is Minib3d worth to use?

Okay so I'm really picky when it comes to unofficial modules.
So i know that Blitz3D is capabile to make a really great 3D game, Bmax the same(for 2d games) but can Bmax and Minib3d be used to make a great 3d game(i'm talking about performances)
I saw on the examples that on Bmax the fps was 60 while on B3d it was around 900 but i guess that was because of the hertz of the graphics function.
Anyway is it worth?

Currently simon is implemnting a lot of speedincreasing stuff and collisions to minib3d (will be available in a couple of weeks).
Currently minib3d isn't as fast as B3D (from what I've heard) but as said above their was/is only a simple culling routine called before rendering so the rendering isn't optimized yet.

But all at all I would say yes minib3d is already able to run a large game.(don't forget the power of OOP in BMax ;) )

It's certainly nice to use.
I would recommend that you be ready to play with the engine yourself as well. It's really nicely organized and easy to understand, so it's possible to make changes and additions fairly easily.

A good thing is that by the time anything big is finished with it, the engine may have some pretty good changes under the hood :)


I'm using MiniB3D for a project which ties in with a physics engine for all of the collisions stuff so I don't have to worry about collisions being missing from the core. (Its design also doesn't need too much in the way of culling systems, so the current engine works pretty well).

It's not completely unofficial. Mark is backing it and does help with questions from time time to time. I'm a member of BR too, so think of it as semi-official.

I'd say you can make games with it now and it will only get better so yes, worth it.

I would say its worth it, will be more so when the collision is added ;)

im currently using it for Hunted's editor, the entire game is being completely recoded in BlitzMax so I can port to any platform I want :)

If you have Bmax, and you want to do a 3d game, then you cannot go far wrong than use MinD3B. As has been said the nature of Wrapping means that even if you change to a different engine, or Max3d comes out, you will quite eserly slot the new engine into your project.

To explain more. The B3D commands that MiniB3D presents you with, are not the MiniB3D engine. These commands lie ontop of the type/Object definitions that Simonh has written. There is at least one other unofficial mode that also does this, and the first thing that will become available for Max3d when it comes out will almost certainly be a wrapper to make it look like B3d. (A sort of MiniMaxB3D if you will)

I never really understood this whole concept of encapsulation until I saw how simonH and Gman had basicly given me exactly the same commands but with totaly different base engines.

Sanctus,
I understand completely where you are coming from. I do not want to use software that is buggy, unreliable and unproven. I don't want to be in a situation where my hard work gets broken because of some oversight on the part of the programmer. That is why I suggest Using MinB3D on MacOS, Linux or WinXP (not Vista!)

What about Gman's Irlicht-Wrapper? I never quit understood the important difference between those two, only that Mark favors minib3d. Shouldn't the Irrlicht-Wrapper be more powerful? Is the B3D implementation more complete with minib3d? Could someone please be so kind to clarify some points? What about Vista? Questions over questions :)

Well, Irrlicht and MiniB3D are very different engines.
I, for one, do really like GMan's Irrlicht wrapper, but I decided against using it because my project is rather unconventional in terms of what it does and doesn't do.

Irrlicht is a big engine, and because of that it feels clunky to me unless I'm doing something equally big. I think the "clunky" feeling is contributed to largely by the various automated things that shouldn't be automated, such as the "rotate this every frame" command and the "make me a camera that works like a first-person shooter camera" command which nobody in their right mind would use.

I imagine that with a bit more exploration I would have used it in the end, but that's the other thing: MiniB3D, as the name implies, is young and little. Because of that, it is really easy to understand because no nut has yet come along and contributed a broken 3DS loader.
(Unfortunately, that's the thing that hurt Irrlicht for me, though I understand that its file loading has much improved since my attempts).

I'll get back to the important difference: gg.Irrlicht is a wrapper, while MiniB3D is powered by the raw power of BlitzMax. (Also, it's easy to make changes to the core engine of MiniB3D, but to change anything other than the wrapper for something like gg.Irrlicht or SOW is extremely bothersome).
Also, Irrlicht is nicely cross-platform now but that cross-platformness isn't as tidy as with something built in straight BlitzMax. For example, in BlitzMax we can just move to a Mac and compile and it will run, while with Irrlicht we also need to acquire the Mac libraries for Irrlicht. (Not terrible, but worth noting).

Anyway, no intent to bash gg.Irrlicht here! Irrlicht is a fantastic engine, and there is definietly a difference in feature set. Irrlicht currently does a lot more and has existed for a lot longer (which doesn't hurt much either) :)

But if you use IrrB3d, (Gmans equivelent of MiniB3d), you are given the same commands as mini B3d. So it is as complex as MiniB3D is.
Also Gman is at the moment working on IrrB3D to be a more complete B3D wrapper.

The Main point is that when MiniB3D and IrrB3d are finished they can be interchanged.

I agree totaly with Mr PussyCat, Irrlicht just doesnt feel like a BRL engine, whilst MiniB3d does, this is no reflection on Gman, because it works nearly exactly like it does in C++, to the point were you can follow the C++ Tutorials. However to say MiniB3D is soly powered by Bmax, hides the fact that it is useing the OPenGL commands, something a lot of people (well me) avoid.

If you want to help with an engine then MiniB3D is the one to help with. To the point that impixi posted bug the other day, and he and I were able to fix it ourselves within an hour, something I know I couldnt do with Irrlicht. However, if Gman lives up to his previous trackrecord then IrrB3D will be a contender in the Bmax 3d looking like B3D stakes.

The Basic point that Im taking a realy long time just to say again, is that IrrB3D will be a more complete wrapper before MiniB3D. Unless we all help with writing MiniB3D. This is because Gman only has to wrap an existing engine, whilst simonH has to write the commands, and then wrap them. However in the end they should have the same command set. Neither at the moment is complete, and they lack different stuff.

So, for me, as no former B3D user, it doesn't really matter what I use? How was the Irrlicht-Wrapper coded, was it completely coded in Bmax or with c++? I ask, because I hate investigating time and then suddenly the project is abandoned. Should I make myself comfortable with the B3D style or the Irrlicht way?

In terms of helping, I'm afraid I'm more a 3D modeler than a 3D programmer so I would refrain myself to be a user ;)

Some long times ago I read simonh stating that he didn't want MiniB3D becoming a complete replacement of B3D and that he would only go so far that he could use it for his projects, is this still actual?

The Irrlicht Engine is I belive in C++. The Irrlicht wrapper is writen in Bmax.
I cannot see how Irrlicht 1.2 needs to be added to, so as far as Im concerned its finished.

@H&K, I didn't mean Irrlicht but how simonh is wanting to go with the implementation of the B3D commands.

@Barbapapa oh, Ill answer the next bit then
As Ive said, when Irrb3d is finished they will be the same way

Thx for the answears guys!
I'll start by learning how to use MiniB3D(wich wonth be hard as I'm a former B3D user) and then learn Opengl on bmax and then Opengl on C++