Max2Dif

#21 I've worked with efficient engines that had 'polygon soup' 160,000 polys per frame at 60fps and the only oclusion was the regular frustrum and manual placement of occluder planes. there wes no draw in range and the levels were huge sprawling levels for PS2 and Xbox.

It's becoming more and more common these days. and what really makes the difference beween how fast an engine can run has more to do with the exerience of the coders and Max artists as todays hardware has pretty much done awau with the need for BSP's and CSG editors in order to stay efficient.

#22 Quest3d

The entire art pipeline is through MAX or similiar tools. UP TO 650,000 polies in any given veiw. Full collision. Dynamic lights. Real world physics. And a whole mess of polygon soup. Runs like a champ. Unfortunatly its not a game engine. Its more for realtime presentation work.

I could list off alot of engines that handle realtime collision with polygonal soup.

UNFORTUNATLY I love Torque.
LOL
Matt

#23 You always could write BSP from 3dmax files... do it yourself!

#24 Read for compreshension people Ben was talking about effience COLLISION detection, no one doubts the massive amount of tri's that can be pushed thru no days, but the collision detection is still just expensive regardless of the video card you have. Personally I could care less about a MAX only solution to any of this. People bitch about prices of things, and then the same people beg for MAX exporters, and MAX this and MAX that. Something doesn't jive.

#25 As far as I'm concerned If I can throw out 80,000 polys per frame with my current engine with up to 4 textures each and have 9,000 custom made low poly collision and pick polys that are split into chunks that are sorted by range to the actor and still run at over 30fps on my 16mb s3 equiped laptop at a playable framerate and at 60fps on my P2 400 with a 32mb geforce 2 at 1024x768 32bit I think the BSP efficiency is just something that impresses a coder and actually isn't that important.

how your game looks is important if you want to compete with a commercial game. My new can compete with commercial games and may end up being one.

Also I'm sure the people that want Max plugins are max users otherwise it would be silly to ask for plugins wouldn't it.

Besides which the custom colision can infact be better if the artist is patient and knows what he is doing, there simply isn't any reason for every single poly to be colideable and you can aproximate a lot without anyone even noticing. Much depends on the game so having the greater flexibility is preffered than making something efficient and coder friendly but artist unfriendly.

you could also have a hybrid system that the guy making cartography shop was contemplating, not sure how he's doing with that.

#26

Quote:Read for compreshension people Ben was talking about effience COLLISION detection, no one doubts the massive amount of tri's that can be pushed thru no days, but the collision detection is still just expensive regardless of the video card you have.

why dont try YOU read for compreshension? There a lot of engines working with maya/max formats, generating BSP collisions.

Quote:Personally I could care less about a MAX only solution to any of this. People bitch about prices of things, and then the same people beg for MAX exporters, and MAX this and MAX that. Something doesn't jive.

Well, since a engine dont offer support for a program, it need to exists to other program, if not, how the hell where are going people to export models?
you don want to make a max2dif exporter? ok, then provide a maya2dif, milkshape2dif, blender2dif... ANYTHING.

and, why max? well, theres a max2dts, its the main exporter. So torque its focused on max, so why not a max2dif?, easy answer, in tribes2 there isnt, so never will be one.

#27 Collision is actually not that expensive depending on what algorithm you use. Here is a article on a really fast collision system. The collision is not calculated on every poly in the scene just the ones in the immediate area of the player ai or bots. Also talks about very fast, simple, and smooth collision response. Both are Very Efficient Collision (Notice the correct spelling while your at it.
Projectile collision is very light. Vehicle collision is a little heavier if you are using real time physics simulator similiar to ODE but with a somthing pretty standard like ODE or Havoc you can overcome the frame rate disadvantage pretty easy.
Like mentioned above Cipher uses whatever shape you feed it. Quest 3d as well and a whole host of other engines
Torque in its current state doesn't have these advantages but is there no reason why it couldn't with a few good people and some teamwork. But its still more than capable of turning out quality games with the right plan and good artists. Oh and the biggest thing, a few people who talk less and work more.
Just my opinion though.
Matt

#28 Thanks Mathew, thats pretty much how I feel. I've been a member for 2 years and have been watching Garage games and torque all this time and lent a hand in some in game assets. But for the kinds of game I tend to work on TGE is a bit limiting. I keep hoping that some day things will change though.

If people don't ask about things and dare I say it complain. Nothing in the world will ever change and where TGE is concerned GG will assume that its perfect and stop developing it unless they feel like it.

So TGE currently relies on a pretty regid art path, but I don't think anyones going to complain if everyone got what they wanted?

#29 'If people don't ask about things and dare I say it complain. Nothing in the world will ever change and where TGE is concerned GG will assume that its perfect and stop developing it unless they feel like it.'

