TorqueX equals an incomplete TGEA
by James Brad Barnette · in Torque Game Engine Advanced · 06/14/2007 (11:31 am) · 150 replies
I have noticed click here that it seams that the features of TGEA are being ported. to torqueX. I understand this from a business perspective. I think that TorqueX is prolly the way of the furture. But I feel that it is comming at a cost to customers that have already bought TGEA.
Just curious. if someone at GG would care to elaborate about the percentage or numbers of their staff that is now working on torqueX vs TGEA fulltime.
I mean from an existing cstomers perspective " one that is getting ready to do at least 2 commercial projects with TGEA" it seems a bit A.D.D. the way nothing seems to ever really get finished and there is always some new project that is taking resources away from existing ones.
If the plan is to eventually only use the torque engine will existing licensees be given upgrade pricing when TorqueX is complete?
Just curious. if someone at GG would care to elaborate about the percentage or numbers of their staff that is now working on torqueX vs TGEA fulltime.
I mean from an existing cstomers perspective " one that is getting ready to do at least 2 commercial projects with TGEA" it seems a bit A.D.D. the way nothing seems to ever really get finished and there is always some new project that is taking resources away from existing ones.
If the plan is to eventually only use the torque engine will existing licensees be given upgrade pricing when TorqueX is complete?
About the author
#102
08/17/2007 (9:51 pm)
Ohh, I think I'll go for whining.. at least for the idea of bezier's!!! OK, Matt, come take a seat!!!!! ;) 
#103
08/17/2007 (10:34 pm)
Hey now...no adding any more items to my already overloaded task list! =P
#104
08/18/2007 (6:49 am)
Matt I'm still waiting on that Big Red Make Game button you promised us! LOL ;-) 
#105
Many here bought it post Feb 15th, which was the day of 1.0 release.
Post that point, it was a car with a clear advertisement and its fair to assume that only part implementations and serious problems are high on priority priority list, especially if it is still advertised half a year after launch, don't you agree?
You don't build a house just to get a half working house with holes in the roof and the like, you know, things you can fix yourself with too much of problems. You just bought for it to be a house you can life in directly without first needing to fix it.
Stuff on the Milestone list is one thing, the part with "subject to change" is known to those.
But advertisement is part of the legal buying contract between GG and the licensee (no mather what GG puts into the license and the EULA, its part of laws higher than that)
On the rest I agree: if something is missing you need above the advertised features, add it yourself or if you are unable to do, hire someone to do it.
But I'm confident that those "holes" get fixed over time and am willing to wait for those fixes after at least one at GG realized that shutting down any comment and keeping any information secret only results in infernal threads and definitely is the wrong signal to the rest of the world outside. (its hard to recommend an engine to others that are looking for one, even when it has the potential TGEA has. There is nothing worse to me and others that beeing left in the dust with something that only partially works at least when I payed for it)
08/18/2007 (9:53 pm)
Erik: Not all bought a concept car.Many here bought it post Feb 15th, which was the day of 1.0 release.
Post that point, it was a car with a clear advertisement and its fair to assume that only part implementations and serious problems are high on priority priority list, especially if it is still advertised half a year after launch, don't you agree?
You don't build a house just to get a half working house with holes in the roof and the like, you know, things you can fix yourself with too much of problems. You just bought for it to be a house you can life in directly without first needing to fix it.
Stuff on the Milestone list is one thing, the part with "subject to change" is known to those.
But advertisement is part of the legal buying contract between GG and the licensee (no mather what GG puts into the license and the EULA, its part of laws higher than that)
On the rest I agree: if something is missing you need above the advertised features, add it yourself or if you are unable to do, hire someone to do it.
But I'm confident that those "holes" get fixed over time and am willing to wait for those fixes after at least one at GG realized that shutting down any comment and keeping any information secret only results in infernal threads and definitely is the wrong signal to the rest of the world outside. (its hard to recommend an engine to others that are looking for one, even when it has the potential TGEA has. There is nothing worse to me and others that beeing left in the dust with something that only partially works at least when I payed for it)
#106
08/19/2007 (7:39 am)
Then let's make a list of the things on the official sales list that are not implemented. That seems much more productive than the wishlist of milestone items.
