PureBasic Forums - English

raygr wrote:I prefer to imagine how great and stable the 4.0 Linux & Mac versions of PB would be if Fred didn't waste his time working on 3D

That's a valid point too.. I'm a fan of both (ultimately wanting 3D & cross-platform). It would be interesting to do a headcount of the number of Mac & Linux people hanging out for their 4.0 version & compare to those hanging out for good 3D. It seems to me that 3D has always been the weak point of PB, and it's not a criticism of Fred - he's stated before he's happy for people to feedback to him the issues & he'd fix it. I think a lot of time has past since Ogre was considered for PB, and some other engines are out there (most are for $$). Maybe it's worth launching a formal 'alternate 3D scoping project' - this group could research the current 3D engine scene and recruit some clever people here interested in 3D to make a port to that (consensus agreed-upon) engine? This would take the pressure off Fred (& Ogre). Maybe some contenders could be Torque, 3Dimpact & [add your fav]? ColdSteel is worth watching also - promising because there's a PB version but the whole engine is still alpha - but it's been a long time since the last release, so who knows a miracle could be round the corner. The group's result could end up being an interface to an engine, and could be a commercial add-on. No harm in that I think since it seems the ones who want it are not shy of paying a little bit for it (count me in). There's another lib elsewhere here that's going commercial.. maybe that angle is what's needed to give this a kick-along. I am not sure Ogre is still worth it, except that it's free but it seems to not stack up to 3Dimpact or others.. unless Ogre is the best multi-platform 3D library option. Sorry for the ramblings, just 2c..

The top of page 2 is where is starts to go south.

Wow, exactly one year ago. I am shocked I remained so polite

3Impact is a SWEET engine.. for the price, it is a very good buy. I currently use it with iBasic which sort of sucks because I don't particularly care much for iBasic... but at least I can use it I guess.

IBasic isn't the most ideal solution, especially considering its current state. If 3Impact supported PB out of the box, I would still buy it.

I prefer to imagine how great and stable the 4.0 Linux & Mac versions of PB would be if Fred didn't waste his time working on 3D, which only a small handful of people will ever use

I am a Linux newbie. But, I have fallen in love with Kubuntu and I am trying to learn more about using Linux and developing for it, mainly for my own personal use.

But from what I see, there is no such thing as a viable Linux and Mac market. Why do I say this?

Here in the USA, the major retail stores are WalMart, Target, Best Buy and Circuit City. When browsing the computer sections, you will see a lot of software. It is all for Windows. On rare occasion you will see a game that will run on Windows and Mac, but that is very rare. You never see software for Linux being sold and you will never see software just for Mac being sold.

In the above stores mentioned, you will see shelves full of 3D games. You will see major titles from major publishing companies, and you will see titles made by indie programmers like us who are selling their games via budget publishers. I am not overly fond of 3D, so you can imagine I do not buy many new games. But the retail gaming market is undeniably 3D. Even most "2D" is really 3D.

Fred doesn't waste time on 3D (Wasn't that the original point of this thread?). Fred simply wraps OGRE, which IMHO is part of the problem. Contrary to claims, OGRE is not the best and easiest to work with out there. The art pipeline is a hindrance as well. The lack of direct support for "decent" model formats all but makes the 3D side of PB useless.

It is good that Fred tries to include 3D capabilities, as unlike Linux & Mac, there is actually a market for 3D games. However, with the state of 3D in PB and how it has remained for years, I think Fred should drop the 3D support and just concentrate on app & 2D support, which is currently what PB seems best suited for.

I don't believe that what Walmart etc. sell is relevant to this discussion. The market Fred has to cater for is us, the people who buy PB.

I think that Linux users generally are the more tech-savvy end of the market and tend to download software rather than buy it at shops, especially considering that the vast majority of Linux software is free. And don't Mac users have their own dedicated outlets for both hardware and software?

