Pancakes
-
Posts
1,204 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Blogs
Forums
Store
Gallery
Videos
Downloads
Posts posted by Pancakes
-
-
Good explanation Pancakes. With the license issues you describe, it seems like a risk for Josh to use it then. If you were concerned with releasing your game because of the licensing issues, what would you think Josh would need to do to avoid these issues if he altered the interface to be Leadwerks editor?
By my understanding, people have already written a game engine plugin for blender and Crystal Space. They did this partially to get around license issues. Basically Leadwerks could theoretically plug its SDK and renderer and all that into blender or vice versa. Because blender is open source you could do it either way that works best for you. You could "put Leadwerks inside blender" or "blender inside Leadwerks" as long as there is a nice and neat seperation of code, as long as the status of plugin is maintained. There shouldn't be any license issues at all. The only reason a blender game would have issues is because the actual code of a blender game will be using blender code. But if you used blender just for its features but saved everything in Leadwerks format, then there isn't in blender code in your final game. And so there aren't any license issues then becuase the final executable will be 100% Leadwerks.
@ Pixel Perfect That's just the thing. Blender is open source. Josh can do whatever he wants to it. Whatever he wants. It's open source. I have to repeat that sometimes because when I hear objections even I tend to forget a little. You can do whatever you want. As long as you don't try to sell portions of its code and claim it as your own. That is why writing a plugin would be fine because it's just a connection between two distinct programs, you're not trying to claim blender as your own.
I mean look at Google open sourcing things left and right. It's not exactly a backwards trend these days for commercial and open source to coexist.
-
Pancakes, why do you use Leadwerks? I don't mean this as mean or condescending, it just seems like you really enjoy Blender so why aren't you using it to make games instead using Leadwerks?
So many people say stuff like that about open source projects. People who use Linux have been saying that for years but it's just not reality. Once has to wonder how real that really is for Blender. It's great what it's doing, but so if Linux and it's just not as popular as other OS's.
Simple answers:
I still use blender. Blender does textures, animations, real time 3d, audio, rendering, sculpting and other things too. I don't use blender for it's sculpting or its game engine because blender's sculpting is currently good but not as great as 3d Coat, sculptris, Zbrush, mudbox. Blender's game engine is GREAT, but it's got licensing issues. Because blender is open source, if you release a blender game, it will be using open source dependencies and other code and stuff like that so if you ask different people exactly what that means they will all give you different answers because it seems nobody quite understands what that means.
I studied blender and its game engine when I was completely new. As I learned things I began to want to release demos of some of my practice projects. Only to find out that if I were to do so, the license wouldn't necessarily protect any of the models and textures or sounds that are a part of the demo. Some say if you relase a blender game it becomes common property but some say it doesn't.
Blender has no flowgraphs but it does have a form of visual scripting that is very nice. However, because it is not true flowgraphs it is recommened to use mostly scripting and then a small amount of visual coding, which is what I was doing. Then I figured, if I was going to have to learn scripting anyway... I might as well learn it for an engine where the licensing wasn't so ambiguous and confusing.
I'd like to release some demos for some of my projects (for free) without having to worry about whether someone is going to put one of my barrel models on turbo squid for $5 or something like that.
All of that and then Leadwerks is awesome. So are some of the others. Believe you me, that I'm a fish out of water wherever I turn really. If I tell a blender user about Leadwerks they say, "Why would I want to use Leadwerks, I have blender"
Then I tell a Leadwerks user about blender and they say, "Why would I want to use blender I have Leadwerks"
"Why would I want to eat peanut butter, I have chocolate!"
It used to drive me up a wall how people aren't even curious sometimes whether it's here or there. And I used to think I should just give up on ever mentioned blender here or Leadwerks there or whatever, but... I don't give up because if you know something that other people don't you have to take a risk and be responsible for the knowledge that you have. Fact is there are probably only 5-10 people in the entire world who have actively used both blender and Leadwerks. So why should I be surprised at the intitial resistence to the idea of mixing the peanut butter with the chocolate? It will probably never happen and I try not to be too obnoxious but like I said, I really think it would be a good thing for all parties involved.
In other words, if there was a way for Leadwerks editor to plug itself into blender and to take advantage of the best parts of blender without interfering with all of the best parts of itself that - you, yes even you Rick would benefit substantially from this. If I didn't think this, If I only thought people like me would benefit I never would have brought it up in the first place.
And by revolution, I was only kidding. Though it is revolutionary. That doesn't mean a revolution is guarenteed.
-
Aggror I think you'd love the blender scene. There are a lot of people there with the same sensibility that you have of contributing things to the community in an effort to help both themselves and others.
Blender is a quiet revolution but...no, I cant' say anymore. Too soon.
-
A day or two after Scultpris 1.0, we come to find out that blender developers are placing Sculptris like tesselation sculpting into blender. At no charge to us of course (besides donations). This type of thing is always happening at blender. Imagine if Leadwerks editor took advantage of this perpetual motion machine known as Blender.
Link:http://farsthary.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/unlimited-clay-sculptris-hollygrail-soon-in-blender/
With this inside Blender blender will officially be better than Mudbox and Zbrush and 3dCoat for sculpting.
-
I would like to be up do date on engine version but I also prefer the 2.31 SSDO. I have tried coping the SSAO.frag, but that hasn't done the trick. Which files do I need to replace in order to place 2.31 SSDO inside of 2.32?
thanks
-
this bot annoys me to no end
-
Sculptris has just been released. It does tesselation on the mesh only where it needs to be in order to add detail. That means... say goodbye to subdivision levels and say hello to thoroughly detailed meshes with surprisingly low triangle counts because the mesh will be subdivided only where it needs to be. It also has paint features built in.
I think Sculptris is a 9.8 out of 10. And it's free.
Sculptris 1.0 is freedom.
Sculptris 1.0 is sculpting satisfaction!
That's my attempt at doing an advert
I LOVE this program guys. Check it out. Especially non 'artists'. I think you'll find this program about 1000% simpler than Zbrush and maybe 500% simpler than Mudbox or 3dCoat. You might just be surprised at what you can manage when the sculpting program is this organic. Try it!
-
Yeah to be honest when I looked at this avatar I was thinking, "I hate it" - If I had more room I would have tried to make it look like Connannika is on the cover of a magazine but there wasn't enough room to format the text or to put good quality text on it. Of course I would also have put the new LE logo on it, but like I said, on such a small avatar it would look all jumbled up I think.
For Pirate Josh's I was always thinking, "I love it" How can you beat a pirate hat and an eyepatch on a serious programmer? You can make it different, but surely not very much better...riiiiiggghttt?
Anyway I'm sure someone else could do a better job I did it for the lulz and now I have to live with that
Maybe I'll try to improve it over time. Till then, I've made my bed and now I must sleep in it.
-
Very cool. I still have an ACER TCO (whatever that means) ^^
OH OH OH, it's like when I was preparing my new avatar, matching conan's hair color to annika's, I messed it up pretty good (or bad) maybe a true color monitor might have helped. Then again I didn't want to spend too much time on it last night ^^ cuz I didn't think that would have been too smart considering I had work in the morning
-
To be perfectly honest, converting the models was the WORST thing about Leadwerks back when I first got it. And that was before scripting. I honestly preferred bumbling around in Visual C++ to all the model conversions I had to do. But the materials system is even worse - figuring out what was constantly going wrong felt like being a forensics agent examining the crime scene of a cold case... at first. But then again I had already been so spoiled.
Eventually I got used to it. Thanks to my Favorites Windows 7 Explorer folders it's not nearly as painful as it was in XP with all the folder navigation it takes to make materials and model conversions.
-
This is a video by who I think is the funniest person on YouTube
-
Michael Betke says it best
-
1. Being able to drag many different model formats into the editor and having it automatically convert to gmf behind the scenes would be nice.
2. Being able to create prefabs.
3. Being able to have multiple scripts attached to game objects.
4. Not having to shut down the editor to see new things.
This is basically what I want too. Just also add flowgraphs and it will be GREAT.
I also like solids modeling like in Cryengine 2. Where you can put down some cubes to sketch things out even before you actually model them. Also built in material editor like Arbuz said.
-
Not really. For some things most programmers find it easier to start from scratch with your own design than to have to use someone elses. And I mean the programming interface that Josh would have to use to modify Blender. It would probably take him more time to learn all that than to just make his own.
To make his own what?
1. Real time texture painting, projection painting with tablet support and material nodes and rendering nodes etc
2. Modeling
3. Sculpting
4. Animating
5. UV unwrapping
6. Sound processing
7. All sorts of rendering abilities
8. Physics, Volumetrics, Lighting etc.
Of course it would take work. But sometimes the end does justify the means.
