ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
So, I've been heavily considering on purchasing the Torgue Game Builder, so I'm going between the regular version and pro. so, how valuable is having the source? I originally didn't think I'd need it and it wouldn't be worth the extra $150, but I read some people saying to save the upgrade cost and get the Pro version straight off. So, for those who have TGB (and Matt Langley, of course), do you think it's better to get the pro or not? Or, for a more open-ended question, when did you have to edit the source and how valuable is it? ------------------ |
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
i didn't get the pro license for it. it's only good if you're actually going to read/edit it. i really wanted the source code so i could do stuff like upgrade the network library and maybe do some isometric stuff, but i've barely had time to just play with TGB itself. So my guess is if you think you'll actually do something fun with it then maybe it's a good deal to get it right off the bat ------------------ |
SSquared Member Posts: 654 From: Pacific Northwest Registered: 03-22-2005 |
How much is the upgrade cost? I can't find it on the site. I have TGB but have wondered what the upgrade cost is. I would actually say to continue holding off on your purchase. If you haven't read the news, another company has purchased a majority of GarageGames. This will lead to several new announcements at the upcoming Independent Game Conference October 10-11. This could lead to: A) A lower priced TGB/Source bundle. Yeah, C would be upsetting, huh? I don't personally think it will be C, but time will tell. Don't get mad at me if I'm wrong, though. I would also hold off due to any potential update announcements. If a new version is coming out soon, you don't want to get the old source. Updates to TGB (like many other gaming APIs) tend to break older code. You don't want to fiddle with code, only to find out your code breaks or doesn't compile with an updated version. Personally, I would actually like the source so I can update the editors, rather than the engine. I'm an application developer, so I tend to focus on application-level features and look & feel. For example, the editor is a gray-ish/white look. When I first started using the main editor, all of the buttons appeared in their disabled state. But it was an optical illusion. The color scheme used confused me and gives buttons a disabled look. A great example is the opening screen asking if you want to open a new project or open your last level. TGB is already quite powerful and capable. But having the source is still a terrific idea. You can slip in some real-time networking, which would really add a big plus to the engine. Others have written ways to integrate with Python, C#, and other languages. I know, the extra $150 is a deterrent since you don't really know to what extent you will need to make source code changes. Plus, you will be spending quite a bit of time just learning TGB. The one thing I keep going back to is the game Marble Tactics. Try it out. It's really fun. Well, I think it is. Most of it was done using stock TGB...but he did have to make some code engine updates. Unfortunately, I don't know what those changes were, so I don't know how makeit or breakit those updates are to the game. My point is, even for a small game like this, he still needed to make source code changes. I am acutally really wanting to purchase the TGB Adventure Kit. I can really use the tiles, objects, and the features (roofs disappear when walking into building, shooting, some basic AI). It covers several areas that I just don't want to spend the time to learn, but offers, I hope, clear ways of implementing these features. Well, I do hope Matt says something. Hopefully his indication of what to do will lead to some idea of the upcoming future pricing. But I just wanted to throw in my thoughts and why I feel it's best to hold off until at least the IGC. [This message has been edited by ssquared (edited September 26, 2007).] |
|
JeTSpice Member Posts: 433 From: La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA Registered: 06-10-2006 |
You can make some very simple games with TGB without source. Most of these simple games consist of one premise. For instance, TGB comes with an example of whack-a-mole, and a side-scrolling shooter. I was told that TGB was originally developed with casual games in mind. But now they've expanded development to aid in more complex games. But still, (as Ssquared says) most commercially-competitive games, even casual ones, made with TGB have had modifications to the source code. I spent 6 months developing on TGB, making a very complex city scape, with a crowd and some monsters. It was shown to GG, and they were impressed with how far the programmer had stretched TGB without source modification. However, I had to scrap development because the game only ran smoothly on new computers, which was unacceptable for a commercially-viable game. TGB upscales all graphics to the nearest power of 2, (expanded by 4 times as big). So, in order to squeeze in the number of graphics we needed, all assets were created smaller with fewer animation frames than desired. Even at that, it was taking up 300M of ram to run. This meant that to incorporate new levels with