Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

PureGDK / PureGDK 2.0 to become DarkGDK 2.0

Author
Message
Mistrel
DarkGDK Developer
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2005
Location:
Posted: 8th May 2012 21:33 Edited at: 8th May 2012 21:36
This is just to give all of you guys a heads up. There have been a lot of things happening behind the scenes with PureGDK. Namely.. this official announcement that PureGDK 2.0 is to become the new DarkGDK 2.0.

What does this mean for the future of DarkGDK you might ask? I will eventually be taking over bug fixing and general support for the new DarkGDK product. The core engine has greatly matured over the years and I will endeavor to keep it running smoothly on future releases of Windows and make sure your applications continue to live on for years to come. In addition to maintaining stability, I still plan to eventually add support for additional languages as well. I'll also enjoy the new luxury of being able to add new features to the engine where I can; something I could not easily do in PureGDK.

DarkGDK will remain a stand-alone product and will be dropping the "upgrade" installer which has been used traditionally by PureGDK. This will greatly simplify the installation process for users by requiring them to install only a single product instead of two which has historically been a hindrance for new users.

For all current DarkGDK users, the old statically-linked version of DarkGDK will continue to be made available for the time being but will no longer receive further updates. DarkGDK users are encouraged to begin migrating to PureGDK in anticipation of the PureGDK-DarkGDK rebranding.

Issues which still need to be addressed:

* Will there be a discount for DarkGDK 2.0 for current DarkGDK users or will it be free?

* How will plugins be credited to user accounts for DarkGDK 2.0? (DarkGDK 2.0 plugins are different from DarkGDK 1.0 plugins)

Olby
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 8th May 2012 23:10 Edited at: 9th May 2012 02:33
Striking news! Looks like your going big.

ACER Aspire 5920G: Core2Duo 2.2GHZ, 2GB, GeForce 8600M GT 1280MB, Windows Vista Ultimate SP2, PureBasic 4.60 + PureGDK 2.0
WLGfx
10
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Nov 2007
Location: NW United Kingdom
Posted: 8th May 2012 23:31
Hmmm. This looks like bad news for those who have had to make do with just the free versions like myself who can't afford a bean and won't be able to for a long time. Even though there's only a handful who are in this position, for me it looks like the end of my days are due and a major switch is on the cards...

Not looking forward to it but preparing to bow out.

Mental arithmetic? Me? (That's for computers) I can't subtract a fart from a plate of beans!
Warning! May contain Nuts!
MrValentine
AGK Backer
6
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: Playing
Posted: 9th May 2012 02:10
Major OMG...

Robbie
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st May 2006
Location:
Posted: 9th May 2012 12:06
Will it retain its own licence that does not disallow the creation of certain types of software, such as game making applications, or will it take on the current restrictive DarkGDK licence?
McLaine
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2006
Location:
Posted: 9th May 2012 12:18
Sorry, I too chose DarkGDK because it was free.

Charge me for DarkGDK 2.0 and that will likely be the end for me and TGC.

I don't need any of the stuff you're selling PureGDK on.

It's not my fault!
Mistrel
DarkGDK Developer
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2005
Location:
Posted: 9th May 2012 13:06
Quote: "Will it retain its own licence that does not disallow the creation of certain types of software, such as game making applications, or will it take on the current restrictive DarkGDK licence?"


I will have to run this by TGC but I would not anticipate this to be a problem. The DarkGDK license most likely was meant to prevent people from taking DarkGDK and wrapping it up into their own "game making language/tool" that does the exact same thing and then selling it. Just don't do that.

FlexiCat
7
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jun 2010
Location:
Posted: 9th May 2012 14:24
Does this mean PureGDK 2.0 owners will get DarkGDK 2.0 free if its pretty much the same thing at this point?

I swear to the programmers bible that I shall not harm the FPS.
Robbie
11
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st May 2006
Location:
Posted: 9th May 2012 14:59
Quote: "I will have to run this by TGC but I would not anticipate this to be a problem. The DarkGDK license most likely was meant to prevent people from taking DarkGDK and wrapping it up into their own "game making language/tool" that does the exact same thing and then selling it. Just don't do that. "


Well, the DarkGDK licence, if I remember correctly, specifically stated that only games could be created with it.