This kind of comment drives me nuts. Sitting on the forums and complaining about lack of features accomplishes nothing. The source is available. If you want to use Torque but this is holding you back? Change it. Or use an engine that's allready got it, a few have been posted here.

If you've bought Torque? You've bought the torque that was in CVS that day. You haven't bought some license to direct GG to add feature X because you think it's the best thing since sliced bread. Anything they fix or add? It's a bonus.

Honestly, would you go on an auto manufacturer's site and complain that your car hasn't got a DVD player? Would you expect them to make one up and install it in your car without paying another cent? Why do you hold GG to a different standard?

#30 No its a suggestion, and nobody is forcing you to read the thread. Some people think that the Max plugins arent good enough. Many of these people aren't coders but artists that are forced to use tools because no one in the community feels inclined to make them, or arent capable of doing it.

Nothing is quite as simple as it first seems. If you want a Great game you need great tools and a great art path so that everyone can have fun making their game. I believe that if making the game isn't fun and the tools are a chore the final product ends up reflecting that and being the worse for it.

I take it that your a Coder since you think I should be making my own tools. Unfortunately I'm a lead artist with no real interest in the programming side, which is why I do currently use a engine with a more flexible art path. It may lack DX8 and 9 features but the superb art path gets around most of these.

I think my next game will reflect that pretty well :)

#31 I don't dispute that Torque could use better tools.

What I do dispute is this sense that the right way to get better tools is to whine on the forums until someone makes them for you.

The right way is to 1) write them yourself* or 2) pay someone to write them.

*Or have your programmers do it. If you're working on any game that has a chance at being successful, presumably you have at least one.

#32 OK mark, I really don't care that much as I have plugins that do everything I need for my engine (see my plugin specs listed above). I just feel sorry for Artists that have to suffer with the current plugins as they are amongst the worst I have used in the past 6 years.

when I'm postign on here I'm basicly trying to help point out something that I think is weakness in the TGE engine. As I'm not making FPS type games TGE isn't really an option for me.

#33 OK mark, I really don't care that much as I have plugins that do everything I need for my engine (see my plugin specs listed above). I just feel sorry for Artists that have to suffer with the current plugins as they are amongst the worst I have used in the past 6 years.

when I'm postign on here I'm basicly trying to help point out something that I think is weakness in the TGE engine. As I'm not making FPS type games TGE isn't really an option for me.

#34

Quote:If you've bought Torque? You've bought the torque that was in CVS that day. You haven't bought some license to direct GG to add feature X because you think it's the best thing since sliced bread. Anything they fix or add? It's a bonus.

Well, when i brought Torque license i didnt know map2dif was a BETA exporter (see map2dif text display...).

i didnt know that a static shape cannot throw shadows, or do anything that a interior is capable.

i didnt know editor tools are so unstables.

my fault? maybe, but since this is a comercial engine, i think i could talk about lack of features.

and about programming the engine, i prefer offer help on a GPL/free engine like neoengine, ogre...

Quote:
What I do dispute is this sense that the right way to get better tools is to whine on the forums until someone makes them for you.

The right way is to 1) write them yourself* or 2) pay someone to write them.

competly agree. Thats why i buy a torque license, but now, i see that tools arent really finished or working 100%.

a exporter isnt like say "eh! do my game!", "i want code for my game". Its a basic tool.

Im not asking for a maya2dts exporter since i understand that max is the target modeller program for torque. Well then, i need too a max2dif exporter.

I use maya, and i dont ask people for a maya exporter. Thats the diference i think.

Quote:
Is GG totally dependent on the community for such things? I'm refering to Matthew Fairfax's comment.

#35 The tools were freely available, usable, and testable before you bought TGE. Had you done your research, there would have been no surprises. I know this sounds harsh but it is the plain truth. Owning the SDK gives you the source code, some documentation, and the private parts of the forums. *Everything* else was available before you bought it.

The longtime developers here are far more aware of the limitations of the TGE engine than even you are. There really isn't much point in complaining to us. We know where its strengths and weaknesses lie and a fair number of us are actively working to improve things...especially GG themselves. But there is only a handful of them (and they have more to do than just improve the engine) and the rest of us are quite limited in our time. Not to mention most of us are really interested in building games also!

Tools development is usually a tedious and thankless job where you are surrounded by people complaining about lack of features and instability. You can never make everyone happy and they all *know* exactly how the tool should work for them. And really, most of us programmers are here to make *games* not *tools*. We will make forays into tool development to speed up the process of making games but at some point the tools' features and the artists' experience with the tools (working with/around limitations and bugs) enable them to be very productive and the programmers move onto actually programming the game. And unfortunately, that is usually before the tool is truly done/stable/featured. This is why so many of the tools for shipping games have to be "cleaned up" for public consumption (modding). I have seen the artists in this community do amazing things when they buckled down and worked with the tools instead of sitting around waiting for some feature to be added. For the most part, tool programming is really only worth it if you are being paid (and paid well) to do it.

