Torque X vs Torque Game Builder
by John Lewis · in Torque Game Builder · 11/02/2007 (7:50 am) · 13 replies
Is it true that Torque Game Builder doesn't give you access to the source code but that Torque X does?
I want to add robot voices dynamically generated from text files to my game... which would require adding code. I have Toque Game Builder. Should I be using Torque X?
Thanks for any advice!
John
I want to add robot voices dynamically generated from text files to my game... which would require adding code. I have Toque Game Builder. Should I be using Torque X?
Thanks for any advice!
John
#2
Ouch on the price for the pro version. I'm not sure my one man company can swing that with the wife looking over my shoulder. ;-)
11/02/2007 (8:02 am)
I haven't decided which library to use. I could even go open source with it since the voice I need is a very robotic voice so the quality can be low. I don't need much, just something to read the text files like a robot voice.Ouch on the price for the pro version. I'm not sure my one man company can swing that with the wife looking over my shoulder. ;-)
#3
One thing to be very careful of when it comes to open source libraries is to make sure that you do not violate the licensing agreements. Do not use GPL code in Torque as the licenses are not compatible.
11/02/2007 (8:18 am)
Heh! My fiance looks over mine all the time, too.One thing to be very careful of when it comes to open source libraries is to make sure that you do not violate the licensing agreements. Do not use GPL code in Torque as the licenses are not compatible.
#4
1. Torque X = TGB, in functionality?, some physics, methods, objects, load dts objects (i need this), etc...
2. Apparently is TGB community, addons, etc better than Torque X?
3. I am planning an isometric game style, but i want use 3DShapes for buildings, objects and players, wich is the best choice TGB or TX?
11/14/2007 (9:19 pm)
Hi, some questions, i dont want open a new treath, and i only have money for one PRO product:1. Torque X = TGB, in functionality?, some physics, methods, objects, load dts objects (i need this), etc...
2. Apparently is TGB community, addons, etc better than Torque X?
3. I am planning an isometric game style, but i want use 3DShapes for buildings, objects and players, wich is the best choice TGB or TX?
#5
2. TGB has been out longer and has a more active community because of that time. There are a lot of TX tutorials out there, though.
3. Well, I would say TorqueX and go all 3D in that case. Have your ground plane and then add your 3D models to it. That way you will benefit from shadows and such. But then you're looking at a 3D engine versus a 2D one anyway. You will have to constrain your FOV, rotation, and movement to work like an ISO world.
EDIT:
You also need to realize that with TorqueX, you are tied to Microsoft XNA. You can release commercial products for the PC but not the XBox 360. With TGB, you can release as many products as you like for the PC and Mac. Distribution for XNA is a bit more difficult since they have to have the .net framework and the GSE redistributables on their system to be able to play your game.
11/15/2007 (8:23 am)
1/ TorqueX cannot currently load DTS files. The 3D version will support XNA formats (FBX and .X being the biggies). I do not know about DTS.2. TGB has been out longer and has a more active community because of that time. There are a lot of TX tutorials out there, though.
3. Well, I would say TorqueX and go all 3D in that case. Have your ground plane and then add your 3D models to it. That way you will benefit from shadows and such. But then you're looking at a 3D engine versus a 2D one anyway. You will have to constrain your FOV, rotation, and movement to work like an ISO world.
EDIT:
You also need to realize that with TorqueX, you are tied to Microsoft XNA. You can release commercial products for the PC but not the XBox 360. With TGB, you can release as many products as you like for the PC and Mac. Distribution for XNA is a bit more difficult since they have to have the .net framework and the GSE redistributables on their system to be able to play your game.
#6
Keep in mind, David is referring to .NET 2.0. Most general home users do not have .NET 2.0 installed, unless they have Vista. So if you want people to play a game in XNA, you must be sure the user's computer has .NET 2.0 installed as well as the XNA redistributables. I have spent time with XNA and like what it offers, but the .NET 2.0 requirement has personally kept me back from officially moving forward with an XNA project.
11/15/2007 (11:41 am)
> Distribution for XNA is a bit more difficult since they have to have the .net frameworkKeep in mind, David is referring to .NET 2.0. Most general home users do not have .NET 2.0 installed, unless they have Vista. So if you want people to play a game in XNA, you must be sure the user's computer has .NET 2.0 installed as well as the XNA redistributables. I have spent time with XNA and like what it offers, but the .NET 2.0 requirement has personally kept me back from officially moving forward with an XNA project.
#7
11/17/2007 (5:25 am)
.NET 2.0 is going to required at some point or another for users to download.. so I don't see any problem here.. XNA is the future... TGB is a blip on the radar - I would go with TGX and learn C# and use XNA directly...
