[Bf-committers] Blender roadmap article on code blog

Tue Jun 18 02:50:06 CEST 2013

Ton,

Thank you for your response. It sounds like what you have in mind is
actually similar to thoughts I have already had for the game engine, though
perhaps on a more ambitious scale. It would certainly help BGE development
if more of the game engine code was shared with the rest of Blender.

I look forward to seeing how this progresses.

Regards,
Daniel Stokes

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Przemyslaw Golab <
golab.przemyslaw at gmail.com> wrote:

>  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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>