new looks, a majority of players would have been waiting around for stuff to unload and load again. It would handle 100 copies of a single walk cycle easily. But when we added our large scrolling background, disappearing roofs, and varied NPC crowd, it slowed on the older computers. In short, it would do everything we wanted, but it started to slow older (3 yrs.) computers down. It doesn't have options for "dirty rectangles" or other optimization, but it does have optimizers. What they are, nobody can say. Perhaps it is a trade secret. The programmer I was working with jokingly suggested that graphics could be intelligently loaded and unloaded just outside the player's field of view. This is a viable option, but at that point, it seems that straight-forward programming from the ground up is a better option (In fact, that's what my current plan is.) Another strange lack of optimization caused a tile map of 10,000 x 10,000 to take up 30 M, and it was all made of the same asset. So, the benefits of using a tile map in TGB are not to enhance loading, unloading, or disk space, but seem to only be beneficial in that they are easy for a developer to make. The particle effects in TGB are awesome. The editer is tweaky, but with effort, it produces some incredible effects. TGB comes stock with a bunch of effects and they are awesome. Also, we varied the skin tones and colors of clothing of all the NPCs and they looked like a realistic crowd. It was cool. Granted, my development needs are out of the ordinary. If a person is making a casual game, or a traditional side-scroller, shooter, or platformer, it's a great development tool and it enhances the look of graphics, animations, physics, etc. and generally makes the game look better. You can check out a side-scroller I did in a couple months (probably would have taken a true coder a couple of weeks) at jetspicegames.com |
zookey Member Posts: 1902 From: Great Falls, Montana, USA Registered: 04-28-2002 |
quote: Which game are you going to build in it? I remember you talking about a Vietnam game you had a long time ago--is it that? ------------------ |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
Hmm, you bring some interesting points up, s2. definietly something to ponder over. Same to you, jetspice. Seems like a lot of work working around the lack of source, tho.
quote: ah, no. That game's been dead for a while. Right now I'm working a 2d RPG (turn based at the moment) that I'm coding in C#, but might move over to TGB. Also, I'm in the talks with developing a short 2d rpg with some guys on campus, so might use it for that, too. then there's always the next speedgame competition... ------------------ |
|
Matt Langley Member Posts: 247 From: Eugene, OR, USA Registered: 08-31-2006 |
Some great points given... Unfortunately don't have time to go too in-depth, though hopefully this will give you a bit of insight into your decision. For basic 2D games you don't need to touch the source for much of anything. At the most you may need it when look at publishing through portals, but portals sometimes have sticky requirements that require modifications at the engine level, unfortunately thats just a fact for portal publishing. If you are making a more complex game, one with a lot of rendering needs, or one with special needs you may need to dig in to the source. Without digging into the source you can accomplish quite a bit and probably could even release a fairly complex game. When it comes to performance tuning you will always be more successful going into the engine. Any game engine will simply not satisfy performance needs for every style of games. Things like "dirty rectangles" are useful for certain games and completely useless for others. Performance is simply best done for your specific game... so that will always come to source code modifications. Can you get away with not touching the source code with a fairly complex game and still have decent performance? I'd say yes... though inevitably your game will simply run better if you tweak things on the source side... though it's not a need for every game. Also keep in mind that the source version gives you access to the source scripts for the editor... this allows you to extend the editor to your needs. Upgrading from binary to pro is about $195 I believe... so if you choose to go pro from the get-go you get a discount. Hopefully this can give you some further insight. ------------------ |
steveth45 Member Posts: 536 From: Eugene, OR, USA Registered: 08-10-2005 |
quote: I wouldn't bet on any of those happening, though traditionally, the price of Torque has slowly risen, but so has the quality. As far as "giving away" the source, that will not happen, at least not without having some major restrictions and commercial license requirements. It would be cool if the source were opened to the public for non-commercial use. ------------------ |
|
SSquared Member Posts: 654 From: Pacific Northwest Registered: 03-22-2005 |
