GameCore 2.0 release

next week comes the Finalrelease Gamecore 2.0

GameCore Features

Now to the fun stuff - while a good part of the Release Candidate cycle has been to identify bugs and issues with the release, a huge amount of effort has gone into adding and improving the functionality and capability of the engine. Our internal dev team has also gone through a full commercial release cycle with a game for a client, which always helps spur bug fixes and feature improvements ;} Either way, everyone gets to enjoy the benefits of these improvements.

New Features
OpenGL / No Shader Renderer

Ideal for those that are targeting lower-end hardware, the new OpenGL 'No Shader' (or Fixed Function) renderer allows you to create GameCore titles that literally have not a line of DirectX code. While some of the advanced features aren't available in this version, those of you looking for the largest possible hardware base for your games now have a solution.

Configurable / layered post-processing filters

While previously we had a couple of post-filters hard-coded into the engine (Namely 32 bit HDR / Bloom), we have now added a layered / stackable filter system that allows you to add any number of filters to your scenes, some of which can be seen in the image slideshow on the site's new front page.

Some of the new Post filters that are bundled with the engine:

- Screen Space Ambient Occlusion
- 64 bit True HDR / Bloom (with full 64 bit rendering / lighting)
- Monochromatic filter (for sepia / B&W scenes) Can also be stacked with other filters to produce a pretty good night-vision look ;}
- Thermal
- Film Grain
- Depth of Field

And more will likely be coming down the pipe as well.

Another benefit of the layered post filters is that each is comprised of a stand-alone set of shaders, so it 'should' be fairly straightforward for users to create your own custom effects as desired.

Final 2.0 Release Date?

We're aiming for Monday, April 20th. Hopefully all goes according to plan and it's not in Valve time ;P

Anyways, that's about it for now. Don't want to spoil all of the surprises.

where are the link
and you know
is possible upgrade from the beyondvirtual license?

The price 250$ is little hight compared to Unity Indie that i bought.

I have some preferences for Unity Indie :
- only one editor with panels properties for everything.
- Unity script is lot more easy than Angel scripting.
- Powerfull terrain management by the engine (web demo)

And customers don't like a lot when a 3D engine is left for dead during some months (Beyond virtual thread in 3DGS forums)!
Who can say them that gamecore 2 will not be abandonned
by authors or for months months in this year ?

Is there a demo like Unity showing if the engine have some power scene management ?

Why not putting like Unity some 30 days demo of the engine and editors also ?
All thinsg have a demo, we can't trust some engine without testing it first !
Somebody must be fool to buy something without trying a trial version

Upgrade from BV is possible, but not really worth it in my opinion. I did the mistake to buy it, and still wait for a useful version ...

URL has changed, Forum link leads to nirvana, Manual still unbelievable incomplete and cumbersome to follow, and you talk about the final release again? Hmm. You guys are crazy

Money drives the world

gamecore site is moved, for bv/gc1 owner is update to 2.0 for free.

http://www.gamecore3d.com

gamecore site is moved, for bv/gc1 owner is update to 2.0 for free.
Curious about how will react people that have paid to update their old BV1 version ?

You can find model trees,lants or houses everywhere on the Net and for free also ,so :
if GameCore have as fast workflow terrain as Unity , it would take only one hour to make such island demo !

why not making an island demo also to show if Gamecore have power for scene management ?
(Unity island demo runs really smoothly even on a low PC spec : a laptop i have)

So, where are you seeing that it was released? I can not see it. And I can only find the GameCore_RC21.exe version to download.

It is not released yet. This is just another anouncement that it will be released shortly

I'm slightly concerned they seem to be cutting a few things from the indie version for the pro version like HDR. But otherwise GameCore's slowly evolving into a good bit of kit.

really slow
a big difference to A7

Gediko has already produced lots of happy Gamecore users

The casual and indie versions have really deep feature cuts. Much worse than feature cuts of other engines. So actually you have to buy the 1,500 $ edition.

GC advertises the easy art workflow as the selling point. It even claims to be the worlds best engine in this matter (even better than Unreal3 or id Tech). But in indie terms the direct opponent is Unity3d. So it makes sense to compare both.

