PureBasic Forums - English

Thade wrote: I will not continue to post in this Forum ... this is a complete waste of time ...

First thing you've said that I can agree with. You've wasted enough of our time

cheers

Wow, so much hostility! Six of one, half a dozen of the other... whatever. Fred & team *have* done a great job with v4, *do* provide completely free upgrades and are helpfully (when they feel like it ).... but promises *were* made years ago re 3d and cross-platform. Am I disappointed? Not really, maybe a little because with the benefits mentioned above we are (or have been) expected to wait an undeterminate time for various things. I'm happy to say most are finally arriving. However, and I have to say this, it makes banking on PB for commercial work difficult and risky. I have recently swallowed my pride and started learning .net and c#. No, I won't get into a debate about pro's & con's except to tell the doubters to search for jobs by demand and pay. I will still actively use PB but not to help pay the morgage!

To avoid being classed as a troll and to help encourage others who wanted to use PB for 3D, I aim to update, open source and document >
this< when PB v4 is completed. I attempted it in at least four other languges before settling on PB (many years ago now). To give an example of how far PB allowed me to go with it: my earlier and much simpler attempts struggled to get 17fps on a PIII-600MHz with a GF2. Before dumping that machine this year I had much more complex and interactive version working at 70fps. All down to PB producing efficient code (and me, cough, cough). It needs a video to do it justice so I'll put one up in the next few days. Alas, development was soooo slooow because PB made it difficult to debug.

My latest project is >this< and today I hope to do a PB version.

ok its me with something to say

These are my thoughts on the subject...

I think Pure Basic is a very powerful language, if 3d is needed then people have a choice they can buy a 3d engine wrapper or write their own wrapper.

failing this they could program in Darkgame SDK which has an excellent 3d engine & not forgeting Dark Basic.

I love Pure Basic and feel that it is good for api and that the language is only limited by the mind of the person using it - all things are possible...

Long Live Pure Basic!

Regards
Kevin

dmoc, that looks nice, i'm just missing the combat effects, the barely cladded feline elves, a few trolls to beat up (oh, enough in the purebasic forums lately ) and a score counter...

but for the rest it's great!

(damn, nice, if i only could program this... )

blueznl wrote:(damn, nice, if i only could program this... )

Of course you can, just a little patience, reading and time.

combat effects, the barely cladded feline elves, a few trolls to beat up

they are hiding behind the camera

Ok, now my $0.02 - even if nobody wants to hear it

working with different prg-languages shows me where PB stands and as far as I can see PB4 is a big step forward in regards of professional coding style (no, don't code for a living...) macros, prototypes, quads, *.LIB import etc. come to mind.

Great job Fred, Freak and Co.


IMHO the state of the PB community is, that there are users with different skill levels.
Some are really good 3D coders with really good 3D knowledge (like Comtois), others just start out doing 3D because they find it interesting and others "think" they have good 3D knowledge.

In any case, the ones that are not that experienced expect that 3D in PureBasic should be as easy as 2D and GUI in PureBasic.

Which is not the case at this point because PureBasic would need more build-in-ready-to-go commands like: If you look at the FreeBasic community there are users that coded 3D stuff with QB under DOS, so they first needed to aquire knowledge about utilizing memory efficently, about how 3D works under the hood, 3D-GFX manipulations, how to get high FPS etc. to get things done.

FreeBasic has way less cool build-in functions as PureBasic (if any...), but users are already doing 3D stuff because of the knowlegde they aquired in the past.

Conclusion:
Give Fred a list with what kind of 3D commands "you think" are needed.
As he explained earlier he would be happy to get this list.

If PureBasic is THE prg-language of your choice and you have good 3D knowledge - why not give Fred a hand on this?

Or use your knowledge to utilize libraries like Newton or ODE to do the missing 3D stuff yourself.


Whatever you do:
Have fun coding and be polite to each other

Thanks, Dank, Merci, Danke, Grazie, Obrigado, Grazias

fsw wrote:In any case, the ones that are not that experienced expect that 3D in PureBasic should be as easy as 2D and GUI in PureBasic.

fsw wrote:If you look at the FreeBasic community there are users that coded 3D stuff with QB under DOS, so they first needed to aquire knowledge about utilizing memory efficently, about how 3D works under the hood, 3D-GFX manipulations, how to get high FPS etc. to get things done.

Just one point, This is a BASIC dialect and we shouldn't have to get so low level.

fsw wrote:Or use your knowledge to utilize libraries like Newton or ODE to do the missing 3D stuff yourself.

Yes, in fact i have been sizing up the 3impact 3d engine for some time. It should now import directly into PB with no hassles with PBv4.

Just one comment on this topic (my 2 cents):

This topic gives the impression that Purebasics goal is 3D programming. If this were the case I wouldn't have registered it. Personally I don't need 3D at all. I do not program too much and mainly small tools. And for this PB is great. I was able to do almost everthing without use of the WinAPI.

It is difficult to suit all requirements and wishes.

As far I understood, PB 4 got a lot internal changes for easy maintenance through different plattform, i.e. internal structural changes, which are necessary for easier future development. I bet when this structural changes have settled (which will take some additional version numbers I bet) we could expect some additional functions, maybe also 3D wise.

To get to the Point: Fred and Team keep up the good work...

Must learn to read then From the PB homepage:

- Easy and high quality 3D support based on OGRE

PS: Guess you will unregistering now? lol

PPS: Why do people get all hot and bothered on the question of a language supporting 3D? For sure there are languages centered around 3D (you know them) but PB, like C/C++ and others, is for *general* programming and I don't see why this *excludes* 3D. You might as well say "huh, if it supports gui's/ web/ networking/ etc then it's too specific my for my needs!". I suspect you meant "game oriented" but I could be wrong.

Hi, I would like to give you my 2 centimes too

My main purpose of buying pb (only recently) was to have a basic sort of language which lays on a solid foundation and also should be powerful enough to let me do what want without the hassel of c++ and the slowness of an interpreted basic, a language that would allow me to do my architectural viz (walkthrougs etc..) and maybe later on even simple 3D games.

So what did I get? Everything besides the easy way of doing 3d Games. I guess PB4 will be able to handle my lightmapped architectures pretty well. I work with xsi and the exporter is great. I think what is really missing are some more 3d showcases with source some good 3d tutorials to help out for the beginning. PB users are mainly doing normal apps or simplier 2d apps, at least that's my impression, please correct me if I am wrong.

In the french forum I have read a thread from Filax, THE Blitz3D Guru, who has reported that pb4 still misses some 3d commands, and Fred stated, as he did here, that he would accept any help, helping him to define the missing 3d capabilities. And that once the pb4 is ported on all supported oses he would start to implement those. That is IMHO very fair.
I hope for me that in 6 months or so we will see some development in this area. I will need as long to determine what pb really can do now.

What would really help are, as I mentioned above, more examples, some good tutorials, source-code to learn from, that's what Blitz3D has en masse and that's what attracts new customers.

I hope that makes some sense

That's what i call a constructive comment, thanks.

Fred wrote:That's what i call a constructive comment, thanks.

I must thank you! for all your work and commitment. Having a developer willing to listen, learn and accept the needs of its users is more one can hope for.

Preludian wrote:I must thank you! for all your work and commitment. Having a developer willing to listen, learn and accept the needs of its users is more one can hope for.

Indeed