quote: That's why I stated it as 'could happen'. I'm not really sure what to expect. All I am saying is to wait until IGC which is simply a few mere days away. Based on current forum posts and how they now give away the documentation, I personally don't think they will RAISE the price at the conference, which is really the only reason to buy now rather than wait two weeks. Lots of things are up in the air right now so I just don't think purchasing Torque in the next few days is a good idea. GarageGames has stated they will be making announcements regarding updates to their product line...at least I thought I read that. There is tons of speculation on the GarageGames site, and, for Matthew's sake, I don't want to start speculation on here either. I was just hoping for a clearer indication from Matthew saying something like, "I highly recommend you purchase it now" because he knows the price will go up after the conference. He didn't really give ANY indications of what to do, which, I do somewhat appreciate as he is being true to his employeer. He stated the facts and left it up to the reader to decide. |
|
Matt Langley Member Posts: 247 From: Eugene, OR, USA Registered: 08-31-2006 |
quote: Thank you for recognizing this If you don't need a Pro license right now you might want to wait until IGC (considering it's pretty soon). I don't think anything announced will dramatically effect your decision (I can explain further after IGC) though then again IGC is only a couple weeks on the horizon so it probably wouldn't hurt waiting. ------------------ |
|
SSquared Member Posts: 654 From: Pacific Northwest Registered: 03-22-2005 |
Nice update Matthew. Thanks. Looking forward to the announcements. Steveth45, by the way, when I said giving the code away for free, what I am suggesting is the possibility that you will still NEED to buy Torque Game Builder to get the source, but rather than having a PRO version, there will simply be ONE version and it contains the source code. So, basically, I am throwing out the possibility of them removing the PRO/source version and just bundling the source with the lower priced one...or, perhaps, increase TGB by a small amount. I actually think the above is a good possibility, but, I'm speculating here. But, given they opened up documentation to everyone, TorqueX is free, and GarageGames has made mention the buyout may afford them more leniency in what they can give out, I'm extrapolating to one possible conclusion. But...one of my favorite lines still holds true. "Only time will tell." So, Arch, what are you gonna do? |
|
ArchAngel Member Posts: 3450 From: SV, CA, USA Registered: 01-29-2002 |
Well, looks like I'm going to get the Pro eventually, but I do want to wait it out a bit. I do want to see what happens at the IGC. I don't feel like rushing to spend the money. I have so many large purchases on plate (car upgrades, maintenance, stock, new computer...) and I don't want to cut to deep into my savings. So, talked with some of the guys and it looks like the project will be built be using the TGB, so depending on how fast that moves along, I'll but it sooner or later. ------------------ |
|
SSquared Member Posts: 654 From: Pacific Northwest Registered: 03-22-2005 |
Ummm, did you notice the price went up by $100? Sorry dude.  No. Not really anything mentioned at IGC regarding current products. At least not during the main speeches. Perhaps more in-depth discussions were done at the roundtables. The more I play with TGB, the more cool I think having the code will be. I think at least one person on your team should get the Pro version. Although I don't know quite how that works license-wise. If the person with Pro makes engine updates, is he/she able to give the compiled update to everyone? Or can only Pro users interchange amongst other Pro users. I am personally looking at getting the Adventure Kit. It contains a good tileset and many nice features I am looking at using for a game I have in mind. Unfortunately, according to the license agreement: "You may modify or create derivative works for use in the creation of one software product". I am curious to know if this means if I were to use some content, code, or concepts from the kit in a CCN Contest game, will I then be required to repurchase the kit if I am using it for something else? It seems to indicate this. I want to be sure if I do get it, I am following the correct license. I guess I have a few questions for the GG site. |
Briant Member Posts: 742 From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada Registered: 01-20-2001 |
Matt Langley said:quote: Can you explain further now? I have a project that I'm considering getting TGB Pro for. Thanks, ------------------ Check out this webhost! Fantastic prices, features and support! |
|
SSquared Member Posts: 654 From: Pacific Northwest Registered: 03-22-2005 |
BrianT, as far as I can tell, nothing was really announced which would effect a decision to purchase TGB. In other words, if you wanted to use TGB prior to IGC, nothing was said which would either hinder or persuade you in the decision. I had been hoping to hear some dramatic updates to their current engines, but from what I can tell, nothing was said in regards to any current technology. Their next-gen Torque2 was overviewed, but that still seems like quite a ways out (2 years for a release, although early adopter and betas sometime next year). A few weeks ago, a GG employee hinted on the forums "I should probably clarify that Torque X blows TGB out of the water *for now*. We have people working on the next round of our native tech and I have to say, it's pretty sweet." So I thought we would hear things this week about some cool updates to TGB. Now that I re-read the statement, I realize it probably has nothing to do with TGB but probably with Torque2. [This message has been edited by ssquared (edited October 12, 2007).] |
