First off, hello to all the old-timers in the crowd - good to see everyone actually talking and conversing, even if it is a bit of a pitched battle ;}
I really don't think it's worth fighting about who's renderer is the better one - it's like jocks competing over who has the most inadequate body part...
The biggest issue I think is the fact that most people simply do not realize how much work has been put into the Genesis side of the code by the RF developers (QoD & Wxb1 primarily) in the past few years.
These two have taken Genesis from the antique renderer that it was when eclipse left the building to a fairly modern, up to date renderer.
Some things that have been added recently take RF beyond most of the 'free' engines on the market, namely:
- normal mapping (dot3)
- embm bumpmapping (for geometry)
- stencil shadows (up to 8 lights with dynamic shadowing)
- projected shadows (optimized detail shadows for actors if you want)
RF's sheer flexibility is what makes it appealing to most people - Jet 3d is and will be stuck in a rut as far as users goes until it has a gameshell.
As a few of the Jet3d developers have mentioned, they spend most of their time in the editor flying around in 'cheat mode' without a true gameshell to run programs in.
The entire RF community has been built around the fact that there IS a gameshell to play their games in - an editor is fine - the Jet editor is truly more advanced and a much better way to approach things than the Genesis compile/text/compile/test version, but still doesn't solve the issue of actually 'doing' anything with Jet as an engine.
It's like having a car engine that is super powerful but no car. it might be cool, it might make alot of noise, but it won't get you anywhere.
RF is as popular as it is simply because ANYONE can get in, make a level and get their own 'game' up and running in a period of a few days.
I have been teaching a summer camp for 12 & 13 year olds this past week and they had their own RF games up and running the first day of the camp.
This is the power of RF - having people that have never made games before able to get their hands dirty and 'take ownership' of something that they created in the engine.
Without this crucial step, Jet is a programmers tool and not much else.
It's like the other big open source engines like ogre etc - a dump of source code is useless to 99% of the community without a running exe that can be configured and customized.
Destiny had the same problem - and over emphasis on the renderer and no emphasis on the gameshell component of the engine.
With RF we did the exact opposite approach - Ed Averill & Ralph Deane did wonders by simply focusing on the features that the most people were likely to need to get started using the system, namely:
1) customizable cameras
2) customizable player config (gravity, movement speed etc)
3) menu's
4) hud
and so on...
If Jet could provide a simple gameshell that lets the users create their own applications from start to finish, then alot more people would be willing to overlook the things in Jet that may not be 100% up to date or complete.
It's the difference between Linux hackers and Windows users. To windows users, linux is incomprehensible and useless, because it just doesn't let them 'do stuff'
To linux hackers however, it's a dream OS because you have to get under the hood to do anything.
I'm overexaggerating of course, but that's the basic point.
Joel Spolsky wrote a good article about this difference here:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ ... alism.html
It really sums up the differences which I believe are the core clash of cultures that we are seeing in this thread.
The difference between code that is cool for coding sake, and code that actually 'does stuff'.
I don't mean to be creating more of a storm here, I fully believe that Jet has the potential to do some very cool things, but I think the project needs a different approach to attract users.
It's the same problem that the GarageGames folks are having - they keep asking their community why more games aren't made with the engine, and the core reason is that probably 99% of the people that use Torque are not programmers, and they are not able to do much besides what the original code provides.
If you want people to use the engine, then provide some simply way for them to configure and modify the engine without programming
This is our main motivation that we are using to enhance Beyond Virtual - the Renderer, while it is a goal, is not what will make people use the engine.
Useability, Portability and Compatibility are and should be the Top Goals of any game engine.
Anyone can write a renderer - to create a truly useable game ENGINE takes alot more pieces than just the renderer.
Cheers
Mike W
http://www.beyondvirtual.com
Rf and Jet3d
-
KenDeel
Sorry QoD, can't let that go... 
Also, Why would it take much longer and require a larger team than RF? when it doesn't have a far to go?
Read:
you can honestly look at that and conclude it is 'ugly'? If that is so, surely you must be a member of the RF team because of pity.
A good test to settle the thought of Jet3D vs. RF/g3D would be to make a simple room,maybe a couple of objects, no effects (like bump mapping or fog). And compare the actual render quality. Jet3D would win. It is as plaina nd simple as the VHS vs. DVD. In the least, no one can say Jet3D would do anything less than TIE with RF/G3D without being either a moron or dishonest.
Depends on who is using it.
