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 <blueprintrand...@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.how...@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@blender.org >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers