[Bf-committers] Call for GameEngine developers

Ton Roosendaal bf-committers@blender.org
Wed, 17 Sep 2003 11:24:30 +0200


Still no news from the Solid frontier...

It might be a little too early to start a dedicated mailing list now on =20=

the game engine topic. I think there are about 3-4 people here =20
interested in actively supporting it. But if they prefer such a list, =20=

you only have to say so!

It might be interesting though to hear your opinion on the possible =20
roadmaps for creating games in Blender. For example; interesting =20
development like supporting OpenGL shaders are very important =20
decisions, that will affect it's usabality among the various platforms.

For game engine coders it's important to decide whether they want to =20
work on 'official' Blender releases, or want to work on more advanced =20=

features in the engine, based at their own specific needs. I really =20
don't mind hosting at our projects site 'forks' for the engine. It can =20=

be like the Tuhopoo tree, to enable experiments with the code without =20=

being bothered with all requirements an official release has. Of course =20=

you can also participate in the Tuhopuu project itself. Their admins =20
are open for almost anything! :)

I've posted remarks on future engine roadmaps before... as a reminder, =20=

here's what I had in mind:

1- We make at least one release (2.30) which has full 2.25 =20
compatibility. This means that improvements or changes in the engine =20
are not committed until 2.30 is out. The Tuhopuu tree is available for =20=

most work on the engine now.
2- We then separate the current game engine (nicked Ketsji) from the =20
bf-blender tree, turning it into a separately managed project, and as =20=

an export extension or plug-in to Blender. This can be done quite =20
efficiently, because dependencies from the engine to Blender code are =20=

minimal. How this will affect the 'game options' (logic editing) in =20
Blender has to be decideded on.
3- We bring back the 2.04 engine (nicked Enji). Which is aimed to work =20=

fully integrated with Blender code and Blender features.

I know this strategy has potential dangers in it; especially in how the =20=

two engines will compete, with Enji getting the advantage of being =20
integrated in the core bf-blender project.
However, Enji is *so much* more simple and basic. The focus for Enji =20
can be "reflecting what Blender can do", and not putting emphasis (at =20=

all!) in adding features in Enji that are not in Blender itself.
For Ketsji it can be the opposite; by treating Blender as 'level =20
editor', and pushing engine performance & features as far as the group =20=

members think is desirable.
Since the Ketsji architecture is completely different from Blender it =20=

will attract different 'types' of developers as well.

Lastly; we have the compatibility problem. Actually the Ketsji engine =20=

was far from completed, with a maintenance backlog and long buglisting. =20=

The burden of keeping an engine 2.25 (or GameKit book) compatible is =20
not something I can not expect from anyone to be responsible for. We =20
have to be realistic here, how much pain it might cause for our users =20=



On Tuesday, Sep 16, 2003, at 13:20 Europe/Amsterdam, Kester Maddock =20

> Hi Martin,
> I've also been poking the game engine recently - with Hos's help I've =20=

> updated
> the ODE physics support in tuhopuu2.
> I'm also thinking of trying to break into the OpenGL side of things - =20=

> maybe
> look at Cg & nVidia's pixel shaders.
> Kester
> On Sunday 14 September 2003 22:53, Martin wrote:
>> Although a relative newbie to Blender, my reasons for wanting to use =20=

>> and
>> contribute to it are:
>> 1)    Open source (a moral sort of thing)
>> 2)    The BlenderPlayer and browser plug in capabilities
>> 3)    The skeletal animation and vertex weighting features
>> So I am really interested in anything which will keep alive or =20
>> resurrect
>> the game engine - count me in! (to the limit of my abilities).
>> What I want is a game engine which is small, easily downloadable and
>> installable, capable of network connection for control of gameplay =
>> loading additional geometry while running.  This means decent Python
>> support in the game engine!
>> Martin
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "maci_ray" <maci_ray@yahoo.de>
>> To: <bf-committers@blender.org>; <bf-python@blender.org>;
>> <tuhopuu-devel@blender.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:41 PM
>> Subject: [Bf-committers] Call for GameEngine developers
>> | Hi GameEngine developers!
>> |
>> | Don't you think we should bundle our efforts in
>> | improving the gameengine?
>> |
>> | If we are enogh people, maybe we can get our own
>> | list for more discussion. But this is future...
>> |
>> | For now I think it would be good to know from
>> | each other at which area everyone is working on.
>> |
>> | Maci_Ray.
>> |
>> | P.S. For clearness I propose to answer only on
>> | bf-committers@blender.org.
>> |
>> |
>> | __________________________________________________________________
>> |
>> | Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
>> | Logos und Klingelt=F6ne f=FCrs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
>> | _______________________________________________
>> | 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
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers@blender.org
> http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Ton Roosendaal  Blender Foundation ton@blender.org =20