The presentation of GC is very bad while Unity is quite good. The documentation of GC is bad at the moment. The gallery looks bad and there are no projects at all. There is no availability on other platforms than Windows.
With all this in mind it should be way cheaper than Unity or simply much better if they share the same price.

Currently I see bad chances to sell this technology from a marketing point of view.

Nevertheless: The features read very good. The only feature issue is: I found nothing about scene management. But scene management is the most important fact of an engine technology. This is what an engine should do: render and occlude contents as fast and as good as possible.

I will watch this more closely.

looks good.....i will sit and wait!

GC 2.0 is for indies a joke read the Feature Comparison, max file size for indie version 200MB for one Game, all good features only pro, docs not complete. thats bad news,

good look for sales Gamecore team -.-

@Machinery_Frank :
I agree totaly with your objectives (relatives) point of view

Yes, serious cutdowns from Pro to Indie version can only move away more indie game makers.
Caus the big part of clients for a 3D engine, i suppose are solo game makers or indie teams.

Well another thing, that smell not good is the announcements done in GameCore blogs or site saying it is soon and you'll see any release after months !
They should post a real date instead, when they are sure, and when work is really done.

Helios, the new owner of the GameCore engine, and Gekido have responded to the user outcry over the Indie tool limitations and have just released an update:

"1) We have removed the file size & object limits for the Indie release.

2) We have added the post-processing / hdr functionality to the Indie version

3) We increased the size limit for the casual version to 100 Mb, and removed the object count limit.

4) Added Object Grouping back into the indie editor."

This sounds much better now.

Cool !
Perhaps some of us would have the tentation ot buy it after some trial version ?

Caus when you sell something, selling bad things, talking too much and promising things without real deliver can only make clients thinking bad on your product.
With the Forums, anyone can give it's opinion about a product. And having a bad opinion on a product or a team can only move away lot of potential new clients and just make existing client go to another product instead of upgrading !

Well perhaps they begin to understand what means to be someone professionnal ?? and how works the business and clients ?

There is a trial version on the website.

yeah, they now have fairly acceptable restrictions in indie:
http://www.gamecore3d.com/content/gamecore/feature-comparison

Where are the forums ???

http://www.gamecore3d.com/forums/

Thanks ! The link in gamecore site was broken ?

Well there are not lot of things going on their Show Off thread
Tools problems ? Gamecore not enought easy to use ?

B.V. \ Game core does not have, for some reason, a good reputation but the list of feature is impressive
Franly speaking it looks even better than Unity3d

I can say the reputation is for some serious reason !

Well don't forget some points of Unity
- Big team
- They are not working on a game in priority one instead of the engine
- Iphone and Nintendo WII versions ( go to their forum and see how some iphone games can be sold a lot ! )
- An mmorpg game have already be done with Unity.
- engine is choosen for the next mmorpg of Age of conan team.
- Lot more professionnal and serious team indeed
- All in one Easy editor : Go to their forums to see how many new little games can appear in one week !!

That's the points i like.
But i agree like in the old time , Gamecore engine is going on the good way and road , the team is beginning to be more professionnal, you will only see it during the year.

Just some questions :
- Will Gamecore keep on the road , or will it scratch on the sideway like before (no news of the engine and team during months ) ?
- will gamecore users have some updates during this year ??

That two last questions can make some people be carefull and put money in something more sure like A7 (A8 ?) , Unity or Torque 3D.

Up to now GameCore hasn't earnt enough to fund its own development so it's been kept afloat with other projects. This has slowed development and made support substandard.

The development company has now been bought out, what that means for the future is anyones guess but I really hope it means a cash injection and good times ahead...

Humm .. well let's hope , or in last chance it could become open source.

Well ... just tried Gamecore 2.

1) Bad points :


- only simple demos, not real world with good textures,grass etc ... something more solid like Unity Island to jude engine power

-pathfinding demo don't work , the character hits the walls instead of following path nodes ?

