Some questions
by J Sears · in Torque Game Engine Advanced · 10/17/2008 (1:22 pm) · 18 replies
I have had TGE for many years now as well as some content packs but I was always a bit disappointed with it so after not touching it at all for almost 2 years I have been looking at TGEA.
I'm very wary after my experiences with TGE but honestly there aren't a lot of choices out there right now, C4 engine has a sketchy license, unity doesn't seem like it include source code and as soon as you want to do windows stand alone the price jumps way up.
So does TGEA finally incorporate melee or is it still a matter of finding public buggy code and trying to wedge it in there?
I read that still no physics engine included so won't ask about that.
How well does houdini export into tgea? getting models into TGE using different modelers was always a pain so wondering if it's any better with this modeler and this engine.
Is an extensive camera module still not included?
Has the documentation really gotten better? TGE documentaion was pretty awful
Does constructor work well for making complex indoor areas (never spent much time with it when it came out for TGE because it was around the time I was giving up on it)
Is the only AI hard coded in still very basic? essentially is it the same AI code from TGE
That's all I can think of right now thanks
I'm very wary after my experiences with TGE but honestly there aren't a lot of choices out there right now, C4 engine has a sketchy license, unity doesn't seem like it include source code and as soon as you want to do windows stand alone the price jumps way up.
So does TGEA finally incorporate melee or is it still a matter of finding public buggy code and trying to wedge it in there?
I read that still no physics engine included so won't ask about that.
How well does houdini export into tgea? getting models into TGE using different modelers was always a pain so wondering if it's any better with this modeler and this engine.
Is an extensive camera module still not included?
Has the documentation really gotten better? TGE documentaion was pretty awful
Does constructor work well for making complex indoor areas (never spent much time with it when it came out for TGE because it was around the time I was giving up on it)
Is the only AI hard coded in still very basic? essentially is it the same AI code from TGE
That's all I can think of right now thanks
#2
There is no Melee, but there are a couple of newer melee resources - here's an AFX based one that works with the current version of TGEA (with a patch):
www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=13089
The included AI is still the same, but there is a very good resource that goes in easily to TGEA:
www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=15109
There is an included "Rigid body" physics in TGEA (I think it's included in later versions of TGE also), that may or may not work for you.
There are a lot of new features in TGEA that aren't in TGE - including larger terrains, ground cover, polysoup collisions, etc. I like it a lot better than TGE, but YMMV.
10/17/2008 (1:40 pm)
There is a better camera included with AFX/TGEA, but it's not in the default TGEA. There is no Melee, but there are a couple of newer melee resources - here's an AFX based one that works with the current version of TGEA (with a patch):
www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=13089
The included AI is still the same, but there is a very good resource that goes in easily to TGEA:
www.garagegames.com/index.php?sec=mg&mod=resource&page=view&qid=15109
There is an included "Rigid body" physics in TGEA (I think it's included in later versions of TGE also), that may or may not work for you.
There are a lot of new features in TGEA that aren't in TGE - including larger terrains, ground cover, polysoup collisions, etc. I like it a lot better than TGE, but YMMV.
#3
Extra physics can be added. ODE, PhysX, even Havock. But you have to do the work
Plenty of modelers export just fine, Max, Lightwave, Maya, etc. I've used Blender and Milkshape. Never used Houdini. Maybe not all features are supported across all apps but for the most part they work simply and easily.
Lots of resources exist for camera mods. I would think that a more in-depth camera system would be a basic part of the engine, but I suppose GG figures it would be unique to each project, and it's hard to design for everything.
It's said that documentation has improved - I haven't looked. The code says it all after a few months reading it.
I'm one of those that like Constructor despite it's quirks. I like lot's of details, arches, weird shapes, domes, etc. Complicated geometry takes a little bit of work to get right for exporting but can be done if you make the effort.
AI is something that would be unique to each project so would be a custom a solution, but yes it's esentially the same as TGE. There are many resources that add more features but again it's probably best to do your own to suit your needs.
