Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
I am wondering if anyone would like to compare the most popular BASIC programming tools for 3D game programming.
To have a fair comparison, you could reply by giving a * * * * * (up to 5 star) rating for each category for each of the following products, where 5 stars = best technology (like commercial blockbuster game quality), 3 stars = average (ok, or barely fun), etc.
Please rate each BASIC tool using these common characteristics, so we can all find out what you really think of each product!!!
(Please add brief comments or opinions about what you honestly think about each product)...
GQ = Graphics quality ***** (Note: Perhaps mention the API it uses? DirectX 9 or OpenGL or Whatever API?);
GP = Graphics performance ****** (fast multi-core multi-threaded ability, average, poor FPS - for high poly scenes);
EU = Ease of Usage ***** (more stars means the software and its game dev tools are easier to learn and use)
TS = Tutorials and Support ***** (level of documentation, sample code, examples, community / forum support)
For example:
DarkBasic Pro:
GQ = **** (DirectX / Direct3D 9)
GP = * (very poor framerates for highly detailed scenes, or for high polygon counts)
EU = **** (very easy to learn and use, simple syntax)
TS = ***** (several books, complete sample code for all / most features, huge community)
PureBasic:
GQ = **** (Ogre? what version?)
GP = **** (very fast framerates)
EU = ??? (still learning and exploring this language)
TS = **** (pretty good tutorials, sample code and support community)
Nuclear Basic:
GQ = ***** (DirectX 11 quality, very advanced shader features)
GP = ***** (scales to different number of available cores, multi-threaded machine code almost as fast as optimized C/C++)
EU = ??? (still exploring this language)
TS = * (not very much tutorial info out there, no books yet, small community of developers since it is still new)
Blitz3D:
GQ = *** (DirectX 7, basic shading and shadows)
GP = **** (very good, quite high FPS at high polygon counts)
EU = ??? (still exploring this language)
TS = ***** (lots of tutorials, books, big community of developers)
Power Basic, Just Basic, etc. You can mention any others not on this list if you have successfully made 3D graphics applications using them.
To have a fair comparison, you could reply by giving a * * * * * (up to 5 star) rating for each category for each of the following products, where 5 stars = best technology (like commercial blockbuster game quality), 3 stars = average (ok, or barely fun), etc.
Please rate each BASIC tool using these common characteristics, so we can all find out what you really think of each product!!!
(Please add brief comments or opinions about what you honestly think about each product)...
GQ = Graphics quality ***** (Note: Perhaps mention the API it uses? DirectX 9 or OpenGL or Whatever API?);
GP = Graphics performance ****** (fast multi-core multi-threaded ability, average, poor FPS - for high poly scenes);
EU = Ease of Usage ***** (more stars means the software and its game dev tools are easier to learn and use)
TS = Tutorials and Support ***** (level of documentation, sample code, examples, community / forum support)
For example:
DarkBasic Pro:
GQ = **** (DirectX / Direct3D 9)
GP = * (very poor framerates for highly detailed scenes, or for high polygon counts)
EU = **** (very easy to learn and use, simple syntax)
TS = ***** (several books, complete sample code for all / most features, huge community)
PureBasic:
GQ = **** (Ogre? what version?)
GP = **** (very fast framerates)
EU = ??? (still learning and exploring this language)
TS = **** (pretty good tutorials, sample code and support community)
Nuclear Basic:
GQ = ***** (DirectX 11 quality, very advanced shader features)
GP = ***** (scales to different number of available cores, multi-threaded machine code almost as fast as optimized C/C++)
EU = ??? (still exploring this language)
TS = * (not very much tutorial info out there, no books yet, small community of developers since it is still new)
Blitz3D:
GQ = *** (DirectX 7, basic shading and shadows)
GP = **** (very good, quite high FPS at high polygon counts)
EU = ??? (still exploring this language)
TS = ***** (lots of tutorials, books, big community of developers)
Power Basic, Just Basic, etc. You can mention any others not on this list if you have successfully made 3D graphics applications using them.
