Actually, it's that last part that interests me - using RBScript
instead (I like the fact that RB requires variables to be declared
before use, and is more strongly typed - the existing TorqueScript
kinda reminds me of a cross between C# and the old GW-BASIC where you
could just make up variables on the fly just by using them and giving
them a type specifier code like % for integers, & for longs, $ for
strings and so on.)
On Jan 1, 2007, at 12:02 AM, Seth Willits wrote:
On Dec 31, 2006, at 7:23 PM, Giovanni wrote:
When you say there is no benefits, how would rb not benefit from a
game engine?
Because you wouldn't want to interface with Torque via RB. There's
no benefit. Adding REALbasic into the equation would muck Torque
up. You'd be far better off using Torque itself, as it is was
designed.
To use Torque, you either a) write C++ code to tweak and extend the
engine, b) use the built-in editors to create custom GUIs or modify
the world & terrain, or c) you write TorqueScript code which is
completely designed to hook into the C++ code. REALbasic won't
help with any of these.
--
Seth Willits
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