|
Matt Langley Member Posts: 247 From: Eugene, OR, USA Registered: 08-31-2006 |
quote: Yes, your assessment that only those who need the source code need a Pro license is correct
quote: At IGC we talked breifly about Juggernaut, which is our engines unified. It's the current build we internally use for our games and those we fund (for the most part). Since it's a unified engine of our other engines it contains the TGB engine, though not the tools code. We are considering possible ways of releasing that to our users though we don't want to spend the time productizing it (such as documentation) considering we'd rather spend our resources on our future release which has a lot more to contribute. We haven't decided how and if we will release it to our users, though we had considered some options before IGC. So unfortunately I cannot speak further on that, except to say that in whatever way we release that (if we do) it will not contain the TGB tools source code... so if you want the TGB tools source code TGB Pro is still a must. In essence this wont effect the decision of the majority of the people making this same decision and I still recommend TGB Pro (so you get tool source code to extend it). Though there may be a small minority of people in which it does effect. ------------------ |
|
Matt Langley Member Posts: 247 From: Eugene, OR, USA Registered: 08-31-2006 |
quote: A fairly valid assessment. Though "Torque X blows TGB out of the water" is a very subjective statement. In the manner of using C# and components, both huge pluses, the downsides being XNA distibution not being finalized, no mac option, etc... So they are both better for different situations ------------------ |
|
SSquared Member Posts: 654 From: Pacific Northwest Registered: 03-22-2005 |
Just to clarify, it was the employee who suggested TorqueX blows away TGB, not me. Maybe you knew that, but I just want to be sure. Thanks for the update Matthew. I am still a little surprised there was no mention of current technology. Are things still being worked on? Any future enhancements expected? Bug fixes only? As a devlepor or user of any product, these are important questions to know. [This message has been edited by ssquared (edited October 12, 2007).] |
|
Briant Member Posts: 742 From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada Registered: 01-20-2001 |
Hey, Thanks all for the info. I already have TGEA (+ license) but have not yet used it for anything. I also have a casual 2D game that is near completion (written in C++ and using DirectX). I am not happy with how the sound/music part of the game code is working out (or rather, not working), adding animations is a fairly clunky and cumbersome task, and there is NO network capability built into the game yet. Getting these features fixed/finished is going to take me a while, so what are my options? - Port my project to TGB Pro? It looks good, especially for my sound and animation headaches. Also opens up Mac market to me. Advice and opinions welcome, especially on the TGEA option. Also, we're semi-actively looking for help finishing coding, making prettier graphics, etc. Contact me for details. ------------------ Check out this webhost! Fantastic prices, features and support! |
|
SSquared Member Posts: 654 From: Pacific Northwest Registered: 03-22-2005 |
What is it about your current sound/music you do not like. What is it you want improved or done better? This will help in understanding whether TGB will or will not fit your needs. This is not an area I have looked much into yet, but I have heard people wishing it was something more. For my needs, I think it may be fine, so I am not personally too interested in finding out the limitations at this point. Keep in mind, TGB's networking is very lite. It does not contain real-time networking, but rather is focused on turn-based systems. But...with the Pro version, I figure you can slip in networking yourself, so improving the networking is an option. Just know the standard networking is turn-based. Don't know if that's a problem for you. TorqueX - I would stay away from XNA for any near-term plans you may have for a release. This is totally my own personal feeling. XNA requires .NET 2.0 and I find most people do not have .NET 2.0 installed on their machines. To me, you are limiting your audience right now if you go to XNA. That said, I really do like XNA and there are plenty of terrific resources, wonderful help, and great tools out there. And...it's C#!!! The nice thing is, I think GarageGames gives you both TourqeX and TGB when you buy the product, so you get both anyway. But check that out just to be sure. Not knowing your game, unless it's that hockey one, I think casual games can be made with TGEA, but will certainly require a bit of rethinking. Look up something like TubeTwist in the GarageGames store. Or take a peek at Crazy Cube for a 3D casual/puzzle game. TGB does, to some extent, allow you to use 3D objects, but I'm not quite sure how that works. Looks like they are working 3D into the next release of TorqueX. Another personal feeling is I like the Mac option these days. I am seeing quite a trend of people moving to Macs. Many people I know have switched to Macs (my wife included). So, for me, if I can give a game out to friends and acquaitenances at church (who have Macs) then that is a definite positive for me in choosing an engine. Perhaps Matthew or Clint can give some input on the Mac side of things. Not really sure if I cleared things up for you. |