-in adventure demo in the shadow areas, appears in some milliseconds sudden white lines like the polygons were cutted ? glitch of shadow maps ??

- The old buggy racer level (fisrt demo we had with Beyond Virtual) is now lot more smooth and fast.
but it's a really very simple level with simple objects.
let's wait for a real demo with normal mapped models to see real power.

-Well I haven't tested import of animated models (i use Blender only )

- It don't have the templates mini panels that have unity :
(camear follow, third person controller , etc ...)

- I remember scripting was not really easy , not hard , but i find Unity script lot more easy (personnal opinion)


2) good points :

- The editor is really complete (terrain ,water editors) and offer a cool workflow, it seems to have cool features : physic panel i've tested.

- workflow lot more advanced and better than A7

- engine seems to have some good power

My personnal conclusion :
I won't buy it caus of what i had in the past with it.
I have Unity Indie, i'm very happy with it, so i don't need it and i prefer to wait a year to see how Gamecore 2 will evolve and if it stays on the road ?

For now ,i can only say it's a good engine now, with shaders.
It have a complete editor for terrain,water,physics . . .

For me it's a really good engine,with cool workflow and people buying it will be able to quickly make something and will surely happy

Time to tell my opinion.

Be careful with the Indie. Once you have it you are not allowed to resell it again. License is not transferable. I wanted to leave and get at least my money back, no way.

Be careful with what you post on their forums. Bugreports or even a wrong word gets counted as an attack at the fanproduct. Had countless battles with those guys. But i sometimes cannot be quiet, so i'm not this unguilty at this situation

It has also still some teething problems. Like the Editor has US Keyboard layout only. Which stopped me at the point where i wanted to modify the menu (you have to touch some code here). Especially the additional characters like brackets are at completely different locations at a Non US keyboard. But hey, now that i have moaned enough they have finaly fixed it, and the fix will be released with the next patch.

Or stuff like limited shaders. I would especially miss the splatting terrain shader. But that will surely grow over the time.

What finally stopped me using it, what's really the weak side of GC is Angelscript. Angelscript is much harder to learn and to use than Lite C. It's not only harder, it lacks of documentation and examples too. And this combination is baneful. It's like always intending the wheel from scratch. There is no place where you could have a look. Those places are not made yet. At least the manual looks a bit more complete now. But that's ways not enough.

When i started with 3DGS and Lite C it took me a week to understand the basics (A hail to the Lite C Workshops) and to make a little primitive flight simulator. Takeoff, flying, landing. Including some instruments like altimeter, horizon, speed. I tried the same in GC. And gave up after a month without to even move my plane. What i managed after this month was that i had my first battles at their forum by asking uncomfortable questions ...

I personally wouldn't touch it again. I have put it aside, and it collects dust now.

Game Core 2.0 supports " occlusion "
What is it exactly ? a sort of Octrees ?

This depends on the type of occlusion it supports. There are tons of implementations to occlude something, like occlusion blocks, preventing everything behind it to be rendered.

Maybe it is something like that so you basically have to built some very lowpoly occlusion geometry. But this is only guessing.

Just saw the Prices.
HArd to believe and let me laught : Who gonna pay 400$ for an engine without shaders, 200 Mo limitations ?
And that's the INDIE version only !! Woooowww incredible !

Do they have looked at what exists : Ogre3D is free and offers shaders, no limitations at all.
Or people can instead for lower price than 400$ buy A7 Commercial,Unity Indie Or the new Torque 3D : all these with shaders and no limitation size !
And i agree it's not easy to program in angel script,so why such price, even Garage Games don't put such prices for indie versions ?

They've found people with lot of money to spend ?
For me it's clear : MONEY BEFORE CLIENTS !
I can't imagine the price of some update of version in the future for indie buyers

Well finally , sure even in one year , i won't buy some indie version of that engine with such prices.
And i think i gonna forget this engine and their money angry authors !

You probably have a wrong picture of it.