#107
There is no other documentation as there is for any other Torque Engine
- Atlas2 is advertised as the new cool and powerfull terrain system, yet it lacks most of the terrains features (lightmap wise etc, not the missing editor which is definitely not advertised).
- DIF export for TGEA is a a problem on its own, works and breaks between versions (1.0.2, none of the map2dif plus export works, exports from constructor seem to be a fair amount slower than map2dif plus in 1.0.1 unless something fundamental changed or is done differently in the constructor export dif functionality. None of the dif we used use baked DTS. But perhaps we have to do something different now, which is why I mention this point as problem. What we know is that the export to dif from constructor breaks collision in some circumstances)
08/19/2007 (9:46 am)
- Documentation. Only TGE stuff is documented, most of the TGEA parts are outdated, inexistent or wrong with exception of the single article posted on the batch system this week due to another thread.There is no other documentation as there is for any other Torque Engine
- Atlas2 is advertised as the new cool and powerfull terrain system, yet it lacks most of the terrains features (lightmap wise etc, not the missing editor which is definitely not advertised).
- DIF export for TGEA is a a problem on its own, works and breaks between versions (1.0.2, none of the map2dif plus export works, exports from constructor seem to be a fair amount slower than map2dif plus in 1.0.1 unless something fundamental changed or is done differently in the constructor export dif functionality. None of the dif we used use baked DTS. But perhaps we have to do something different now, which is why I mention this point as problem. What we know is that the export to dif from constructor breaks collision in some circumstances)
#108
I want to know what and where we need to change things so that people do not feel that they have been misled. We want to correct this in the future. In order to do this, we need to better understand where expectations were set (where on the site an expectation originated) what was expected, and how the product does not deliver on that expectation.
note that I am not trying to dodge the question, but we do want to clean up any issues where the wrong message is being sent. Note, please make this as clear as possible with specific places and language.
08/19/2007 (9:51 am)
I would concur with David here. Having a list of what was expected and what did not make it in would be super useful to me. This is as much a marketing, PR, and community management issue as it has been an issue of the actual product.I want to know what and where we need to change things so that people do not feel that they have been misled. We want to correct this in the future. In order to do this, we need to better understand where expectations were set (where on the site an expectation originated) what was expected, and how the product does not deliver on that expectation.
note that I am not trying to dodge the question, but we do want to clean up any issues where the wrong message is being sent. Note, please make this as clear as possible with specific places and language.
#109
Though TGEA is an "advanced" engine, i think it is unreasonable to expect people to fly blind with the current state of the TDN's articles, of which, a vast amount are unfinished or out of date.
It would be a great move if this was finished and i feel that peoples confidence would be somewhat restored.
08/19/2007 (10:37 am)
I second Marc's point about the TGEA Documentation and Atlas2.Though TGEA is an "advanced" engine, i think it is unreasonable to expect people to fly blind with the current state of the TDN's articles, of which, a vast amount are unfinished or out of date.
It would be a great move if this was finished and i feel that peoples confidence would be somewhat restored.
#110
Here are the links I found via TDN:
Atlas Docs: http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Atlas
Looks pretty good, the class breakdown http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Atlas/Using_Atlas2 is spot on. I haven't used the art pipeline tools, so I can comment on them.
Water: http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Water
Again, this looks pretty good and covers all of the water features available.
Materials: http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Materials & http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Materials/Overview
The overview is great for our procedural material system. We've got this for Custom Shaders: http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Shaders/NewShaders
It'd be nice if we documented the standard shader constants that are available for people doing custom shaders. But it's not too difficult to grep the codebase for either.
Finally, the dynamic lighting docs here: http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/Torque/LightingSystem cover the new lighting features of TGEA.
I'm definitely up for writing more articles, I'm just curious where the largest gaps are, so I can help the most people out.
08/20/2007 (9:23 am)
I'd like to hear a bit more about the incomplete documentation. Here are the links I found via TDN:
Atlas Docs: http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Atlas
Looks pretty good, the class breakdown http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Atlas/Using_Atlas2 is spot on. I haven't used the art pipeline tools, so I can comment on them.
Water: http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Water
Again, this looks pretty good and covers all of the water features available.
