My version of PureBasic's future

[J. Baker]

I see talk about the removal of ASCII and understand both sides of this issue. This topic will be more than just that though. Here's what I would want to see for PureBasic's future...

1.) Remove ASCII even though I enjoy old hardware and operating systems. Unicode just makes sense for various reasons. Reduced bugs is a plus.

2.) Remove DirectX. OpenGL is cross platform and this would also help reduce bugs. FYI... The last version of PureBasic to support DirectX7 was PB 4.10 and not 5.00. A pc with DirectX 7 installed, a DirectX 7 video card, will not run games compiled in PureBasic beyond 4.10 using DirectX7 subsystem. You'll have to have DirectX 9.0c in order for the game to run, even if you use the DirectX7 subsystem.

3.) Remove OGRE. It requires an external library. Its *.mesh plus *.skeleton is not widely supported. Issues can come along if you don't use the command line tools for the proper version of OGRE that you are using. Latest 3D examples require Nvidia CG. Just more external crap that I have to install on my computer. As you see, I don't like relying on external stuff.

4.) Create new OpenGL 3D Engine. One that can run on OpenGL 1.3. No need for the latest technology as you can create very nice looking games in version 1.3. It just takes graphics and modeling skills. This keeps it compatible with people who don't have the latest and fastest hardware. Plus, who on this forum is even using the latest 3D technology. I doubt many.

5.) Never remove 32bit support. 64bit support is not needed for most apps and does nothing but use more resources for apps that don't even require it. Only use 64bit when needed.

That's really about it.

[heartbone]

I see talk about the removal of ASCII and understand both sides of this issue. This topic will be more than just that though. Here's what I would want to see for PureBasic's future...

1.) Remove ASCII even though I enjoy old hardware and operating systems. Unicode just makes sense for various reasons. Reduced bugs is a plus.

2.) Remove DirectX. OpenGL is cross platform and this would also help reduce bugs. FYI... The last version of PureBasic to support DirectX7 was PB 4.10 and not 5.00. A pc with DirectX 7 installed, a DirectX 7 video card, will not run games compiled in PureBasic beyond 4.10 using DirectX7 subsystem. You'll have to have DirectX 9.0c in order for the game to run, even if you use the DirectX7 subsystem.

3.) Remove OGRE. It requires an external library. Its *.masesh plus *.skeleton is not widely supported. Issues can come along if you don't use the command line tools for the proper version of OGRE that you are using. Latest 3D examples require Nvidia CG. Just more external crap that I have to install on my computer. As you see, I don't like relying on external stuff.

4.) Create new OpenGL 3D Engine. One that can run on OpenGL 1.3. No need for the latest technology as you can create very nice looking games in version 1.3. It just takes graphics and modeling skills. This keeps it compatible with people who don't have the latest and fastest hardware. Plus, who on this forum is even using the latest 3D technology. I doubt many.

5.) Never remove 32bit support. 64bit support is not needed for most apps and does nothing but use more resources for apps that don't even require it. Only use 64bit when needed.

That's really about it.

1) Perhaps in a few years, not now. What is the rush?
2) Yes.
3) Only if OGRE is replaced.
4) Yes, if it replaces OGRE.
5) Yes.

[wilbert]

5.) Never remove 32bit support. 64bit support is not needed for most apps and does nothing but use more resources for apps that don't even require it. Only use 64bit when needed.

Does a 64 bit app really use that much more resources ?
I would prefer 32 bit to be dropped in the future if that means the 64 bit version would be more optimized.

[Lunasole]

1.) Remove ASCII even though I enjoy old hardware and operating systems. Unicode just makes sense for various reasons. Reduced bugs is a plus.

2.) Remove DirectX. OpenGL is cross platform and this would also help reduce bugs. FYI... The last version of PureBasic to support DirectX7 was PB 4.10 and not 5.00. A pc with DirectX 7 installed, a DirectX 7 video card, will not run games compiled in PureBasic beyond 4.10 using DirectX7 subsystem. You'll have to have DirectX 9.0c in order for the game to run, even if you use the DirectX7 subsystem.

3.) Remove OGRE. It requires an external library. Its *.mesh plus *.skeleton is not widely supported. Issues can come along if you don't use the command line tools for the proper version of OGRE that you are using. Latest 3D examples require Nvidia CG. Just more external crap that I have to install on my computer. As you see, I don't like relying on external stuff.

4.) Create new OpenGL 3D Engine. One that can run on OpenGL 1.3. No need for the latest technology as you can create very nice looking games in version 1.3. It just takes graphics and modeling skills. This keeps it compatible with people who don't have the latest and fastest hardware. Plus, who on this forum is even using the latest 3D technology. I doubt many.

