Hi Philip,
Yeah, I see. You have a good point there. I didn't really think about it
that way, but you are right. I could have just stated features x, y, and
z and left it at that rather than comparing it to BGT. I certainly
understand your opinion, and why you feel like I was criticizing BGT.
Next time I'll be more mindful of this, and attempt to just stick to
features x, y, and z without attempting to compare a product of mine to
someone else's product. As you say most people can do that themselves by
downloading and trying each product and find out what they personally
liked or disliked.
Obviously, I'm excited about the new project, and I suppose I went a bit
over the top. There are a lot of little things I like about my new
engine. While I generally prefer C or C++ I'm growing to like Python
more and more because it is quick, simple, and allows me to just do
something without a lot of unecessary overhead. In a way the new engine
is like BGT in that all the core modules are compiled, but are wrapped
with a very quick and simple scripting language that allows me to get
things done quicker and easier than I ever could in C++. In addition,
I've actually redesigned some aspects of the engine from scratch to
simplify them for myself as well as new programmers that never occured
to me before.
For example, in the Genesis engine, the one written in C++, I have a
header file called serface.h which has several surface constants like
dirt, snow, water, mud, stone, etc. While it is a pretty comprehensive
list I'm still finding I have to add to that list of constants because
as I write more games I need more customized surfaces. Well, I've
totally simplified this in Open G3D.
Instead of passing a constant variable like SURFACE_STONE I can just
pass a string like "stone" which is far simpler than defining several
constant variables. Its totally flexable because I can use a string of
text to identify doors, walls, surfaces, etc which is not restricted to
some predefined constants. I like it, and I'm strongly considering
modifying the C++ version of the engine to adopt some of these new changes.
Cheers!
On 4/1/2012 7:24 PM, Philip Bennefall wrote:
Hi Thomas,
These things are certainly true, but that was not what I was taking
issue with. My question was more along the lines of, why must you
target BGT specifically? Why can you not simply say that this engine
offers this and this feature, open source being considered a feature
in this case, and then let the users do the comparison based on what
they consider important? The end result when you write something like
that newsletter becomes, at least in my eyes, a side by side list
saying why your engine is superior. This is marketing, of course, but
I think it would be just as effective just to point out the advantages
that you see with your engine without putting other things down. It is
possible to mention advantages without mentioning specific products
that you want to beat, as it were. It's not really necessary as far as
I'm concerned. You say that you are frustrated that BGT is being
mentioned whenever someone is asking about developing audio games.
Could this be because of merit? It sounds, forgive me for saying so,
like a case of envy when viewed in that light.
To take an example. When I put out the Perilous Hearts concept demo, I
stressed the things that I thought made it worth playing. I could
easily have done a side by side comparison with Mota, and pointed out
things I didn't like about Mota and stated why my game does this or
that in a better way. I chose not to do this because it doesn't really
add to the effectiveness of my sales pitch, and it would be negative
for you as a fellow game designer in such a small community. This is
what I'm getting at. It's really not a question of what either of our
engines can or cannot do, but rather how these things are presented.
Naturally one does have to make direct comparisons sometimes, but I
feel personally that this went a bit over the top especially
considering the message from yesterday on top. I would like to just
coexist peacefully without arguing who's engine is the best. That's up
to the users. Make them aware of the features, cross platform or not,
networking or not, etc etc and then let them determine what they want.
I would be very surprised if people were not aware that there are
other options besides BGT, so I don't think this has to be stressed
any further as it is just common sense. No need to point out flaws in
other products in order to accomplish ones own success, in such a
small community as ours. That's really all I'm saying. I hope it makes
sense.
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Ward"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; "Gamers Discussion list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Audyssey] tips on programming
Hi Philip,
I'm not sure how I might have worded things better, but my comments in
my news letter weren't intended to be a put down or to discredit BGT.
What I was attempting to do is point out what limitations exist in BGT
and point out that Open G3D is being written to address some of those
specific limitations. That's not intended to say BGT is a bad tool,
which it is not, but that Open G3D will have some features lacking in
BGT.
For example, open source verses a commercial engine.
BGT is a commercial product, and that's fine. However, because it is a
commercial product, is closed source, I can't just download the source
code for the engine and rewrite the code for input, audio, networking,
etc so BGT could be compiled on Linux. I suspect 99% of your customers
don't care about that, but it is still a limitation inherent in
commercial closed source products because the developer pays for the
software but can not modify it if and when they want to.
With Open G3D by making it open source I hope to promote the development
of more cross-platform games, and it also offers the ability for the end
user to modify the engine itself as needed. If a developer wants to
write a wrapper for FMOD Ex and use that for 3d audio instead of Pygame
Mixer he or she can do it. If a developer would rather use PySFML
instead of Pygame all they have to do is rewrite the appropriate
modules. Its not a case of it being better or worse than BGT, but taking
a more open source approach to the design and how that might benefit the
developer.
One way it benefits the developer is cost. If someone wants to write
free games with BGT they can either redistribute their *.bgt scripts for
free or pay $29.95 to compile them. Since I'm taking an open source
approach and tools like py2exe and pyinstaller are free they can bundle
their games into an executable for free. That's not saying BGT isn't
fairly priced, but why pay $29 if there is an open source product that
offers similar features?
Another way it benefits end users is everything will be available to
them. I believe BGT requires a Pro license for joystick support. Well,
when I add that to the Open G3D engine it is going to be present
regardless of free or commercial use. Maybe that doesn't matter to some
developers, but it might matter to someone else.
Cheers!
On 4/1/2012 2:31 PM, Philip Bennefall wrote:
Hi Thomas,
What you say makes sense. I realize that cross platform support is
important to you personally, I have just been getting the impression
that you have been attempting to somehow discredit the general
usefulness of the engine on this basis alone. Your last newsletter for
instance has many such remarks that, to me, were quite unnecessary in
terms of the tone. I realize that it may not have been meant that way,
but it gives me the impression that you felt it necessary to paint BGT
in a rather negative light in order to stress the importance of your
own product. Then this message came on top of that last night and so I
wanted to say something. The fact that BGT is recommended is, of
course, something that I'm personally very happy about but it should
not hinder you in any way from making a competing product with cross
platform support and then letting people decide what to use.
I will be the first to say that BGT is not suitable if you want
support for Linux, Mac or mobile devices, but the fact remains that
Windows still has the absolute majority of the blind market. What I'm
saying is, I'm sure we can develop our engines simultaneously and help
one another by recommending our respective products to users depending
on their requirements, rather than work against one another and try to
bring the other package down on whatever grounds. I for one think that
it is a great initiative that you're taking with your engine, and will
not hesitate to recommend it to people should cross platform be an
important factor for them. And this is despite the fact that we're
competing! Smile.
Kind regards,
Philip Bennefall
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to
[email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the
list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].
