if I were to purchase Torque Engine what other sort of programs would I need and is it good?
Torque talk
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Torque talk its powerful but hard to use.
This totally depends on what you want. Personally i think torque sucks. I prefer my a) outdated sw3d, b) unity, c) now comfortably waiting for max3d and director11...and i miss gamebench. It could have been really great... :O/
Smilertoo has hit it on the nose, Torque is indeed powerful and already offers access to shader technology amongst others, but the 'price' is learning curve and I have to admit, we have had it easy it Blitz3D. (Also beware as there are three or four incarnation s of the Torque Engine, which do you want??? 2D, 3D, 3D Shader? or simple stuff?)
Once you have learned to wield that power, you will be able to do some great things, but for those wanting a fast start... well you may be disappointed (depending upon your starting level).
To do anything involving changes to the c++ code you will need a C++ compiler etc. A decent 3d/character modeller and animator, a programme to develop textures, photoshop or PaintShop Pro, perhaps some audio editing software for sounds and voices. A shader editor if you are buying into the shader engine. A couple of good Torque books and a lot of patience along with a lot of time, should do the job.
IPete2.
Once you have learned to wield that power, you will be able to do some great things, but for those wanting a fast start... well you may be disappointed (depending upon your starting level).
To do anything involving changes to the c++ code you will need a C++ compiler etc. A decent 3d/character modeller and animator, a programme to develop textures, photoshop or PaintShop Pro, perhaps some audio editing software for sounds and voices. A shader editor if you are buying into the shader engine. A couple of good Torque books and a lot of patience along with a lot of time, should do the job.
IPete2.
Use B3D. Torque just doesn't seem to follow my thought trail, but other seem to like it :-)
I'm not a big fan of torque either. From an artists point of view it lacks a lot of really basic DX7 features. Its arbitrary mesh format DTS has no multitexture support whatsoever.
Even in the shader engine 1 UV channel restricts you to simple skins or tiles with only one set of mapping per triangle. In my opinion its almost criminal to neglect this most basic feature in supposed AA game engine.
Until they add some basic multitexturing features I really can't take garage games or their engine seriously.
Even in the shader engine 1 UV channel restricts you to simple skins or tiles with only one set of mapping per triangle. In my opinion its almost criminal to neglect this most basic feature in supposed AA game engine.
Until they add some basic multitexturing features I really can't take garage games or their engine seriously.
Thanks. I tried dbpro but found it less good than Blitz mainly cos I couln't figure out how collisions work .
If you are going to buy a engine, LawEngine gets my vote.
Best engine i bought so far and the support from the developers are totally amazing. Just ask for a feature and it will probaly be included in the next build.
Check it out.. www.darkroomstudios.com
Best engine i bought so far and the support from the developers are totally amazing. Just ask for a feature and it will probaly be included in the next build.
Check it out.. www.darkroomstudios.com
..my vote goes for Unigine and Unity Pro...I have Unity Pro and its kicking ass with all fancy features plus gorgeus Aigea Physics...
Torque's nice but it does have a 'box' which if you want to go outside of you need a lot of skill. No reason not to get it in my opinion. If you create something good you've got a one way ticket to the consoles easily too ;)
heh what is it with everyone getting ageia physics in their 3D engines. Wonder if BRL will try and get a similar deal for max3d.
Hi Gord - the other programs/tools you would need at least, on a windows machine to use Torque (basic Torque 1.4) from memory are the following:
a C++ compiler (MinGW with MSYS seems to be okay) - and some form of IDE to write the code in is helpful.
a "map" making tool for interiors which was possible with QuArk although I think Leadwerk's 3d World Studio makes "dif" files as well which Torque needs for larger objects which need accurate collision detection such as interiors/buildings and most traditional levels. QuArk requires python be installed as well (or was it miniPython?)
a program which exports models in the DTS format - gamespace and milkshape both do each with their own problems and limitations. There are also a few different milkshape exporters to DTS available.
a C++ compiler (MinGW with MSYS seems to be okay) - and some form of IDE to write the code in is helpful.
a "map" making tool for interiors which was possible with QuArk although I think Leadwerk's 3d World Studio makes "dif" files as well which Torque needs for larger objects which need accurate collision detection such as interiors/buildings and most traditional levels. QuArk requires python be installed as well (or was it miniPython?)
a program which exports models in the DTS format - gamespace and milkshape both do each with their own problems and limitations. There are also a few different milkshape exporters to DTS available.
AlienForce... is that the LawMaker Engine you are talking about above... and if so, could you give us a lil idea of how you are finding it so far...
and what was the license cost?
thx
--Mike
and what was the license cost?
thx
--Mike
Hey Mike im pretty sure they have listed the price's on the Lawmaker forum.
299$ for a single user.
Companys are Adding Ageia physics, because if you have a PhysX card youll get hardware accelerated physics ....300$..:P
Torque is as good as the person behind the helm, keep in mind its a differnt animal so you cant do things B3d's way. (highpoly low surface counts will cripple it ...best to leave the surfaces intact in Torque)
I preffer the B3d way, but If I wanted to do a multi-player or MMOG(or any game where you have to have high surface counts regardless of polycount) Torque has the advantage.
If Mark will unlock the render states like Tom requested then B3d will be viable(For some) for a while longer.
Sam
299$ for a single user.
Companys are Adding Ageia physics, because if you have a PhysX card youll get hardware accelerated physics ....300$..:P
Torque is as good as the person behind the helm, keep in mind its a differnt animal so you cant do things B3d's way. (highpoly low surface counts will cripple it ...best to leave the surfaces intact in Torque)
I preffer the B3d way, but If I wanted to do a multi-player or MMOG(or any game where you have to have high surface counts regardless of polycount) Torque has the advantage.
If Mark will unlock the render states like Tom requested then B3d will be viable(For some) for a while longer.
Sam
Jeremy is right - get a hit on your hands and moving it to consoles of the XBOX type is possible.
ZMatrix - that's true of every language and any computer software. - Have you seen FreeWorld? All B3D Massively Multiplayer online - and it keeps getting better - ask King Dave.
IPete2.
ZMatrix - that's true of every language and any computer software. - Have you seen FreeWorld? All B3D Massively Multiplayer online - and it keeps getting better - ask King Dave.
IPete2.
Even with a good game and the go ahean from MS it will cost $25,000 per per game for a 360 indie torque shader engine license, and thats without tech support. They charge a minimum of $40 an hour for coding support. Plus the $10,000 MS charge for QA testing and getting your game out there.
It its currently the most straightforward way to get on the 360 though.
MS are being swamped with games now though, and the window is closing for anyone but an experienced team of professionals to get their game on there, simply because there are so many people competing to get their games on Live Arcade. Was an announcement about that the other day in one of the big game dev press newsletters I subscribed to.
It its currently the most straightforward way to get on the 360 though.
MS are being swamped with games now though, and the window is closing for anyone but an experienced team of professionals to get their game on there, simply because there are so many people competing to get their games on Live Arcade. Was an announcement about that the other day in one of the big game dev press newsletters I subscribed to.
LawMaker Engine:
From $299 -> $999 "weekend warrior" license price depending on your team size.
The one license i bought is Indie comercial á $1500
take alook at the features; http://www.devmaster.net/engines/list.php?search_id=fedd1281f2c5db75c337db485aa8a772
And with the support you get from the developers are so amazing i really cant belive it :)
This engine is really a complete package for making your dream game. The Art pipeline is good. OOP scripting with LUA.
contact sales@... for a evaluation kit. NOW! :)
From $299 -> $999 "weekend warrior" license price depending on your team size.
The one license i bought is Indie comercial á $1500
take alook at the features; http://www.devmaster.net/engines/list.php?search_id=fedd1281f2c5db75c337db485aa8a772
And with the support you get from the developers are so amazing i really cant belive it :)
This engine is really a complete package for making your dream game. The Art pipeline is good. OOP scripting with LUA.
contact sales@... for a evaluation kit. NOW! :)
thx Af... been keeping an eye on this one...
--Mike
--Mike
Yes, i dont think you will regret it. :)
All shader stuff you are looking for can be done :)
And its very similar as working with the Unreal or doom3/quake4 engine.