5.) Never remove 32bit support. 64bit support is not needed for most apps and does nothing but use more resources for apps that don't even require it. Only use 64bit when needed.

I agree about ASCII, and DirectX too. DX currently is totally unpractical to use and learning of it generally is just a waste of time for game developer.

What about OGRE, I'm not using it and not going to use, so can't tell how actual, good or bad it is. For me it is useless and I'd prefer just if all of it's functions in help file were moved to a separated category (all those entity, mesh), instead of trashing help file a lot.

Btw, idea of creating own 3D engine instead of Ogre3D is too much. For 1 or 2 mans that requires at least 1 year of hardcore development (day by day working only on it, basing only on OpenGL), there will be lot of of bugs, performance issues, so even Ogre3D after this will be looking like some really perfect engine. Only some other already existing engine should be used to replace.

And surely agree about 32 bit support. It has to remain because of compatibility with old software.
Even if most CPU supporting 64 bits already, lot of software stuck at 32 bits and that will not change soon, also there are several other reasons to still prefer 32 bits (much lower memory consumption, etc).


If talking about "what to improve instead", there would be nice to have some more professional library and form designer for GUIs, as current PB GUIs and form designer are just primitive even comparing to VB6. I'm not talking about drawing some extra-featured customized GUIs, etc, just about providing enough functionality and params to tweak "default" controls. Random example: currently that StringGadget even not allows to center it's text. Or try to add your context menu to EditorGadget to work with it's text....

[DontTalkToMe]

my version is: less or no known bug at all in the compiler and possibly the IDE

That's really about it.

[netmaestro]

I don't want this reply to end up hijacking the thread but I just wonder what proportion of PureBasic coders are actually using the 3D library. I've been under the impression the last few years that it's a pretty small subsection of the userbase. Am I wrong about that? (I'm not campaigning for its removal, please don't infer that)

[J. Baker]

Does a 64 bit app really use that much more resources ?
I would prefer 32 bit to be dropped in the future if that means the 64 bit version would be more optimized.

Hello Wilbert!

It depends on the app. Firefox in 32bit uses 315MB as where in 64bit it uses 404MB. That's quite an increase for just one app. So I just always open it in 32bit on OS X. Macrotune uses 9.5 in 32bit and 12.5 in 64bit. Macrotune is small and fast either way. So no big deal there.

Anime Studio Pro (now Moho Pro) use to be fast. It has its hiccups now and not as snappy as it use to be (depending on processor and amount of ram installed). So it just depends on the app, OS, multi-tasking or not, etc. The more 64bit apps you run, the less available memory you're going to have.

So if your app sees no benefit from using 64bit, why waste the memory? It really doesn't bother me until a performance hit is taken just because the developer decided to compile their app in 64bit. I multi-task but not usually more than three apps at a time.

[J. Baker]

I don't want this reply to end up hijacking the thread but I just wonder what proportion of PureBasic coders are actually using the 3D library. I've been under the impression the last few years that it's a pretty small subsection of the userbase. Am I wrong about that? (I'm not campaigning for its removal, please don't infer that)

I enjoy 3D. I've been modeling and animating in 3D for some time now. I was excited about PureBasic's OGRE integration at first. The lack of mesh and skeleton support was a bother at first but then I made my own work-around. Then the requirements for OGRE kept going up. I prefer OpenGL 1.3 or DirectX 8.1 technology, as graphically, no need to go beyond that point or system requirement. The external dll is slightly annoying. I prefer a single exec. Other than that, I would use it more and for a final product, if not for the above. That may be why there is a smaller user base or the fact it does take time to learn to model and animate in 3D. 2D is just easier for the beginner.

[Samuel]

2.) Remove DirectX. OpenGL is cross platform and this would also help reduce bugs. FYI... The last version of PureBasic to support DirectX7 was PB 4.10 and not 5.00. A pc with DirectX 7 installed, a DirectX 7 video card, will not run games compiled in PureBasic beyond 4.10 using DirectX7 subsystem. You'll have to have DirectX 9.0c in order for the game to run, even if you use the DirectX7 subsystem.

I'd say it depends on what Fred wants to do in the future. Right now DirectX 12 beats out OpenGL 4.5. And since the Khronos Group created Vulkan (from AMD's Mantle) in order to compete with DX12 who can say what major improvements OpenGL will get in the future.

3.) Remove OGRE. It requires an external library. Its *.mesh plus *.skeleton is not widely supported. Issues can come along if you don't use the command line tools for the proper version of OGRE that you are using. Latest 3D examples require Nvidia CG. Just more external crap that I have to install on my computer. As you see, I don't like relying on external stuff.

I agree that Ogre's formats can be difficult to deal with. That was a big issue for me when I used Ogre.
The reason Nvidia CG is required is because of the use of CG shaders. Those shaders could be converted to GLSL/HLSL and then the CG shaders would no longer be required.

