[Bf-committers] restore Game Engine project

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi,

OK. I think we all agree on such a roadmap... combined with at least  
one release having a 2.25 compatible setup. I would propose - for  
'marketing' reasons, to have a 2.30 release with compatible engine  
(also for the documentation dudes). By that time we can have a roadmap  
agreed on for how to continue with all this stuff... like separating,  
ODE, old 'enji' engine, etc.

I've mailed the Gino about Solid again. Still waiting on deadline  
confirmations.

-Ton-


On Friday, Aug 15, 2003, at 11:35 Europe/Amsterdam, Kester Maddock  
wrote:

> Hi Ton,
>
> I've just been looking at the physics (ODE) side of things.
>
> Currently, I have to say bring back solid! ODE is mostly a physics  
> library
> while solid is a collision detection library - ODE doesn't care about
> collision detection; if you can find out where a collision occurs ODE  
> can
> work out how the physics should react.  Solid also has cones - good for
> culling/radar sensor.
>
> In a roadmap, I would:
> 1.  Bring back solid.
> 2.  Use ODE (over sumo) for physics
>
> With ODE the benefit comes from it's joints system ie car steering  
> systems and
> proper armature support.
>
> Currently, I have got ODE to where it is almost suitable for  
> committing and
> heavy testing (but not for release!!)
>
>
> Kester
>
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 2:45, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>> Hi Kester, Saluk,
>>
>> Jeez, you gave some reading to do with all these postings while I was
>> in Siggraph!
>> Although experiments & improvements in the engine are more than
>> welcome, I would like to treat this topic from the 'official release'
>> perspective.
>>
>> Hopefully you're both interested to work for the upcoming releases? In
>> that case we have to define a roadmap for how to continue with  the
>> engine first. Input on that would be more than welcome.
>>
>> We still have the Solid-coming-back topic hanging around. I can't
>> confirm the official release date, but the publisher told me it will  
>> be
>> end of the month. Even with that date shifting a month, it could be
>> about time to make the Solid 3.5 binaries available for first test.
>>
>> I would propose to work in the following steps:
>>
>> - first bring back Solid in current code. Test fitness & compatibility
>> with 2.25 release.
>> - if thats a feasible short project, release a version!
>> - make final decision on how engine will be continued. Like:
>>    - with or without Solid 3.5?
>>    - move to ODE physics? (solve compatibility)
>>    - make engine separate binary, or plugin to blender?
>>    - what to do with web player?
>>
>> When compatiblity breaks (because of ODE), we can just move to a 2.30
>> release... which is about to come anyway!
>>
>> What were your thoughts on this?
>>
>> -Ton-
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> --
>> --
>> Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation ton@blender.org
>> http://www.blender.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers@blender.org
>> http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers@blender.org
> http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation ton@blender.org  
http://www.blender.org