The 400$ indie version supports shaders and has no limit for your project:
http://www.gamecore3d.com/content/gamecore/feature-comparison

But at their store they still write something about the limit (they changed the features after the first day of release).
At the end they just have a very bad website with wrong or misleading information (this is not the only case, there is some confusion about DX and OpenGL rendering as well). This reflects how bad the manuals are written.

Actually the technology is not bad but they probably don't really care about selling it. They want to make their own game with it and try to collect some money besides that.

This reflects how bad the manuals are written

Indeed, in fact i haven't followed all things about it, just got into their store section were the limits are still here :
they don't care about the site indeed or not much in the engine.

400 $ is too much also, better alternatives exists with lot more easier scripting !

Well i let down this engine and thread about it.

Well I have had the direct opposite impression
Game core looks like a true multi purpose game engine
This is one of the reason I like it

One more thing

Game Core support also native MilkShape file format
Well maybe it is no so trendy but I have never had a problem with this file

FBX , COLLADA and all that stuff are a big issue
They have not been designed for low poly models

This at least for hobbyest programmers using Fragmotion, MilkShape and in general low priced application

I can't imagine how hard it will be to make next gen today character with Milkshape.

Why not taking and learning Blender ?
it's free, and have all you need , modeling with all feature (edge loop select, edge loop cut etc ...) , rigging , animation (weight painting, inverse kinematics ...), high poly sculpting, retopology paint.
I'use all these features that speed up a lot the work : it rocks.
Well paying 400$ to make old low poly games ? why not !

First of all it does not support only MilkShape it support also Milkshape

Old low poly game ?
Even modern commercial game can use 5000 or 6000 tris
You can imagine an amateur
Not problem at all with MilkShape

Apart from that you did not get my point

I was talking about reliability

Thre are a lot of Fbx | Collada convertes

The point is , do they work ?

I must cross my finger any anytime I use them

Yes, i agree with that.
But in Unity i've imported sucessfull a static model (space ship) with texture from Blender by exporting in FBX.
But i've seen strange things on an animated character.

I think you must play with Fbx format and try settings,and do lot of trys, but once you succesfully export, that's done.
.X models can do the work , and some guys for example import into Unwrap 3D , and export from that tool.

Same here

I have had a lot of problem to import animated files , not only in Unity, in FBX format , never had a problem with MilkShape

Ok , maybe it is a also matter of settings
I am an amateur programmer but some years ago I coded, with the help of a book, a MilkShape importer into my opengl engine

I would never dare even to get close to an FBX \ COLLADA converter

The point is that this complicated file format have been designedf ro movies not for games, in other words they are redundant

Maybe for Maya or Max users it is not an issue but for a poor Fragmotion user, it is

By the way I wonder why many people complain for 400 usd cost but the use Max or Maya ?
Maybe I am a malicious guy

By the way I wonder why many people complain for 400 usd cost but the use Max or Maya ?
Humm ... i don't know how many people have the real commercial version and not a cracked one here.
Because 3DSMAX costs a lot and it is more for big companies even if indie people can buy it.
You have real cheap alternatives : Zbrush, Silo, Modo, Blender (free) etc ... to achieve same results.

When you become a litlle professional (making a commercial title), you don't use cracked software. Even more if you must share some work with distant people that won't take you seriously and won't work with you if you use illegal software.

Wrong. Both, FBX and Collada are standard formats for gameneeds nowadays.

No im- and exporter cares about the polycount nor if it was made to transfer to movies or games. It transfers data. And the data is in both case the same. It makes no difference. Vertices, Texturevertices, Normals, plus materials and animation information ...

In theory maybe in practice it is an other thing

Just compare FBX \ COllada and MilkShape specs and you will see what I mean

I have never had a problem to export an animated file from Fragmotion or MilkShape into 3dgs but quite often the same file does not work if converted into FBX file format

Make it simple , this is a general rule

Well of course it is what I meant....

I would like that Indie game engines support the real cheap alternatives rather than the professional file format

As you said , the results are about the same but you can give your little contribution in the war against piracy while supporting the small software houses

The author of " PaceMaker " gave it up and it was an excellent animator package
this is sad

Well, that is of course a problem sometimes. But it is a special pipeline problem between the used FBX version and the target software then. I would blame the target software here, or the app/plugin hat has written the FBX. Or even the chosen FBX format. There is more than one. And there are various settings too. But not FBX in general



Milkshape is a bit too simple and limited for my flavour ...

