On Sunday, 1 November 2015 at 02:35:49 UTC, Manu wrote:
In terms of what I've used commercially, Fuji is the platform
abstraction and core concept implementation that lives below
the layer that the high-level interacts with. Editors and
tooling (I feel this is what you're talking about when you
start using words like 'Unity' or 'Unreal') typically impose
particular design decisions wrt scene-graph, physics
implementations, etc. The goal of Fuji is not to be Unity, it's
intended to be the platform which you could build Unity above,
and all commercial engines I've had contact with do have such a
layer.
I'm not sure if that answers your question.
For what it's intended to be, Fuji is quite comprehensive. As a
full-game-engine a-la Unity/Unreal, it needs all the high-level
stuff
built on top. The reason I didn't touch that, is because that
layer is
extremely subjective, and there are no right/wrong answers
there. I
also change my mind on that stuff every year or 2. Whereas the
lower
level is a lot less subjective, and it's been more-or-less
constant
since I started Fuji in 2003. I still wouldn't do it differently
today, although I have a lot more experience and console
generations
to draw wisdom from.
Nonono, you're fine, what I'm looking for is a lightweight engine
that ISN'T like Unity or Unreal and the sophisticated nature of
their tools. Often, their engine design decisions back me into a
corner when it comes to how I want to organize my own project,
and they're oftentimes overkill.
About the only thing I would want to keep from those two monster
engines is some live compilation feature where changes in source,
assets, or UI scripting are immediately apparent in-game. But
that takes a massive amount of work, I understand if it's not a
priority. You have to port the thing to D in the first place, a
significant undertaking in and of itself.
What you have seems to be great, so I'll follow it eagerly.