4.) Create new OpenGL 3D Engine. One that can run on OpenGL 1.3. No need for the latest technology as you can create very nice looking games in version 1.3. It just takes graphics and modeling skills. This keeps it compatible with people who don't have the latest and fastest hardware. Plus, who on this forum is even using the latest 3D technology. I doubt many.

I would highly recommend using a more modern version of OpenGL. The old school fixed pipeline was only good for two things. Making simple games and slow cad software.

The team could create an engine for both Legacy and Modern OpenGL, but they are far too different systems. It would be like having to support two completely different rendering systems. Which is one of the reasons you want DirectX gone.
I'd say for a bare minimum OpenGL 3.3 would work.


@netmaestro
I think one of the reasons Purebasic's 3D user base isn't growing very fast (maybe even shrinking?) is because of the other engines out there.
The Unreal Engine gives a very good deal and it is supported by a team dedicated solely to it. There's also Unity and the Cry Engine out there as well.

[J. Baker]

Right now DirectX 12 beats out OpenGL 4.5.

Yeah but any developer using DirectX12 or OpenGL 4.5 has limited their sales to those with the latest OS and hardware. Why would any developer do that? Plus, who here is going to use all the technologies in either one of those?

I would highly recommend using a more modern version of OpenGL. The old school fixed pipeline was only good for two things. Making simple games and slow cad software.

I wouldn't call Quake III or any other game made in OpenGL 1.3 time period a simple game. Which I believe that game was made before OpenGL 1.3. Using OpenGL 3.3 would be for those who have modern hardware. Again, killing your sales plus most likely not even using all of its technology to begin with. To each their own though.

[heartbone]

I would highly recommend using a more modern version of OpenGL. The old school fixed pipeline was only good for two things. Making simple games and slow cad software.

The team could create an engine for both Legacy and Modern OpenGL, but they are far too different systems. It would be like having to support two completely different rendering systems. Which is one of the reasons you want DirectX gone.
I'd say for a bare minimum OpenGL 3.3 would work.

I agree that OpenGL 3.3 would be a better version to go with.

[Samuel]

Yeah but any developer using DirectX12 or OpenGL 4.5 has limited their sales to those with the latest OS and hardware. Why would any developer do that? Plus, who here is going to use all the technologies in either one of those?

I was talking about what Fred wanted to do in the future. I agree it would be a bad idea to only support the latest and greatest, but in time Fred will probably update his systems. If OpenGL is going to get replaced by Vulkan then maybe Vulkan support will be better down the line. It's always a good idea to look ahead.

I wouldn't call Quake or any other game made in OpenGL 1.3 time period a simple game. Which I think that game was made before 1.3, I believe. Using OpenGL 3.3 would be for those who have modern hardware. Again, killing your sales plus most likely not even using all of its technology to begin with. To each their own though.

Maybe as a developer you wouldn't, but 95%+ of gamers would and they're the people that pay the developers food bills.
Also OpenGL 3.3 is about 6 years old which doesn't require very modern hardware. We're talking a 30-60$ dollar graphic card not one of the new 300$+ graphic cards out there.

[J. Baker]

Maybe as a developer you wouldn't, but 95%+ of gamers would and they're the people that pay the developers food bills.
Also OpenGL 3.3 is about 6 years old which doesn't require very modern hardware. We're talking a 30-60$ dollar graphic card not one of the new 300$+ graphic cards out there.

Yeah, my kids love the latest graphics but then they also play old school pixel type games. While the latest graphics may seem like eye candy, I believe it all comes down to, how good is the gameplay. Awesome graphics but crappy game doesn't do much. Ok (not the latest) graphics and awesome game equals a happy developer and customer.

6 years old is modern to me. I still enjoy DOS.

[box_80]

Just my two cents.

1.)In time maybe.
2.)The option for DX is nice for any performance boost from it, but would the work for keeping it be worth the effort.
3.)I like OGRE myself. It would be nice to have to more info to make it more easy to use. Also I think others are helping Fred and Freak with the 3D engine. Removing OGRE may not give them a purpose to help PureBasic anymore. There been a lot of work put in the wrapper already. I think adding other options with OGRE or OpenGL like Irrlicht as a example would be nice.
4.)Seem like a lot of work.
5.)32bit is going to be used less and less just like ASCII. It going to be a while before that happen.

[Keya]

drop x86 support wait what!?!? NO!!! please don't even mention that, i couldn't think of a quicker way to lose such a large chunk of our apps potential audience/market, as well as throwing a spanner in the works of PB's current 'supports all desktops' beautiful quality that gives us PB coders an edge over Bob Smith programming exclusively for Windows in Visual C++
Future is so limited though with these lifetime licenses, no funding to put towards more development or getting another developer