|
JeTSpice Member Posts: 433 From: La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA Registered: 06-10-2006 |
If you want to build a Mac version of a game in TGB, you need to compile it on a Mac. When you purchase TGB, you get a key and you can download a Mac version onto a Mac computer and a Windows version onto a PC (at least that's how it was when I got mine). You can create your scripts in either, and then compile two versions, one on each computer. |
|
Briant Member Posts: 742 From: Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada Registered: 01-20-2001 |
Hi ssquared,
quote: I'm a complete newbie to DirectSound, and I don't have things working right yet, that's all I meant. Layering sounds over music and other sounds isn't working yet. Yes, turn-based networking would be fine - it's a card game. About TGEA, I don't need (or want) to do the card game in 3D - I'm more asking if there's any problems or hurdles in doing a purely 2D game in TGEA instead of TGB. I installed the TGB demo last night and poked around it a little. I can see that I'm going to have to do a few of the tutorials before deciding, as at first use it doesn't seem to be as intuitive or as full-featured as I was hoping. Thanks for the comments. ------------------ Check out this webhost! Fantastic prices, features and support! |
|
SSquared Member Posts: 654 From: Pacific Northwest Registered: 03-22-2005 |
quote: Ah. OK. This is fairly easy to do in Torque. You can have music, sounds, and looped. Although I have not yet gotten to implementing sound/music, so I don't have first hand experience. But it looked fairly simple when I looked it over. TGB provides several events like collisions, mouse clicks, trigger points, and more. All of these provide callbacks into your script. You can watch for these callbacks and just tell it play a sound.
quote: I believe it can be done. You can certainly add 2D elements to the screen, but I don't know how well TGE/A is geared towards making a strictly 2D game.
quote: You are right. At least I felt the same way. TGB is not a pick up and go type of environment. It requires work to learn and understand. This is exactly why I am challenging myself to specifically learn TGB this month. I found myself getting frustrated and not getting very far. As I work through this learning scenario for the month, I must say I feel SO much better about TGB, its capabilities, and my own confidence in using it. The claim that TorqueScript is like C++ is a misnomer (in my opinion). I got distracted by this statement as I did not find the script to be anything like C++. Syntactically there are some similarities. At first, I was getting frustrated with TorqueScript because I kept trying to think it as C++. But now that I've spent some more time with it, I'm beginning to feel much better about it...but it DOES require learning a new language, the required API, and lots of new syntax ($, %, $=, etc.). The tutorials are extremely helpful and teach quite a lot of the basic essentials. Unfortunately, you will also be unable to complete some tutorials as the resources just don't exist (the mounting tutorial (no rain effect file exists), the Whack-A-Mole tutorial (none of the artwork is there), and others). Nevertheless, you can still get some good foundational understanding even without actually having the resources for these projects. Another option is SDL or SDL.NET. No special environment or anything, but is much easier to use than probably DirectX. I used SDL.NET (latest versions require .NET 2.0) and really enjoyed it. Sure, there are pitfalls and gotchas here too, but for straight 2D sprite work, it's a decent little guy. Sound/Music was absolutely a breeze. Setting up and displaying sprites is very simple. One thing, though, is there are no GUI controls for SDL.NET. That is kind of a bummer. Maybe they have some for SDL. I say to keep looking at TGB. If you have any questions, ask here or on the GG website. You've only got 30 days for the demo, right? It will require some effort to learn and understand. [This message has been edited by ssquared (edited October 14, 2007).] |
|
Matt Langley Member Posts: 247 From: Eugene, OR, USA Registered: 08-31-2006 |
A few post since with a lot of good questions. This last weekend I've been sick and battling an ear infection (up until today caused me to lose almost all of my hearing in my right ear lol), so today I'm finally up for answering some q uestions  Plus IGC recovery as well.
quote: I did, thanks for clarifying that. I was going to make a reference towards that employee so you didn't think that I thought it was you, but couldn't figure out a reasonable way to fit it into my statement. I'd guess Thomas Buscaglia said that statement, if not him then possibly Adam Larson. In certain ways I do agree with it though, C# + components are a huge gain, as you probably saw from the IGC feed (I think you watched it?) components are a future plan for our Torque 2.0 tech.