TGE/TGEa is a nice engine once you understand it's strengths and how to overcome it's weaknesses. You're only limited by the amount of effort you put into it. Anything worth doing shouldn't be easy.
edit: And let's not forget about the rendering improvements to TGEa, the speed up optimizations, the easier to modify codebase, polysoup, MegaTerrains, Atlas Terrain, and Shaders :)
10/17/2008 (1:49 pm)
Melee works if you work with it. The melee resource that I used had a few quirks but once your various collision and hitboxes are set up you can achieve a believable melee system. Extra physics can be added. ODE, PhysX, even Havock. But you have to do the work
Plenty of modelers export just fine, Max, Lightwave, Maya, etc. I've used Blender and Milkshape. Never used Houdini. Maybe not all features are supported across all apps but for the most part they work simply and easily.
Lots of resources exist for camera mods. I would think that a more in-depth camera system would be a basic part of the engine, but I suppose GG figures it would be unique to each project, and it's hard to design for everything.
It's said that documentation has improved - I haven't looked. The code says it all after a few months reading it.
I'm one of those that like Constructor despite it's quirks. I like lot's of details, arches, weird shapes, domes, etc. Complicated geometry takes a little bit of work to get right for exporting but can be done if you make the effort.
AI is something that would be unique to each project so would be a custom a solution, but yes it's esentially the same as TGE. There are many resources that add more features but again it's probably best to do your own to suit your needs.
TGE/TGEa is a nice engine once you understand it's strengths and how to overcome it's weaknesses. You're only limited by the amount of effort you put into it. Anything worth doing shouldn't be easy.
edit: And let's not forget about the rendering improvements to TGEa, the speed up optimizations, the easier to modify codebase, polysoup, MegaTerrains, Atlas Terrain, and Shaders :)
#4
www.garagegames.com/docs/tgea/official/
10/17/2008 (2:02 pm)
Also - the new documentation is online here:www.garagegames.com/docs/tgea/official/
#5
10/17/2008 (2:34 pm)
@J - i realized i was being a bit harsh in my reply. i apologize. reply editted........again sorry, having a rough day at working fixing other peoples broken code....
#6
10/17/2008 (2:56 pm)
Thank you for that, and I'll just have to take your word on the simple melee resource update working for now because it's not a page I can view without having bought TGEA.
#7
The more an engine "does for you", the less versatile it is. RPG Maker is easier than 3D GameStudio is easier than Torque, and the same goes in reverse for total versatility. I haven't worked with Unity, so I can't speak for that.
The fact is, engines are much like programming languages. BASIC is, as its name implies, easier than a language with more versatility and higher speed, like C++. So, an engine like Torque may not have the user-friendliness of other (often more expensive) engines, but you can do anything that you can think of--provided your programmer/scripter can find out how to implement it.
In the case of Torque, many of the users here are not necessarily interested in melee, or physics. Those who need such functions, like the people who made Marble Blast, put in what they needed.
The reason the movement is so basic is so that the developers are freed to make the guts of the engine work as efficiently as possible. If you want to add melee, then you are free to do so. Because if it was included, what's to say that's the exact melee interpretation you need? For example, the ever popular "one-hit-kill" melee in so many FPSs, or more of a multi-hit one like on Halo? And whether or not it's single hit kill from behind?
Only you can answer these questions, which is what makes game development so labor-intensive. If you want a generic melee interpretation that will approximate what you want, that works. But with Torque, you can find out how to do it, then tweak it until it is perfect for what you need individually. And that is its strength.
Torque is definitely not an easy-button. But it is an indispensable asset if you want to make a game as you envision it, and it will definitely do what you need, it's just in the implementation.
EDIT: Grammar...ugh.
10/17/2008 (3:19 pm)
J Sears wrote:Quote:The fact is melee is a standard game component not a do it all for me, same with physics and AI
The more an engine "does for you", the less versatile it is. RPG Maker is easier than 3D GameStudio is easier than Torque, and the same goes in reverse for total versatility. I haven't worked with Unity, so I can't speak for that.
The fact is, engines are much like programming languages. BASIC is, as its name implies, easier than a language with more versatility and higher speed, like C++. So, an engine like Torque may not have the user-friendliness of other (often more expensive) engines, but you can do anything that you can think of--provided your programmer/scripter can find out how to implement it.
In the case of Torque, many of the users here are not necessarily interested in melee, or physics. Those who need such functions, like the people who made Marble Blast, put in what they needed.
