Rf and Jet3d

[Jeff]

Hi, I’m currently helping fix bugs and add features to the Jet3d engine. I have followed the progress of the RF game shell and the Genesis3d and Jet3d engine pretty much from their public release. I really haven’t done anything with the engines but I have studied them and know what they are capable of producing. I’m writing this post to clear up some of the misconceptions about the Jet3d engine and inform you of some of the differences between Genesis3d and Jet3d. I am a programmer, not an artist or modeler but I do know how to make levels, actors and art for both G3D and Jet3d so I think I’m qualified to state the facts about each engine.

Graphics
Graphic quality is subjective and you don’t need a state of the art engine to produce high quality graphics but having more graphic features at your disposal will help produce better looking games.

Jet3d has a WYSIWYG editor making creating levels easier and faster. You can add, move and place lights, actors, effects, sounds, terrain, objects, etc. in real-time. Also, since the editor uses the Jet3d engine for rendering, the game graphics will look exactly like the editor’s graphics.

G3D doesn’t have a real-time editor but it does have pre-compiled radiosity lighting which can look better than Jet3d’s dynamic radiosity lighting. Other than that G3D’s editor can’t compare to Jet3d’s editor for creating quality graphics fast and efficiently.

Jet3d has a D3D 9.0 driver but all the D3D 9.0 features have not been added to the engine yet. It’s development is progressing nicely and very soon Jet3d will be able to use shaders and all the other D3D 9.0 features.

G3D and the RF have made great strides with the graphic driver but it is still only D3D 7.x which doesn’t allow the use of a lot of the features of the newer graphic cards and limits the speed of the engine.

G3D 1.6 has added actor shadows and a lot of other cool features which are currently not in Jet3d but as soon as Jet3d gets shaders then it would just be a matter of writing a shader to incorporate these cool features plus a lot more.

Jet3d has weighted vertices for actors, G3D does not.

I can go on about graphics but what it really comes down to is the skill of the development team.

Speed
Jet3d has a slight speed advantage and is capable of rendering more polygons at a higher frame rate. Once the new D3D 9.0 driver fully implements hardware T&L the frame rate should be comparable to modern engines. I don’t think a major speed increase can be achieved by the G3D engine unless it gets true hardware T&L.

Programming
The functions in both Jet3d and G3D are very similar, but there are major differences. Jet3d makes use of objects which allow the programmer to create self-contained pieces of code that work in the editor and in the game allowing the level designers to actually incorporate game functionality in to the editor. For example someone created an object that renders waves. You can place it in the editor just like a sheet brush then modify it’s parameters in real-time to create ocean waves. Someone else created an object that allows the level designer to create sky domes. Objects can be used to create almost anything such as actor AI , physics, effects, sounds, movement, gravity, collisions, terrain, world geometry, etc. Any part of the game can probably be made in to a generic object that allows the level designers to use and set it’s properties from within the editor. If you wanted to create a RF type shell for Jet3d I would start by creating a bunch of objects that do all the work then it’s just a matter of putting the objects together within the editor to create a game. G3D relies on entities which is very primitive and not as flexible as Jet3d’s objects.

Game Shells
Jet3d just has the basic minapp and a few demo apps at the moment. Seven is working on a demo / game shell for Jet3d call ProjectJ. G3D has demos and minapps plus RF. Jet3d may never have a game shell like RF but you never know.


Well those are the facts as I see them. My overall opinion is Jet3d is better than G3D feature and programming wise but Jet3d still has some stability problems which need to be fixed. Also Jet3d is a work in progress and formats might be changed to make things compatible with D3D 9.0, so if you do create something today it might not work tomorrow but we are doing our best to keep compatibility. In the coming months the D3D 9.0 driver conversion will be complete and then there will probably be no comparison between Jet3d and G3D due to the addition of hardware T&L and shaders.

Also, if you do try the Jet3d engine and discover a problem please don't discount Jet3d as a pile of junk and bad mouth it on other message boards. Report your problem on the Jet3d message board and the Jet3d development team will do their best to fix the problem. If you have questions or need help just ask, the people working on the engine know it inside and out and can probably answer your questions.

[QuestOfDreams]

If you poked around Jet3D University, you would see the compare in two screenshots

sorry, but from these 2 mini-screenshots (the link to the genesis screen doesn't work) I can't tell anything... also the lighting is totally different which makes it even harder to compare

Jet3d has a D3D 9.0 driver but all the D3D 9.0 features have not been added to the engine yet. It’s development is progressing nicely and very soon Jet3d will be able to use shaders and all the other D3D 9.0 features.

I've looked through the dx9 driver in the current release and it doesn't make any use of the directx9 features... not even hardware TnL
it's pretty similar to the dx9 driver for genesis3d available on the wog site
however, a nice fresh start...

