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.

Dark GDK / Leadwerks Engine

Author
Message
thierry st malo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Nov 2005
Location: Saint-Malo, France
Posted: 1st May 2008 18:31
Link
May I ask why TGC are taking orders for what looks like an obvious competitor for their own DarkGDK.NET (if the thing still exists, of course)?
Thierry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 1st May 2008 18:36
Link
Because they will get money for it

Looks nice though.

Don't you just hate that Zotoaster guy?
Back to top
Profile PM Email
draknir_
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Oct 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posted: 1st May 2008 19:00
Link
it does look nice, im really quite interested to see what its capable of.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 1st May 2008 19:49
Link
I'm actually a little feather ruffled myself. I have a lot vested in TGC and GDK (Paid for it when first came out) ... DarkPhysics, DarkMatter, DarkAI, DBPro (previously naturally)... and shadows are still an issue, and I see this Leadwerks engine... and I'm like... WOW... I think its OpenGL.. but I mean, I've written a TON of code against GDK learning more and more about its CAN's and CANNOT's etc.. ....

Well.. I'm seriously in a quandry between TGC loyalty/investment and the gut feeling I should REALLY jump to something else. I mean, that light engine 2 thing looks capable of doing the kind of graphics that are in the new FarCry2 video I saw. Looks insane.

I mean, I can't even get a decent vegatation going without maybe a mix of point sprites via shader or complex frustrum culling algorythms that do more than test if in screen or not.. but are optimized to get as much FPS as possible. etc.

I think the work I've done so far is great but this effort.. I'm wondering if I need to aim it else where? Ugh. This is a quandry.

I was under the impression that DarkBasic, FPS, and DarkGDK would all be going toward a DirectX9/DirectX10 hybrid on the "Road Map" for TGC therefore I THINK I have reason to believe that staying with DarkGDK will payoff as DarkPhysics dynamic mesh gets ironed out and the API gets ported.... in short, I can leverage the work I've done so far and bring it with me so to speak.

Instead, I'm kinda worried .. I mean, do I continue Iron Infantry in GDK and find that when its finally done, that its simply put: OLD LOOKING without hope of face lifting it as better technology becomes available?

Don't let me take away the fun I've had so far... its not that.. this is a hobby but I'd also like to shoot for the stars... and now I'm LIKE.. LOOK AT THOSE LEADWERKS SHADOWS!!! WOW! (druel)... Then again, it mentions OpenGL... and I have an email into LeadWerks asking if its OpenGL PERIOD... or what. Literally: OpenGL or Directx?

Anyways.. congrats to LeadWerks - Looks Great. Congrats to TGC - as that's a nice looking product to add to the arsenal....

However... I feel like I missed a boat or something...


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
tobi453
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Apr 2005
Location:
Posted: 1st May 2008 20:44
Link
In my opinion the screens featuring the leadwerks engine are amazing. But I haven't seen any c++ code yet that illustrates the features of the engine. Is it OOP (that would be a big plus)? Have you access to all the object data, how much can you influence the rendering process?
It's clearly more advanced than dgdk. But the main problem is that you need a graphics card that supports shader model 3.0 and they recommend at least a NVidia GeForce 8800. Furthermore you need very powerful hardware to use all these effects.

Shadows are a huge problem in DGDK. It is very difficult to get them work correctly. Also I'm waiting for the new dgdk update that adds the functionality that came with the latest dbpro update. TGC shouldn't concentrate on the fps creator. With the fps creator you can create good-looking games in a short time, but your freedom is very limited and I'm sorry TGC, but the controls don't feel right at all. DGDK is clearly the most powerful TGC product.

FINAL VERSION RELEASED!!!!
Back to top
Profile PM
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 1st May 2008 21:07
Link
Quote: "Is it OOP"

Probably, since the built-in scripting language is.

Don't you just hate that Zotoaster guy?
Back to top
Profile PM Email
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 1st May 2008 21:40 Edited at: 1st May 2008 22:05
Link
Maybe not... Zoto.. Maybe scripting is better... it has a DLL... so it looks like DarkGDK calls sorta kinda.. but I only glanced at the wiki... the commands tobi can be found by going to leadwerks.com and following the docs links... its a wiki.

[edit]
OpenGL BTW - Josh told me.