Materials: http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Materials & http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Materials/Overview
The overview is great for our procedural material system. We've got this for Custom Shaders: http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/TSE/Shaders/NewShaders
It'd be nice if we documented the standard shader constants that are available for people doing custom shaders. But it's not too difficult to grep the codebase for either.
Finally, the dynamic lighting docs here: http://tdn.garagegames.com/wiki/Torque/LightingSystem cover the new lighting features of TGEA.
I'm definitely up for writing more articles, I'm just curious where the largest gaps are, so I can help the most people out.
#111
I'm glad to hear this, Joe. Some disclaimer in certain places on your marketing pages would be refreshing and begin to repair your company's reputation in the communities eyes. In the end though, we would still like the problems fixed. Most all of us were pretty patient at TSE/TGEA evolved, knowing it was an EA product. However we did expect a quality product with complete and robust features at release, not a fix-er-upper. With that said, here's some things for you to start with.
garagegames.com/products/torque/tgea/features/codeonce/
I don't think that anything more needs to be said about this Joe as it's self explanatory. How many Mac/Unix users signed up for TSE-EA thinking that forthcoming OpenGL support really is "at the top of your list?"
When someone buys TGE/TGEA and begins to notice just how bad this area is they usually aren't too happy. People reading this don't expect their game to lock up like a rock as your two colliding objects suddenly merge and visit infinite-loop street. Matt in a recent post admitted to it's borked state and told us that GG just doesn't have the resources to fix it. That's fine but it is still being marketed as a working feature. Usually when there's another thread on this issue that pops up from an unsuspecting user, Stephen Zepp comes out of his hole, yells at whoever is questioning this buggy system telling them: "You got the code, you fix it!": while waving a "EULA: This product is sold AS IS" in their face. Addding to the drama was last year when some guy had supposedly fixed all the vehicle/physics/collision issues but GG threated him with a lawsuit. There's been some work in the community to try and improve it recently. See this thread: garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=63305
www.garagegames.com/products/torque/tgea/features/
Here's the one that bugs me the most. All the promises about Atlas is the reason I bought the EA license in the first place. There's a slew of complaints about Atlas, from lighting/shadows. the cumbersome generation path, inability to cut holes/flatten terrain for structures to the missing but "promised next update" in-game editor.
All that however, pales in comparison to the real problem with atlas. Yes it allows for limitless pages terrains. But they're totally worthless. Torque was designed for the small play area used in tribes. As a result you get strange results the further you move from the world origin. People developing space games in TGE first noticed this. The further out you move, the more your camera/player starts to act like a piece of chicken in a bag with some shake-n-bake. It's a floating point issue. TGEA in order to support atlas should use double floats or larger to store positional information. There's a lot of work involved in doing this. But as of right now, while atlas supports limitless terrains the game engine it's attached to does not.
08/21/2007 (5:11 am)
Quote:I want to know what and where we need to change things so that people do not feel that they have been misled. We want to correct this in the future. In order to do this, we need to better understand where expectations were set (where on the site an expectation originated) what was expected, and how the product does not deliver on that expectation.
I'm glad to hear this, Joe. Some disclaimer in certain places on your marketing pages would be refreshing and begin to repair your company's reputation in the communities eyes. In the end though, we would still like the problems fixed. Most all of us were pretty patient at TSE/TGEA evolved, knowing it was an EA product. However we did expect a quality product with complete and robust features at release, not a fix-er-upper. With that said, here's some things for you to start with.
Quote:Though it currently supports DirectX 9, it was designed with forthcoming OpenGL support in mind (it's at the top of the list Mac guys!) We know our developers value multi-platform functionality, and we are always looking for ways to increase our platform support.
garagegames.com/products/torque/tgea/features/codeonce/
I don't think that anything more needs to be said about this Joe as it's self explanatory. How many Mac/Unix users signed up for TSE-EA thinking that forthcoming OpenGL support really is "at the top of your list?"
Quote:garagegames.com/products/torque/tgea/featurecomp
Networkable Physics: Lightweight systems allows for hundreds of players with collision detection, rigid body, and vehicle physics.