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
I can't really compare because I've only used Purebasic and C++ when dealing with 3D.
In my opinion Graphics quality depends heavily on the programmer.
I know poorly made engines and older graphic API's can affect it, but for the most part it's up to the programmers artistic ability and shader knowledge.
For Graphics performance OGRE is not thread safe because it's a rendering engine.
If it supported multi threading there would be slowdowns because of the synchronization overhead.
Also a high polygon count or a detailed scene isn't going to be the cause of slowdowns. At least not the major part.
What will cause slowdowns is your batch count.
For example if you have 100,000 cubes, each a separate entity, they will require thousands of calls to render onto your screen.
Whereas 100,000 cubes in a single entity will require very few calls to render. Not hard to guess which way will be rendered faster.
Well, I'll shut up now before I completely take over your thread.
In my opinion Graphics quality depends heavily on the programmer.
I know poorly made engines and older graphic API's can affect it, but for the most part it's up to the programmers artistic ability and shader knowledge.
For Graphics performance OGRE is not thread safe because it's a rendering engine.
If it supported multi threading there would be slowdowns because of the synchronization overhead.
Also a high polygon count or a detailed scene isn't going to be the cause of slowdowns. At least not the major part.
What will cause slowdowns is your batch count.
For example if you have 100,000 cubes, each a separate entity, they will require thousands of calls to render onto your screen.
Whereas 100,000 cubes in a single entity will require very few calls to render. Not hard to guess which way will be rendered faster.
Well, I'll shut up now before I completely take over your thread.
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
Thanks. I am still 'shopping around' for a really good 3D game developing language to learn and use, which can still produce fast and smooth rendering performance for highly complex scenes. I was considering using C# and Direct3D, but the code looks very OOP and messy. I never liked C or C++, and I am undecided yet about learning Nuclear Basic, PureBasic or Blitz3D / BlitzMax. DarkBasic is ok for really simple stuff, but it has serious performance issues for highly detailed scenes (terrible 3D engine based on an interpreter!). Anyway, I hope someone here can give me some advice.
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
If you are trying to avoid C, then go with PB; it is the only one with longevity and support.scubero wrote:Thanks. I am still 'shopping around' for a really good 3D game developing language to learn and use, which can still produce fast and smooth rendering performance for highly complex scenes. I was considering using C# and Direct3D, but the code looks very OOP and messy. I never liked C or C++, and I am undecided yet about learning Nuclear Basic, PureBasic or Blitz3D / BlitzMax. DarkBasic is ok for really simple stuff, but it has serious performance issues for highly detailed scenes (terrible 3D engine based on an interpreter!). Anyway, I hope someone here can give me some advice.
- Nuclear is new and uproven
Blitz is abandoned, and now open source
Dark is...described by you
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
I'd say Nuclear basic and Purebasic are both capable of rendering complex scenes.scubero wrote:Thanks. I am still 'shopping around' for a really good 3D game developing language to learn and use, which can still produce fast and smooth rendering performance for highly complex scenes. I was considering using C# and Direct3D, but the code looks very OOP and messy. I never liked C or C++, and I am undecided yet about learning Nuclear Basic, PureBasic or Blitz3D / BlitzMax. DarkBasic is ok for really simple stuff, but it has serious performance issues for highly detailed scenes (terrible 3D engine based on an interpreter!). Anyway, I hope someone here can give me some advice.
It looks like Nuclear has more sample shaders included and implemented into it. Doesn't mean too much though because Ogre has tons of shaders and examples on their site.
Nuclear has DirectX 11 support which Purebasic/Ogre does not have, but it looks like that will change with the Ogre 1.9.0 improvements.
Ogre is open source, and Purebasic has been around for over ten years. I imagine Purebasic will be around for many more years to come. Nuclear basic is closed source, young and from what I can tell currently only developed by one person.