Now pull up a chair laddie, and I will try to expalin it so even you can understand it.
Pro Artist can go very far building game content for Jet3D it 'AS-IS'. 3D modelers can build and animate Actors to their hearts content. Can create hordes of textures.
In fact I can say you can build a 31 level game now, and stay on a normal time-frame pace for a developer. And how much development is actually building Art assets?
All teams have to lay in priorities, but the workflow can move greatly forward simply build art assets with the current tools, again, 'AS-IS'.
On the back burner things like Scripted actions can be done later. But all in all the art assets being done can get a huge percentage of the project done and will keep it on track.
Seriously, If you can read and understand what is posted at jet3d's developer (tasks) forums, you would not have said that. The progress is up front there. Though not easy to understand for all, it is there nonetheless, and if you piece together the info you will know, progress has taken some giant steps since the last release.
Only because now I know you better now, then I did before.
QuestOfDreams makes a far better, honest and eloquent debate.
Your statements are just plain 'stupid'.
Thank you for that expert assessment. Somehow I thought it would all be down by...tomorrow at noon.Hike1 wrote:Jet 3d needs about 10 people working for 5 years to get to RF's state of 'health'.
Also, Why would it take much longer and require a larger team than RF? when it doesn't have a far to go?
One thing everyone has agree on so far is it does do better in performance.It is what it is, slow,
Read:
================================QuestOfDreams wrote:The only advantages of jet3d I can see are the compile time for levels and a bit higher frame rate...
htpp://www.otherworldsonline.com/unholy/screenshots.htmugly,
you can honestly look at that and conclude it is 'ugly'? If that is so, surely you must be a member of the RF team because of pity.
A good test to settle the thought of Jet3D vs. RF/g3D would be to make a simple room,maybe a couple of objects, no effects (like bump mapping or fog). And compare the actual render quality. Jet3D would win. It is as plaina nd simple as the VHS vs. DVD. In the least, no one can say Jet3D would do anything less than TIE with RF/G3D without being either a moron or dishonest.
For people like you, that may be true.probably only an educational 'hobby' engine,
Depends on who is using it.
Now pull up a chair laddie, and I will try to expalin it so even you can understand it.
Pro Artist can go very far building game content for Jet3D it 'AS-IS'. 3D modelers can build and animate Actors to their hearts content. Can create hordes of textures.
In fact I can say you can build a 31 level game now, and stay on a normal time-frame pace for a developer. And how much development is actually building Art assets?
All teams have to lay in priorities, but the workflow can move greatly forward simply build art assets with the current tools, again, 'AS-IS'.
On the back burner things like Scripted actions can be done later. But all in all the art assets being done can get a huge percentage of the project done and will keep it on track.
That is a stab at the development team as whole, *takes off glove and slaps you face with it.* This calls for a duel!I doubt if it will ever get better,
Seriously, If you can read and understand what is posted at jet3d's developer (tasks) forums, you would not have said that. The progress is up front there. Though not easy to understand for all, it is there nonetheless, and if you piece together the info you will know, progress has taken some giant steps since the last release.
I admit, at first when I saw you have registered on the jet3d .com forums some months ago. I was glad to see you there. Now, if jet3d.com was a night club, I would have you thrown out. maybe have the bouncers kick you around abit tooI for one ain't 'upgrading' again, I have this version working, don't need any more
Only because now I know you better now, then I did before.
QuestOfDreams makes a far better, honest and eloquent debate.
Your statements are just plain 'stupid'.
I'm not gonna choose sides here,
as i don't know enough of Jet3d really to make comment
however from what knowledge i has observed over the last 4 pages it seems to me RF is a better complete package(for the non programmers) and Jet3d seems to be the way to go if your a programmer (not that i've studied either engines code enough to make an educated guess).
However, .....*sigh*...... this is only either going to prove that Jet3d/RF has a better renderer, and not really an evaluation of the final product,
My opinion from what i've read so far,
it seems RF has a more complete feature list,
i.e scripting/bumpmapping/and soon to be added physics ect.
please don't take this personally, Im not here to wined you guys up, i know your light-years ahead of me in terms if shear knowledge in game creation....
