equally gifted programme, marketing, customer service, accounting, and leadership staff. More than half the battle is managing the message and presenting an organized front.
Currently, chaos is the message of the day. Dozens of people, each managing the perceptions of the company wrapped in self-interested advancement gives the impression of mob rule. Private silos, centered on cult-of-personality, steal wealth from branding and corporate identity. The opportunity costs of personality driven success may not be immediately obvious. However, human resource management may be loathe to make necessary staff changes or steer behavior for fear of public scrutiny. Product expectations and delivery requirements are compromised when they are subject to public debate. I have no doubt that aspect of the model lend support to morale in the face of potentially devastatingly low compensation. But, that is the business. If one wants to make substantial money, the game industry isn't the place to play.
There seems to be a belief that supporting an indi-community means that low expectations are both normal and acceptable. This might be fine for a FOSS model or even passable for hobbyists. But the economics of suitable substitutes demands a bit more maturity. The window of opportunity to secure market share and garrison up against emerging competition is being flushed down the drain. The frustrations that GG foists upon their stakeholders tempers and educates future challengers to build a better mousetrap. It's not a leap of fantasy to see opportunity in GG's horrid post-sale follow through. And it's unlikely that they are capitalized sufficiently to withstand a well financed frontal assault on their business model. What's frightening, is the potential risk this opens up to all the stakeholders (including a potentially altruistic community of supporters). GG simply hasn't crossed the threshold of pain to be taken seriously by competition, yet.
Perhaps this is an actual corporate objective. Security though obscurity. In the end, I have to remind myself that this is a startup and growing pains are not only typical, but necessary. Being an armchair CEO, COO, or CMO is easy when one isn't faced with the plethora of compromises required every day.
Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
Cheers,
Rich Wermske
Associate Jaimi McEntire
King of Flapjacks
GG - please. We need:
1. Ability to paint on the Atlas terrain in the editor.
2. Ability to Raise/lower/smooth/flatten the atlas terrain in the editor.
3. Shadows on the atlas terrain.
Most other things can be worked around. Until then, it's mostly just eyecandy.