Um, I do agree that DarkGDK is the best thing for TGC game development right now. I hope those bug fixes make though I don't know what they are.. I really hope a good shadow solutions comes our way for DarkGDK. The Shader one is just slow and gaudy. I turn it one and performance dips. (beats head against wall).......... I really like the TGC line up though - and this store thing they are working on I hope they tell you what each model is compatible with! DarkGDK, DBPro, DBClassic, FPSC, FPS10 etc.

I'm not going anywhere - I just hope the Physics and DakrGDK get supported going forward or else I made a bad "jump the bandwagon" choice. I REALLY REALLY want to ride it out a bit.

(Especially before jumping to OpenGL.. though this is not out of the question....)


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
KISTech
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2008
Location: Aloha, Oregon
Posted: 1st May 2008 22:32
Link
Quote: "I have an email into LeadWerks asking if its OpenGL PERIOD..."


I had that same quandry when coming to DarkBASIC Pro. I didn't want to necessarily move to an engine that didn't support Mac or *nix.

I moved to DBP from Torque because it seemed like a more complete engine that wasn't just thrown together to crank out FPS games all day long. After working with it for a while I'm finding there are still some serious deficiencies in DBPro, but I'm still making a lot more headway in my project with it than I would have with Torque.

To be honest, if the system and graphics card requirements weren't so high I would probably switch to the C4 engine. Then I could write for PC, Mac, PS3, and XBox360(soon).

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 1st May 2008 22:49 Edited at: 14th May 2008 16:18
Link
You can do that now with Irrlicht. Maybe not ps3 though dunno LOL.

I LIKE the paradigm of TGC stuff... just stuff seems to, well... Example: Dark Physics - Love it... Scaling Model not honored.. Ok, so you can resize, make mesh from object, and then literally "dbChangeMesh(SameObjID, YourScaledMeshID)" and then tell DarkPhysics about it... OK.. Cool. Decent Workaround.

But what about "Dynamic Mesh". I have a thread that explains this nicely, but to summerize, if you have an egg model - YOU CAN NOT set it on its end and expect it to roll to its side like a real egg. Furthermore the documentation says "Dynamic Mesh Might be removed from DarkPhysics" [edit]Mike Johnson told me Convex is the solution for this.... I humbly retract my statements about the unworkable dynamic mesh physics being a detriment.[/edit]

This Leadwerks engine seems to have it all, and I don't need it all TODAY.. but I HOPE I'm well vested as I REALLY want to see this code base I've built beable to ride the TGC wave as their stuff becomes next gen.. right now.. I'm a little scared that a one man operation pulled this off, and there are already a lot of people using LeadWerks Engine 1, and TGC, though not huge by any stretch, well.. I feel a little behind somehow using DarkGDK all of a sudden... seeing the LEad Werks Engine that is.. just jaw dropping. Though it sounds WAY resource heavy.. but who knows.. I dont' think DarkGDK CAN look like.


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
KISTech
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2008
Location: Aloha, Oregon
Posted: 2nd May 2008 01:07
Link
I'm not opposed to going with an engine that's being maintained by only one person. As long as the issues that are brought to their attention aren't completely ignored for years on end...

I've seen that happen now with engines and major engine add-ons that were maintained both by individuals and large teams. The problem with large teams is they tend to latch on to "The next version." while the old one is still broken, and nobody wants to work on it anymore because it's not the NEW version.

Then they expect you to sit on your hands and wait while they "finish" the new version. Then you have no guarantee that half that stuff will actually work.

(..can you tell my frustration level is increasing..)

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
thierry st malo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Nov 2005
Location: Saint-Malo, France
Posted: 2nd May 2008 09:26
Link
I think that we should really get a formal explanation from TGC. What's their game, if I may say so?
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Mike Johnson
TGC Developer
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd May 2008 12:58
Link
The key point to realise is that we are reselling Leadwerks Game Engine 2.0. By doing this we offer people another option for making games. Some may consider it a better option while others may prefer to use GDK and others FPSC. It simply provides more choice to everyone.

As for the comment about dynamic meshes - it's really not advisable to use dynamic meshes for your games. You will get mixed results. Some meshes will work fine while others will fail. The best approach is to display your complex model but internally have it represented by a convex mesh. This will work really well and you will not lose too much accuracy.