Haha, that's not the intention, of course. What a waste of time that would be. My project is a tool along the lines of FPS Creator, though a different genre.
Mistrel
DarkGDK Developer
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2005
Location:
Posted: 9th May 2012 15:11 Edited at: 9th May 2012 15:12
Quote: "Does this mean PureGDK 2.0 owners will get DarkGDK 2.0 free if its pretty much the same thing at this point?"


This is correct. The transition will primarily be rebranding.

kamac
6
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Nov 2010
Location: Poland
Posted: 12th May 2012 12:31
Sorry but if it is going to keep it's price, I'm out.

Think of it this way:

Why would people pay 60$ (Or something around it) for DarkGDK, while it has:

-Stupid object creation (assign number to each object you create - this is sick. It should be replaced by classes)
-DirectX only - removing cross-compatibility

Their alternative will always be Ogre3d/Irrlicht which are cross-compatible, don't contain any object numbers and both are 100% free.

I don't want to be cruel or anything, but it's the truth. I would be happy to use DarkGDK 2.0 if there'd be OpenGL abstraction - but what's more important to me - getting rid of numering objects, which could be huge pain, but would help alot.
Currently I need to learn GLSL shaders, but DarkGDK nor PureGDK can't offer them, so I stick with Ogre..

Hope that you can fix those.



Follow me on twitter! @kamac496
Olby
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 12th May 2012 14:29
Quote: "-Stupid object creation (assign number to each object you create - this is sick. It should be replaced by classes)"


At the moment in PureGDK using C++ you would do this:
+ Code Snippet

As you can see object ID is assigned automatically and returned to you. Both in Irrlich and OGRE you also need to keep pointers to scene nodes. Don't see this as a problem.

ACER Aspire 5920G: Core2Duo 2.2GHZ, 2GB, GeForce 8600M GT 1280MB, Windows Vista Ultimate SP2, PureBasic 4.60 + PureGDK 2.0
Mistrel
DarkGDK Developer
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2005
Location:
Posted: 12th May 2012 14:37 Edited at: 12th May 2012 14:38
Quote: "Stupid object creation (assign number to each object you create - this is sick. It should be replaced by classes)"


Automatic ID allocation has been around in PureGDK for a while now. I'll be adding an OO wrapper on top of the engine later as this is not a priority for the first release. Since DarkGDK 2.0 will also try to replace DarkGDK.NET, this will happen.

Quote: "DirectX only - removing cross-compatibility"


DarkGDK 2.0 will retain the current DirectX implementation to preserve legacy applications and to ensure prolonged stability. The new design is to be portable cross-language not cross-platform and to be accessible to as many hobbyists as possible. These goals are different from that of other engines.

kamac
6
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Nov 2010
Location: Poland
Posted: 12th May 2012 17:48
That's all nice, but you sell PureGDK for 60$ (at your website) and you target hobbyists. Hobbyists prefer Ogre3d to PureGDK, because:
[- It's free

And that's the best in it. Another reason is that it supports both DX and OGL. If you want PureGDK to be sold properly, you need to either make it super-powerful (hard way) or to make it cross-compile (easy way). Why not to just add an abstraction?



Follow me on twitter! @kamac496
FlexiCat
7
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Jun 2010
Location:
Posted: 13th May 2012 11:29 Edited at: 13th May 2012 11:34
also i think a problem with making the object creation return the object directly is with cross language compatibility.

For instance my swig wrapper (with which i can test and prototype pureGDK things in python) would be much more complex if i had to also wrap each objects class and its methods in a way other languages can use.

By simply having basic functions and letting PureGDK alter the objects internally wrapping it for other languages is very simple.

If you want objects in other languages you could create a class in that language that has the id number built into it and give it the methods that object would have and pass through to the pureGDK functions and give the object id that is defined in the class automatically.