All shader stuff you are looking for can be done :)
And its very similar as working with the Unreal or doom3/quake4 engine.
yeah course its true for every engine, cept DBpro...while I can get the graphics fast..I kill the framerate trying to get good collisons :P ,maybe its just me..;)
(did mange to get some Decent per pixel lights with offset maps working with 6 lights, but I didnt write the shader) all i did was write some functions around the shader to control it and make it more generic.
Not really intersted in Consoles myself...but i can see how its an advantage to those who are.
And GG can help you get atleast a shot.(let them know you exist anyways..lol)
@Ipete2 , yes I have seen FreeWorld...and am very impressed by it. :) good stuff indeed!
Alienforce , keep us posted on somthing you create...I would love to see it (been eyeing lawmaker aswell)
Sam
(did mange to get some Decent per pixel lights with offset maps working with 6 lights, but I didnt write the shader) all i did was write some functions around the shader to control it and make it more generic.
Not really intersted in Consoles myself...but i can see how its an advantage to those who are.
And GG can help you get atleast a shot.(let them know you exist anyways..lol)
@Ipete2 , yes I have seen FreeWorld...and am very impressed by it. :) good stuff indeed!
Alienforce , keep us posted on somthing you create...I would love to see it (been eyeing lawmaker aswell)
Sam
hey there Sam... how are ya doin... i did look around,on their site, but i guess i must've missed that...
how's BV coming along...
yeahh... yeaahhhh... yeahhhh... it's not the engine's fault, it's the lack of the coder's skillz... everyone knows that... we've heard it time and time and time immemorial... but still and all, things like Torque's lack of multitexturing, and my lack of being able to implement it (i've tried) is why i haven't completely moved my sub thing over there yet...
plus, a lot of really simple stuff that should be readily available (mousepick for example), has to be modded into the engine code... and then all mods maintained every time they update the codebase...
** i just got off the TGE boards spanking some fanboy behind over there... hee hee heeee... one of em was an associate, so i'll probably get in some sorta trouble **
Blitz3D pisses me off as well though... it could be so great if just a few things were added... hey, i'm not the one who calls it 'Our flagship product'...
'Our stepchild product' would seem a better term, in light of the way it's being neglected...
--Mike
how's BV coming along...
yeahh... yeaahhhh... yeahhhh... it's not the engine's fault, it's the lack of the coder's skillz... everyone knows that... we've heard it time and time and time immemorial... but still and all, things like Torque's lack of multitexturing, and my lack of being able to implement it (i've tried) is why i haven't completely moved my sub thing over there yet...
plus, a lot of really simple stuff that should be readily available (mousepick for example), has to be modded into the engine code... and then all mods maintained every time they update the codebase...
** i just got off the TGE boards spanking some fanboy behind over there... hee hee heeee... one of em was an associate, so i'll probably get in some sorta trouble **
Blitz3D pisses me off as well though... it could be so great if just a few things were added... hey, i'm not the one who calls it 'Our flagship product'...
'Our stepchild product' would seem a better term, in light of the way it's being neglected...
--Mike
..hey Red Buddy, did you take a look over Unity Pro?? Its the really excellent stuff..shaders and absolutely every single bit of next gen games is covered + aigea physics..and whole game coded straight in to such a easy JavaScript..and covering both Windows and MAC platform and web too ;)
Unity looks nice also, but I dont have a Mac. so ill have to pass on that for now. (but from the screens its looks pretty streamlined)
I havent even tried BV RC2 , so ill comment on that after playing with it.
(Ive already commented to you about RC1) ;)
The only reason I still use B3d is becuase im comfortable with it (Like I was with Rad, but eventually you have to move on.)
and its not like I need or could even take advantage of the latest and greatest , "Next gen engines need Next Gen art assets".
Sam
I havent even tried BV RC2 , so ill comment on that after playing with it.
(Ive already commented to you about RC1) ;)
The only reason I still use B3d is becuase im comfortable with it (Like I was with Rad, but eventually you have to move on.)
and its not like I need or could even take advantage of the latest and greatest , "Next gen engines need Next Gen art assets".
