Ton, Thank you for your response. It sounds like what you have in mind is actually similar to thoughts I have already had for the game engine, though perhaps on a more ambitious scale. It would certainly help BGE development if more of the game engine code was shared with the rest of Blender.
I look forward to seeing how this progresses. Regards, Daniel Stokes On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Przemyslaw Golab < golab.przemys...@gmail.com> wrote: > Really good reference of GE and Animation Tool integration is Source Film > Maker it's really powerful tool Allowing to record gameplay and edit it as > animations in traditional fashion, even if it's point cloud bake per frame. > Something like this could benefit Blender in new production workflows, > action recording, puppetry. > > Although I would like to see REAL oss game engine, with real tools, not > only naked core like most oss game engines out there... BGE is going > nowhere, mostly because of license. Making it first flag citizen in Blender > could ignite life into this project. > Making usable engine for deployment would probably be something for it's > own project. > > > 2013/6/17 Ton Roosendaal <t...@blender.org> > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > I wrote the blog post as a discussion piece, something we can spend on > for > > months, or a year, or as much time we need. We have a quite long way to > go > > before "a new GE" can be defined to be feasible anyway. > > > > I would also like to see a wide consensus about future plans for Blender. > > For that reason you shouldn't see it as 'bad timing', or a suggestion to > > refocus your work. > > > > The GE itself, and its current users, will really benefit your work now. > > Your gsoc project is also meant to solve a lot of current issues (bugs) > > anyway. I hope you can continue that work happily. > > > > (Long answer to your questions in a next mail) > > > > -Ton- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Ton Roosendaal - t...@blender.org - www.blender.org > > Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute > > Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > > > > > > > > On 17 Jun, 2013, at 8:00, Daniel Stokes wrote: > > > > > I would like to know more about what Ton means by the line "What should > > > then be dropped is the idea to make Blender have an embedded “true” > game > > > engine" from the blog post. > > > > > > What exactly is proposed to be dropped here? It looks to me all that is > > > proposed to be dropped is an idea, changing the focus of the game > engine > > to > > > make it better at what it can do rather than making it a clone of other > > > game engine/game editors. Are we actually talking about removing > features > > > and/or the ability to publish a game? The blog post mentions creating > "3D > > > interaction for walkthroughs, for scientific sims, or game prototypes". > > > This can still make use of existing code/features as well as the > ability > > to > > > publish and distribute these creations. > > > > > > As a BGE developer I have often considered a closer integration of the > > BGE > > > and the rest of Blender for their mutual benefit. At its simplest, > closer > > > integration means better viewport visualization, and more maintained > code > > > for the BGE. Stronger integration yields even more interesting ideas as > > Ton > > > outlines in the blog post. As I said in my original response, this > sounds > > > like a great idea as long as those three conditions (mostly we aren't > > > losing a lot of functionality for current BGE users) are met. > > > > > > As to the idea of me changing GSoC projects, I am not entirely against > > it, > > > but I would like to better understand both Ton's proposal and the > > potential > > > new project before jumping ship to a vague/undefined project. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Daniel Stokes > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Benjamin Tolputt < > > > btolp...@internode.on.net> wrote: > > > > > >> On 17/06/2013, at 3:23 PM, Campbell Barton wrote: > > >> > > >>> Then it may be a good argument for Daniel to make a start on > > >>> interactive-animation tools, > > >> > > >> If he is amenable to the switch, then that would make a decent > > compromise > > >> to offer surely? > > >> > > >>> While this is a valid point, (as far as I know) none of these devs > > >>> have stepped up to really supporting the BGE and helping become a > > >>> maintainer. > > >>> They mostly submit one feature they need for their game, then become > > >>> inactive with BGE dev. > > >> > > >> I wasn't pointing it out as a reason against Ton's move, I was using > it > > to > > >> support the *earlier* point that there is a lack developer > effort/focus > > >> toward the BGE. The patches/submissions to Blender aren't being > > accepted, a > > >> good-sized proportion of BGE advocates are recommending that one use a > > >> build that applies most of them, and yet they admit is almost a fork > > due to > > >> the variance between "official BGE" and "HG1 build BGE". > > >> > > >> Perhaps it will be a benefit to both BGE and Blender if they become > > >> separate projects? Blender can focus on asset creation (with the data > > >> structures and code compromises that make that efficient) whilst the > BGE > > >> can start optimising the code/structures it uses to make it better for > > >> running a game. > > >> > > >>> ... you could argue this is catch22 - if we accepted their patches > > >>> they would become more active and submit more fixes.... but I still > > >>> think if someone really wanted to become active and take the BGE > > >>> forward they could - despite some slow patch review. > > >> > > >> Whilst you could argue the catch-22 aspect, I'd have to disagree that > > slow > > >> patch review isn't a big issue in it's own right. Watching a patch > > wither > > >> on the vine is a very demotivating experience, especially if it fixes > > >> something and the bug is left in the main project despite you having > put > > >> the effort into solving it so the core development team didn't have > to. > > >> That's something being bandied about the Blender-verse lately as well. > > >> > > >> Sure, if you want to be active enough, you'll walk over shards of > broken > > >> glass to keep submitting your patches but that doesn't mean we should > > >> expect them to. Again, not an argument against the BGE > > >> removal/simplification as I support/defend Ton's decision in this > > regard. > > >> Just pointing out that the argument (like the "it's not as good as the > > >> competition" one) is pretty poor on it's own. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Benjamin Tolputt > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers