[Bf-committers] Call for GameEngine developers
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=
> the ODE physics support in tuhopuu2.
> I'm also thinking of trying to break into the OpenGL side of things - =20=
> look at Cg & nVidia's pixel shaders.
> On Sunday 14 September 2003 22:53, Martin wrote:
>> Although a relative newbie to Blender, my reasons for wanting to use =20=
>> 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
>> 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!
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "maci_ray" <email@example.com>
>> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>;
>> 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
>> | firstname.lastname@example.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
>> | Bfemail@example.com
>> | http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers mailing list
Ton Roosendaal Blender Foundation firstname.lastname@example.org =20