Quote:And yes anything advertised as a game engine I expect to have these features, otherwise it's a graphics engine with some basic movement code.
The reason the movement is so basic is so that the developers are freed to make the guts of the engine work as efficiently as possible. If you want to add melee, then you are free to do so. Because if it was included, what's to say that's the exact melee interpretation you need? For example, the ever popular "one-hit-kill" melee in so many FPSs, or more of a multi-hit one like on Halo? And whether or not it's single hit kill from behind?
Only you can answer these questions, which is what makes game development so labor-intensive. If you want a generic melee interpretation that will approximate what you want, that works. But with Torque, you can find out how to do it, then tweak it until it is perfect for what you need individually. And that is its strength.
Torque is definitely not an easy-button. But it is an indispensable asset if you want to make a game as you envision it, and it will definitely do what you need, it's just in the implementation.
EDIT: Grammar...ugh.
#8
And having melee in some basic form is much more flexible then not at all. Having something basic that says: character hit this key, do melee animation, did melee animation hit an object, now allows a person to modify it to say what type of object did it hit, if it hit this type of object do this.
There are other game engines on the same line as Torque that proved the code and don't include a lot of fancy stuff but they seem to all include the basics like melee, camera systems and physics, which is why I was asking if this had been included yet
10/17/2008 (5:21 pm)
Yes there are games that might not use melee, but when the vast majority of games created have melee in some form it's a pretty standard thing. Same with physics, there are a few games out there that may not use physics but the vast majority do, even a lot of flash games have a physics kit included now.And having melee in some basic form is much more flexible then not at all. Having something basic that says: character hit this key, do melee animation, did melee animation hit an object, now allows a person to modify it to say what type of object did it hit, if it hit this type of object do this.
There are other game engines on the same line as Torque that proved the code and don't include a lot of fancy stuff but they seem to all include the basics like melee, camera systems and physics, which is why I was asking if this had been included yet
#9
...same goes for physics...
Simple physics is in the form of Rigidshape physics which can bounce, bump, fall, and roll. You can also have dynamic gravity. If you need more advanced physics then an ODE resource exists as well as a PhysX one. But even the engines that do include some form of Newtonian physics only have a basic limited implementation and you might end up spending more time removing it and replacing it than you would have just by incorporating some other more robust physics solution, which is what having the source lets you do. Due to networking issues there are a lot more games without nice extensive physics than those that do have them.
10/17/2008 (5:45 pm)
Actually simple melee that matches your description is already in the engine - TGE or TGEa, even years ago, even in Tribes2. All you need is an animation to represent the melee attack. Do a LOS check and if it's within a certain range then you hit. Modify as necessary for skill, length of weapon, and damage - all in script and no source code changes needed. You need to remember that the vast majority of games that do make use of a melee system do so with a custom solution not a prepackaged one. There is no universal melee system that more than two developers will ever agree on......same goes for physics...
Simple physics is in the form of Rigidshape physics which can bounce, bump, fall, and roll. You can also have dynamic gravity. If you need more advanced physics then an ODE resource exists as well as a PhysX one. But even the engines that do include some form of Newtonian physics only have a basic limited implementation and you might end up spending more time removing it and replacing it than you would have just by incorporating some other more robust physics solution, which is what having the source lets you do. Due to networking issues there are a lot more games without nice extensive physics than those that do have them.
#10
If the simple melee was already in the engine as you claim why did no one know it was there with TGE? it was one of the most asked questions on the boards and many code modifying resources were made to do just that simple LOS check and hit system?
But my point of this thread was not to convince people that a game engine should have these things (the amount of people on these boards over the years asking for these things and other engines shipping with these features should really be enough proof) but to see what improvements there were in the areas I felt lacking with TGE before I considered purchasing TGEA. I see the graphics improvement but honestly graphics (besides getting models to get in, look correctl and work) was never one of my issues with TGE. But nicer graphics are always that, nicer.
10/17/2008 (8:41 pm)
Not true about other engines and physics, most include some full featured physics engine, such as havoc PhysX, bullet, etc. Having a full fledged physics engine does not limit a developer, these engines are designed to be easily customised for whatever the dev may need. My point on physics was not for GG to design a whole brand new physics engine but to ship with an established one already worked into the code.If the simple melee was already in the engine as you claim why did no one know it was there with TGE? it was one of the most asked questions on the boards and many code modifying resources were made to do just that simple LOS check and hit system?