I 'spose we all could argue this fact to were blue in the face, but i would like to see how quickly you could put together a game/demo with both engines if made by RF/Jet3d.
im not here to program up a storm/create the worlds best engine, i'm here to do what i love, and that is make games,
so as far as a better engine is concerend for what i am after RF is better in this respect,
as gekido mentioned you could gain alot more support if a gameshell option was added, most of the people are completly green in terms of game creation, this gives them an avenue to explore what the engine is capable of by releasing more demo's in turn spreading the word of Jet3d and possibly attracting a small number of extra programmers to the mix
be it modding, or programming at the end of the day both will result in a game and the final users of the game aren't going to really say....."hang on this is a modded game engine"
they're gonna comment on frame-rates, playability, ect,
please don't takethis personally i am just putting in perspective of a non programmer who is itching for a chance to make a good quality game
as i don't know enough of Jet3d really to make comment
however from what knowledge i has observed over the last 4 pages it seems to me RF is a better complete package(for the non programmers) and Jet3d seems to be the way to go if your a programmer (not that i've studied either engines code enough to make an educated guess).
Ok, please and take two screen shots to be fair use the same textures and same layout ect. (i.e two identical levels) for both rooms, the challenge is down now, i would like to see the proof of the pudding.A good test to settle the thought of Jet3D vs. RF/g3D would be to make a simple room,maybe a couple of objects, no effects (like bump mapping or fog). And compare the actual render quality
However, .....*sigh*...... this is only either going to prove that Jet3d/RF has a better renderer, and not really an evaluation of the final product,
My opinion from what i've read so far,
it seems RF has a more complete feature list,
i.e scripting/bumpmapping/and soon to be added physics ect.
please don't take this personally, Im not here to wined you guys up, i know your light-years ahead of me in terms if shear knowledge in game creation....
I 'spose we all could argue this fact to were blue in the face, but i would like to see how quickly you could put together a game/demo with both engines if made by RF/Jet3d.
im not here to program up a storm/create the worlds best engine, i'm here to do what i love, and that is make games,
so as far as a better engine is concerend for what i am after RF is better in this respect,
this is very much the case, i know for a fact RF had a very limited feature set when i joined, i think the water was the newest feature added...i can't really remember it was years ago now...although it's feature list was bout half of today's current standard.[quoted from gekido]If Jet could provide a simple gameshell that lets the users create their own applications from start to finish, then alot more people would be willing to overlook the things in Jet that may not be 100% up to date or complete.
as gekido mentioned you could gain alot more support if a gameshell option was added, most of the people are completly green in terms of game creation, this gives them an avenue to explore what the engine is capable of by releasing more demo's in turn spreading the word of Jet3d and possibly attracting a small number of extra programmers to the mix
be it modding, or programming at the end of the day both will result in a game and the final users of the game aren't going to really say....."hang on this is a modded game engine"
they're gonna comment on frame-rates, playability, ect,
please don't takethis personally i am just putting in perspective of a non programmer who is itching for a chance to make a good quality game
No point in having a spitting match
These comments on both sides are the same thing that I've dealt with trying to promote RF to the larger developer community, both at conferences and with 'gamers' in general.
From what I am aware of, there are no teams using either RF or Jet that have development funding - this means that the demo's and screenshots that are put out from both engines are hardly the 'pinnacle' of what is possible with the engine's given serious development effort.
What seriously needs to happen for the indie / open source community is some collaboration to attract world-class artists into the fold to create demo's and really show off what either engine is capable of.
A single room demo is simply not going to do either engine justice because a single room is not what makes a game.
A team with good artists can make ANY engine look good, whereas a team without any talented artists must rely a lot more on engine tricks to get results...
I go back to my original comments - for a game engine - ANY game engine - to be useful, it must be easy to use for artists and non-programmers, otherwise teams have to work extra hard to produce ANYTHING with the engine, period.
For Jet3d to become truly useful to the indie community, which are probably 90+% artists and non-programmers (if not more like 99%), it needs an easy to configure gameshell - hence why the Jet developers (and Destiny 3d developers) approached me originally to try and meld the RF gameshell development effort with the efforts of the other engines.
Unfortunately there is a LOT of work that would need to be done to get the gameshell's up to speed, which is time that basically would dissolve whatever small a community that has been built up around RF, leaving us back at square one.
It's a chicken and the egg thing.
This is why my company has taken things back in-house - we are funding the development of the engine, and will be releasing the indie version when it's good and ready - we are estimating that the majority of the people that will use the indie version are non-programmers, and as a result are targetting the release accordingly
From what I am aware of, there are no teams using either RF or Jet that have development funding - this means that the demo's and screenshots that are put out from both engines are hardly the 'pinnacle' of what is possible with the engine's given serious development effort.