When someone buys TGE/TGEA and begins to notice just how bad this area is they usually aren't too happy. People reading this don't expect their game to lock up like a rock as your two colliding objects suddenly merge and visit infinite-loop street. Matt in a recent post admitted to it's borked state and told us that GG just doesn't have the resources to fix it. That's fine but it is still being marketed as a working feature. Usually when there's another thread on this issue that pops up from an unsuspecting user, Stephen Zepp comes out of his hole, yells at whoever is questioning this buggy system telling them: "You got the code, you fix it!": while waving a "EULA: This product is sold AS IS" in their face. Addding to the drama was last year when some guy had supposedly fixed all the vehicle/physics/collision issues but GG threated him with a lawsuit. There's been some work in the community to try and improve it recently. See this thread: garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=63305
Quote:Atlas Terrain Generation allows for limitless, dynamically paging terrains, taking full advantage of modern hardware for efficient rendering.
www.garagegames.com/products/torque/tgea/features/
Here's the one that bugs me the most. All the promises about Atlas is the reason I bought the EA license in the first place. There's a slew of complaints about Atlas, from lighting/shadows. the cumbersome generation path, inability to cut holes/flatten terrain for structures to the missing but "promised next update" in-game editor.
All that however, pales in comparison to the real problem with atlas. Yes it allows for limitless pages terrains. But they're totally worthless. Torque was designed for the small play area used in tribes. As a result you get strange results the further you move from the world origin. People developing space games in TGE first noticed this. The further out you move, the more your camera/player starts to act like a piece of chicken in a bag with some shake-n-bake. It's a floating point issue. TGEA in order to support atlas should use double floats or larger to store positional information. There's a lot of work involved in doing this. But as of right now, while atlas supports limitless terrains the game engine it's attached to does not.
#112
As for the physics Ageia PhysX is now free. I have added it and it was very easy and I have had very good results. It would be nice to see this officially supported. I don't have a PPU card btw. it works great. In case you don't know this is the same physics engine the comes with the Unreal Engine 3 BTW.
If you would like in integrate this into your TGEA build the resource is here
www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=12711
I really don't have any use of an in game editor for atlas I use L3DT and I personally do not see how you could ever achieve results better than that with an in game editor. however I do think that a utility built into the ingame editor to cut holes in the terrain would be very useful. I'm not sure sure exactly how this would work. Perhap it would only make an area to not be rendered or collided with. anyway I leave that for people smarter than myself to decide.
I have been thinking about the shadows for Interiors and Statics. Perhaps these could be made as a type of decal or something where they applied during the shader processing for the terrain. they could be applided using a multiply or add function. But having them localized would be better than having the blended into the large lightmap created in the editor. This way if your game required the removal or creation of one of these objects during game play the shadow for it could be addeed or removed as well. I think with the method on the old terrain removing object left the shadows on the terrain.
As for the OpenGL thing well to be honest with you Linux and Mac are such a small market segment I can understand the logic or it not being I priority. Also I'm pretty sure I remember it being said that they would would not be a priority until such time as the Direct X version was fully functional. Well we got a little ways to go till we can say that it is there guys. Personally I agree with this I would like to see the Direct X version complete before diving into OpenGL. Another reason to wait on this is to wait and see how openGL pans out on windows Vista. to see if performance increases. I have heard many horror stories about OpenGL on Vista. Like it or not, wether you like MS or not face the fact... Windows in the platform of choice for PC Gamers and Vister is the Future of that Platform. Personally I can think of manything thant could be added to the engine rather than work on OpenGL as well. But that being said it should be noted and people should not be led to believe that mac support is at the top of the list.
I think that the drive should be feature completness not platform broadning. At least at this time.
08/21/2007 (8:51 am)
Wow I honestly didn't even know about some of those. I agree with you about zepp getting a little over zealous in his defense of GG sometimes. But that is off topic.As for the physics Ageia PhysX is now free. I have added it and it was very easy and I have had very good results. It would be nice to see this officially supported. I don't have a PPU card btw. it works great. In case you don't know this is the same physics engine the comes with the Unreal Engine 3 BTW.
