[Bf-committers] Blender roadmap article on code blog

[Przemyslaw Golab]

 Really good reference of GE and Animation Tool integration is Source Film
Maker it's really powerful tool Allowing to record gameplay and edit it as
animations in traditional fashion, even if it's point cloud bake per frame.
Something like this could benefit Blender in new production workflows,
action recording, puppetry.

Although I would like to see REAL oss game engine, with real tools, not
only naked core like most oss game engines out there... BGE is going
nowhere, mostly because of license. Making it first flag citizen in Blender
could ignite life into this project.
Making usable engine for deployment would probably be something for it's
own project.


2013/6/17 Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org>

> Hi Daniel,
>
> I wrote the blog post as a discussion piece, something we can spend on for
> months, or a year, or as much time we need. We have a quite long way to go
> before "a new GE" can be defined to be feasible anyway.
>
> I would also like to see a wide consensus about future plans for Blender.
> For that reason you shouldn't see it as 'bad timing', or a suggestion to
> refocus your work.
>
> The GE itself, and its current users, will really benefit your work now.
> Your gsoc project is also meant to solve a lot of current issues (bugs)
> anyway. I hope you can continue that work happily.
>
> (Long answer to your questions in a next mail)
>
> -Ton-
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Ton Roosendaal  -  ton at blender.org   -   www.blender.org
> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
> Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands
>
>
>
> On 17 Jun, 2013, at 8:00, Daniel Stokes wrote:
>
> > I would like to know more about what Ton means by the line "What should
> > then be dropped is the idea to make Blender have an embedded “true” game
> > engine" from the blog post.
> >
> > What exactly is proposed to be dropped here? It looks to me all that is
> > proposed to be dropped is an idea, changing the focus of the game engine
> to
> > make it better at what it can do rather than making it a clone of other
> > game engine/game editors. Are we actually talking about removing features
> > and/or the ability to publish a game? The blog post mentions creating "3D
> > interaction for walkthroughs, for scientific sims, or game prototypes".
> > This can still make use of existing code/features as well as the ability
> to
> > publish and distribute these creations.
> >
> > As a BGE developer I have often considered a closer integration of the
> BGE
> > and the rest of Blender for their mutual benefit. At its simplest, closer
> > integration means better viewport visualization, and more maintained code
> > for the BGE. Stronger integration yields even more interesting ideas as
> Ton
> > outlines in the blog post. As I said in my original response, this sounds
> > like a great idea as long as those three conditions (mostly we aren't
> > losing a lot of functionality for current BGE users) are met.
> >
> > As to the idea of me changing GSoC projects, I am not entirely against
> it,
> > but I would like to better understand both Ton's proposal and the
> potential
> > new project before jumping ship to a vague/undefined project.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Daniel Stokes
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Benjamin Tolputt <
> > btolputt at internode.on.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 17/06/2013, at 3:23 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Then it may be a good argument for Daniel to make a start on
> >>> interactive-animation tools,
> >>
> >> If he is amenable to the switch, then that would make a decent
> compromise
> >> to offer surely?
> >>
> >>> While this is a valid point, (as far as I know) none of these devs
> >>> have stepped up to really supporting the BGE and helping become a
> >>> maintainer.
> >>> They mostly submit one feature they need for their game, then become
> >>> inactive with BGE dev.
> >>
> >> I wasn't pointing it out as a reason against Ton's move, I was using it
> to
> >> support the *earlier* point that there is a lack developer effort/focus
> >> toward the BGE. The patches/submissions to Blender aren't being
> accepted, a
> >> good-sized proportion of BGE advocates are recommending that one use a
> >> build that applies most of them, and yet they admit is almost a fork
> due to
> >> the variance between "official BGE" and "HG1 build BGE".
> >>
> >> Perhaps it will be a benefit to both BGE and Blender if they become
> >> separate projects? Blender can focus on asset creation (with the data
> >> structures and code compromises that make that efficient) whilst the BGE
> >> can start optimising the code/structures it uses to make it better for
> >> running a game.
> >>
> >>> ... you could argue this is catch22 - if we accepted their patches
> >>> they would become more active and submit more fixes.... but I still
> >>> think if someone really wanted to become active and take the BGE
> >>> forward they could - despite some slow patch review.
> >>
> >> Whilst you could argue the catch-22 aspect, I'd have to disagree that
> slow
> >> patch review isn't a big issue in it's own right. Watching a patch
> wither
> >> on the vine is a very demotivating experience, especially if it fixes
> >> something and the bug is left in the main project despite you having put
> >> the effort into solving it so the core development team didn't have to.
> >> That's something being bandied about the Blender-verse lately as well.
> >>
> >> Sure, if you want to be active enough, you'll walk over shards of broken
> >> glass to keep submitting your patches but that doesn't mean we should
> >> expect them to. Again, not an argument against the BGE
> >> removal/simplification as I support/defend Ton's decision in this
> regard.
> >> Just pointing out that the argument (like the "it's not as good as the
> >> competition" one) is pretty poor on it's own.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Benjamin Tolputt
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bf-committers mailing list
> >> Bf-committers at blender.org
> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-committers mailing list
> > Bf-committers at blender.org
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>