Well I am not so interested in whom I must blame
I know that quite often these complicated file format do not work while the benefits of using them, for an indie game developer, is negligible

Wouldn't call Animation neglibile

FBX is a file format. It has its pros, it has its cons. That's it

Doesnt' MillkShape file format support animations ?
Even weights

I could never model or rig in Milkshape, let alone animate, that's for sure. That would be simply ways too limited for me

As far as I know this has little to do with the file format by itself

MS3D is simple because it has been designed for low poly objects only
It contains information about vetices displacement, bones, U.V. coord etc
FBX include much more information , a lot of them being of no use for game programming

A part from that, priority number one is reliability and FBX is not 100 % reliable regardless of the responsable for the bugs in the pipe line

You miss the point, maybe i was unclear. Why should i go the extra route across the Milkshape format when my 3D package can export to FBX and this is a working pipeline? Even more when by Milkshape some of my informations gets lost because its format is a bit too simple here and there ...



And what exactly do you mean here? Name me one

MAX , Maya and all that high level package have been designed for movies or generally speaking for virual reality
You can export an entire world ( light , shadows etc ) not to mention high polys models
Consequently relevant file are very complex

In case of game you should focus only on the low poly models themselves ( vertice position, bones, U.V. mapping ) the rest being the responsability of the engine

A simple file format is more than enough thus reducing the chance of bugs

Not only , some game oriented file format support feature which are unique for game programming, for example they make easier to attach objects to objects in real time

I never said that MilkShape or Fragmotion are as powerfull as Maya or MAX even for modelling and animation
I said that this does not depend on the file format

The comunity of the Indie developer lack a dedicated low poly modeler \ animator but the designer of MilkShape \ Fragmotion \ PaceMkaker will never afford to improve their package if even the hobbyest developer and the Indie game engine prefer to support high level and redundant packages rather than dedicated ones

In conclusion

you encourage the piracy
you kill the small software house
You suffer for the bugs

May i renew my question? Can you name me ONE information?

Talking about low poly? Are you aware that a normal map is sometimes made from a high poly mesh? And a cutscene also counts as game content. It is simply not true that you need to focus on low poly when you make games.

Max, Maya and all that high level package have been made for 3D graphics. Not for a single genre in general. Games is the biggest target market by the way ...



But i do. When you have just a basic software with basic functionality then its file format is surely also just basic. And what about the cases where i need features that this file format cannot carry?



Uh? Odd statement ...



Err, what?

We talked about the file formats before. What has this to do with piracy, killing software companies and bugs? Me wants some of those pills you have eaten too please

What i have understood is that you dislike FBX. Fine. But it makes simply no sense in my opinion. When it doesn't work in your pipeline then simply don't use it. It works in my pipeline. So i use it

As usual you express some reasonable opinion in a disagreable manner
So , first of all, please, calm down, ok ?

If modern game engine such as C4, DXSTUDIO ,UNITY etc do not support simple file format
If the converters to FBX are buggy
Do you seriously think that MilkShape , fragmotion etc can have a future ?

People will be forced to move to MAX , MAYA etc, since most of them can not afford them, you have got the answer

I have been using Blitz3d and 3dgs as game engines and Milkshape \ Fragmotion as packages
No problem to upload animated files
When I tried to switch to DXSTUDIO \ Unity I came across a lot of problem, using the same file
As simple as that

Having said that you can ask following question


# 1

Why are the FBX \ COLLADA converter so buggy ?

I guess it is due to te fact that these file format are very complex
If you match milkshape and Collada specifications you know what I mean

# 2

Why are they so complex ?