G3D and the RF have made great strides with the graphic driver but it is still only D3D 7.x which doesn’t allow the use of a lot of the features of the newer graphic cards and limits the speed of the engine.

as you can read in the feature requests forum we're currently working on TnL for our dx7 driver and a new directx9 driver which will probably speed up the engine quite a bit and will give us the possibility to add more advanced features

[Jay]

If you poked around Jet3D University, you would see the compare in two screenshots

sorry, but from these 2 mini-screenshots (the link to the genesis screen doesn't work) I can't tell anything... also the lighting is totally different which makes it even harder to compare

I agree. I think you could make the Genesis3D example much more better-looking than it is on this picture. For example turn down the Radiosity Lighting. It's just so red because of overuse of RadiosityLighting.
Honestly, i think the Jet3d picture looks just better because the lighting is better. If you wanted you could do the same with RF.

This is no offence, i just think it really depends to what tool you're used. I am used to RF, so i can make better results with it than with another tool.

[paradoxnj]

I've looked through the dx9 driver in the current release and it doesn't make any use of the directx9 features... not even hardware TnL
it's pretty similar to the dx9 driver for genesis3d available on the wog site
however, a nice fresh start...

It uses vertex buffers, full screen anti-aliasing, supports most of the DX9 specific surface formats, and as of tomorrow will use ID3DXSprite to render bitmaps. The vertex buffers are not implemented correctly. I am currently working on that now. As of next week, we will have true static meshes (driver manages them in hardware) which will be the first polys to use Hardware Transformations.

I looked at the screenshots you posted of your hardware t&l efforts. We had the same issue at first when implementing the vertex buffers. The problem is the way G3D uses texture coordinates. There is a function in the driver called PrepPolyVerts(), it normalizes the UV coords which fixed our issue (we originally didn't take that function over from our native DX7 driver). Don't know if you already tried that, but that's what helped us.

[Guest]

Couldn't edit my other post...sorry.

I agree. I think you could make the Genesis3D example much more better-looking than it is on this picture. For example turn down the Radiosity Lighting. It's just so red because of overuse of RadiosityLighting.
Honestly, i think the Jet3d picture looks just better because the lighting is better. If you wanted you could do the same with RF.

How long would it take you to recompile that level after adjusting that? In Jet3D, you wouldn't have to. The poly count is higher on the Jet3D level than in the Genesis3D level. The framerate is higher using Jet3D even with more polys. But more importantly....

The original post asked if RF could use Jet3D as it's engine. I would not be opposed to this as we would both benefit from it. You would gain the help of our programmers and we would gain the help of yours. It would also help both our teams move development along faster. From the names mentioned in Ken's post, you can see that we have a very skilled crew and I already know what you guys are capable of. Are you interested? Together, we can make one hell of an engine/gameshell.

[Ken Deel]

Sorry about that, I thought it would prompt me for a log-in instead of showing me as simply a "guest". Plus, I noted too many typos in need of a fix. Please delete that ' repeated "guest" post above.

On the compare. I have to look into that missing screenshot.
Problem is I would have to re-install, reload, and recompile the level. I don't have hours to waste right now.
My actual goal is to show compare with Unreal. I really never thought anyone would seriously argue that Jet3D is not clearly a better looking render. So it is not something I planned on taking time to prove. My future endeavers will be make a worthy compare to Unreal.

Just that as an Artist I can tell having worked with both engines enough which is clearly better looking.
There is no comparison, and anyone who can't see Jet3D is clearly better looking for a render is 'blind' (no offense;)).
See back when Jet3D first appeared (as Genedit editor preview), all of the community knew it was going to be a better looking render. Ask anyone from Eclipse, they will say the same.
I am a bit insulted that my statement is not taken at face value as true.
When it is indeed true. I thought it was common knowledge that Jet3D is a better looking engine. And why wouldn't it be since it was to superceeded Genesis3D as the next generation. Simply because I can't prove it with better screenshots isn't reason to believe what I say is true.
To say it isn't true is a lack of artistic eye, one that even all of the current Jet3D programmers seem to have. It is one reason we strive to make Jet3D better. It has a lot going for it.
Keep in mind, one reason I came back to the Jet3D community was mainly it is the better looking engine of so many I had looked at again back in summer '04. Including 3D game studio A6 and a revisit to G3d/RF.
It is *Fact*, that Jet3D looks better, and not simply my opinion. It was the goal of eclipse to create something significantly better looking.
Also consdier my history with both engines, that I have talked with several members of the Eclipse team, even recently. Part of the buzz on G3D 2.0 (per-Jet3D), was the fact that is was clearly a better looking engine. As we all knew this back in 1999. The eclipse team was boasting this as well. Anyone with eyes to read about it and see the difference.

Bottom line is don't be afraid to move on to Jet3D with your project and skills. Change is good when it is a move upward.

[Master]

hmm...is this a jet3d forum...

[Anaxagoras]

Jet does have better visual settings, but you have to take into consideration two things:

1- We're a a Reality Factory Forum. We've never said that we would prefer Genesis, as a matter of fact, I believe on page 1 people were for the idea, but the draw back is the porting of the engine. We'd be for it, but a lot of us are artists, writers, etc. not programmers.

