will the 3d module be user friendly
BlitzMax Forums/BlitzMax Beginners Area/will the 3d module be user friendly
| ||
| and when i mean user friendly i mean easy like i can't hardly wait until it gets out the best thing woulde be if the commands was like in blitz3d woulde be easy to port games all ready made and demos |
| ||
| the question is when are we gonna get it |
| ||
| How do you measure whether something is user-friendly? Short answer: You can't - because users are different. |
| ||
| He defined what he meant by user-friendly. It would be possible to measure the module against that, at least, then provide him an answer. No matter how pedantic you are, there's always someone "pedanticer" :D |
| ||
| I'd consider Blitz3D and its entity system pretty user friendly. Certainly takes a lot of the mystery away and allows you to prototype concepts fast. And also really easy to read. Hope the 3d module works out to be like an extension of blitz3D with a more versatile 3D format. Look forward to seeing any news on this too :) |
| ||
| The 3D module will mostly likely be both an extention of Blitz3D and a more versatile 3D format, actually. Now that we're dealing with OpenGL instead of DirectX a lot of things will have to be different. Add the cross-platform functionality and it's probably going to be a little bit more sophisticated than Blitz3D. Really no need to worry as we already have Blitz3D on Windows. If you want to start using it on Linux and Mac OS X, there's where the anxiousness sets in. |
| ||
| I'm anxious as there's poor GL compatibility on older video cards, about 25% failure with openGL 1.2 I read somewhere, and quite a few pc developers dopped back to 1.1. Things gt frustrated even more when you start trying to use pixel and vertex shaders, so I'm excited but anxious at the moment. Also been reading that the mac profitability is starting to decline asmore and more indies start supporting it, and the market starts to become more saturated with games. So it's no longer an untapped market and competition fiercer than it once was. |
| ||
| 2004 PC market share figures from here: http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=10626 For Q4 2004: Intel - 40% ATI - 27% Nvidia - 18% Others - 15% But for desktop PCs it's: ATI - 51% Nvidia - 46% Others - 3% (Intel have a massive hold over the laptop market) Now, providing you can persuade your users to upgrade their drivers, you won't have a problem with ATI or Nvidia's OpenGL support. Also, Intel's and SIS's more recent cards are fine too. In general it's the "old" (2yrs+) integrated ones you have to look out for. If you're targeting your 3D game at 3D gamers, the chances are they'll have a card that will work. If you're targeting your 3D game at 2D gamers, it might not. I can't really see any example of glmax2d using any OpenGL 1.2 features; from what I can tell it only uses the OpenGL 1.0 feature set. It certainly doesn't use glew, which would mean that it's limited to OpenGL 1.1 on Windows systems. I imagine you'll at least need an OpenGL 1.5 graphics card (DirectX 8-level) to run the 3D module. |
| ||
| He defined what he meant by user-friendly. Yes. But I fail to see how it's release date has any aspect of user friendlyness. No matter how pedantic you are, there's always someone "pedanticer" :D Except it's "more pedantic" :o> I'd consider Blitz3D and its entity system pretty user friendly. Well the entity system is a pragmatic way of expressing the object oriented paradigm in procedural terms, I don't think you'll have anything to worry about.Mark has religiously (in some cases to the point of absurdity, IMHO) tried to wrap up all this black magic that object orientation appearently is, into a simplified, mostly logical regular programming language to make it more accessible to all the hackers out there who are not inclined to use object oriented principles. I don't see why this philosophy should change significantly. As for being "Blitz3D with a better format" it's hard to say. Mark has previously stated that ideally, he wants a state of the art 3D engine (whatever that means) for BlitzMAX. So it's no longer an untapped market and competition fiercer than it once was. Affraid of a little competition are we? :o> |
| ||
| not really worried about competition, but maybe the competition to Blitzmax. As an artist I'd prefer a good engine thats got broad compatibility and idealy would prefer a D3D engine for no fuss reliability and better industry support from middleware tool sand library developers. The figures I posted were from indie developers that made games like outpost kaloki. who were surprised at just how poor GL support was and had to drop back from 1.2 to get optimim compatibility. Neither Nvidia or Ati support GL developers very well, allthough Nvidia's drivers are good and far superior to ATI's. |
| ||
| Im hoping the 3d module will have at least some of the following: - morph targets/vertex animtion (without hacking the bone system to get it to work) - ODE (or other cross platform) physics - better collisions, moving platforms/do-nothing/etc - Shadows kthx - Particle system - COllection of generic shaders (aswell as the ability to use custom shaders) - 5.1 / EAX sound support and so on... The most important part will be the physics... imho |
| ||
| Morph targets & vertex animation should be pretty easy for us to do ourselves. Why should the 3D module have physics? I really think this isn't the job of the 3D renderer module. Not least cos it ties you into one physics engine. I think I agree with just about everything else. But, from previous conversations with Mark I'd be surprised if we get a particle system. Just speculation, don't hurt me. |
| ||
| Yeah the 3d module woulde only be 3d and don't have any physics shaders is important!.And better collision shadowing yes |
| ||