Because they contain a lot of information ( I repeat once again) such as shadow , light etc which are not strictly necessary for games being the responsability of the engine
An FBX file can export a complete scene
A milkShape file is supposed to export a low poly animated file only, nothing else


# 3
Do Collada \ FBX file have real advantage over cheap file format for an indie game developer
Just in case you did not notice it I have alwayes being talking about " Indie " and " games"

Not in my opinion , at least it is not so evident
99.90 % of the Indie games could make use of a Milkshape file as far as animation are concerned

In any case I would never trade off minor benefits, if any, with reliability

I'm honestly totally relaxed and find it a bit funny how you explode here. That's why i ask for the pills you have thrown in


As usual, you don't listen to the arguments

And the third time:



Which ones? I still wait for the answer



And again, what has this to do with FBX and that it's oh so buggy as you state here all the time?

Evolution goes on. That's it. When Milkshape decides to stay in the late nineteen nineties then evolution will put it aside. That easy.

Shall really all evolution stop just that your hot loved but outdated Milkshape survives? May i ask you for the name of the pil ... err, sorry ^^


There is more than Max and Maya. There are currently two complete packages out there that doesn't cost a single dime. Blender and trueSpace. Count XSI Modtool for the case you don't want to earn money and you have even three.



Why is the pope a woman?



Wrong. The pope is no woman. The fileformats are not soo buggy, the not existant masses bugs are not because FBX is more complex ... . Your whole causality chain is wrong



Definitely. They do for me. I'm an Indie, and i make games



There is just a little problem in your calculation. I don't have Milkshape, i don't want Milkshape. I wouldn't even want to use it when you would give me money for that. Milkshape is ways too limited for me. In every area. And especially its file format. It is not bad, but it is outdated.

At what is your 99.9% value based? It is based at your 100% aversion against FBX. Which is irrational, and the value simply wrong.

I can decide for myself what is useful and what not

Frankly speaking Tile's answer is so stupid and his manner so disagreable that he does not deserve even an answer even though I agree with him up to a certain extent

For the others who maybe intersted in this topic , I just quote from Unity manual

quote

Modeling Optimized Characters

Your character should use only a single Skinned Mesh

You also want to keep the number of Materials on that Mesh as low as possible

we strongly recommend you use around 30 bones per character.

Anything between 500-6000 triangles is reasonable

Seperate out IK and FK

unquote

As you can see ,despite the progress of hardware , the specifications for real time charactes are still quite low
Different story for movies whereas animators can afford the luxury to use models made of thousands tris and hundreds bones not to mention the possibility to export the whole scene

Max,Maya, Cinema4d etc mainly target this market segment
They can be used also for games, of course, but they are redundant for this application

If you you vist tthe sites of other engine you can see yourself how many people are complaining about Input \ ouput from these advanced packages

There is a reason, I suppose

The explanation is, in my opinion, that these file format are extremely complex but as I already said, redundant for our use
If someone has a better explanation. please let me know

Getting back to Game Core I just wanted to inform the other members that this is the only modern engine which support also an old fashion but reliable format such as MilkShape even though the main choice is FBX also for Game Core

This was a wise decision, in may opinion
Even though FBX is the future , it still gives many problems nowadays

In conclusion Game Core ( and 3DGS ) offer an advantage, big or small it might be, over the competitor

the fbx format supports a lot of stuff which isn't very useful for most game engines at the moment (nurbs, materials which don't map well to vertex/pixel shaders, modifiers, constraints, IK, ngons,...). there also are different ways to handle things like edge smoothing, custom data,... so using fbx to go between applications really can be an unpleasant experience. it seems to be even worse with collada.

i still prefer to work with exporters to the native engine formats if possible.