If you would like in integrate this into your TGEA build the resource is here
www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=12711
I really don't have any use of an in game editor for atlas I use L3DT and I personally do not see how you could ever achieve results better than that with an in game editor. however I do think that a utility built into the ingame editor to cut holes in the terrain would be very useful. I'm not sure sure exactly how this would work. Perhap it would only make an area to not be rendered or collided with. anyway I leave that for people smarter than myself to decide.
I have been thinking about the shadows for Interiors and Statics. Perhaps these could be made as a type of decal or something where they applied during the shader processing for the terrain. they could be applided using a multiply or add function. But having them localized would be better than having the blended into the large lightmap created in the editor. This way if your game required the removal or creation of one of these objects during game play the shadow for it could be addeed or removed as well. I think with the method on the old terrain removing object left the shadows on the terrain.
As for the OpenGL thing well to be honest with you Linux and Mac are such a small market segment I can understand the logic or it not being I priority. Also I'm pretty sure I remember it being said that they would would not be a priority until such time as the Direct X version was fully functional. Well we got a little ways to go till we can say that it is there guys. Personally I agree with this I would like to see the Direct X version complete before diving into OpenGL. Another reason to wait on this is to wait and see how openGL pans out on windows Vista. to see if performance increases. I have heard many horror stories about OpenGL on Vista. Like it or not, wether you like MS or not face the fact... Windows in the platform of choice for PC Gamers and Vister is the Future of that Platform. Personally I can think of manything thant could be added to the engine rather than work on OpenGL as well. But that being said it should be noted and people should not be led to believe that mac support is at the top of the list.
I think that the drive should be feature completness not platform broadning. At least at this time.
#113
If a feature exists, or it's got a very precise and publicly known deadline, then advertise it. Otherwise, don't.
If something was advertised and doesnt exist, please fix either your engine or your marketing. The former would be better.
08/21/2007 (9:06 am)
This discussion is not really about what each of us needs for his game. This is very simple:If a feature exists, or it's got a very precise and publicly known deadline, then advertise it. Otherwise, don't.
If something was advertised and doesnt exist, please fix either your engine or your marketing. The former would be better.
#114
I couldn't care less if you think Windows is "the" platform. You first sentence in the above quote is really funny and I have no clue why anyone would dislike a company because it made an O/S you don't like.
I won't touch Vista, and I don't touch Linux until I really have to. I want to stay with XP and OpenGL was on the milstone list. That's it. It's not about some kiddie attitude towards MS. Please discuss that crap elsewhere.
08/21/2007 (10:40 am)
Quote:
Like it or not, wether you like MS or not face the fact... Windows in the platform of choice for PC Gamers and Vister is the Future of that Platform.
I couldn't care less if you think Windows is "the" platform. You first sentence in the above quote is really funny and I have no clue why anyone would dislike a company because it made an O/S you don't like.
I won't touch Vista, and I don't touch Linux until I really have to. I want to stay with XP and OpenGL was on the milstone list. That's it. It's not about some kiddie attitude towards MS. Please discuss that crap elsewhere.
#115
Here's an alternate solution: advice. I think it would be extremely useful for those developing their games if some heads at GG would get together and outline at a high level what would need to be modified in Torque to support the expected feature sets of different genres of games that people are creating. That way people would know what they are getting into when they begin to develop their game.
08/21/2007 (10:45 am)
Quote:The lighting and shadows definitely needs to be fixed, but at this point I highly doubt an in-game editor for Atlas will ever be available. Remember that Atlas, at its heart, is a mesh just like a DTS or DIF. No one complains about the lack of an in-game editor for DTS or DIF shapes, and an in-game editor for Atlas poses the same problems. If you spend some time to get to know L3DT, I think you will find its editors (including it's 3D height editor, very similar to the old terrain editor) as more than adequate. The direct exporter from L3DT is fairly solid for all maps smaller than 2048 (better than most of the DTS exporters), so I think that's the way of the future for Atlas.
Here's the one that bugs me the most. All the promises about Atlas is the reason I bought the EA license in the first place. There's a slew of complaints about Atlas, from lighting/shadows. the cumbersome generation path, inability to cut holes/flatten terrain for structures to the missing but "promised next update" in-game editor.