Sam
I've just downlaoded Torque Game Builder. It looks very solid but I'm not convinced. I'm just curious...
...absolutey every single bit of next gen games is covered...
Well, whilst unity is good there are for sure a lot of things still missing in the current release. But maybe you come from the future and just use a different version than the current one...
..yes..I did warp jump in to future and come back to let you know its worth buyng...happy now??
@Naughty Alien
Ohh forbear with me. I'm just one of these old guys who is used to say great when he actually means great and okayish when he means okayish...
Unity is good but it's not just that perfect already like you make it sound like.
Ohh forbear with me. I'm just one of these old guys who is used to say great when he actually means great and okayish when he means okayish...
Unity is good but it's not just that perfect already like you make it sound like.
@Taumel
I do apologize if i sound a bit hard..but as i can see, Unity is really everything you need in order to produce hi end looking game, if we are talking about game engine..here is some screeines..
http://unity3d.com/gallery/main/index.html
few shots from WWDC Demo is really good...
I do apologize if i sound a bit hard..but as i can see, Unity is really everything you need in order to produce hi end looking game, if we are talking about game engine..here is some screeines..
http://unity3d.com/gallery/main/index.html
few shots from WWDC Demo is really good...
No i disagree. I know that on unity beeing a fanboy seems to be pretty cool but it simple doesn't help with the facts. A little bit more constructive critics and so pushing the product into the right direction would help much more.
I dunno how much you are into unity but there a quite some important things missing. You could write pages here so i just pick up a few which pop into my mind like all the next gen physics stuff is still missing in unity (fluids, aigea cards support), not even concave collisions work properly. The javascript implementation isn't good due to that it's undocumeted mix out of ecma javascript, their own classes and what .net supports. The docs are unfinished. A lot of the shaders lack proper fallbacks for low range cards like the 9200er whilst others aren't implemented properly yet so that you can't use them for production. No portals, 16bit mesh limit, no streaming, no real shadows, no windows ide. Coding in a texteditor again without any stuff like code completion, function folding and things like that. No real debugging, variable inspector, performance measurements and so on...i really could detail and continue till you get the idea that unity is the worst crap ever seen which obviously is not the case. But please be honest and think about what you're saying first.
Unity is a nice piece of software which with a v2 if otee takes the next steps into the right direction comes close to what you've written in your posting.
Regards,
taumel
I dunno how much you are into unity but there a quite some important things missing. You could write pages here so i just pick up a few which pop into my mind like all the next gen physics stuff is still missing in unity (fluids, aigea cards support), not even concave collisions work properly. The javascript implementation isn't good due to that it's undocumeted mix out of ecma javascript, their own classes and what .net supports. The docs are unfinished. A lot of the shaders lack proper fallbacks for low range cards like the 9200er whilst others aren't implemented properly yet so that you can't use them for production. No portals, 16bit mesh limit, no streaming, no real shadows, no windows ide. Coding in a texteditor again without any stuff like code completion, function folding and things like that. No real debugging, variable inspector, performance measurements and so on...i really could detail and continue till you get the idea that unity is the worst crap ever seen which obviously is not the case. But please be honest and think about what you're saying first.
Unity is a nice piece of software which with a v2 if otee takes the next steps into the right direction comes close to what you've written in your posting.
Regards,
taumel
another time jumper... like me...
unfortunately, by coming back and telling what you've seen in the future, you've changed the timeline that you are currently part of...
so, the future that you visited is no longer available to you from this point on, and the future that you are heading towards may not necessarily be the future that you envisaged in your journey...
the only way that you can ever visit that future would be to go back in time, before the point at which you came back and told people what you saw... and still, now you have one additional timeline to choose from...
requiring an infinitely more precise set of calculations to arrive at...
i'm sure you're aware that Red Ocktober's Law Of Time Travel says, the more timelines at a particular branch, the more complex the departure calculations for the 11th dimensional positioning and orientation of the departure vector...
also...
the governing body for the enforcement of Heinlein's Rules For Temporal Movement would definitely revoke your time travel license if they found out that you were coming back and revealing information about the future you've just visited, or worse, if you brought something back...
you do have a license, don't you NA...