Also a comment about GDK not being able to produce visuals as good as Leadwerks Game Engine. Certainly Leadwerks has a lot to offer and whether GDK can match its effects is debatable. However, recently I worked on a demo in GDK that utilises bloom, refraction, depth of field, bump mapping and reflection and the results were impressive. Unfortunately for various reasons I cannot show this yet. Possibly can do so in the future.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 2nd May 2008 13:42
Link
Thank You Mike, Sometimes you guys are quiet for a long time and we get a little restless - especially when some key things are freaking us out.

Example: No one has told me before you that convex is the "way" to get the desired effect for Dynamic meshes. At least that is a route to explore.

As for appearance, I do believe you can get some good results, but dynamic shadows are still a challenge.

And one more thing I think drives my personal strong words - is that I WANT to use TGC and sometimes its hard to tell where you guys are heading RoadMap wise. It matters because good games don't take a month, they take a year or more IMHO.

Thanx for popping in!

Best Regards,
Jason P Sage


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Chenak
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 2nd May 2008 14:51
Link
Quote: "However, recently I worked on a demo in GDK that utilises bloom, refraction, depth of field, bump mapping and reflection and the results were impressive. "


Fast and good looking shadows is the main problem, it is a huge feature DBPro and GDK are missing. The hardware shadow shaders, no offense, are very buggy and can cause a lot of problems, not only that it takes a long time to apply to even the simplist of objects. The deferred shadow shaders evolved made where impressive, but extremly slow compared to what it could be if it was built in.

We already know bloom, depth of field and whatever works and can produce pretty results. If there was a method to get those good looking shadows into DBPro and GDK it would be far more impressive.
Back to top
Profile PM
Pixel Perfect
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posted: 2nd May 2008 15:22
Link
Well I have to say this is a brave move by TGC and I personally think they should be congratulated.

Since I have been cutting my game coding teeth with TGC products it has become obvious that there are some serious users of their programming products who really intend to produce quality game engines of their own. I think it is fair to say that it doesn't take to long before running into some of the underlying issues with TGCs products and the realisation that the aim may not be achievable.

As plenty of people have already pointed out - dynamic lighting and shadows is one of the critical areas where it fails to deliver. This is considered by most serious game designers as an absolute must these days.

I have no issue with TGC providing an alternative solution although its a great shame that they have not decided to tackle the issues head on as a lot of us have invested heavily in terms of time and code in their products.

I would need convincing that Josh's new engine can deliver all that it’s promising but knowing Josh's reputation suspect that it probably does.

Either way, using DGDK has taught me a lot and got me to a point where, with the right tools, I believe I am ready to construct the game engine I need ... so thank you TGC.

No matter how good your code is, someone will improve on it
Back to top
Profile PM
thierry st malo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Nov 2005
Location: Saint-Malo, France
Posted: 4th May 2008 19:47
Link
Well, once more, as I have one important project to start, I will be blunt: should I switch to Leadwerks, shell out some $180, if I remember correctly, re-learn everything from scratch and curse TGC, or is it worthwile to keep the investment in time I have made in TGC's products and wait for the next release of DGDK.NET if there will be one? By the way, will there be another release of DGDK.NET and if so, will TGC at last commit themselves to some kind of time frame instead of just repeating "won't be long, folks, won't be long, folks..."
Sorry for my irritation, but the situation kinda gets frustrating, and as the Leadwerks product DOES look like a direct competitor to DGDK.NET, the question naturally arises: are TGC quietly preparing to drop DGDK.NET?
Thierry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 4th May 2008 19:55 Edited at: 4th May 2008 20:22
Link
I doubt its a "Replacement" for DarkGDK.Net... its not even DirectX - Yeah Its Pretty, no doubt... But DarkGDK.Net is hardly where the HorsePower is.. I personally think you're better off using C++ and DarkGDK.

I'd like to think TGC will bring the Shadows Situation up to par on DarkGDK.. Currently... That and limited number of Memblocks (257 I think odd number too not 256, not 255.. hmm ... maybe a simple compiler define change will blow it up to the full 65535) - which in theory I could write my own if I love them that much... though I like the Memblock to image and back functions.. not to mention the object to mesh to memblock kind of things... (I digress)

...But Hey... if you want OpenGL... and don't mind needing a real hefty PC to run your stuff... to get that quality rendering... sure It's worth it.. If you want to stay in the DirectX world, and see what's next for the shadow thing and maybe even a DirectX10 port of GDK... stick around.

Good Luck No Matter what you do! I'm Glad TGC told us about the LeadWerks release... I think that was cool.