quote: There was breif mention, though it was quite breif. During the Future of Torque roundtable it was mentioned the best, if you are currently wanting to use our tech or currently making a game then our current tech is still ideal. Our future tech is 6 months + out. It is heavily based upon our current tech but re-organized and heavily cleaned up, so we aren't reinventing the wheel (in fact Clark F., the director of our engine tech, has said he plans to utilize other sources to avoid NIH). Because of this it probably wont be 2 years out and hopefully a whole lot sooner. We also are heavily working towards having a more solid user experience. In the past we've been focused on distributing solid tech that a skilled or learning coder can utilize... TGB changed that somewhat and we started to go towards an easier user experience, in our future efforts we plan to focus on that more. Got a little sidetracked on the future stuff... as for the present stuff, we stated we mainly will be working on bug fixes (In fact a TGB release has been worked on and is being worked on with various bug fixes and minor improvements, hopefully I can work some doc fixes in that you've pointed out here and on the GG forums, huge thx btw). Features, probably not. It's not a definite no, if we see a very benefial feature that can be ported over to our existing tech without too much hassle we will do it. This will have to be a very business oriented decision with ROI a major consideration. With that said, ROI does include any major features/issues that cause us to spend a good deal of time supporting via e-mails and forum posts. In that case it does make sense for us to either fix it ourselves or contract it out and get it into a release. I can't get into specifics because currently I can't see any specifics, not in the feature department. As far as bug fixes, the File IO was a huge bug that snuck in with the tool & player separation, that has been fixed and will be released... We've also updated some fo the camera code. I personally am watching over something that may result in a handful of TGB demos that we almost released being released, updated to the latest version (I'm very excited about that, some great TGB game examples). Basically low hanging fruit. Things either that don't cost much time, or have a value that makes the time expense clear. The reason for this currently evaluation of ROI is in fact a consideration for our future goals. Right now we have to justify any work being done in our current tech, tools, and docs being compared against work being done in our future product. A lot of things in Torque are being cleaned up for the future tech and it doesn't make sense to doubly fix it, with more hacky style workaround being in exiting tech, and a proper cleanup in future tech. It makes more sense to invest this time into our future efforts. This doesn't mean we're abandoning our current tech (far from it). I still will personally patrol the forums and answer questions. When we get a bug report in that is critical or major we will consider fixing it and doing a point release. Less likely but still possible, if we see a feature that really makes sense we will consider it and go from there. In the end we have to reach a point in which we focus on our future efforts moreso than our current ones. Not completely drop our current ones, just develop on our future goals in a more solid and efficient way. A lot of the things discussed at IGC about our future tech and tools support this. A lot of old Torque t hings have been cleaned up and are being cleaned up to better help us develop tools and a user experience that is more well rounded and solid. Sorry for the vagueness of the answer, though I hope that helps answer it better.
The sound/music system in Torque is fairly basic. It works, obviously considering the games released with it, though it is very simple and basic. You can run multiple music and sound files with a limited level of control. This may be fully sufficient for you, though I wanted to point out that the sound system in Torque is very functional, though very basic. Nothing fancy. I would recommend away from going to TorqueX for the reasons ssquared mentioned. XNA currently only has a PC distribution channel. As ssquared mention it requires .net 2.0 installed on the user's machine, a somewhat annoying requirement for a release. I'd keep my eye on it in the future, though probably not for anything you want to work on now. I would say TGB Pro is your best bet. You could possibly do it in TGEA, that eliminates the mac release possibilities though, though it will require quite a bit of work. Developing a 2D game in TGEA will not be easy, TGB will make that at least 50x easier.
quote: TGB's networking is more than adequate for a card game. Be sure to check out the Checkers Tutorial for TGB.