--Mike
unfortunately, by coming back and telling what you've seen in the future, you've changed the timeline that you are currently part of...
so, the future that you visited is no longer available to you from this point on, and the future that you are heading towards may not necessarily be the future that you envisaged in your journey...
the only way that you can ever visit that future would be to go back in time, before the point at which you came back and told people what you saw... and still, now you have one additional timeline to choose from...
requiring an infinitely more precise set of calculations to arrive at...
i'm sure you're aware that Red Ocktober's Law Of Time Travel says, the more timelines at a particular branch, the more complex the departure calculations for the 11th dimensional positioning and orientation of the departure vector...
also...
the governing body for the enforcement of Heinlein's Rules For Temporal Movement would definitely revoke your time travel license if they found out that you were coming back and revealing information about the future you've just visited, or worse, if you brought something back...
you do have a license, don't you NA...
--Mike
Actually to visit the past would require destruction of all the energy that created the past to the subjective present... therefore to travel BACK in time you would have to destroy the universe as it has been created BACK to that point... Every thing that ever happened between point A (subjective now / START of journey to past) and point B (desired destination / End of prospective journey) would have to be de created and the quantum energy from those points removed... then equalized... The traveller would be more radioactive than bulk pounds of plutonium to the people of the past and lo... if he had a cold... no good!!!
that would seem to be a logic assumption based on a 3D only world in which time is viewed as a moving, single 'threaded' medium, as most people believe...
this is not actually the case though... there is no such thing as time... the term is only used as a reference here... the continuum is multi dimensional... and the 'past' exists in the same manner as the future... the only thing that does not exist is the present...
hard to conceive of, and even hard to calculate from a 3 dimensional only awareness...
NA obviously is aware of the other 8 'dimensions' that form the basis of the 3 dimesnional/time based illusion that is the prison that most of us are trapped in...
much like the thousands of years man had no realization of the possibility of flight... that the earth was indeed not the center of the universe... the earth was round... stuff like that...
nothing in nature is destroyed... especially energy... it is converted, but never destroyed...
--Mike
this is not actually the case though... there is no such thing as time... the term is only used as a reference here... the continuum is multi dimensional... and the 'past' exists in the same manner as the future... the only thing that does not exist is the present...
hard to conceive of, and even hard to calculate from a 3 dimensional only awareness...
NA obviously is aware of the other 8 'dimensions' that form the basis of the 3 dimesnional/time based illusion that is the prison that most of us are trapped in...
much like the thousands of years man had no realization of the possibility of flight... that the earth was indeed not the center of the universe... the earth was round... stuff like that...
nothing in nature is destroyed... especially energy... it is converted, but never destroyed...
--Mike
You guys have obviously never watched "Time Cop". ;)
Anyway.. back to topic..
I've looked at the demo of TGB. I can see how it would turn off people used to procedural programming. Those not enamoured with the "Event trigger" and method overridable aspects of Object Oriented programming will be particularly lost.
Many have argued that TGB is an "engine" and not a programming language. This is somewhat true, but TGB is abstract and "black box" enough that your game isn't just going to look and play like "Tribes" with a slight modification if you want to do something completely original. TGB is focussed on 2D with some 3Dish hardware accellerated special effects features thrown in for good measure. Not at all unlike BlitzMax, actually.
It borrows quite heavily from the concepts of open source scripting languages such as Python and Perl in the effect that you get fairly decent performance out of it, but if you really want certain processor intensive concepts to work, you need to get your hands dirty and write a C++ extension.
The complaint I have about this is, when you roll your own code, future "official" upgrades may conflict with what you wrote. You're left with broken code that you have to fix, or do some other way.
Actual programming... The best comparison I can come up with about TGB is that its very similar to WinForm programming in .Net, except the "code-behind" is completely decoupled from the "form editor" (you have to use Notepad or some other editor)
Basically, you drop "controls" to the "form", and override the pre-defined events by opening up a text editor and writing the over-ride functions. (Very much how you'd code an OnClick event on a button in Visual Basic). You then hook up the function libraries you've written to the main function, and off it goes.