As I mentioned before, anyone here is free to take on the task of fixing the current tools or writing new ones. Yeah...it will be hard and it will take a lot of time and effort. Why do you think it hasn't already been done? It isn't a case of programmers just not understanding artists and artists not understanding programmers (as I have seen alluded to in this thread). A lot of us indies have to wear both the programmer and artist hats so we know full well why you are asking for the things that you are. It is more a matter of priorities for most of us. I could spend the next 2 years improving the tools or I could ship 2 or 3 games in the same time. Personally, I'd rather work around the limitations of TGE and get those games out.

If you aren't happy with TGE, then go work with another engine or roll your own. We won't be offended. In fact, if you can show us an engine that is better than TGE then a fair amount of us will happily start working on it =) This isn't about loaylty to TGE...it is about finding the best tool for the job and most of us believe that TGE is that for the time being. But, we aren't closed-minded. If you have something better then we will happily evaluate it and, if it is better for the job, use it.

I find that if you quit looking at why you *can't* do something (tools, bugs, features, shaders, ai, etc.) and just buckle down and start working on your game, you will be amazed at what you can accomplish. Just do it!

#36 Hey, don't have to tell me, we have 2 engines of our own and almost perfect max plugins. But being an indie I'm interested in Garage games and the community in general. I'll probably never use TGE, most of my comments are usually trying to be constructive but people seem to take this kind of thing too personaly. I guess I'll just not bother posting anymore.

#37 This thread is about max2dif, not a 'war' between GG & users. I also think like Adrian, people seems to take this threads personaly. Why?

Quote:
The tools were freely available, usable, and testable before you bought TGE. Had you done your research, there would have been no surprises. I know this sounds harsh but it is the plain truth.

Thats why I wrote: "my fault? maybe, but since this is a comercial engine, i think i could talk about lack of features."

Quote:
The longtime developers here are far more aware of the limitations of the TGE engine than even you are.

Im sure too about that.

Quote:
I have seen the artists in this community do amazing things when they buckled down and worked with the tools instead of sitting around waiting for some feature to be added.

Yep, and people do games in 80's with 64k, thats no the question.

Quote:
This is why so many of the tools for shipping games have to be "cleaned up" for public consumption (modding)

They are also 'cleaned' when you want to license your engine.

Quote:
If you aren't happy with TGE, then go work with another engine or roll your own.

Who say this?, also, i dont think work on other engine be incompatible with use TGE.

Quote:
We won't be offended. In fact, if you can show us an engine that is better than TGE then a fair amount of us will happily start working on it =) This isn't about loaylty to TGE...it is about finding the best tool for the job and most of us believe that TGE is that for the time being. But, we aren't closed-minded. If you have something better then we will happily evaluate it and, if it is better for the job, use it.

Im happy to know that you arent offended, i dont want to offend anyone here.

Something better? better for..? each game/program have differents reqeriments, as you say. Anyway im using now a 'better' engine (better for my project).

Quote:
I find that if you quit looking at why you *can't* do something (tools, bugs, features, shaders, ai, etc.) and just buckle down and start working on your game, you will be amazed at what you can accomplish. Just do it!

Well, since your game cannot use DTS for floor since 9 colision boxes are insuficient, and cannot use max2map cause dont work well, and map2dif expects a map format distinct that quark generate (check map files created with newest quark on torque mode, and check map2dif HEAD release), how you could do it without modify exporters?

If GG dont want/dont know/cannot do certain things, its ok. I buyed knowing or having to know such things. But why we cannot discuss about new tools/features??

Dont pretend people do features for a COMERCIAL engine. Then, if anything dont work/dont exists, a indie do it, and yes! more content to sell. I could code, yes, but not to give more money to others. Thats why GPL exists.

if you talk about a feature means that you cannot code? im spending 1 minute writting this post. I think i could spend a lot more on other things. Post this does not reqire 1 week.


Just relax, we are here for the same, make games. If you are tired of read map2dif post, then dont read it!, try to think people are also tired of read "MAKE YOURSELF!" posts also.

#38 We are also tired of people complaining about missing features.
And the commercial engines that come with perfect tools are a quite a bit more expensive then Torque.

#39 Even commerical engines don't have perfect tools :)
What is perfect?

#40 Actually, GarageGames has not responded to this post in an official manner yet. Here is the official answer.

There is no max2dif. We feel use of Quark for interiors is sufficient for now.

This is not political. We are working on things that we feel are of a higher priority. It would be wonderful if somebody created this tool, but it will not be GG any time soon.

-Jeff Tunnell GG