#8
11/19/2007 (10:03 am)
I don't know if XNA is the future unless Microsoft can figure out a friendly distribution model for commercial applications. XNA is nice, but I don't know if it's "the future".
#9
This actually isn't true. Anyone who has done a windows update in the past year or more will have .net 2.0 framework as one of the choices. Most people who have no clue what .net 2.0 framework is will trust MS and install it just because it's in the windows update. Add to that everyone who has Vista automatically has it and your "most don't" more than likely becomes "most do".
11/20/2007 (7:58 am)
Quote:Most general home users do not have .NET 2.0 installed, unless they have Vista
This actually isn't true. Anyone who has done a windows update in the past year or more will have .net 2.0 framework as one of the choices. Most people who have no clue what .net 2.0 framework is will trust MS and install it just because it's in the windows update. Add to that everyone who has Vista automatically has it and your "most don't" more than likely becomes "most do".
#10
I don't doubt .NET 2.0 will be widely spread sometime in the future, but I currently do not see it as the norm. My personal feeling is a limited userbase at the moment, but will certainly increase as more 2.0 apps are released. My use of "most" may be stretching things.
My main point, though, is if someone wants to use XNA, then they must realize not everyone is ready and set to run a game. This may or may not be an issue for some.
11/20/2007 (4:08 pm)
Interesting. I have XP machines at home and work and I don't recall being asked to install .NET 2.0. I recently did a hefty update on one machine (was still running XP SP1) and did not see 2.0 get installed or an option for it. I suppose if I went to the main Windows Update webpage, I will see it, and maybe that is what you are referring to.I don't doubt .NET 2.0 will be widely spread sometime in the future, but I currently do not see it as the norm. My personal feeling is a limited userbase at the moment, but will certainly increase as more 2.0 apps are released. My use of "most" may be stretching things.
My main point, though, is if someone wants to use XNA, then they must realize not everyone is ready and set to run a game. This may or may not be an issue for some.
#11
I don't want to start an argument and I don't doubt you feel this way since you're posting it, but I'm curious as to what you are using as a basis? If you didn't see it as an option to upgrade the last time you downloaded updates, chances are you already have it installed and didn't even know it. If you have Office 2007, you have .net 2.0, IE 7? .net 2.0. There are _many_ MS products released over the last 2 years that require .net 2.0 to run. Windows Server 2003 also comes pre-loaded with .net 2.0. Any XP disk purchased in the last 12 months or so also would have .net 2.0 pre-installed.
Being in the business development realm and seeing that _every_ contract I go on uses .net 2.0 to buil their applications, I'd say it's incredibly widespread.
11/21/2007 (7:47 am)
To run an xna game, you have to have the xna framework, which most people will not have anyway, .net 2.0 or not. That's what redist's are for.Quote:I don't doubt .NET 2.0 will be widely spread sometime in the future, but I currently do not see it as the norm.
I don't want to start an argument and I don't doubt you feel this way since you're posting it, but I'm curious as to what you are using as a basis? If you didn't see it as an option to upgrade the last time you downloaded updates, chances are you already have it installed and didn't even know it. If you have Office 2007, you have .net 2.0, IE 7? .net 2.0. There are _many_ MS products released over the last 2 years that require .net 2.0 to run. Windows Server 2003 also comes pre-loaded with .net 2.0. Any XP disk purchased in the last 12 months or so also would have .net 2.0 pre-installed.
Being in the business development realm and seeing that _every_ contract I go on uses .net 2.0 to buil their applications, I'd say it's incredibly widespread.
#12
That being said, the numbers may be a bit better for a gamer subset as patching is a common default response from vendors regarding technical issues with gaming products.
11/21/2007 (8:33 am)
Not to continue to derail the conversation further, as someone who deals with patch management and having seen extensive data from home user client configurations (by extensive I mean millions), most windows xp workstations never see a windows update unless automated in some manner by a 3rd party "security" application such as a bloated antivirus suite, which in most cases isn't the default behavior of the tools anyway.That being said, the numbers may be a bit better for a gamer subset as patching is a common default response from vendors regarding technical issues with gaming products.
#13
> but I'm curious as to what you are using as a basis?
I am by no means trying to argue either. I am learning from this as you are giving good information and another viewpoint. I am basing my experience from two things. At work, I am currently porting a rather old code base to Visual Studio 2005 (C++ and C#). In an initial port of one C++ application, we have had to install the C++ runtime on both in-house and customer machines. Likewise, .NET 2.0 is not installed on these machines either. At my last job which I left 9 months ago, none of our development machines had .NET 2.0 installed, nor our customers.
