What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Announcements and discussion regarding any projects related to Cyan Worlds' Plasma Engine including (but not limited to) CyanWorlds.com Engine, Drizzle, OfflineKI, PyPRP, and libHSPlasma.

Re: What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Postby dendwaler » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:17 am

A few things comes into my mind that i would like to have as soon as possible.

The support of occluders in PyPRP for Blender to improve performance of bigger ages. I need them desperately.

I would like to be able to put objects in ages or get them out quickly , without needing to export the whole age.
(For my age "turtle isle " i already had export times of nearly 50 Minutes! on a quad core )

I want to see the result after altering objects or changed texturing immediately "in game"
and switch the object to blender visa versa.

and Bump map support!
Those wonderfull Worlds are called " Ages" , because that is what it takes to build one.



Watch my latest Video Or even better..... watch the Cathedral's Complete Walkthrough made by Suleika!
User avatar
dendwaler
 
Posts: 936
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Nederland

Re: What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Postby Aloys » Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:40 am

Agenotfound wrote:
Aloys wrote:First of all, I know this is not gonna be a popular opinion; but I think working on updating the Max plug is a misdirected effort. How many people actually use Max? Especially in our community? 4? 5? Blender might not be Max functionnality wise, but it works, it's free, and all current Age writers already know it. And in some ways it's actually easier to use than Max (it's a subjective thing, but I can't stand Max's interface.)
Well there is 4 now because of the version required wich is almost impossible to find and so old that no one wants to use it.

Also there is quite a lot of people out there that know how to use max or other more mainstream modelers that do not want to make the effort to learn blender because of how different the interface is.

Look at guys like Loshem (not sure of the name) that made the model of the Guild Hall in the official forums and who wanted to port it in the game, like many of the people that have a lot of experience with modeling he does not want to use either Blender or Max 7 because it's such a pain to completly change your workflow and I would really like to see people like him make ages for uru.

It's the core of the problem. Each group (Blender/Max) probably don't want to spend a lot of time learning a very different software (Max/Blender). It is true that by adding proper Max support for recent versions we would definitely expand the community of Age creators. The question is: how many people would it bring it versus how much work would it require?
I think we already have an established community of Age creators; and we would probably lost a lot of them by moving to a different software that most of us don't have (and are not whiling to 'download'). Since the commmunity has a limited number of coders we need to choose what to do. And IMO in the short term, it is more interesting to update PyPRP rather than the Max Plasma plugin.
I try to say that as objectively as possible: I may not like Max, but if needed I could use it. Heck, I did learn Blender although I couldn't stand it at first either.

Branan wrote:I'd like to be able to set the system requirements at a solid DirectX 9.0
haha, I had forgotten about that.. Uru did came out in 2003.. :?
User avatar
Aloys
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:57 pm
Location: France (GMT +1)

Re: What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Postby Tweek » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:17 am

Lehm did the Guild Hall IIRC

I think focus should be on Blender still, it's the most open available program to use. Sure some in the community have Max (I myself have an old version of 6 kicking around I think), but for those coming into it new Blender is going to be the better choice as it doesn't cost a stupid amount of money, and you don't have to acquire it through "shady" means.

I'm not saying abandon Max, should be an area of work, but I don't think it should be the area of work.
Beneath - IC Blog.
Beneath: Ages of Tweek - FB Age Dev Page.
User avatar
Tweek
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 6:37 am

Re: What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Postby D'Lanor » Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:56 am

Branan wrote:One thing we're seriously considering is breaking network and PRP compatibility with Cyan's servers and data. This will allow us a wider range of options in the future. I hope that since many of you will have to re-export your ages for the CWE engine anyway, you'll be willing to work with us when we change things.

This part worries me. It is a known fact that most age writers want their ages to be part of the D'ni universe. How would that be possible without the MOULa content?

At this point there is no MOULa content license so the MOULa ages cannot be (legally) ported to an incompatible client. If we had been willing to give up the original content we could have moved to a different engine long ago.
"It is in self-limitation that a master first shows himself." - Goethe
User avatar
D'Lanor
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:24 am

Re: What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Postby kaelisebonrai » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:27 am

D'Lanor wrote:
Branan wrote:One thing we're seriously considering is breaking network and PRP compatibility with Cyan's servers and data. This will allow us a wider range of options in the future. I hope that since many of you will have to re-export your ages for the CWE engine anyway, you'll be willing to work with us when we change things.

This part worries me. It is a known fact that most age writers want their ages to be part of the D'ni universe. How would that be possible without the MOULa content?

At this point there is no MOULa content license so the MOULa ages cannot be (legally) ported to an incompatible client. If we had been willing to give up the original content we could have moved to a different engine long ago.


We've been operating with converted content for a long time now - we can do the same for this. Deal with it. =) If you don't want to - please don't don't use a version of the source that adds the incompatible features =)
User avatar
kaelisebonrai
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:27 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Postby Whilyam » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:47 am

Yeah, we can't legally port Minkata from MOULa to CC, but that hasn't stopped us. As far as I know, the rules haven't change (we just have never abided by them XD)
User avatar
Whilyam
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:55 pm

Re: What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Postby Aloys » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:48 am

Unless I'm mistaken breaking PRP compatibilty will *have* to be done at some point if the physics engine needs to be changed, right? (cross platform issue mostly)
User avatar
Aloys
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:57 pm
Location: France (GMT +1)

Re: What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Postby D'Lanor » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:56 am

All can say is this: A long awaited gesture has been made. Now is the time to start painting those grey hats white.

That being said, I really wish Cyan had thrown in the content with the OS deal. Surely they must know there is still a stalemate situation.
"It is in self-limitation that a master first shows himself." - Goethe
User avatar
D'Lanor
 
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:24 am

Re: What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Postby Whilyam » Sat Apr 09, 2011 9:59 am

I think until the stalemate is actually resolved, the hats should remain grey. Don't you agree that we should fully hold up our side of the bargain when Cyan has fully upheld theirs?
User avatar
Whilyam
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:55 pm

Re: What do you want from the developers moving forward?

Postby GPNMilano » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:01 am

D'Lanor wrote:All can say is this: A long awaited gesture has been made. Now is the time to start painting those grey hats white.

That being said, I really wish Cyan had thrown in the content with the OS deal. Surely they must know there is still a stalemate situation.


There's no stalemate isue at hand really. It'd been nice if Cyan had thrown in the content with the OS. However, what they have given to open source is the engine and plugin code. What this means is that, if we wish to stay compatible, what we can do is update both. This will allow Cyan to also have access to a plugin that will allow them to export new versions of their content when the engine requires it. It'd be like any other age creator who will need to rexport their stuff when changes in the engine breaks prp compatibility. What this ulitmately would come down to is the above querie by Aloys about wether or not we should update the plugin. If it means staying compatible with Cyan's artistic content, then we'll have to so that Cyan will be able to update their stuff.
You can't stop the truth. IC Blog
User avatar
GPNMilano
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to Plasma Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron