[Bf-committers] BGE Future

[Jacob Merrill]

What about working a
On a studio quality game, with a online server, that is designed for user
generated content, that serves adds?
Have in game shop items that cost real money....
On Jun 17, 2013 7:30 AM, "Gavin Howard" <gavin.d.howard at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> I'm starting a new thread because it looks like the previous thread
> got mixed in with another thread.
>
> I never thought that I would write a post like this, but quite
> frankly, I was surprised by how quickly user opposition cropped up
> from Ton's proposed changes to the BGE. At this point, I feel that I
> need to speak frankly. I hope that I don't step on anyone's toes, and
> I also hope that I don't offend anyone. I will be writing down the
> situation as I understand it (so I will be repeating things everyone
> already knows), and I will be offering my commentary and opinion. That
> said, here goes.
>
> I started using Blender regularly about a year and a half ago. From
> the beginning, I started regularly observing the BlenderNation forums,
> as well as other gathering places for users and devs. Even at the
> start, I saw a little bit of tension between BGE users and Blender
> devs. The users LOVE their engine, maybe more so than regular Blender
> users love Blender. They desperately want some dev time put in the
> BGE, and the devs just haven't had time or interest.
>
> Obviously, a change has been needed. And then, Ton makes proposed
> changes that sound as though the BGE is going away as BGE, even if
> there is no loss of functionality. Now, I want it understood that I
> have never been a BGE user. I don't have any use for it because I
> don't make, or even play, video games, but there are quite a few BGE
> users that want to keep the engine an engine. So they toss around the
> option of creating a fork from an existing build that has many
> user-submitted patches applied.
>
> To complicate things, Daniel Stokes has a BGE project. He is now
> working on an engine that may not be an engine in a year or two.
> (Sorry, Daniel!) Nevertheless, it was time for Ton to put out the
> roadmap. I believe the only mistake he made was that he didn't
> anticipate how much the BGE means to its users. But it was definitely
> time. Version 2.68 is more than halfway done, and 2.69 is just around
> the corner. We need to plan for 2.7x, and we need to do it soon.
>
> As an up-and-coming animator, being able to apply logic nodes to
> animations sounds incredibly good. Having an interactive mode that is
> not a game engine sounds incredibly good. Being able to do rule-based
> animation (for crowds and things like that) sounds AWESOMELY good. I
> LIKE the direction that Ton wants to go. Blender's main purpose is to
> produce images and animations, so it fits with the philosophy as well.
> However, I also understand that many people see the game engine for
> what it is: a game engine.
>
> So, here's MY proposal, if it even matters. I propose that Daniel keep
> his project. Yes, I know, it may not matter in the long run. But wait
> a second! His project is to add level-of-detail support to the BGE. As
> an animator, if my software can automatically adjust the level of
> detail for objects based on distance from the camera, I would be very
> happy, so even if BGE disappears, that code won't, which means that
> mainstream Blender would get that capability. That is VERY cool. And
> then, his project is to do a lot of refactoring, bug fixing, and so
> on. Well, the BGE apparently needs it, and even if a fork happens, I'm
> sure the Blender Foundation would love to start working on interactive
> mode with a codebase that has been cleaned up. Plus, a lot of that
> fixing can be investigating the patches that were applied in the HG1
> Build and seeing if the official BGE could use them.
>
> So let Daniel keep the same project. At the end of the summer, when
> 2.69 is about to come out, let's all sit down and figure out what we
> are going to do. I have no doubt that Ton will continue to want to
> create interactive mode from the BGE, and I have no doubt that users
> will want to fork it. So I propose this: users, spend the summer to
> find someone who knows the BGE codebase that also knows Ton personally
> and is willing to head up the project. (Make sure Ton knows him/her
> personally as well.) Then, after the summer, they should sit down and
> figure out how to make two projects out of one. If a new project were
> to be made, I would want everyone to part on good terms, and since the
> new project (GameBlender probably) would use a lot of Blender trunk,
> there is no reason to split the two projects completely. We can be
> like Krita and MyPaint, two similar open source projects with
> different philosophies that coordinate with each other. It would be
> great if someone can be found that can work with Ton, so the
> GameBlender project could keep up-to-date with Blender trunk, which
> would allow them to focus on the game engine itself. Oh, and since Ton
> has run an open source project for over a decade now, he could help
> the new project lead to learn the ropes.
>
> IMO, this solution, actually splitting the projects, just might get
> rid of the tension that has existed between BGE users and Blender
> devs. It will allow Blender to keep its core philosophy, as well as
> allow BGE users to keep their engine.
>
> Again, I hope this email has not offended anyone or stepped on
> anyone's toes. If it has, I am sorry.
>
> God Bless,
> Gavin Howard
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>