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
monotonic
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Mar 2006
Location: Nottinghamshire, England
Posted: 5th May 2008 00:27 Edited at: 5th May 2008 00:30
Link
I will be purchasing the Leadwerks Engine, and will have to build an entirely new machine to run it. But, considering that it will take you at least a year to create an average sort of game, most people by this time will have a machine that can handle it. You should design your game for the future otherwise it will be outdated as soon as it is released.

You can still download the full 1.X versions when you purchase v 2.0 which will run on lower end machines, I think v1.13 will run on my laptop which is pants.

Another plus for me is the fact that it may be getting released for Linux and MAC meaning you have a wider market for your game.

But, each to their own.

Microsoft Windows = BSOD
Microsoft XBOX 360 = RROD
Back to top
Profile PM
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 5th May 2008 00:41
Link
Is there any sample source code so I can understand the type of programming it does? I mean, is it more like "MakeObjectCube" or do you have to go about setting up vertices and stuff?

Don't you just hate that Zotoaster guy?
Back to top
Profile PM Email
monotonic
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Mar 2006
Location: Nottinghamshire, England
Posted: 5th May 2008 00:49 Edited at: 5th May 2008 00:52
Link
At the minute there is only a demo for v1.0 which is good but pretty basic when compared to v2.0, plus you can only run the LWE script but it gives you a basic idea of how things work.

You could also take a look at the wiki which explains it's capabilities and command structure. But, from what I have seen you can make basic shapes like MakeCubeBrush (or something along those lines) and you can also use the pretty decent built-in CSG commands on primitives too.

linkage:
http://www.leadwerks.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Allpages

Microsoft Windows = BSOD
Microsoft XBOX 360 = RROD
Back to top
Profile PM
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 5th May 2008 02:09
Link
Monotonic - Lots of Wisdom in your post... got me thinking.

Thank You for that

... now I'm pondering...


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
david w
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Dec 2005
Location: U.S.A. Michigan
Posted: 5th May 2008 06:15
Link
Well I for one am not going to be purchasing the leadwerks engine. I recently bought their 3d world studio software and am kinda disappointed with the .x export. I am sure the engine is fine.

In regard to DBP, I really only use it anymore as a prototyping engine. Get something up and running and working in DBP and I know that its gonna work in Direct X. Plus this gives the benefit of being able to prototype very fast.

Now in regard to GDK, very good idea, but its still just DBP. All the errors and inconsistencys still come through. But when is this not the case for any engine not designed by YOU? When you use someone else work, well you have to take the good with the bad. Excellent engine/wrapper. Most bugs can be worked-around.

Visually modern graphics can be achieved with DBP/GDK. The problem is your again going off of someone else's work. Same with the leadwerks engine. The difference is that leadwerks appears to be designed toward a more polished look. DBP/GDK can achieve these same looks if you know how to do it.

Now concerning Direct X. This is the format that I am using and I have to admit I have no regrets when I switched to this. The learning curve was kinda steep. But I have managed to get'er done. LOL. The beauty with Direct X is you can code it exactly how you wish and the errors are gonna be your fault and you can only blame yourself at the end of the day.

Now onto OpenGL. Now its a great library and all, but we all know that the future in PC gaming is Direct X. Some 90% of home PC's are windows. Vista or XP or some Win?? version. So trying to target Mac/Linux for a potential user base is in my opinion not really worth it. True OpenGL can run on basically all systems. But again Direct X is really the only way to go.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself what you are trying to do. Cause not many here are gonna make any game, let alone the next Gears of War killer. The resources, time, talent, money etc. are just not there.

So like I told Jason, dont hang on if your gonna hang yourself. Why keep putting a coat hanger on the muffer, when you really just need a new muffler.

Direct X and OpenGL are not that hard and are very similar.

Thank you.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
monotonic
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Mar 2006
Location: Nottinghamshire, England
Posted: 5th May 2008 13:36
Link
David W,

You raised some valid points but, I don't see DirectX as THE future only a part of it. Yeah, far more people use windows than use Mac or Linux, but the fact remains that with OGL you code once and can distribute it to all platforms with a simple re-compile.

Most people believe that there are only a few games written using OGL (I'm not saying you, this is just an observation) but, the fact is there are far more games than one might think. Well the point I'm getting at is that OGL is a worthy contender for DX.