What seriously needs to happen for the indie / open source community is some collaboration to attract world-class artists into the fold to create demo's and really show off what either engine is capable of.
A single room demo is simply not going to do either engine justice because a single room is not what makes a game.
A team with good artists can make ANY engine look good, whereas a team without any talented artists must rely a lot more on engine tricks to get results...
I go back to my original comments - for a game engine - ANY game engine - to be useful, it must be easy to use for artists and non-programmers, otherwise teams have to work extra hard to produce ANYTHING with the engine, period.
For Jet3d to become truly useful to the indie community, which are probably 90+% artists and non-programmers (if not more like 99%), it needs an easy to configure gameshell - hence why the Jet developers (and Destiny 3d developers) approached me originally to try and meld the RF gameshell development effort with the efforts of the other engines.
Unfortunately there is a LOT of work that would need to be done to get the gameshell's up to speed, which is time that basically would dissolve whatever small a community that has been built up around RF, leaving us back at square one.
It's a chicken and the egg thing.
This is why my company has taken things back in-house - we are funding the development of the engine, and will be releasing the indie version when it's good and ready - we are estimating that the majority of the people that will use the indie version are non-programmers, and as a result are targetting the release accordingly
-
Jeff
I’m not going to argue about which engine is the best. I would just like to say that Jet3d has been used to create commercial games. A Korean company named Arkisoft created a couple games using the Jet3d engine. One was called V15 Sail Racer which was a sailing game, and the other was a game called Necropolis which seemed to to be futuristic MMORPG. Their web site is down but here are some links to their web pages from the Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/200210140316 ... gal_00.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/200210291418 ... screen.php
http://web.archive.org/web/200210142213 ... pro_01.htm
Also, Gekkeiju Online uses the Jet3d engine, they switch from Genesis3d and got a nice speed boost:
http://www.coolhouse.fi/gekkeiju/defaul ... page=media
http://web.archive.org/web/200210140316 ... gal_00.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/200210291418 ... screen.php
http://web.archive.org/web/200210142213 ... pro_01.htm
Also, Gekkeiju Online uses the Jet3d engine, they switch from Genesis3d and got a nice speed boost:
http://www.coolhouse.fi/gekkeiju/defaul ... page=media
-
KenDeel
http://www.otherworldsonline.com/jet3d click the MEDIA page link, I saved some screens for DoD: Necropolis.
I think gekido hit it on the head... the game shell is the orignal reason why I started to spend more time here (@RF)... it was never really genesis... it was really RF... I think jet3d main advantage is the editor.... The editor on it's face is fantastic and a wysiwig editor is where everyone seems to be going (or should be) these days.. I've looked over the "original" driver for jet3d and it's about what we have here at RF/genesis... I think both engines can generate about the same quality visually except RF/genesis now has dot3 and shadows so visually I can't see where jet3d is hands down better... I think right now there are things the RF/genesis can do that jet3d can't and vice versa... RF/genesis as Quest suggest may be a little slower than jet3d rendering but I don't think rendering speed of jet3d is vastly superior... anyways... no use in putting each other's efforts down here... we are all trying to do the same thing...
-
QuestOfDreams
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1520
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:12 pm
- Location: Austria
- Contact:
Your post was not deleted, it somehow ended up in this topic (don't know whyMY LAST POST WAS DELETED!
)viewtopic.php?t=23&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
Game Shell, not Renderer
I'm with Wendell - before I discovered RF, I was working on my own Gameshell (with repeated attempts) based on both Genesis and numerous other rendering engines...
The reason I stuck with RF over all these years (and still use it to prototype things now) is because the gameshell allows me to get so much further as far as actually 'making games' than any other comparable engine, commercial or otherwise...
RF lets me jump in, and with the bare minimum of work, get a basic game up and running, with almost no effort whatsoever.
I think I am like most people in the community - I couldn't really care less about creating a renderer - I just want to make games & bring my ideas to life.
Most so-called 'game engines', open source or otherwise, are little more than renderer's because of this very reason. If it takes me months to get even the most basic of gameplay implemented, then it can't be considered a game engine as far as i'm concerned.
If the Jet community wants to expand beyond the programmer community, then they need to get applications into the community that allow artists to work with their tools without REQUIRING programmers to become involved.
This is why engines like Crystal Space have been stuck at the same point (as far as I'm concerned) for years and years, because they do not consider the usability side of their codebase. They keep adding feature after feature after feature to the renderer, but when you download it to check it out, often you don't even get a binary to experiment with.