But my point of this thread was not to convince people that a game engine should have these things (the amount of people on these boards over the years asking for these things and other engines shipping with these features should really be enough proof) but to see what improvements there were in the areas I felt lacking with TGE before I considered purchasing TGEA. I see the graphics improvement but honestly graphics (besides getting models to get in, look correctl and work) was never one of my issues with TGE. But nicer graphics are always that, nicer.
#11
Most of the people who were implementing melee systems were looking at ways to perform more accurate collision for melee targeting. A simple LOS test wasn't enough for them. For a top-down brawler, sure. Or a FPS where you basically mash the attack button and don't really need accurate collision data, okay. But for limb targeting and such, a much finer grain is usually needed.
So, in answer to your original questions, depending on the needs of your melee system, you will either have to build upon one of the other resources or roll your own starting with the basic collisions used in TGEA.
Houdini is the best exporter for DTS models. Other exporters work well, though. Max, Maya, Lightwave, Blender, and Milkshape are the best. XSI has had a push recently as well. The methods of exporting are the same for TGE as TGEA. If you found TGE difficult to get models into, you will feel the same way about TGEA.
You will still be working with the Advanced Camera resource or rolling something similar for your game if pathed cameras and nodes are not helpful to your gametype.
Constructor or Quark or 3D World Studio are all good candidates for interiors. It depends on which you prefer for your BSP modeling.
AI is still extremely simple and most likely won't be getting any more complex for a while. For more complex AI, I would recommend implementing a middleware AI solution that fits your gametype. AI is extremely game specific, sadly. The A* pathfinding is a pretty solid resource, I believe. And a lot of people have had good goes at Gavin Bunney's AI resource. But you'll still be doing a lot of coding and maintenance coding on them.
10/23/2008 (2:48 pm)
I don't think "most" engines include a physics engine out of the box, though a lot of them certainly do (especially the engines that do not include source code). A lot of engines that provide the source do not because they want the dev's to have the option of using their favorite. Some large-scale engines like Unreal use a specific one for their games and then note that if you wish to use another one, you will have to support those changes (which most companies licensing Unreal are okay with since they have paid programming staff who are usually doing the physics integration into the engine). And often they only work with the systems they need (though fun debugging efforts that gave us the Devil May Cry bullet juggles can be a fun addition if not entirely the right solution for a Resident Evil title). But regardless of whether different engines have one or many physics engines integrated, we have not integrated a specific solution like this into Torque.Most of the people who were implementing melee systems were looking at ways to perform more accurate collision for melee targeting. A simple LOS test wasn't enough for them. For a top-down brawler, sure. Or a FPS where you basically mash the attack button and don't really need accurate collision data, okay. But for limb targeting and such, a much finer grain is usually needed.
So, in answer to your original questions, depending on the needs of your melee system, you will either have to build upon one of the other resources or roll your own starting with the basic collisions used in TGEA.
Houdini is the best exporter for DTS models. Other exporters work well, though. Max, Maya, Lightwave, Blender, and Milkshape are the best. XSI has had a push recently as well. The methods of exporting are the same for TGE as TGEA. If you found TGE difficult to get models into, you will feel the same way about TGEA.
You will still be working with the Advanced Camera resource or rolling something similar for your game if pathed cameras and nodes are not helpful to your gametype.
Constructor or Quark or 3D World Studio are all good candidates for interiors. It depends on which you prefer for your BSP modeling.
AI is still extremely simple and most likely won't be getting any more complex for a while. For more complex AI, I would recommend implementing a middleware AI solution that fits your gametype. AI is extremely game specific, sadly. The A* pathfinding is a pretty solid resource, I believe. And a lot of people have had good goes at Gavin Bunney's AI resource. But you'll still be doing a lot of coding and maintenance coding on them.
#12
As for TGEA, if you didn't care for TGE, then you won't care for TGEA more than likely. The major differences are Shaders, Audio, Terrain, DTS Polysoup, and maybe some other odds and ends.
Its the same workflow for difs and dts for the most part, as TGE, other than Material setup.
TGEA 1.8 is upcoming and may very well change more of this too, but time will only tell, as there is still stuff lacking from early milestones, so it may or may not come!
