Cobra?

Just wondered if anyone tried Cobra out when it was released? I know that there was a lot of hype about it before it came out but since then I have heard nothing.

I had a little look at their site and it looks quite good but you have to register to try the demo. Is it worth it?

Jason.

I have bought it. But i haven't tried it until now ;) Too much work with my b3D project. but i would suggest to register and try the demo. registering is free, so why wait?

For 5 mins of your life, definitely, and sqeakyduck dont spam, so your safe in the knowledge its a one off sign up deal.

As for people who have used Cobra, I personally havent given it much time, but Steve Elliot wrote quite a bit of stuff in it, so grab him (If he doesnt reply here, you can always visit SyntaxBomb as he's a regular poster there)

Dabz

Feel free to try the demo, as mentioned above I don't send out spam (and would destroy the user database rather than sell/pass it to someone who would).

The requirement to register is purely down to self protection, after someone tried to rack up a huge bandwidth bill for me by initiating 10,000+ downloads of the demo.

I bought Cobra and the 3d module when they were first released, but due to university commitments I haven't had as much time as I'd like to play around with them. However, I'd say that Cobra is a highly promising language, and, in terms of its features and the feel of the language, it very much resembles my ideal "Blitz3d 2".

The author of Cobra (our "own" GrahamK) is pretty fantastic at communicating with his users. In my experience, he always seems to reply promptly to queries on the forums, and this is very refreshing and encouraging.

I hope that the online community over at squeakyduck will develop. The message forums there are pretty quiet, reflecting, I suspect, the small user-base.

Having said all this, the 3d module is not quite mature yet (in my opinion), but it's well on its way to being so. Many of the issues that people - myself included -face tend to be due to flakey OpenGL support on the part of video card drivers (yes, ATI, I'm looking at you!).

Cobra is nice, however if you've tested it, it's a combination of Graphics32+GLScene+Audiere and other free libs etc, that you can do in FreePascal/Lazarus for free.

Anyway Pure2D is pertty good for games that don't require any hardware accleration, and it just works.

I'd suggest PlayBasic if you want to wet your hands with actual game creation.

However Kevin, author of PlayBasic, isn't very friendly especially when you have some very basic questions.... he's pretty active and keep shaperning the power of PlayBasic, it's a good and low cost investiment.

I won't post much more to this thread (as people know my stance on plugging Cobra on a blitz forum), but to correct the above statement.



While it does use those components, it is a lot more than just a few libraries plugged together. While it is possible to use freepascal/lazarus in that way, Cobra brings it all together to make it a lot easier to write games. People who are from a pascal/delphi background will probably find it easier to use the libraries directly (and would get access to more features) but it would be a longer road than using cobra.

I keep floating between Blitz3D SDK and cobra but if I were to pick which one is better I would deffo say Cobra3D.

Reasons are it's alot like Blitz3D and has shaders, shadows and all the things that are missing from Blitz3D.

Cobra just needs a little extra lovin and some more members and it'll get even better.

My 2p anyways. :)

In my opinion it often sounds a little bit over the top insightful when someone doesn't want to talk about another 3d product in this topic as the topic description says:

"A forum for general discussion about computers, technology, videogames and related topics."

I prefer seeing this from a developers perspective and therefore beeing able to talk about different technologies i'm using if the subject comes up and makes sense. This is not about dragging people away and harming BRL, this is about sharing information.

@GrahamK

I'm not mention is good/bad or something etc, as Cobra is a stand-alone language that has it's own syntax/lib.

Cobra simplifies thing is undoubtely helpful, just has to clearify its components and let users know much time is saved when they choose it.

I'd say PlayBasic is based on BlitzPlus with some magic(RoTo and AlphaBlending), both are worth a try and made something very good.

However, Graham, I think demo version should open to public, that's a way to help the sale especially when it's not submitted to many portals yet.

taumel,
I agree with your comments, but as the author of Cobra, I really don't think it's right me posting too much about it on Marks forum. In general I prefer people to ask about Cobra on the Cobra forum...

I have Cobra3D.

It has built-in 3D trees.

I think it might be the only programming app, of its type, in the world with built-in 3D trees.