From what I have read OGL 3.0 is due to be released later this year which will bring it up to scratch with DX10, OGL is here to stay as far as I know the PS3 runs OGL which is a next gen' console, so it can't be dead.

Microsoft Windows = BSOD
Microsoft XBOX 360 = RROD
Back to top
Profile PM
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 5th May 2008 16:08
Link
I have to agree here with Monotonic. I mean, DirectX is here for the forseeable future, but I think OpenGL is also. So, while I agree with all your points David W. and having seen your work (am QUITE impressed) I think OpenGL is just as Viable.

They both have their place IMHO. And I am convinced that great things are possible with DarkGDK (Now... and hopefully the next version?!?!?), Leadwerks looks great (though I haven't seen it in a "Game", pretty graphics don't attest for GAMING performance etc. I just don't know how it pans out not having seen one ).

The fact is, the Leadwerks Engine is VERY VERY pretty... and as was said: "DirectX9 days are numbered"... (porting is in our future David W, and all DBPro dx9 and DarkGDK people) so only time will tell...

But I have to say that all things considered... if you're starting today - LeadWerks might be the way to go and deserves consideration.


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pixel Perfect
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posted: 5th May 2008 17:13 Edited at: 5th May 2008 17:21
Link
As the previous members have said I certainly believe OpenGL, like DirectX, is here for the long term.

Writing your own engine directly using either of the APIs directly has a lot going for it and means you are mush less constrained by the design choices made by others. I respect David for doing that and wish him every success; however, how many people on this forum are ever likely to do that!

The majority of us are left with a somewhat difficult task of choosing products which encapsulate these Graphics APIs presenting us with an easier interface and more rapid development route but always with a price to pay. That price being the inevitable design decisions and constraints that the designers have had to make as maximum flexibility rarely equates with ease of use!

So in the end, the best we can do is make our choices with our eyes open and aware of the constraints imposed.

One of the biggest strengths of TGC IMHO are the forums where new comers and veterans alike have a wealth of information and comment available and people quite willing to help those who genuinely want to learn. Likewise, there are plenty of examples of games in the process of construction and fully produced. There is a lot about DBPro and DGDK I don't like, but sometimes it's a case of 'better the devil you know'. I have found ways of working round most things, only the shadows issue is a potential showstopper for me! I just wish TGC would be more openly supportive of their clientele and give us some sort of insight into where the various products are going.

I don't know how the Leadwerks engine will fair in the long term. It certainly looks very nice from the limited screen shots and videos and has dynamic soft shadowing which is very enticing for me. However, I have looked on their forum and see little evidence after the beta being in existence for quite some time of anyone having produced a working game yet or anything near which bothers me a bit! Josh is a clever guy so I'm sure the potential is there but I have no current way of gauging what design constraints have been made and what knock on effects those are likely to have.
Only time will tell I guess.

No matter how good your code is, someone will improve on it
Back to top
Profile PM
monotonic
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Mar 2006
Location: Nottinghamshire, England
Posted: 5th May 2008 17:31
Link
Quote: "One of the biggest strengths of TGC IMHO are the forums where new comers and veterans alike have a wealth of information and comment available and people quite willing to help those who genuinely want to learn."


Absolutely, this is one of the most active and helpful forums for indie game developers around. I too think that TGC products have a bright and prosperous future ahead of them, even when I buy the LWE I will not be abandoning GDK/DBP they are great products and I have invested a too much time and money just to throw it all away.


Quote: "I have looked on their forum and see little evidence after the beta being in existence for quite some time of anyone having produced a working game yet or anything near which bothers me a bit!"


Yeah this is quite a concern for me too. The only thing we have to go on is the what Josh is telling us he has implemented in the dev log on the forums. He has said that you can have super massive LOD terrains with loads of instanced trees, buildings, dynamic deco layers etc.. But, the only real thing we have to test is v1.0 of the engine with maps made in 3DWS. I'm sure there will be a demo of v2.0 in the near future, it would be silly not to.

Microsoft Windows = BSOD
Microsoft XBOX 360 = RROD
Back to top
Profile PM
thierry st malo
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Nov 2005
Location: Saint-Malo, France
Posted: 5th May 2008 21:15 Edited at: 5th May 2008 21:16
Link
Well, folks, what you say is most reasonable and understandable, but that doesn't relate to my basic concern which is about DGDK.NET's PERMANENCE (I know I'm yelling, but this is what I intend to do).
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pixel Perfect
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posted: 5th May 2008 21:46
Link
Quote: "my basic concern which is about DGDK.NET's PERMANENCE "


If you are really that worried I would suggest emailing Lee directly asking for confirmation regarding it's future.