If PB dropped support for Linux I would stop using it. The only reason I bought PB was that it looked like the best solution for writing cross-platform software.

In the end I guess it's up to Fred to decide how to allocate his time.

Here is an interesting tidbit that seems pertinent to this discussion. The guy who is developing the Cobra language has announced that he will be releasing a gaming engine with PureBasic bindings.

With this in mind, I'm proud to announce that in conjunction with the launch of Cobra, I will be releasing 'Ion Engine', a gaming engine for BlitzMax and Purebasic.

http://squeakyduck.co.uk/index.php?opti ... e&Itemid=1

Regards,
Mark

I think that Linux users generally are the more tech-savvy end of the market and tend to download software rather than buy it at shops,

As a budding Linux lover, I wish this were true. Sadly, all the major download sites, portals and online gaming companies cater purely to Windows, with a few starting to release Mac versions of their games.

The guy who is developing the Cobra language has announced that he will be releasing a gaming engine with PureBasic bindings.

I saw this and I am looking forward to it

tmyke wrote:For 3D under PB, Try this

http://www.dreamotion3d.com/FTP/PackPB/PackPB.zip

It's only in French for the moment, and it's the beta test, but
English Doc, Physic module and fisrt release coming soon...

When do you think it will be available with manual?
That is just what i was looking for!
THANK YOU

In a few weeks, I think.

We work on the last lines of the physique engines, and in continuation we start the translation of English Doc.

tmyke wrote:In a few weeks, I think.

We work on the last lines of the physique engines, and in continuation we start the translation of English Doc.

That sounds good!.
I think it can be a solution if it is fast and well done in matter of speed, smooth and very low cpu resources.

raygr wrote:I prefer to imagine how great and stable the 4.0 Linux & Mac versions of PB would be if Fred didn't waste his time working on 3D, which only a small handful of people will ever use

Look at the customer base for DBP and Blitz3D and I think you'll find they are both sizable for Indy languages... I doubt many people bought either of these languages for their application development or cross-platform capabilities.

@Psychophanta: Dreamotion3d it's a Blitz3D like 3Dengine. It's very fast,
last 3D technologie (DirectX9c, Shader, Bump, physic engine, etc...) and very easy
to use...

tmyke wrote:Dreamotion3d it's a Blitz3D like 3Dengine. It's very fast,
last 3D technologie (DirectX9c, Shader, Bump, physic engine, etc...) and very easy
to use...

Then, please finish it and you will be very famous in the PureBasic scene, at least for me and for some others
I am waiting with impatience!

Personally I'd rather not have any specific 3d engine in PB, it's rather bulky and forces a choice.
why not build are own within purebasic use opengl and/or directx9(or 10 even)? I have already, it's not exactly commerically ready, but it supports the basics of what most engines do and I did it without any help thats how easy it is. why settle with a bulky C++ made engine that potentally has a nasty licence attach to it and put the effort of trying to wrap it's OO functions to one that isn't? (don't flame me please :\)

Point is, Purebasic is matured enough to allow the creation of a native engine and the community has the potental to create such things, why not create one?

Dreglor wrote: Purebasic is matured enough to allow the creation of a native engine and the community has the potental to create such things, why not create one?

Why reinvent the wheel when there are existing engines that (with probably less programming effort) a PB wrapper could be made to talk to it? Granted a lib to a C++ 3D engine would be onerous, but there must be others that are worth considering? Until someone comes up with something better (native engine or otherwise) or does the research, I think if people consider that all the existing 3D engines are 'not good enough' (for making a lib to connect to it) only then is it worth creating a native engine.

I agree with mskuma. I do not have the time to write a 3D engine. I am not very fond of 3D to begin with. I need something easy to use, and something that I can use my existing models with.

There are a few usermade solutions at PureArea that I am using for a couple of games. They are not quite as mature as I would like, but they are also simple and fast and stable!

Perhaps the Ion Engine 3d will help when released.

http://www.squeakyduck.co.uk/