In my opinion I'd go with Purebasic because as Tenaja said your not limited to one engine.
I know of three 3D engines for Purebasic each of them are still being actively developed on.
Ogre(DirectX 9.0c/OpenGL 2.1?). I believe Ogre 1.9.0 (newest release) jumps up to DirectX 11 and some of OpenGL 3+.
MP3D(DirectX 9.0c)
UnionBytes(OpenGL 3+ and 4+, but is currently still under development)
If you don't like these then you can create your own in Purebasic too. I'm not sure about MP3D, but UnionBytes was written completely in Purebasic.
In the end you should try the Nuclear and Purebasic demos to see which one will work best for you.
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
PureBasic 5.22 comes with OGRE 1.8.2, but PB comes with OGRE3D as build-in-engine. So you doesn't have access to everything, that OGRE can.scubero wrote:PureBasic:
GQ = **** (Ogre? what version?)
If you are alone and just want to explore the 3D world: It doesn't matter what language you are using. 3D graphic/ games is a really big world where you will have to learn many many stuff. And everything you make in that time, can be done with every tool

Of course, we will recommend PB to you as it is easy to learn.

Just don't expect to much at the beginning.
MFG PMV
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
I got Nuclear Basic + Nuclear Fusion package back in January 2014. Paid with PayPal.
Account status showed "pending" and I could not download the product I paid for.
Opened a support ticket. 8 or 10 days later still nothing had happened. No answer, nothing.
Opened a PayPal support ticket and wrote the Nuclear guy that I want my money back.
1 or 2 days later I got an e-mail that the download is available now.
I were only interested in the C++ SDK (Nuclear Fusion), not in Nuclear BASIC.
Nuclear Fusion is the same 3D engine used in Nuclear Basic. It said it's C++ libraries (.lib)
for different C++ compilers on Windows.
Made some tests and wondered why the minimal EXE size is always 3MB+ or so. After some
investigation I found out it is not a real C++ library. It is a .lib that contains a DLL
that is unpacked at program start. So, of course, always the whole DLL is included,
instead linking only required .lib parts into the final executable.
I hate such unprofessional trash. Nuclear Fusion sucks, and I can't recommend such garbage.
Account status showed "pending" and I could not download the product I paid for.
Opened a support ticket. 8 or 10 days later still nothing had happened. No answer, nothing.
Opened a PayPal support ticket and wrote the Nuclear guy that I want my money back.
1 or 2 days later I got an e-mail that the download is available now.
I were only interested in the C++ SDK (Nuclear Fusion), not in Nuclear BASIC.
Nuclear Fusion is the same 3D engine used in Nuclear Basic. It said it's C++ libraries (.lib)
for different C++ compilers on Windows.
Made some tests and wondered why the minimal EXE size is always 3MB+ or so. After some
investigation I found out it is not a real C++ library. It is a .lib that contains a DLL
that is unpacked at program start. So, of course, always the whole DLL is included,
instead linking only required .lib parts into the final executable.
I hate such unprofessional trash. Nuclear Fusion sucks, and I can't recommend such garbage.
-
- Always Here
- Posts: 6426
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:33 am
- Location: Wales, UK
- Contact:
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
...judging from your experience Danilo, Nuclear will not be around for long.I hate such unprofessional trash. Nuclear Fusion sucks, and I can't recommend such garbage.
IdeasVacuum
If it sounds simple, you have not grasped the complexity.
If it sounds simple, you have not grasped the complexity.
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
TBH that project died already, just look on their forums. Matthew, the maker of Nuclear engine didnt login for quite some time. i wouldnt recommend the engine to anyone, if youre planning serious things with it.IdeasVacuum wrote: Nuclear will not be around for long.
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
He must be busy working on Nuclear Studio.T4r4ntul4 wrote:Matthew, the maker of Nuclear engine didnt login for quite some time.