His email address is no secret: lee@thegamecreators.com

No matter how good your code is, someone will improve on it
Back to top
Profile PM
kBessa
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Nov 2006
Location: Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil
Posted: 6th May 2008 06:01
Link
Actually, Mike's the one that takes care of DGDK. He posted in this topic as you can see.

DGDK.NET is not abandoned, and I can tell you it will have far more things than DGDK (C++). A lot have been going on, although it's been some time since I last talked to Paul (APEXnow). You could join #dgdk-net @ irc.devhat.net, he's around almost every day.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Core2uu
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Mar 2008
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Posted: 6th May 2008 07:27 Edited at: 6th May 2008 07:28
Link
There's a DGDK irc channel??? Never new that...
And you say if I want to develop good quality DGDK stuff I should buy DGDK.NET? I don't mean that directly but does this mean DGDK WON'T be updated whille DGDK.NET will???

~~It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.~~
Back to top
Profile PM
kBessa
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Nov 2006
Location: Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil
Posted: 6th May 2008 07:54
Link
Actually, both will be equally updated, as Apex cannot update DGDK.NET if Mike does not update DGDK first.

The thing is: DGDK was released soon, but it actually lacks more examples and better docs. I know Apex has been holding it a little bit more so everything could be added to DGDK.NET, like Out-of-the-box OOP support, better docs, lots of examples, etc.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Core2uu
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 15th Mar 2008
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Posted: 6th May 2008 08:06
Link
Quote: "Out-of-the-box OOP support, better docs, lots of examples, etc."


So can we maybe... sort of... hopefully... expect SOME of this stuff SOMETIME in the near future for DGDK... maybe a LITTLE TINY BIT of it?

Quote: "DGDK was released soon,"


So... was DGDK released after or before DGDK.NET?

~~It's not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines you.~~
Back to top
Profile PM
Niels Henriksen
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Sep 2004
Location: Behind you breathing heavely
Posted: 6th May 2008 11:51
Link
DGDK was released before DGDK.NET. .NET version is based on C++ version and when DGDK is updatet with fixes then DGDK.NET also should be updated.

But now Paul is making .NET OOP and then DGDK++ also should have OOP (even that a lot here is making their own OOP wrapper)

Niels Henriksen
www.tales-of-the-realms.com
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 6th May 2008 15:03
Link
I personally hope they don't try to OOP DarkGDK - I'm too scared they will break the existing work I've done so far or make a Bloated beast out of a fairly lean system that exists now.


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Gervais
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posted: 6th May 2008 16:11
Link
I am hoping the same I prefer to deal with a lean and fast API then a fat OOP wrapper and you have to thing that DGK.net is already a wrapper.

If they want to spent time working on OOP I can’t stop them but I would prefer to have them work on improving the inner working of Dark DGK and get the benefit of a faster API and better stability then a OOP wrapper.
Back to top
Profile PM
Lilith
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Feb 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posted: 6th May 2008 17:41
Link
And I disagree. First of all, I doubt that any of the existing functionality would be removed. If nothing else, it would be a separate install and your existing install would still be functional. One of the main reasons for the existence of C++ is to be object oriented. Otherwise it would have been sufficient to just make advances in C.

OOP has its advantages. It took me a while to grok the benefits but inheritance is key to the concept. If I have a class for sprites it provides me with the ability to place something on the screen. If I want to create a car class to move around the screen it helps if I have the built-in ability to display it, move it, rotate it, hide it, etc. that I can inherit from a sprite class. Sure I could imbue a new car class with a lot of procedural calls to the dbSprite functions. But if I want to make a similar class I'd have to do the whole thing all over again instead of inheriting the functionality from a class that already has my needs fulfilled.

Lilith, Night Butterfly
I'm not a programmer but I play one in the office
Back to top
Profile PM
jinzai
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Aug 2006
Location: USA
Posted: 6th May 2008 18:46 Edited at: 6th May 2008 18:47
Link
Lilith, you do grok. (But, do you Grohl?)
I agree in spades, plus that's just the start of it.
The gradient class looks promising, as well.

Oh, and I did read "Stranger In a Strange Land".
Try "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel".
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Lilith
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 12th Feb 2008
Location: Dallas, TX
Posted: 6th May 2008 19:31
Link
Never had time to get with the Grohl.

