What about working a On a studio quality game, with a online server, that is designed for user generated content, that serves adds? Have in game shop items that cost real money.... On Jun 17, 2013 7:30 AM, "Gavin Howard" <[email protected]> wrote:
> All, > > I'm starting a new thread because it looks like the previous thread > got mixed in with another thread. > > I never thought that I would write a post like this, but quite > frankly, I was surprised by how quickly user opposition cropped up > from Ton's proposed changes to the BGE. At this point, I feel that I > need to speak frankly. I hope that I don't step on anyone's toes, and > I also hope that I don't offend anyone. I will be writing down the > situation as I understand it (so I will be repeating things everyone > already knows), and I will be offering my commentary and opinion. That > said, here goes. > > I started using Blender regularly about a year and a half ago. From > the beginning, I started regularly observing the BlenderNation forums, > as well as other gathering places for users and devs. Even at the > start, I saw a little bit of tension between BGE users and Blender > devs. The users LOVE their engine, maybe more so than regular Blender > users love Blender. They desperately want some dev time put in the > BGE, and the devs just haven't had time or interest. > > Obviously, a change has been needed. And then, Ton makes proposed > changes that sound as though the BGE is going away as BGE, even if > there is no loss of functionality. Now, I want it understood that I > have never been a BGE user. I don't have any use for it because I > don't make, or even play, video games, but there are quite a few BGE > users that want to keep the engine an engine. So they toss around the > option of creating a fork from an existing build that has many > user-submitted patches applied. > > To complicate things, Daniel Stokes has a BGE project. He is now > working on an engine that may not be an engine in a year or two. > (Sorry, Daniel!) Nevertheless, it was time for Ton to put out the > roadmap. I believe the only mistake he made was that he didn't > anticipate how much the BGE means to its users. But it was definitely > time. Version 2.68 is more than halfway done, and 2.69 is just around > the corner. We need to plan for 2.7x, and we need to do it soon. > > As an up-and-coming animator, being able to apply logic nodes to > animations sounds incredibly good. Having an interactive mode that is > not a game engine sounds incredibly good. Being able to do rule-based > animation (for crowds and things like that) sounds AWESOMELY good. I > LIKE the direction that Ton wants to go. Blender's main purpose is to > produce images and animations, so it fits with the philosophy as well. > However, I also understand that many people see the game engine for > what it is: a game engine. > > So, here's MY proposal, if it even matters. I propose that Daniel keep > his project. Yes, I know, it may not matter in the long run. But wait > a second! His project is to add level-of-detail support to the BGE. As > an animator, if my software can automatically adjust the level of > detail for objects based on distance from the camera, I would be very > happy, so even if BGE disappears, that code won't, which means that > mainstream Blender would get that capability. That is VERY cool. And > then, his project is to do a lot of refactoring, bug fixing, and so > on. Well, the BGE apparently needs it, and even if a fork happens, I'm > sure the Blender Foundation would love to start working on interactive > mode with a codebase that has been cleaned up. Plus, a lot of that > fixing can be investigating the patches that were applied in the HG1 > Build and seeing if the official BGE could use them. > > So let Daniel keep the same project. At the end of the summer, when > 2.69 is about to come out, let's all sit down and figure out what we > are going to do. I have no doubt that Ton will continue to want to > create interactive mode from the BGE, and I have no doubt that users > will want to fork it. So I propose this: users, spend the summer to > find someone who knows the BGE codebase that also knows Ton personally > and is willing to head up the project. (Make sure Ton knows him/her > personally as well.) Then, after the summer, they should sit down and > figure out how to make two projects out of one. If a new project were > to be made, I would want everyone to part on good terms, and since the > new project (GameBlender probably) would use a lot of Blender trunk, > there is no reason to split the two projects completely. We can be > like Krita and MyPaint, two similar open source projects with > different philosophies that coordinate with each other. It would be > great if someone can be found that can work with Ton, so the > GameBlender project could keep up-to-date with Blender trunk, which > would allow them to focus on the game engine itself. Oh, and since Ton > has run an open source project for over a decade now, he could help > the new project lead to learn the ropes. > > IMO, this solution, actually splitting the projects, just might get > rid of the tension that has existed between BGE users and Blender > devs. It will allow Blender to keep its core philosophy, as well as > allow BGE users to keep their engine. > > Again, I hope this email has not offended anyone or stepped on > anyone's toes. If it has, I am sorry. > > God Bless, > Gavin Howard > _______________________________________________ > 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