2- Reality Factory was designed for non-programmers. A lot of us wouldn't be able to know the first thing about porting an engine. oO;

Remember, this is Reality Factory, not Genesis3D. If you want a fair comparison, you'd be better off at the Gen3D Forums. Several of the members here are upgrading the engine, after all Kudos to them. But, still. Awesome graphics on your engine, you guys. I'm no programmer, so you all accomplishing that has my top respect.

Remember, we're not saying it's not better, we're saying we prefer RF I don't think Jet has an RF equivalent, right? That's why ya wanna port it?

[AndyCR]

first off, welcome to all the jet3d developers.

secondly, i have one question about all this: doesn't jet3d still have bindings to the genesis3d license, and thus we would still be tied to it? or did someone "buy out" the license?

[Spyrewolf]

I can go on about graphics but what it really comes down to is the skill of the development team.

Amen Brother.....I've been toting that line for years!

I've never really looked over Jet3d, but im glad you guys posted and cleared up all the issues relating to what people had as .....misconception.

It really bugs me when people shoot down an engine before giving it a go, also good luck Jet3d team and im glad your still progressing with it, i must admit i too, thought you had all abandoned it.

glad to see it's still in progress.

Remember, we're not saying it's not better, we're saying we prefer RF I don't think Jet has an RF equivalent, right? That's why ya wanna port it?

.....B'uh? .....dude have you read the previous posts.
{a} RF can't be port without major re-write
{b}as quoted from the bove

Jet3d just has the basic minapp and a few demo apps at the moment. Seven is working on a demo / game shell for Jet3d call ProjectJ. G3D has demos and minapps plus RF. Jet3d may never have a game shell like RF but you never know.

[hike1]

Good luck with Jet 3d, all SEVEN of you. I did download the 28 MB thing, it insisted on going to C:/jet3d and nowhere else. I compiled a test level, it said 'level compiled'. Whoopee. Where's the engine part?

[Guest]

Good luck with Jet 3d, all SEVEN of you. I did download the 28 MB thing, it insisted on going to C:/jet3d and nowhere else. I compiled a test level, it said 'level compiled'. Whoopee. Where's the engine part?

Sorry hike1 but I don't have a clue what program you are referring to that posts a message stating "level compiled" because there is no compile button. Just place all the brushes and objects in the editor to make a level and then save it to a file, no compiling. That saved level is then used in your game program. If you don't know how to program or have a programmer helping you then you can't make a game with Jet3d. But if you are just wanting to see what Jet3d is capable of then create a level in the editor and switch to fullscreen to view it, you will be able to use the keyboard and mouse to move around the level. You can also animate actors and effect from with in the editor so you don't have a dead looking world. The editor uses the Jet3d engine so the graphics will look the same as your game.

[Ken Deel]

...C:/jet3d and nowhere else. I compiled a test level, it said 'level compiled'.

I be Dissappointed in you Hike1
First I have had jet3d, old and new in several different directories. Right now Jet is on my HD at E:\jet3d2.1.1 before that- D:\jet3d. (non-programmers need not to be concerned about install locations so much)\
Also there is no messege the level is 'compiled' or even "built". Probably no need for the messege anyways since it is quick and painless (a few minutes max, not hours to compile), and rebuilding is somewhat a 'clean-up' of the level, and not at all a compile.

Personally, I don't feel a need to have to 'play' the level often, so I didn't miss the lack of a game app to run the level in the past.
This since, The editor is like a "NO-clip" or "ghost" cheat mode in a game app. Basically no AI is run, not collsion, no interaction.
One can preview moving brush animations and Actor animations as well inside the editor. But setting particles is priceless in a real-time preview.

There is an akward (pardon the pun;) ) "Hike" to a subtractive editor like Jet's 'JDesigner', Plus getting comfy with smart VIS portal optimizations.
For me, I can't live without this 'style', No more BSP leaks, minutes not hours to 'build' levels, full real-time preview, Yadah, yadah, yadah :O

Side NOTE:
I have always been an advocate for RF, and have found back last summer that against 3D Game studio A6, Reality Factory/G3D Overall was a better choice. . (some old Genesis3D-U news post)
Soon after, I came across some old screenshots of Jet3D levels and thought. "Why can't those 'other' engines look like that??" So I went with Jet again.
ANyways, I just needed to pop in on here (again) and clear some misconceptions up.
I do say to the RF team, we should join forces... (hint-hint;) )

[Anaxagoras]

Bah, sorry misread it. But like Ken Deel keeps saying, he wants RF to join forces with the RF dev team. What I meant was that he wants an equivalent of RF for Jet3d. I know it can't be ported without major rewrites. oO; I just chose the wrong wording. @.@ But, hell yeah, I'd love to see the two join forces, although I know there's a possibility it won't happen. oO;

[hike1]

I think the last thing anybody who's used Eclipse code for any length of time is to mess with MORE Eclipse code. If I could code, I'd be making apps with Irrlicht, zeropointgameplay, or ogre3d.