Short inaccurate(not the actual function names etc.) example for python (although im sure this can be done in any language):
+ Code Snippet

So by not having pureGDK give off objects this type of class can be easily made for almost any language that supports OOP.

Wow sorry for going off on a tangent its late here.

The one thing i would love to see though is the ability to statically link the library because the problem with my wrapper at the moment is that i have had to turn each of the source and header files required to use the .dll into a dynamically linked module so i have multiple dynamically linked modules that exist purely to call a dynamically linked module (the puregdk dll) if that makes any sense. It would be a massive boost to wrapping to be able to statically link in the functions that each module for the functions in one module thus avoiding a dynamic module of functions that calls another dynamic module.

but meh it works atleast and im sure they have good reasons to keep it a dll.

EDIT:
Quote: "DarkGDK 2.0 will retain the current DirectX implementation to preserve legacy applications and to ensure prolonged stability"

Does this mean that DarkGDK 2.0 will only have the current DirectX implementation or is there a possibility of supporting something other then DX9 along side the current legacy implementation?

I swear to the programmers bible that I shall not harm the FPS.
Olby
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2003
Location:
Posted: 13th May 2012 12:52
Quote: "That's all nice, but you sell PureGDK for 60$ (at your website) and you target hobbyists. Hobbyists prefer Ogre3d to PureGDK, because:
[- It's free"


That's probably one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever heard. It's like saying oh please Microsoft do not release Windows 8 because there is Linux and it offers more functionality for free and nobody will ever buy it.

It is not about copying something existing it's about finding your own niche in the market - there is no point in creating another open-source/free graphics engine when there are tons of them.

ACER Aspire 5920G: Core2Duo 2.2GHZ, 2GB, GeForce 8600M GT 1280MB, Windows Vista Ultimate SP2, PureBasic 4.60 + PureGDK 2.0
WLGfx
10
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Nov 2007
Location: NW United Kingdom
Posted: 18th May 2012 18:19
Has the issue of the license been discussed yet as I'm still unsure of what's happening with GDK2?

Is it going to be, "free for non-commercial use"?

Will it have a watermark?

Will it be time limited on execution?

Will it stop working after a certain date?

If it is free for non-commercial use then I'll likely continue to develop with TGC stuff and eventually make the jump as I've been happy with a lot of their stuff for a long time. And also if that's the case then I'll purchase the licenses when I can eventually afford them.

Mental arithmetic? Me? (That's for computers) I can't subtract a fart from a plate of beans!
Warning! May contain Nuts!
bjadams
AGK Backer
9
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Mar 2008
Location:
Posted: 7th Jun 2012 00:40
So let me see...

DGDK 1 will never receive an update again.

I cannot simply take my DGDK 1 projects and recompile with this "new" DGDK. I have to rewrite all from scratch.

I have to pay $30 for a DX only SDK.


Sorry to say byt for me DarkGDK is DEAD!

I really hope that AppGameKit will get 3D support by end of the year so I can try to salvage my unfinished DGDK over there.
Mistrel
DarkGDK Developer
12
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Nov 2005
Location:
Posted: 7th Jun 2012 15:30
If you've already bought DarkGDK 1.0 then you will receive a free upgrade.

bjadams
AGK Backer
9
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Mar 2008
Location:
Posted: 7th Jun 2012 16:26
Thats a very good thing Mistrel.

Unfortunately i was using the free version.

At the current price tag & seeing that my dgdk 1 code is not compatible with v2 mybest bet is to invest in agk 3d
MrValentine
AGK Backer
6
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: Playing
Posted: 7th Jun 2012 17:25
Hang On... I have GDK 1.0

So how does that work?

bjadams
AGK Backer
9
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Mar 2008
Location:
Posted: 7th Jun 2012 19:42
Valentine, did you BUY darkgdk or just download the free version like I did?

If you have the free version then you have to buy dgdk 2 when its released.
MrValentine
AGK Backer
6
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Dec 2010
Playing: Playing
Posted: 8th Jun 2012 02:00
I have GDK the original

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2017-11-22 10:48:43
Your offset time is: 2017-11-22 10:48:43