quote: At one end I'm sorry to hear that, at another I'm happy you can realize this. A lot of people don't and then have false expectations. My next question would be what features is it missing that you were expecting (more out of personal curiosity than anything) Keep in mind TGB is not meant to be a Gamemaker style tool, it was intended to be somewhere in between Gamemaker and TGE. We didn't want to sacrifice capability for ease of tools (like Gamemaker does), though wanted to provide a tool base that is much easier to use than any other Torque engine. This puts it in a somewhat weird middle grounds in which it's a bit tricky to get used to, though once you get used to it you can accomplish quite a bit. The tools were designed (besides a few shortsighted aspects) to be efficiency gainers, rather than to ease you into development. This is something we are considering for our future tool development, though I still feel TGB has a nice fit if you spend a bit of time working in it. The best thing is the power of the engine isn't hampered by the tools, something I've always been personally disapointed with in the Gamemaker level of tools (more cookie cutter style). ssquared actually details the experience perfectly in:
quote: I see this as both a weakness and a strength of TGB. Once you get into development with TGB it begins to feel very comfortable (at least personally thats how it's been), though it's still a bit rough at start. Keep in mind this is a vast iprovement over TGE and we are still working at making tools that even do this better. TGB isn't perfect (what is lol), though I still feel it's a solid development tool @ssquared:
quote: I think the TGB Feature page details it well:
quote: For a while (and still to a certain point today) people referenced scripting languages via the coding languages they are most like. Such as C like, syntax similar to C++, BASIC style syntax, etc. This has gone down somewhat the past while, though to me personally it always just meant that the language shared similar syntax patterns, though still is very different, otherwise it would just use C++. ------------------ |
HanClinto Administrator Posts: 1828 From: Indiana Registered: 10-11-2004 |
Hey Matt, Glad to hear you're feeling better. quote: I'm curious as to where something like VMPlayer would land. There have been publicly-posted bug fixes/features for that for quite a while -- are these the kinds of things that you're planning to integrate into HEAD? Whether that's low-hanging-enough fruit or not, at the present time I'm still glad to be on the GG bandwagon. I'm extremely curious (to say the least) over how things will pan out -- I'm a huge GG fan and I'd love to stay with Torque in the future (it's a fantastic tool), but I still have many things about the future of the Torque tools that seem pretty unclear (and I'm sure you don't know all the answers either). Thanks a lot for the honest and helpful update, Matt -- your candor is much appreciated. --clint |
|
SSquared Member Posts: 654 From: Pacific Northwest Registered: 03-22-2005 |
Wow Matt! Didn't know you were so sick. Glad you are feeling better now. You are really great to provide some answers.
quote: Excellent! Personally, for me, this is probably my #1 item. Torsion may have a lot of my issues resolved, but I have not used it. I would like to have an IDE with easy ways to write code where I can select from a list of possible callbacks, click on it, and a placeholder is added to code. ComboBoxes where I can actually read the entire text or at least more than just a few characters. But, yes, once you get familiar with TGB, it definitely has some aspects which become quite easy to use. Tilemaps are really easy. Editing collision polygons are super easy. Love how easy it is to define an object's world limit. And behaviors really add to the speed of development. I am really HOT on behaviors.
quote: Hoo boy! If the user experience is my #1 thing, then more demos/examples is probably my 2nd or 3rd. Can't wait. I looked over those recent tutorials for TorqueX and they looked fantastic!
quote: I didn't find it vague at all. I felt it completely explained things. Everything you said is fairly typical in software development (time vs. ROI), so I could easily relate. Brian, I think TGB may actually be a good candiate for a card game. Especially when using behaviors. You can easily setup behaviors for clicking the mouse on a card or for moving cards around with the mouse. Plus, there is the potential for some easy eye candy by creating particle effects when certain events occur. Keep playing with it and continue to ask questions so you will have a good feeling of whether or not it will meet your specific needs. Fiddle around with the GUI controls and look at the file mainScreen.GUI. Open up mainScreen.GUI in the GUI editor and add stuff to it. I also found HeardTheWord's CCN Contest source to be EXTREMELY helpful in seeing how the GUI windows work, and how to get the different game windows (main screen, options, help, etc.) to display. |
HeardTheWord Member Posts: 224 From: Des Moines, IA Registered: 08-16-2004 |
Yep, TGB is a good platform to create a game on. I have always been impressed with the GUI system in Torque and for a card game I'm not sure there is another engine that would work better. However, note that it won't do everything (not many things do) but it will allow you to prototype your ideas faster and give you clear feedback on what the end product will be. Sounds like GarageGames is moving into the corporate world! I'm looking forward to what comes from the Torque products in the near future. Thanks for the update Matt! |