| I agree, the 3d engine shouldn't have physics. however, I'm hoping due to teh opensource and oopness, somone could write a physics engine/interface that directly taps into the renderer, so its done automagically. might have to mod the 3d engine slightly though... not quite sure. Twould be cool if you could inherit the 3d renderer class however call it the same thing, in effexct adding a few commands to the render function without actually changing the module. or something. Mark could make a cheap little physics module or someat (not cheap as in quality, cheap as in money wise).. Unless mark is writing a full blown game engine, most of those things don't fit. for instance, particle system, collisions. Not saying it shouldn't have it though. Perhaps if we refer to it as a 3d game engine, imho all those things fit. Maybe even some extras like a HUD, some auto-camera things, for instance, rather than writing your own camera code, it'd simply built in - unless you wanted something exceptional. You could for instance, select a mario 64 style camera, and the camera would only move if it had to, and move smoothly at that. For instance: Types and constructors: Type Camera Extends Entity Type MarioCamera Extends Camera Function Create:MarioCamera(target:Entity, speed#, smoothing#) Type MouseCamera Extends Camera Function Create:MouseCamera(smoothing#) 'Camera that you move around with the mouse Type SplineCamera Extends Camera Function Create:SplineCamera(path:spline) 'follow a set of bezier or cubic curves :) Type ThirdPersonCamera Extends Camera Function Create:ThirdPersonCamera(target:Entity, distance#, angle#) Perhaps more... Other game engine features could be stuff like a map format that holds emmitters, entitys, all that good stuff, and comes with an editor. Oi, and imho, the 3d engine should be ooped, since a 3d engine is just plain asking for it. As has been done with many brl mods, I'm sure that mark will provide functional forms that access the types. |
| ||
| I'll certainly be using ODE with the the new engine when it's released. I'm sure it shouldn't be that difficult to integrate. As for shadows, Marks' already said that they're already in and very robust. Incidentally, we've had no syncmod updates for a while and many people were predicting a release date in early March. Here's hoping :) |
| ||
| Well physics go hand in hand with 3d nowadays. If your looking to make a state of the art 3d engine, it would be good to at least include a physics module in that package. How else is bmax going to compete with all the other new "easy" languages that are popping up, and have all these bells and whistles. |
| ||
| I do not think that you will see any addon modules for BlitzMax until after all the versions have been debugged and release. Like we are still waitng for the release of the Win32. Enjoy |
| ||
| Well physics go hand in hand with 3d nowadays. Physics and rendering are completely different things and I think they should be kept separate. But there will be an ODE module and it will work with the 3D engine. |
| ||
| I'm hoping for better collisions, for physics there are allready many solutions avaliable and a lot of talented coders to implement them. One of blitz major failings was the lack collisions between animated objects. I'm mostly interested in getting the core functionality of a 3D render engine, and a rhobust commandset like Blitz3D has. I would like to see some improved occlusion methods that work with arbitrary collision meshes, rather than tying people down to specific ways of creating art assets. I think thats my major concern as an artist. Getting stuck with in built level editors that don't offer the kind of flexibility I need are exactly what I don't want. I imagine it will be some time before decent exporters become avaliable that support the native bmax 3d format with the kind of features pipeline has though :( |
| ||
| Incidentally, we've had no syncmod updates for a while and many people were predicting a release date in early March. Here's hoping :) For what? The 3D module, or the Windows and Linux versions of "regular" BlitzMAX? If it's the former, which year? I'm hoping for better collisions, for physics there are allready many solutions avaliable and a lot of talented coders to implement them. One of blitz major failings was the lack collisions between animated objects. From what I understand, it's a bit hard to keep "collision" and "physics" seperated, as one relies on the other. It'll be interesting to follow the development, that's for sure... |
| ||
| I whant 3d module now! getting board of 2dmodule allready have blitz+ b3d whant to try new opengl engine whant to make nice 3d game having shaders and kick darkbasicpro butt witch i also have i am finding a path here i am never going to get satisfied! what ever i get pleas mark code 3d mod now |
| ||
| I won't program too seriously with BMax until the 3D module is out. I'm sure Mark has learned more than most of us what needs to go into the new engine and I am not expecting to be disappointed ;) |
| ||
| I think BlitzMax would be EXTREMELY useful if it could be compatible with B3D files. Because I just bought Particle Candy, and I it would be great if it would work with BlitzMax. |
| ||
 Looks like good news. Note: There is no signature. Meaning, uhm, I did not draw that disgraceful thing. |
| ||
| I take it the new box=CreateFriendlyBox() function is in then? |
| ||
| I want a CreateHalfLife2() and a CreateCoolGame() command so I can make cool games and stuff and lots of 3D stuff and physics system would be sweet don't forget reflections and mmorpg support so I can make the greatest online game ever oh and please give me much manlove. |
| ||
| I'm already putting in a special request for CreateMMORPG () so nobody else asks me "hi i wanna make a MMPROG how do u mak a MMPORG!!!!1"... |
| ||
| What I want to know is will a clone of Mark be shipping with BlitxMax 3d module, it would be only fair if you throwed in a helper clone that answers all questions and helps with game implemenation ;) |
| ||
| I'm already putting in a special request for CreateMMORPG () so nobody else asks me "hi i wanna make a MMPROG how do u mak a MMPORG!!!!1"... Th4t woult be awsom!!1!!!one!!!eleven!!!exclamationmark!!!1! ;-) |
| ||
| I agree with No Enemies about hoping BlitzMax's 3d module will have a high degree of compatibility with existing Blitz3d code. I've bought a number of code libraries over the last year, have modified them heavily, and hope there won't be too many wrinkles in converting them to Max (when the 3d module's out). Not to mention my game's large codebase which represents many long and often frustrating hours getting to grips with Blitz's brush/surface/mesh/vertex systems. |
| ||
| Yes compatibility with blitz3d code woulde be great it woulde be easy for every one to convert there softwares to blitzmax and the libs you have woulde work this woulde be great like paying one more time for like blitztree3d or blitzgrass3d woulde be a killer! Think about the terrible work coders woulde have to alter there games in to blitzmax code |
| ||
| Shouldn't hold back mark from making it oop as well though, and add interfaces the same as b3d.... |
   |