Jardar

sweet idea, im in!

the way I see it, it could work, but for various reasons games will still be developed for the desktop computers, consoles and more. Why? Because of the sport in computer building and customization, both hardware and software. Because of microsoft that have been spitting out money for their console and operating system. And probably mostly because of the subscription part of this deal. Quite honestly, I would not want to pay a subscription costing perhaps 150 a month even if I got to play a dozen more games then the three I could buy in the store for that money. I would still want the games on hard copies because I like to return to my games later in time, I also like to see them in my shelf, I like to be able to mod the games, and I like to be able to adjust my settings to what pleases me in accordance with my hardware. Will onLive be a flop? hardly. I think it will be convenient for many people. But will it change the face of gaming? I hardly think so, but time will tell.

if you are looking for free and your market will consist of mostly low end machinery you may want to consider ogre3d. I have no personal experience using it, but a lot of mates swears by it as being a good engine to run on most low to medium range computers.

You need to create a physics shape, export as .obj and convert that physics shape to .phy using the phygen or obj2phy. What is the difference between a model and a physics shape? nothing appart for the job it is meant to do. A model alone wont have any physics interraction so it can be highly detailed, the physics shape on the other hand needs to be extremely simple. When you convert a model in phygen or obj2phy it will automatically patch it together to the simplest shape possible. A continious torus is a perfect example of how this is no good. Same if you want to make an inward corner for a pipe, you will need to make it in two or three, perhaps even four cylinders depending on the shape of the bend and how accurate you want your physics to be. I will provide some illustrations.... and excuse my drawing skills. First lets see what might happen if you make a corner from one single mesh. The red line is the resulting physics shape. The converter will make the most effective physics shape possible, even if that isnt what you want at all. To make the corner correct, you need to devide that corner up somehow, like this for instance. Here the green line is the resulting physics shape, as you can see it now have the corner made correctly. That is because you actually give the converter additional instructions this way. At least, this is what I needed to do when making physics shapes in the past, for Source (garry's mod) for instance. Hope this helps.

by paranting a planet to the pivot of the sun would keep the planet from spinning right? You would get a planet orbiting the sun but with only one side facing the sun at all times correct? maybe a way to solve this would be to place a pivot in the sun, a pivot in the planet, and ball socket the planet to it's pivot? Thus you could in addition rotate the planet as it is orbiting the sun? I could be wrong, perhaps making no sense, and perhaps it would be better to use animated textures to make the planet "look" like it is rotating instead. Anyways that was my thoughts on the matter.

Heck, I would vouch for Eternal, he is very helpful if I got any questions about web design

Is there possibly some way of opening .phy files in a 3d modeling program, so we can review the shapes, save as obj and re-convert into new and revised .phy files? edit: for the automatically created phy files I mean.

Take a look at the I-Novae engine. No its not done, but the engine they are developing for Infinity: Quest for Earth will be putting procedurally generated planets around procedurally generated star systems, where each star is a member of a procedurally generated galaxy. They also claim that there will be no loading time after the initial game startup. Personally I just want a planet lol. But seeing how much work there is populating just a few kilometers, I am quite happy with leadwerks really.

Well if I can remember this correctly from school. 1 liter of water = 1kg at sea level. So if you have 10kg of water you have 10 liters of water, and opposite, 10 liters of water would weigh 10 kg. This would of course take into consideration that you do NOT use heavy water! besides that would be very dangerous.

Indeed, this seems a lot better then just a forum. Looking forward to be looking around in here!

Indeed, this seems a lot better then just a forum. Looking forward to be looking around in here!