A complete Command reference is missing IMHO. The "Features" list sounds good, but doesn't say much in detail. Also, it's a shame there ain't no better screenies in the gallery when it has shaders and shadows etc.

I agree. In fact, documentation and advertising has been particularly poor so far.

..i agree with jfk..quite some time ago, I use to ask on Cobra3D forum, exactly explanation regarding features list what was very short and pretty much general, and at the end of list staying 'AND MUCH MORE'...so I wanted to know what does it mean, but answer never came, as well as me on that forums..

Cobra seems to be a good product but i think that the Cobra website deserve it. It should be redesigned with more interesting.screenshoots, compiled samples, news...

Cobra certainly has a lot of amazing and powerful features.

CreateSphere (for example):

Function CreateSphere([radius:real],[stacks:integer],[slices:integer],[astart:integer],[astop:integer],[top:integer],[bottom:integer],
[caps:integer],[parent:element]):element

Parameters
radius : Real - (Optional) Oveall radius of the sphere
stacks : Integer - (Optional) Number of horizontal slices used to create the sphere
slices : Integer - (Optional) Number of vertical segments used to create the sphere
astart : Integer - (Optional) Starting angle (if you don't want a full sphere)
astop : Integer - (Optional) Ending angle (if you don't want a ful sphere)
top : Integer - (Optional) Top angle, allowing you to create a sphere with a flattened top
bottom : Integer - (Optional) Bottom angle, allowing you to create a sphere with a flat base
caps : Integer - (Optional) Include end caps (if top / bottom are flattened)
parent : Element - (Optional) Optional parent
This function returns a element])

Similar thing here. I think some of the questions I asked were answered in one of the private forums, which didn't help me much.

That's the site logo for Cobra, it causing big contrast to affect the feel of Cobra, if possible, revamp the site should bring more sales.

I have Cobra3D and in my opinion it is what Blitz3D2 should have been. I think if it had more demos highlighting its strengths and capabilities its user base would grow quite substantially. Also, future versions of Cobra will include an in-built physics library which is definitely a bonus.

....and a BIG PLUS, the author does communicate with his user base.

It's between cobra and minib3d for me. Still choosing :o) Probably will go the way of cobra though. I do agree there is a lack of example and demo's to really show off cobra.

OK, I`ve tried the demo and although the language looks nice and the features also sound good the demos ran at a snails pace on my machine which is a little old now but still runs most things pretty well.

I have read that this is probably because the demo locks the user into windowed mode, enables debug mode only and uses Pure2D (not hardware accelerated) for the demos but seeing as I want to use it mainly for 2D at the moment I cannot really make an informed decision based on the small amount of demos that it has.

Really I need to seem some .exe`s of the hardware accelerated 2D in action but I cannot find any :(

It seems a shame as otherwise I would definetly have liked to have bought it. The major selling point for me of Blitz3D was that the demos were pretty damn good and showed just what could be achieved with the language.

People need to see what something is capable of before parting with their hard earned cash.

Jason.

yea, imho cobra is a good product. It really needs a relaunch, new website and new demo policy (crippling the speed of exes made in the demo is crazy).

So much work has gone into it, and it addresses a lot of the features we want in blitz3d2, that it seems a shame its not bigger than it is.

A factor here is that I don't see Cobra as a threat to Blitz. Any Blitz users here, who buy Cobra, have bought Blitz anyway.

I bought Cobra - I still use Blitz3D (I currently prefer the familiarity of Blitz3D). Everybody wins.

People who buy Cobra, will become aware of Blitz.

It is the circle of life.

QS,

Here is a link of a Cobra2d program I did:

<address removed>HexTest.exe

I just converted a BLITZ2d example that was posted here, but I add a few extras.

Jason

ps - let me know if you would like the link

Here is a Cobra3d Hexfield as well:

<address removed>3dhexfield.exe

Jason

ps - let me know if you would like the link

that was Cool Jason W

I tried the demo version and it looks indeed very promising and feels sympatic to me.
But like BMax(3D modules) it seems there is still much to do. Due to some posts in his forum, compatibility isn't at Blitz3D level yet.
So I'm staying with good old Blitz and all its problems right now.

Oooh, the Cobra forums are offline.

I wonder what is going on?