It's available for pre-order for a long time, and some people (including me) already paid for it.
I also think the project is dead, at least it looks like it is. That creates a new problem,
because people pre-ordered and already paid for a product, that probably never gets released.
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
yes i did pay for it too, like one and a half year ago for the Studio, but never saw a released product for it...Danilo wrote:He must be busy working on Nuclear Studio.T4r4ntul4 wrote:Matthew, the maker of Nuclear engine didnt login for quite some time.
It's available for pre-order for a long time, and some people (including me) already paid for it.
I also think the project is dead, at least it looks like it is. That creates a new problem,
because people pre-ordered and already paid for a product, that probably never gets released.
you think? he never said so. he didnt tell, he just abandoned his own software community. theres no log, he never tells what he is working on right now...Danilo wrote: He must be busy working on Nuclear Studio.![]()
this is just ironic: i quote from his site:
link: http://www.nuclearglory.com/company.phpRepeated frustration with the support provided to us, or lack thereof,
well he frustated alot of guys right there... and if people trying to say something about it, the topics getting locked...:
http://forums.nuclearglory.com/index.php?tid=4918
http://forums.nuclearglory.com/index.php?tid=4919
http://forums.nuclearglory.com/index.php?tid=4920
http://forums.nuclearglory.com/index.php?tid=4923
http://forums.nuclearglory.com/index.php?tid=4924
http://forums.nuclearglory.com/index.php?tid=4918
and so on and so on
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
I was trying to make a joke.T4r4ntul4 wrote:you think? he never said so.Danilo wrote:He must be busy working on Nuclear Studio.

Get money for nothing (pre-orders) and never do something for it. Very smart guy.

What's the right time to ask for refund of pre-orders, if he does not deliver what we already paid for? 2, 5, or 10 years?
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
>>PureBasic 5.22 comes with OGRE 1.8.2, but PB comes with OGRE3D as build-in-engine. So you doesn't have >>access to everything, that OGRE can.
So the latest PureBasic 5.22 LTS that I purchased comes with Ogre3D, but what version? 1.8.2 ? Sorry for asking a dumb question (I should have done more reading on the ogre3d.org website), but what 3D features does Ogre3D rely on? (DirectX or OpenGL, or both?) Sorry for being an annoying noob!!!
So the latest PureBasic 5.22 LTS that I purchased comes with Ogre3D, but what version? 1.8.2 ? Sorry for asking a dumb question (I should have done more reading on the ogre3d.org website), but what 3D features does Ogre3D rely on? (DirectX or OpenGL, or both?) Sorry for being an annoying noob!!!
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
Nuclear Basic is dead, Blitz3D is dead, and DarkBasic Pro hasn't seen an update in ages. That makes your list much more manageable and easier to narrow down.
Best wishes to the PB community. Thank you for the memories. 
-
- User
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:16 am
Re: Performance & feature comparisons for 3D BASIC tools
You forgot to mentioned GLBasic, which has a very capable 3D system across multiple platforms. Unfortunately HTML5 output is not good. I have a pseudo 3D road system up and running, although it has problems with hills (jitters for some reason). You can see it here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LA7P3RA0PE. I think the hill jitter is caused by the player percentage value for some reason. Perhaps I was relying on the original Javascript code not to do something - either way, I have no idea how to fix it.
Blitzmax is also... available, but can be a real pain with lists (need to allocate memory, certain types can't be sorted).
Then there is the AppGameKit, which is unfortunately byte-code interpreted, although it looks like it can handle stuff at a decent speed. The AppGameKit 2 will be available later in the year.
Hopefully SpiderBasic will get 3D later.
Blitzmax is also... available, but can be a real pain with lists (need to allocate memory, certain types can't be sorted).
Then there is the AppGameKit, which is unfortunately byte-code interpreted, although it looks like it can handle stuff at a decent speed. The AppGameKit 2 will be available later in the year.
Hopefully SpiderBasic will get 3D later.