Quote:In this case I would agree with a GG defense that this is a game-specific issue. The fact of the matter is: GG cannot create a game engine that will suit the needs of every type of game that can be thought of. No one can create the engine. Where giant regions and super-precision, double float position numbers might be essential for a space sim they are a massive inefficiency for a small-scale RPG. Now, like it or not, Torque's example implementation is an FPS game. Does every game need a HoverVehicle or a CloakTex? No, but they are there to serve as a reference.
All that however, pales in comparison to the real problem with atlas. Yes it allows for limitless pages terrains. But they're totally worthless. Torque was designed for the small play area used in tribes. As a result you get strange results the further you move from the world origin. People developing space games in TGE first noticed this. The further out you move, the more your camera/player starts to act like a piece of chicken in a bag with some shake-n-bake. It's a floating point issue. TGEA in order to support atlas should use double floats or larger to store positional information. There's a lot of work involved in doing this. But as of right now, while atlas supports limitless terrains the game engine it's attached to does not.
Here's an alternate solution: advice. I think it would be extremely useful for those developing their games if some heads at GG would get together and outline at a high level what would need to be modified in Torque to support the expected feature sets of different genres of games that people are creating. That way people would know what they are getting into when they begin to develop their game.
#116
As for documentation that is outdated:
Some of those you are pointing to are for TSE and Pre TGEA and didn't get updated and are therefor not always correct.
I do, so far, not have enough indepth knowledge how TGEA rendering pipeline works to tell which part got broken between MS 4.2 and Release, but a few definitely got broken with the modifications done to the light system then
- the atlas page quite clearly states itself that it is outdated :)
-newShaders talks of
- The other documentations I am refering to are those that were just linked in from TGE, but that do not work with TGEA at all.
As a "simple" example I take the decal project, that I fixed and posted the bug report including fix to the bug board.
But there are other player class features broken at the moment but still documented.
On the end that is not existant:
- the shader constants
- No documentation on correct and full usage of the lighting system in costum shaders
Generally the existing TGEA documentation that exists so far suffers from the problem that it does not seem to have been added in a planned way. There are informations scattered over different articles and the like.
Yes I'm aware that it is a Wiki and I could change that.
But this stuff is core documentation, I payed for it as well as all other. I'm not spending more money (time = money) on creating something I already payed for.
It seems as well, like the TGEA team didn't try to keep up the good and usefull doxygen documentations, as the TGE base does have it, which makes the lack on TDN articles an even larger hit, at least out of my sight
Its good to have the in between comments in the source, but that does not compensate a fully documented sources if you need to find something specific. A simple example is the regularily repopping question on how to generate dynamic objects, which would be simple if there was documentation on the PrimBuilder for example.
Just to make that clear: I like the fact that we have access to the TGE documentation, as there are some very usefull information on it that help with TGEA as well.
But there are clearly parts not existing in TGEA at all or working different, that should be marked. (to point out some simple and obvious ones in the coders section: OpenGL Port and Adding GLExtensions)
I'm slowly getting the grip on what will work that way and what not so the articles still help to get a general idea even if they do not work or be true in some cases.
I should mention that I own the TGE 1.5 license as well, so I don't know if those documentations are available to all.
08/21/2007 (3:47 pm)
Brian:As for documentation that is outdated:
Some of those you are pointing to are for TSE and Pre TGEA and didn't get updated and are therefor not always correct.
I do, so far, not have enough indepth knowledge how TGEA rendering pipeline works to tell which part got broken between MS 4.2 and Release, but a few definitely got broken with the modifications done to the light system then
- the atlas page quite clearly states itself that it is outdated :)
-newShaders talks of
Quote:Yet it gives no single hint on how to use it within the engine. Why mention something without giving any further explanation or the least hint where to search?
$miscBuff - a general purpose variable for setting specific textures from code
- The other documentations I am refering to are those that were just linked in from TGE, but that do not work with TGEA at all.
As a "simple" example I take the decal project, that I fixed and posted the bug report including fix to the bug board.
But there are other player class features broken at the moment but still documented.
On the end that is not existant:
- the shader constants
- No documentation on correct and full usage of the lighting system in costum shaders
Generally the existing TGEA documentation that exists so far suffers from the problem that it does not seem to have been added in a planned way. There are informations scattered over different articles and the like.