Quote: "The gradient class looks promising, as well."

And that's just the start of it. I'm trying to conceive of other things that can benefit from having a class that generates plotting information while being general enough to help in more than one graphic environment.

I can say that I've read most of Heinlein, though it was many years ago. I probably have read "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel" but I'd be hard pressed to give details. I was also a big fan of Asimov. My more contemporary authors are Jack Chalker (RIP), Catherine Asaro and John Varley.

Lilith, Night Butterfly
I'm not a programmer but I play one in the office
Back to top
Profile PM
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 6th May 2008 20:20 Edited at: 12th May 2008 20:21
Link
Try not to misunderstand mine and Gervais' sentiment. We are not opposed to OOP programming... I just don't want to use someone else's... I want the source code.. not blind faith that this works like this or that. I'd rather build my own "engine" on top of a "Lean Starting Point".

Frankly... One OOP "wrapper" is not necessarily applicable to every game.. or coding style. A Game engine should be built in a way that allows tight integration accross it for speed gains... etc.. If someone else is making more rules for me to follow... it can be counter intuitive and cumbersome... not to mention it is complex and with source I can't fix broken things...

Now as for some add on oop wrapper for DarkGDK... sure... I have one, other might, TGC might make one.. but I hope not... I'd much rather have them focused on making a solid core, for dx9 and dx10, and let us develop games and engines while they give us easy to use tools to make that possible.


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Pixel Perfect
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posted: 6th May 2008 21:07
Link
I'm not aware of anyone from TGC giving any indication of any intension to produce an OOP wrapped version of DGDK. However, should that be the case then I'm firmly in agreement with Gervais and Jason.

Personally, with DGDK being several steps out of line with DBPro and plenty of bugs to fix any resource wasted on such a venture would see me banging my head against my computer desk.

see ... bandaged head -> lol

No matter how good your code is, someone will improve on it
Back to top
Profile PM
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 6th May 2008 21:18
Link
LOL - I don't know how we morphed into that discussion either... but yeah... DirectX9 + DirectX10 Version (and migration path for us dx9 coders) would be stellar! C# Version? Oop'd or not.. Stellar! FPSX Staying compatible with the DarkGDK/DBPRo products.. Stellar! LeadWerks as one more toy for us to buy and play with? Stellar!

(Off Topic: Just Saw Update of David W's directX and ageia engine.. HOLY CRAP that thing is FAST!!!! If he wraps that to a usuable "product" as a new dx "engine" I think they should sell that here too! It seems VERY VERY LIGHTWEIGHT. It ran four shaders on my dog pc and it flew!!!)


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
kBessa
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Nov 2006
Location: Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil
Posted: 6th May 2008 21:42
Link
DGDK.NET will continue to work the same way it did before, just like its "Big Brother" (DGDK C++).

The OOP layer is completely optional, and I can say for sure that it is not the OOP that's delaying the .NET release, but the other things I said (documentation, examples).

AFAIK, Paul and Mike were working together to get things working and bugs corrected, like no Input handling if programing with DGDK.NET and Windows Forms.

IMO, the problem is not the delay, is the lack of info for us users (mostly to those who paid for DGDK.NET), about when it will be released, and what is being done. I think that's it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Gervais
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posted: 6th May 2008 21:53
Link
This is my point too and OOP is great but I usually prefer to implement it my way not some one else way that my or my not work for me and this is what they are doing for the DGDK.net

We are all hear waiting for the last 5 month and no date in site on when we could expect to see it and after each news letter that come out more disappointment if all the example are been created for the new OOP wrapper and the API is ready with the help files waiting to be distribute then please release the API so that we can start working with it. Because the way things are going we will have an other release of the C++ version by the time the .net version come out.

It is a good thing that I have the previous version so that I can work on my project but it start to be old and I would like to get my hand on the next version before next year if posible
Back to top
Profile PM
unitech
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 7th May 2008 14:47 Edited at: 7th May 2008 14:51
Link
I'm going to have to side with Lilith here. I too had to write a wrapper for GDK, but i think a game engine should proved its own OO wrapper. First it keeps everyone on the same page, and it helps to write a wrapper based on code you your self wrote. Granted Jason has done a wonderful job creating his wrapper, but so have many others.