10/27/2008 (7:45 pm)
Not sure what is sketchy about the C4 license, but you can easily ask Eric over there about it.As for TGEA, if you didn't care for TGE, then you won't care for TGEA more than likely. The major differences are Shaders, Audio, Terrain, DTS Polysoup, and maybe some other odds and ends.
Its the same workflow for difs and dts for the most part, as TGE, other than Material setup.
TGEA 1.8 is upcoming and may very well change more of this too, but time will only tell, as there is still stuff lacking from early milestones, so it may or may not come!
#13
10/28/2008 (6:16 am)
I noticed the comment about C4's license too Jeremiah, and forgot to comment on it. I'm curious as to what was sketchy about it. It has always seemed pretty straight-forward to me, even though there was some confusion during different pricing times. The confusion was on pricing and upgrades for existing users, not on licensing, though. 
#14
10/28/2008 (8:26 am)
I think the documentation aspect was commented on, but I just wanted to post an update that TGEA 1.8 will be shipping with updated docs that cover the new modules (GFX2, Resource Manager, 1.8 Porting). On top of that, we have a documentation feedback thread where Torque users can request tutorials and module docs.
#15
11/11/2008 (3:50 am)
So, basically, you need to make a 3D TGB. The main problem with TGE(A) is that too many gameplay elements are hardcoded into the source, and it's really painful to hack it to fit our ideas. It's not an effective way of making a game for indies.
#16
I really do not want to start a debate about what the term means, but Indie is a shortened form of Independent. In no way does that allude to source code modification. Plenty of Indie developers and studios roll their own solution from the ground up.
11/11/2008 (7:50 am)
Quote:It's not an effective way of making a game for indiesWhat does being Indie have to do with source code access?
I really do not want to start a debate about what the term means, but Indie is a shortened form of Independent. In no way does that allude to source code modification. Plenty of Indie developers and studios roll their own solution from the ground up.
#17
From my experience with torquescript in TGB, I would really enjoy making a 3d games the same way. It is very fast to make good prototypes with. I would really love seeing the same for TGE(A), not requiring any C++ coding for any possible gameplay.
Maybe by porting the hardcoded C++ gameplay code to TS? Would it be easy to do (especially if we include networking into the mix)?
I don't really know what are the priority for GG on the matter, but I'm sure it would definitely be awesome and successful.
11/11/2008 (8:47 am)
Sorry, I was more speaking about one to three person teams, maybe I should say "amateurs". The difference is by not having a full team of already experienced C++ coders. From my experience with torquescript in TGB, I would really enjoy making a 3d games the same way. It is very fast to make good prototypes with. I would really love seeing the same for TGE(A), not requiring any C++ coding for any possible gameplay.
Maybe by porting the hardcoded C++ gameplay code to TS? Would it be easy to do (especially if we include networking into the mix)?
I don't really know what are the priority for GG on the matter, but I'm sure it would definitely be awesome and successful.
#18
As far as future TGEA updates go, we are primarily adding modules and stabilizing existing ones. Wouldn't make much sense to start ripping classes out at this point.
11/11/2008 (9:01 am)
@Benjamin - I see the points you are making. However, that sounds more appropriate as a community resource than an official engine modification. I'm not sure which game play elements you would want stripped or moved, but I know the important part of the networking has been exposed.As far as future TGEA updates go, we are primarily adding modules and stabilizing existing ones. Wouldn't make much sense to start ripping classes out at this point.
Torque Owner Timothy Castagna
TK Games LLC
there is no melee unless you write it yourself. - i updated the simple melee resource to work with the latest TGEA version, if you want it i'll send you a link, and yes it does work
No integrated physics but you can add your own - physx is available and havok is also free now
i dont know about houdini, 3ds Max works just fine for me
No extrensive camera built in you'll have to add it - i updated the advanced camera resouce to work with the latest TGEA, if you want it just let me know
documentation is getting really good. Mike Perry is doing an awesome job there
some people like constructor some don't. its a matter of preference. i use 3d world studio
AI is simple, you'll need to add your own. there are several resources for this but i'm sure they need to be ported over to the latest TGEA. I'll be working on porting over the a* guard resource within the next 2 months hopefully.