I'd say it's not brilliant. To me a brilliant interface doesn't scare you off when you first look at it. It has nothing to do with it being new either. There are many programs out there that are very inviting and powerful. Blender is powerful but not inviting. 2 for 2 is the only way the word brilliant should be used.
I don't understand why people get "scared" when they see blender's interface for the first time. When I first saw it I thought, "Oooh, what does this button do" And I started clicking around and had a fun time. I don't know, that's just my general attitude about most CG/game engine related things.
Because humans are complex. Sure as a programmer I can tweak an animation, but then the animator hears about it and now he's pissed. Also, I doubt it's ever as easy as just removing 10 frames. I'm going to need to know certain things about animation, but I spend all my time perfecting my programming skill so I don't know much about animation. So in a AAA game studio, would you want a programmer making those changes? No. You would want your animator doing that because that's his skill and there might be more things to think about than just taking 10 frames out.
Or, he could give his cool programmer a high five and say, "thanks for taking care of that, you're the best"
And the rest of what you say is just personal choice. Some teams will have members who are curious about the entire process. Some will not. I remember the lead character designer of Crysis being asked in an interview what was the game about. And he laughed and said that he didn't have any idea "I'm just the art lead" That may be the way that things are done much of the time, but I find that kind of situation quite undesirable personally. And I don't think that I'm the only one. Tools like blender help teams of people who would tend to have my attitude that even an art lead may want to comment on the scripting, while the programmer may have a level design contribution. Then without leaving his scripting console, programming environement, he can throw a few cubes into the map, adjust some assets and submit his idea to his colleagues. I mean but this is just conjecture. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Of course you don't want people stepping on each other's toes. But that's more of a relationship issue and having the ability to cooperate with others type of question. Rather than what software are you using.
-
It gets ignored for a few reasons.
1. The Blender interface is horrible. People look at it and run away. This is the very first hurdle to get over.
2. When making a game with other people, generally you have roles like level designer, animator, modeler, programmer, sound guy, etc. These people have industry standard tools to do their work and most aren't Blender. So they prefer to use what they know. Also the ability to edit anything game related in Blender is cool, but generally when your level designer is building a level, he's not an animator and so he'll never tweak an animation. Your modeler isn't a level designer and so they just make models. Etc. That's generally why your level design is separated out from your modeling.
3. The blender interface is horrible. Sorry, but it's the truth. It may be functional and amazing once you dig into it, but people have to get past the overwhelming feeling of when they first open it up, and honestly most don't. It's all about first impressions. And the first time you open Blender you have no clue what you are looking at.
4. Those screenshots they have under game engine aren't helping them either. They don't look that impressive.
1. Blender is open source. If a game engine wants to write a plugin and say do something like make use of blender's abilities you have the right to completely change the interface. Because it's open source. Therefore, the whole argument of horrible interface is null and void. (besides that it's interface is actually quite brilliant, Ton Roosendal the guy in charge, says that learning blender is like learning a musical instrument. Knowing to play a guitar does not mean that you will know how to play the drums automatically. But once you learn an instrument it becomes like second nature. Blender's interface may be more difficult to master, but it IS a brilliant interface once you do take the time...no other interface feels so organic and second nature as blender's... once you learn it... but that's besides the point)
2. As tools advance so does the behavior of mankind. I think that once people used to right horses and wagons and that their travel habits were much different than they are today now that we have the automobile. In other words, if game engines were completely unified, as in the case of blender, people's sheer curiosity, spurred onward by the orgasmic quality of having so much awesomeness at the fingertips would cause these traditional roles to begin to blur. I mean, if you are an animator and you see an issue with the UV and the UV window is right there in front of you, why not tweak it? If you are a programmer, and the animation is 20 frames too long, why not reduce the frames yourself? People would learn if the tools were more advanced. Why not move the character's ears up, or merge a few verts? Even if you aren't a pro there are some things anyone on the team could do when it comes to modeling. These things would become more apparent if other editors were more like blender's.
3. Once again, as far as a Leadwerks plugin for blender. You have the right to redo the ENTIRE interface. While keeping all of the power that lies within it. It is open source. You do not have to ask permission.