Secondly you always will reach limitation with programming a game engine. Band-aid on band-aid may get shadows, but you have to go back to the core eventually in many cases. GDK (or the API if you will) is a very a nice API but ts very constricting IMO. TGC are a bright bunch and they know where the limitations are. one thing I will give then as Mike said, they provide many option to the user. I wish their products where more in tune with each other but i dont think that is the intent. FPSC should export an XML to be used in GDK IMO, but thats just not going to happen is it seems.

I stick with GDK mainly for the following, people in this thread for example. The best option we have for an OOP is to join forces as Jason has done, but if TGC released one I would jump ship in a heart beat. Heck I'm willng to scratch all of my work and use Jasons's. Mainly because I stopped and he kept gong... I'm not saying someone else cant do better.. but the author should take on this role, it just makes sense.

Leadwerks IMO is TGC just realizing there limits of GDK, time to move on.
Back to top
Profile PM
jason p sage
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Jun 2007
Location: Ellington, CT USA
Posted: 9th May 2008 05:13
Link
Quote: "Leadwerks IMO is TGC just realizing there limits of GDK, time to move on."
This one I can't buy They are two different animals IMO.

LeadWerks: Next Gen? Sure... need Next Gen Machine too.

DarkGDK? So Far, I'm pretty darn happy with it. shadows are the only thing I find a pain because mixing the Fixed Pipeline and shaders makes you lose some fixed pipeline stuff... try have a water plain with a water shader and "fog" on... fog doesn't effect the water....

2: Watch how your FPS drops using the DarkGDK shadow thingy.. not to mention it can't do outdoors.. (lots of little things)

Other than that - its pretty darn good I'd say.


http://www.jasonpetersage.com/?PAGE=ironinfantry&SECTION=ironinfantry
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
unitech
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 12th May 2008 19:28 Edited at: 12th May 2008 19:35
Link
Quote: "This one I can't buy They are two different animals IMO."
- them TGC guys are sharp on the whip and stay afloat. This is why we have GDK instead of that clunky old basic design. X10 is just another example. They are sharp, on top of cutting edge and do what they can for a low budget engine.


Granted, DarkGDK is a nice beginner engine. Sure you can make a few games with it, and in it's competition its one of the best out there. My company attempted to produce a full game with GDK and we realized it's many limits. The biggest and most obvious is the lack of "game" like function. First off there is no real collision that works. Your best shot for free is sharky's That or buy darkPhy witch is only recently available. Then you have to create your own objects and classes. Ok thats fine... but most game engines you dont have to.. The main reason this is bad, is because it causes everyone to do it there own way. Collaboration is everything. Others include small bugs and like you mentioned shadows. And model loading... Took forever to get 3dMax to make usable models. That MAX loading function was a nice NO working egg to find.

My Lead said it best "If they can make FPS-creator so great, why not make it part of GDK?" - my answers is Leadwerks 2.. Bottom line GDK is capped out. There most likely will never be another release its time to move on.

Yet i still will develop my game in GDK as I to started in it, but I'm going to attempt a migration with Leadwerks 2. I feel the migration will be more like a total rewrite, but so be it..

Let the engine programmers program the engine. Let the game programmers program the game...
Back to top
Profile PM
JulesD
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Feb 2005
Location:
Posted: 12th May 2008 22:14
Link
My 2 cents, "TheGameCreators" not TheDarkBasicPro creators or any thing like that, so if it has something to do with game developing. I think it's all good.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Leadwerks
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th Jan 2008
Location:
Posted: 14th May 2008 09:26 Edited at: 14th May 2008 09:34
Link
My feeling on this is that DarkGDK and Leadwerks Engine are two completely different approaches. They use different rendering APIs, physics libraries, and utilize different programming ideas and paradigms. If Leadwerks Engine was a DirectX engine using PhysX it wouldn't make sense for TGC to offer it, but since it utilizes a different approach and broadens TGC's scope of products, it makes sense for them to offer that option.
Back to top
Profile PM
SoulMan
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Nov 2002
Location: In a house somewhere on the planet earth
Posted: 14th May 2008 19:05
Link
I was looking at the Leadwerks stuff and while it does look graphically impressive, it seemed like the documentation was a bit light. I'd have to go over it some more, but the more I think about it the more I'd almost stay with DarkGDK.

No Kittah, this is my potpie!!!
Back to top
Profile PM
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-10-07 23:22:49
Your offset time is: 2024-10-07 23:22:49