Yes I'm aware that it is a Wiki and I could change that.
But this stuff is core documentation, I payed for it as well as all other. I'm not spending more money (time = money) on creating something I already payed for.
It seems as well, like the TGEA team didn't try to keep up the good and usefull doxygen documentations, as the TGE base does have it, which makes the lack on TDN articles an even larger hit, at least out of my sight
Its good to have the in between comments in the source, but that does not compensate a fully documented sources if you need to find something specific. A simple example is the regularily repopping question on how to generate dynamic objects, which would be simple if there was documentation on the PrimBuilder for example.
Just to make that clear: I like the fact that we have access to the TGE documentation, as there are some very usefull information on it that help with TGEA as well.
But there are clearly parts not existing in TGEA at all or working different, that should be marked. (to point out some simple and obvious ones in the coders section: OpenGL Port and Adding GLExtensions)
I'm slowly getting the grip on what will work that way and what not so the articles still help to get a general idea even if they do not work or be true in some cases.
I should mention that I own the TGE 1.5 license as well, so I don't know if those documentations are available to all.
#117
I rest my case.
XP will no longer be sold as of Jan 1. which means as of Jan 1 the XP user base can go no where but down and the Vista install base will keep going up and up. Whether you want to touch Vista or not is irrelevant. the fact of the matter is that if someone is serious about making a game for the windows platform Vista Compatibility should be a major priority for you.
But that is not what my point was. My point was that I making was that as a matter of number it would be wiser to fully support the platform of choice rather than further dividing efforts on platforms that don't contribute the numbers that it take to support a commercial title.
As for my comments on directX 10. I personally could like to see TGEA be come cutting edge rather than following several years behind. I would be willing to pay extra for an addon that enabled some of the DirectX 10 features that we are already seeing the games that will be released this fall.
I would like to see TGEA at least keep up with what is goingon in the industry. ther eonly thing that is holding it back is the divided efforts of GG. the Fact of the matter is that GG employees almost as many people as Epic does now. The difference is that Epic is focused on one Engine while GG is all over the place.
anyway this is detracting from the profgress being made here so lets get back to the progress that is being made.
08/21/2007 (5:15 pm)
@Stefan:I rest my case.
XP will no longer be sold as of Jan 1. which means as of Jan 1 the XP user base can go no where but down and the Vista install base will keep going up and up. Whether you want to touch Vista or not is irrelevant. the fact of the matter is that if someone is serious about making a game for the windows platform Vista Compatibility should be a major priority for you.
But that is not what my point was. My point was that I making was that as a matter of number it would be wiser to fully support the platform of choice rather than further dividing efforts on platforms that don't contribute the numbers that it take to support a commercial title.
As for my comments on directX 10. I personally could like to see TGEA be come cutting edge rather than following several years behind. I would be willing to pay extra for an addon that enabled some of the DirectX 10 features that we are already seeing the games that will be released this fall.
I would like to see TGEA at least keep up with what is goingon in the industry. ther eonly thing that is holding it back is the divided efforts of GG. the Fact of the matter is that GG employees almost as many people as Epic does now. The difference is that Epic is focused on one Engine while GG is all over the place.
anyway this is detracting from the profgress being made here so lets get back to the progress that is being made.
#118
Mark I think you misunderstand. Nobody wanted a full fledged in-game editor for Atlas. That's not what people were asking for. They wanted an easy way to flatten areas of the map or cut holes in atlas in order to properly place DIFF structures. This 'tweaking' of the map comes after L3DT. If your game simply requires traveling over an empty terrain then that's fine. Start populating your terrain with above/below ground objects exported from constructor and you'll be pulling your hair out.
Once again you're missing the point. They're advertising 'limitless paged terrains' in the atlas marketing data, while the game engine doesn't effectively support even medium sized terrains. It's not game specific, it's game engine specific. It may have been noticed first in TGE space sims, but it's not isolated to them. Anyone who's game uses Atlas as described in the marketing data will notice the precision issue. If "giant regions" as you call them are suggested as supported in the Atlas marketing pages, the game engine should very well support them. This is exactly the sort of stuff Joe was asking for.