4. That page is years old. It's a horrible example of what blender's feature are. The features grow so quickly and are so rock solid it's no surprise they don't keep up on the publicity end. I can vouch for the engine. It has every feature Leadwerks has AND you can port it to Iphone (by my understanding...but...just don't try to sell what you made though). Well the only features it doesn't have is I don't think it allows the GPU to handle character skinning like LE does (I think) it doesn't have vegetation optimization to the extreme level of LE, and it doesn't have the unified lighting system of the deferred renderer (But not many other engines have these things either). It has literally everything else that I'm aware of and it is more than capable of achieving the graphics quality of a Red Dead Redemption or a Mass Effect 2. Not Crysis though.
-
Well from my experience in blender it's not so much the question whether you can do something or not it's about how intuitive and natural it all feels. The freedom of being able to tweak an animation within the game engine, and then only seconds later without changing programs, to tweak your UV map, extrude more geometry on a mesh, edit some scripting elements - having it all literally at your fingertips there is nothing like that other than blender game engine.
Sculpting, rendering, blender has volumetrics and nurbs, and splines, and sculpting you don't have to be a so called artist to make awesome things. For instance, with blender you can make your own terrain maps of any quality, you can make your own sky renders INTERACTIVELY within the game engine! It's just a level of feeling natural that blows everything else out of the water.
Record physics interactions, render movie sequences, model everything, it just confuses me why software like this that can offer so much to a game engine like Leadwerks would be ignored when the software itself is free.
I think it would make a lot of buzz in the CG community to see something like that happen. And I think whoever is the first to do that will be copied immediately by everyone else. As they look at the cost/benefits ratio and realize that millions of dollars worth of software engineering is OPEN SOURCE and ready to be taken advantage of to do wonderful things.
How can people ignore that? It just confuses me.
Maybe someone can explain it to me. It's got it's own exportors/importers it's own dev team that works at a lightning pace.
-
btw i've known about project offset for quite some time so my response isn't just a knee jerk reaction to the vid
-
you know what? Blender game engine can do all of that and more.
Blender game engine's code is OPEN SOURCE
you know what? Leadwerks can develop a plugin or something for blender game engine's artist tools for FREE
Leadwerks can entirely change the interface of blender if it wants to because it's OPEN SOURCE
*end broken record until the next time
here's the thing, I'm not even sure why Leadwerks is developing it's own editor and hiring lots of people to do that when you can plug the SDK into blender, change blender's interface to be whatever you want, and take advantage of all that wonderful beatufiful code and constant development because Blender game engine is OPEN SOURCE
-
flexman! that video makes me squeal with little piggy like delight!
-
I am replying again here. Working with large objects is so frustrating with a small gizmo.
I also don't think that this is a feature request. It is more something that has to do with a good workflow inside the editor and thereby should be a part of the editor.
if Aggror wants it I support it too!
-
All I did was modify the code that mixes it in, so it isn't as heavy and only appears in darker areas.
ahhh, ohkay, which would explain why the vegetation that is not directly lit by a light other than ambient light becomes blurred while the other vegetation does not. It now has a sort of freaky pseudo-dof type of effect to it. I'm not sure if that's intentional though.
Is there a way to switch so that it is a little bit heavier but also appears everywhere? Some of the vegetation is getting a little too blurry now (that in the shade vs that in the sun).
I actually liked the grainy effect of the first one only it was a little too grainy. I also liked the heaviness of the first one only it was a *little* too heavy.
Right now it seems a little too blurry and vanilla.
You know what I'm just confused so many shaders bloom etc I'm not sure which is doing what and how right now. All I know is that it's a bit blurrier now which is fine. Only there is a contrast between directly lit vegetation and that which is mainly lit by ambient light in terms of how defined the vegetation looks which wasn't there before. I will probably take the SSDO shader from 2.31 and edit it as much as I can and throw that inside of 2.32.
-
Josh could you eleborate on what changes you made to the ssdo shader in particular as well as bloom, because it seems like it's different. It seems like it's blurring some of the vegetation as opposed to before where it would add more of a grainy effect or maybe I'm imagining this completely.
-
well if u have another entity within view it will not link to the intended target that is slightly occluded by what's in front so having layers would make it a lot easier to organize ur scene, I don't usually have this problem, but when playing around with Rick's Thingoids all the links got kind of scary and some things i had to turn somersaults in order to make connections
-
scene layers? blender game engine has 20 scene layers which makes it really easy to organize things
Video tutorial #5. Creating bodies with lua.
in General Discussion
Posted
was waiting on this one ^^
thanks again