I recently wrote a game in C#/SDL.NET (using .NET 2.0) and some friends/family were unable to run on their XP machines.
> Being in the business development realm and seeing that _every_ contract I go on uses .net 2.0
> to buil their applications, I'd say it's incredibly widespread.
No wonder we see things differently. I am in the software development field and have found the opposite. I am currently building using .NET 2.0 and we may likely move to .NET 3.0/3.5 soon.
Hmmm, we recently got several new XP computers at work. I should have checked them out for .NET 2.0 first before installing Visual Studio 2005. :-( Because this is the first I have heard of .NET 2.0 coming with XP. That's cool and I did not know that.
Brian, thanks for your added insight.
> Not to continue to derail the conversation further
Maybe I'm wrong, but I find this discussion relevant to the topic. Maybe I'm not coming across through the net, but when I hear someone wants to use C#/.NET 2.0, I want them to be aware that, to some extent, they are limiting their exposure and potential user base. The decision to move forward or not is up to them. I am not trying to say which route to go. It's important to know your userbase, what equipment they have available, etc.
It's interesting Jonathon and I have found different results. Maybe he is more on the cutting edge than I. I tried doing some searches on the internet to find out how prevalent .NET 2.0 is, but could not find anything. I am honestly hoping Jonathon is right. C# is my programming language of choice, but due to my findings, I can't justify it for my own little home game projects (I'm working on applications with C#, though). If I find out more information to the contrary, I will gladly switch.
EDIT: I forgot to respond this one.
> To run an xna game, you have to have the xna framework, which most people will not have anyway,
> .net 2.0 or not. That's what redist's are for.
I believe the final version (if not this beta) will have redistributables. But very true. That was another reason I moved away from XNA. You have to install C# Express AND the XNA environment just to run a game. I felt that is a pretty hefty requirement for people to run a game. That requirement may have changed with this new release. If not, I know it is planned for the final 2.0.
11/21/2007 (9:27 am)
> I don't want to start an argument and I don't doubt you feel this way since you're posting it,> but I'm curious as to what you are using as a basis?
I am by no means trying to argue either. I am learning from this as you are giving good information and another viewpoint. I am basing my experience from two things. At work, I am currently porting a rather old code base to Visual Studio 2005 (C++ and C#). In an initial port of one C++ application, we have had to install the C++ runtime on both in-house and customer machines. Likewise, .NET 2.0 is not installed on these machines either. At my last job which I left 9 months ago, none of our development machines had .NET 2.0 installed, nor our customers.
I recently wrote a game in C#/SDL.NET (using .NET 2.0) and some friends/family were unable to run on their XP machines.
> Being in the business development realm and seeing that _every_ contract I go on uses .net 2.0
> to buil their applications, I'd say it's incredibly widespread.
No wonder we see things differently. I am in the software development field and have found the opposite. I am currently building using .NET 2.0 and we may likely move to .NET 3.0/3.5 soon.
Hmmm, we recently got several new XP computers at work. I should have checked them out for .NET 2.0 first before installing Visual Studio 2005. :-( Because this is the first I have heard of .NET 2.0 coming with XP. That's cool and I did not know that.
Brian, thanks for your added insight.
> Not to continue to derail the conversation further
Maybe I'm wrong, but I find this discussion relevant to the topic. Maybe I'm not coming across through the net, but when I hear someone wants to use C#/.NET 2.0, I want them to be aware that, to some extent, they are limiting their exposure and potential user base. The decision to move forward or not is up to them. I am not trying to say which route to go. It's important to know your userbase, what equipment they have available, etc.
It's interesting Jonathon and I have found different results. Maybe he is more on the cutting edge than I. I tried doing some searches on the internet to find out how prevalent .NET 2.0 is, but could not find anything. I am honestly hoping Jonathon is right. C# is my programming language of choice, but due to my findings, I can't justify it for my own little home game projects (I'm working on applications with C#, though). If I find out more information to the contrary, I will gladly switch.
EDIT: I forgot to respond this one.
> To run an xna game, you have to have the xna framework, which most people will not have anyway,
> .net 2.0 or not. That's what redist's are for.
I believe the final version (if not this beta) will have redistributables. But very true. That was another reason I moved away from XNA. You have to install C# Express AND the XNA environment just to run a game. I felt that is a pretty hefty requirement for people to run a game. That requirement may have changed with this new release. If not, I know it is planned for the final 2.0.
Employee David Montgomery-Blake
David MontgomeryBlake
What speech libraries are you considering using? Since most of in C++, I would think that TGB Pro would be the way to go. Of course, the .NET speech SDK might be a good choice for PC versions of TorqueX (though not Xbox 360 deployment).