I can understand the logic of it not being a priority as well. However a lot of people can't understand the logic of it not being a priority, yet the marketing pages for TGEA stating "OpenGL is at the top of our list mac guys, don't worry!."
I also remember the condition you mention that OpenGL will come after DirectX was fully functional. Well, wasn't TGEA released? James, wouldn't you assume that means they consider DirectX to be fully functional? :P
08/21/2007 (7:31 pm)
Quote:The lighting and shadows definitely needs to be fixed, but at this point I highly doubt an in-game editor for Atlas will ever be available. Remember that Atlas, at its heart, is a mesh just like a DTS or DIF. No one complains about the lack of an in-game editor for DTS or DIF shapes, and an in-game editor for Atlas poses the same problems. If you spend some time to get to know L3DT, I think you will find its editors (including it's 3D height editor, very similar to the old terrain editor) as more than adequate. The direct exporter from L3DT is fairly solid for all maps smaller than 2048 (better than most of the DTS exporters), so I think that's the way of the future for Atlas.
Mark I think you misunderstand. Nobody wanted a full fledged in-game editor for Atlas. That's not what people were asking for. They wanted an easy way to flatten areas of the map or cut holes in atlas in order to properly place DIFF structures. This 'tweaking' of the map comes after L3DT. If your game simply requires traveling over an empty terrain then that's fine. Start populating your terrain with above/below ground objects exported from constructor and you'll be pulling your hair out.
Quote:In this case I would agree with a GG defense that this is a game-specific issue. The fact of the matter is: GG cannot create a game engine that will suit the needs of every type of game that can be thought of. No one can create the engine. Where giant regions and super-precision, double float position numbers might be essential for a space sim they are a massive inefficiency for a small-scale RPG. Now, like it or not, Torque's example implementation is an FPS game. Does every game need a HoverVehicle or a CloakTex? No, but they are there to serve as a reference.
Once again you're missing the point. They're advertising 'limitless paged terrains' in the atlas marketing data, while the game engine doesn't effectively support even medium sized terrains. It's not game specific, it's game engine specific. It may have been noticed first in TGE space sims, but it's not isolated to them. Anyone who's game uses Atlas as described in the marketing data will notice the precision issue. If "giant regions" as you call them are suggested as supported in the Atlas marketing pages, the game engine should very well support them. This is exactly the sort of stuff Joe was asking for.
Quote:As for the OpenGL thing well to be honest with you Linux and Mac are such a small market segment I can understand the logic or it not being I priority. Also I'm pretty sure I remember it being said that they would would not be a priority until such time as the Direct X version was fully functional. Well we got a little ways to go till we can say that it is there guys.
I can understand the logic of it not being a priority as well. However a lot of people can't understand the logic of it not being a priority, yet the marketing pages for TGEA stating "OpenGL is at the top of our list mac guys, don't worry!."
I also remember the condition you mention that OpenGL will come after DirectX was fully functional. Well, wasn't TGEA released? James, wouldn't you assume that means they consider DirectX to be fully functional? :P
#119
08/21/2007 (7:49 pm)
I'm watching Hackers on TV right now just for the hell of it. They were so much cooler than programmers in real life.
#120
yeah that movie rocked.
Angelina was so much hotter then.
Seem so snotty now.
Still good looking though.
but anyway I agree Jacobin. I cannot confirm or deny what you say but I have no reason to doubt you and if that is the case then I think it is something that should be very important. Especially since so many people seem to have the ambitions of making small countries and entire worlds for maps.
08/21/2007 (8:40 pm)
.....kyeah that movie rocked.
Angelina was so much hotter then.
Seem so snotty now.
Still good looking though.
but anyway I agree Jacobin. I cannot confirm or deny what you say but I have no reason to doubt you and if that is the case then I think it is something that should be very important. Especially since so many people seem to have the ambitions of making small countries and entire worlds for maps.
Torque Owner Erik Madison
And true, it isn't fun to be missing things you want and can't quickly do yourself. I curse Matt Fairfax (silently) constantly, as he knows the secrets to direct bezier patch handling, and hasn't yet polished it off and given it to me for free. My current 2 choices are 1: whine in the forums that he once promised to finish it, 2: Learn how myself. Which gets results faster?