[Bf-committers] BGE Future

Jacob Merrill blueprintrandom1 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 17 20:47:06 CEST 2013


This could get ALOT of money for developing the BGE.....

I have a design for a project now.


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Jacob Merrill
<blueprintrandom1 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list