Sorry your browser is not supported!

hmm. yeee, we will have physics pack !!! .. hmmm, but multiplayer over internet not work correctly ... amazing ...

So what are universe commands? Are they the replacement for static objects(Like a node tree or lod system) or something entirely diferent? Oh a prevously unheard of feature. This is going to provide material for weeks of discusion.

Not entirely unheard of... just never implemented which is partially why I gave the statistic command the have done comment. I believe blend mapping is a full done athough not full documented command as of 5.8, but statistic is niether fully done(the universe stuff associated with it isn't functional) or fully documented(even though the docs hinted at things yet to be over 2 yrs ago). This type of thing is the reason I started this thread. I wasn't here to bash the new physics pack. If it provides a reason to justify it's cost over Free which Newton already is, then I'll be one of the first to get it. I just didn't see the point of it and thought that there were more contstuctive uses of time. The reason I didn't directly e-mail Mike is two-fold. One, I thought some else in the forum (other then Mike) might be able to answer me. Two, public development discussions about a product let a developer here the voice of more than one consumer. This is a more likely way for to change a priority than a single voice, but you take the chance that the rest of the community won't see your perspective and will disagree locking things on their current path. If they stay they same after that it was a community descision. That's the purpose of a forum - community.

(P.S. I just love mob rule don't you. Now quick let's run off that cliff.)

Keaz,
I get what you mean...
The physics pack does seem a little redundant to the Community, as we already have 2 free alternatives ( with NGCP on its way as well, taking the total to 2.5 [as NGCP costs] ).

However, for the Developers, creating a physics pack which seemlessly integrates with their existing product(s), as well as providing them with a challenge and an opertunity to work with a popular commercial physics pack, well, it's just a Developers dream

As for the things like poor documentation, or half-implemented commands... We can't ask the world of them.
I mean, there's only a few commands that fall under this catergorie ( 2 you have mentioned, and there's a few others I noticed while filling in my dbHelp database ). But, even if there's 10... That's 10 out of over 1100 commands!

And then on top of that, with the help of the general community posting on these forums ( and now being able to use the dbHelp files ), general knowledge, or tid-bits of information posted by the TGC team ( such as the Statistic flags just posted by Mike ) can be posted for all of the community to see and benifit from

I have as much of a say in what goes on as anyone else here ( being a Mod entitles me to nothing more than moderating the forums ), but if I were to change anything, it would be to have the bug "week" turned into a bug "month".
Everything else... Including the development of FPSC, DGSDK, Physics, and anything else they decide to do... Is all perfectly acceptable.

You also have to remember that they aren't doing this for free!
Although by now, I can see that they would have made quite a nice sum from sales of their flag-ship products ( DB and DBP ), they, like everyone else, still need spending money. So, what do Developers do to make more money? They Develop! And that's what they're doing.

The community involvement with DarkBASIC ( and now FPSC and DGSDK ) is really quite high. Higher than I would have ever expected.
They (TGC) do listen to what we say, and they come around and have a chat once in a while ( the Q&A ).

In summary, I'm not going to ask for anything more than TGC have provided, as it is top-notch stuff all-round!

Just my 2c.

Jess.

Hey guys don´t forget Kjelle69! I was reading this thread and it seemed like only Walaber was working on it.
Anyway. TGC were only advertising their physics plugin. Nothing nasty was intended.
(Yay. Got the right thread this time)

Jess,

I agree TGC has put out a top notch product. I mean look at Win95 (So buggy Microsoft eventually just stopped supporting it). The job of a developer is developing. In this case it's going to be through a new expansion. That's fine too, but like I said before from the response I got from Mike I'll reserve judgement until after it's out(The judgement will be in the form of my consumer choice). Then I'll look at compile EXEs made with both and see which is faster(Newton is already pretty fast though). Also I'll look at how much code it takes me to acheive the desired results(The is where I see the new pack possibly having a sizable advantage). If (and right now it looks like a big "if") the new pack is superior enough to what's already available that it warrants my purchasing it, I will. I have several projects that will use physics quite extensively.

P.S. I'm glad Mike gave his input on this topic, as the developers were the only ones with the inside info that could answer my question of "Why?"(Big question for such a short word). Now about those universe commands.....

MiR, yeah, kjelle did v3.2 all by him/her self

Keaz,


I think everyone feels the same... Both the skeptics and those who say they will definatly buy the product.
Everything is like that, I suppose... You don't just buy things based on their description... You give it a go, or look at potential results first, then make a valued decision

Jess.

I am very interested in a pack that is easy to call and use from DBP.

Yea I know I'm lazy.

Maybe the new physics pack will be good, maybe newton will be better. I don't know. But I think they should debug the debugger before they make a physics pack. It sucks having to search through your program to find the true error, which ends up being hundres of lines away from the line the debugger gives. Yeah, physics would be cool, I would use them, but wouldn't it just make it harder to find that wrong line of code if you have to sift through the new lines of physics? That debugger totally needs fixing.

My point exactly. It might be better, but we don't really need it. However it has been brought to my attention FPSC does, so I'm not complaining anymore about them making it only hoping they hurry so they can get back to debugging DBPro.

If you want to find which line of code your error is on, this is how you do it.

Open the TEMP folder where DBP is installed (usually C:\Program Files\Dark Basic Software\Dark Basic Professional\TEMP). Then open the file called FullSourceDump.dba and go to the line in that code that the debugger gives you. Then goto your original code find that line and make your changes.

To speed this process up you can make a shortcut to your desktop from the FullSourceDump.dba file instead of searching for the file.