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 - [email protected] - 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 < > [email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