And of course, the syntax of the actual coding is somewhere between C++ and C#/Java. So if you're not thrilled with that idea, it's also going to turn you off.
I personally see a lot of pontential here if they can make the "code-behind" integration a little cleaner and standardized. As it is now, it's not a very elegant implementation, and definitely something you'd have to get used to if you're spoiled by more integrated environments such as Visual Studio. Also, if the "scripts" were compiled to native code (even if it's a JIT type of compilation), it would mostly eliminate the need to modify the source code.
The only other gripe I have is a fairly minor one: The file extension the script files are expected to use clashes with another very popular programming language. It would be nice if this was configurable, or they started using something else.
For 2D applications, this is a fairly solid solution, and from what I've seen, the tech support and community is pretty competent and involved.
I've heard plenty of gripes about the 3D side of it, but that's likely to be true of any 3D engine. Coding a 3D engine/language is such an investment in time and research that by the time you release anything stable, it's often several versions behind in DirectX and OpenGL and the newest, snazziest capabilities aren't so new anymore. That's certainly been the case for Blitz as well.
Anyway.. back to topic..
I've looked at the demo of TGB. I can see how it would turn off people used to procedural programming. Those not enamoured with the "Event trigger" and method overridable aspects of Object Oriented programming will be particularly lost.
Many have argued that TGB is an "engine" and not a programming language. This is somewhat true, but TGB is abstract and "black box" enough that your game isn't just going to look and play like "Tribes" with a slight modification if you want to do something completely original. TGB is focussed on 2D with some 3Dish hardware accellerated special effects features thrown in for good measure. Not at all unlike BlitzMax, actually.
It borrows quite heavily from the concepts of open source scripting languages such as Python and Perl in the effect that you get fairly decent performance out of it, but if you really want certain processor intensive concepts to work, you need to get your hands dirty and write a C++ extension.
The complaint I have about this is, when you roll your own code, future "official" upgrades may conflict with what you wrote. You're left with broken code that you have to fix, or do some other way.
Actual programming... The best comparison I can come up with about TGB is that its very similar to WinForm programming in .Net, except the "code-behind" is completely decoupled from the "form editor" (you have to use Notepad or some other editor)
Basically, you drop "controls" to the "form", and override the pre-defined events by opening up a text editor and writing the over-ride functions. (Very much how you'd code an OnClick event on a button in Visual Basic). You then hook up the function libraries you've written to the main function, and off it goes.
And of course, the syntax of the actual coding is somewhere between C++ and C#/Java. So if you're not thrilled with that idea, it's also going to turn you off.
I personally see a lot of pontential here if they can make the "code-behind" integration a little cleaner and standardized. As it is now, it's not a very elegant implementation, and definitely something you'd have to get used to if you're spoiled by more integrated environments such as Visual Studio. Also, if the "scripts" were compiled to native code (even if it's a JIT type of compilation), it would mostly eliminate the need to modify the source code.
The only other gripe I have is a fairly minor one: The file extension the script files are expected to use clashes with another very popular programming language. It would be nice if this was configurable, or they started using something else.
For 2D applications, this is a fairly solid solution, and from what I've seen, the tech support and community is pretty competent and involved.
I've heard plenty of gripes about the 3D side of it, but that's likely to be true of any 3D engine. Coding a 3D engine/language is such an investment in time and research that by the time you release anything stable, it's often several versions behind in DirectX and OpenGL and the newest, snazziest capabilities aren't so new anymore. That's certainly been the case for Blitz as well.
NA... i've looked at Unity a while back... something about it that struck me in a negative light... plus, it didn't have any networking...
Sam... it's not just you... the collision is a lil funny in DBPro... as for the shaders, try and add a lil fog to your scene with shadered stuff...
if DB would fix up these things i'd license their upcoming sdk, but so far, it looks like BMax will be out before that happens...
:)
--Mike
Sam... it's not just you... the collision is a lil funny in DBPro... as for the shaders, try and add a lil fog to your scene with shadered stuff...
if DB would fix up these things i'd license their upcoming sdk, but so far, it looks like BMax will be out before that happens...
:)
--Mike