This is less than useless for me as a developer trying to evaluate an engine - unless I can see how the entire art pipeline and game development pipeline is going to work - from both an artists and programmers perspective, then the tools are not going to be considered.
Pretty much everyone we have spoken to (with regards to RF & BV), commercial developer through indie's has the same opinion.
For our next engine (Beyond Virtual), this is the number one question that people have for us - is there an evaluation version that allows me as a developer to jump in and get my hands dirty before making a decision about the engine.
This is the very reason why we have not released any 'public' releases to date for BV yet - without an easy to use set of tools, editors, and gameshell that people can experiment with, people can't properly evaluate the engine.
So guess what our focus is on ;}
This is where the 'BVAS' concept came from:
http://www.beyondvirtual.com/site/?page ... andbox.php
The reason I stuck with RF over all these years (and still use it to prototype things now) is because the gameshell allows me to get so much further as far as actually 'making games' than any other comparable engine, commercial or otherwise...
RF lets me jump in, and with the bare minimum of work, get a basic game up and running, with almost no effort whatsoever.
I think I am like most people in the community - I couldn't really care less about creating a renderer - I just want to make games & bring my ideas to life.
Most so-called 'game engines', open source or otherwise, are little more than renderer's because of this very reason. If it takes me months to get even the most basic of gameplay implemented, then it can't be considered a game engine as far as i'm concerned.
If the Jet community wants to expand beyond the programmer community, then they need to get applications into the community that allow artists to work with their tools without REQUIRING programmers to become involved.
This is why engines like Crystal Space have been stuck at the same point (as far as I'm concerned) for years and years, because they do not consider the usability side of their codebase. They keep adding feature after feature after feature to the renderer, but when you download it to check it out, often you don't even get a binary to experiment with.
This is less than useless for me as a developer trying to evaluate an engine - unless I can see how the entire art pipeline and game development pipeline is going to work - from both an artists and programmers perspective, then the tools are not going to be considered.
Pretty much everyone we have spoken to (with regards to RF & BV), commercial developer through indie's has the same opinion.
For our next engine (Beyond Virtual), this is the number one question that people have for us - is there an evaluation version that allows me as a developer to jump in and get my hands dirty before making a decision about the engine.
This is the very reason why we have not released any 'public' releases to date for BV yet - without an easy to use set of tools, editors, and gameshell that people can experiment with, people can't properly evaluate the engine.
So guess what our focus is on ;}
This is where the 'BVAS' concept came from:
http://www.beyondvirtual.com/site/?page ... andbox.php
i see genesis3d and jet3d as engines, i see rf as being a shell built on an engine. i consider jet3d to of course be superior to g3d, but not comparable to rf; it is compareable to rf's engine, which it wins against. jet3d, however, woulod lose overall against rf, imo. why? because it includes no system to *rapidly* create games with no *external* tools. This is, i believe, why you wish to ally with rf, am i correct? if you had rf on j3d, it would not only be superior to the old rf on g3d, but would also be a major "publicity boost" for your engine.
on the flip side, whats in it for us? in other words, if we are to make the decision to move rf to a new engine, why would we choose j3d over, for instance, irrlicht? ah, yes, the editor. definitly a designer's dream. what else? not saying there isnt anything, i have very little jet3d experience, and i would just like us to hear what advantage we would gain by choosing your engine.
just my two cents.
on the flip side, whats in it for us? in other words, if we are to make the decision to move rf to a new engine, why would we choose j3d over, for instance, irrlicht? ah, yes, the editor. definitly a designer's dream. what else? not saying there isnt anything, i have very little jet3d experience, and i would just like us to hear what advantage we would gain by choosing your engine.
just my two cents.
Yeah, well heres my opinion, Regardless of what RF lacks, it is what it says, a non programmmers game DESIGN package, I looked and dloaded and used Jet, you will get a game up faster with RF, RF is great for prototyping anyway, you can instantly get a game running, and custom the whole thing, as a non programmer you WONT get that with Jet no matter how many bells and whisltles it has, Run RF and you can make a decent game with NO programming skill in a short amount of time, its all right there, one package, and Im not new at this, I dont have any bias toward any game package, I use what is the most direct to acomplish my goals. As far as direct x this and direct x that, Ive made some really nice stuff in RF, it all come down to talent and textures, I myself dont want to foll around with programming, I want to design, RF lets me do this, and stilll have the freedom to customize my game enviroment..nuff said.... 