I would even prefer to have a standard file format for " game " engines supporting just the strictly needed features
Obviously it should be kept updated with the progress of the hardware

About the packages I agree that Max or Maya etc supply some features which can be of use also for a game developer
For example in Fragmotion I badly miss the Ik curves
The point is the bedroom developers must quit since many people prefer to use warez products even though they can not exploit their power rather than a simple but game orientated software

In my opinion, if you must limit your model to 30 bones it is hard to expect a realistic human like movement, our body being fitted with thousand bones, regardless of the software you are using

Garbage in, garbage out

You are so mean to not tell me the name of the pills. Must be great stuff

You should not start to flame and insult just because you run out of arguments my friend



Fourth time asking. What informations are you referring to? But forget it. I know why you cannot answer. You don't know the answer, you just guess. And you guess wrong



This is no bad advice in general, but forgets totally about the different genres and needs. And so it is nothing else than hot air



As told before, cutscenes are also gameneeds. Normalmaps may need the high poly version. And what was high poly before a few years is low poly nowadays. Especially Max and Maya are the standard 3D packages when it comes to games. When a game company searches for graphics artists they usually don't search artists that are familiar with Milkshape. They search for Maxer or Mayans. It is simply not true that they mainly target the movie market. And they are of course not redundant.



You don't speak for me here nor do you speak for the masses. This is simply wrong



The reason is much simpler. Development costs time. And time is money. Means im and exporters are sometimes not exactly made by specifications. But just up to the point where they somehow works. And the point where the trouble arrives is where the exporter from the one package doesn't fit the importer from the other package. One or both haven't cared about the whole specification. This can by the way also happen with the Milkshape format.

Sometimes one company even have to break the specification so that the export arrives intact in the other software. This is a chicken and egg thingie. Because now a third company may need to break it too to stay compatible.

This problem is very dramatic with X. There are a ton of different versions and derivates around. This is also an issue with FBX and Collada. FBX and Collada has much fewer versions and derivates than X though.

To blame is not the format. There are specifications for good reason. When a FBX file doesn't arrive intact then i would contact the company where it fails. And send them the file and ask if they can have a look at.

read ventilator's post...please
He is an expert , you are not...it is evident

Well, better one feature too much than one feature too less. As long as it still works of course



I don't really care except it needs to work. FBX works for me, and so it is part of my pipeline. That simple

ROFL

Was that a green pill or a pink pill? :P

At Dexsoft we export models constantly to many formats. And yes, there can be problems, especially with FBX and Collada. Every modeller creates different FBX and Collada files. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. So we are often in need to find better plugins.

I am happy that the latest version of Lightwave create really good Collada and FBX files. But even the Autodesk converter creates problems if you convert from FBX to Collada as an example.

So Alberto and Ventilator are right. It is great to have these options but they are not solid as a rock, they often need work, lots of work.

I also know from engine developers that they constantly create new routines to catch errors in FBX or Collada files, since some exporters create wrong files with missing data or missing sections as an example.

The reason that it is difficult to support the native file formats for some 3D applications is that these native formats support info that can only be used by the application itself. For example, the .max file format is not just going to store information on geometry, UVs, materials, lights, etc. It is also going to store information on the position of the view ports at the time the file was saved, the direction of any view port cameras, if a view port was showing the geometry in wireframe mode, textured mode, etc. This information is useful only within the native application because of its own unique way of handling this sort of data.

FBX can be a pain for a lot of reasons, one of which is they keep updating it and then they are slow to release info on the update. Secondly, it also, by design, carries a lot of information with it. With OBJ you get the geometry, UVs, texture information, etc. With FBX you get that and cameras, lights, multiple UVs (if they are used) and more. Developers that allow for FBX to be used by their game engine or tools need to deal with all the information contained within the FBX file in some form or fashion. I suppose it could be a pain. Gone are the days of simply using the extremely limited 3DS file format.

Agreed , it is what I have been repearing and repeating




This is an interesting question

On one hand I have had a lot of issues with FBX on the other hand I suppose that FBX should have some advantage over the simple file formats, for the simple reason that all the modern engines are supporting it ( or Collada )

But what ?

Ok, 3ds is a very obsolete file , it does not support skeleton animation but if you look at the Unity recomendation for character animated file ( see my previous post) I dont see any reason for not using , for example , MilkShape

So the question is, what can I expect from FBX ( assuming it is bug free ) which I can not get from a simple game oriented file format ?

Are the issues to be charged to the modeler \ converter only ?
I mean , suppose that the converter religiously stick to the FBX (COllada) specs but the engine does not

Have you have ever come across FBX files , exported from LightWave, which work with some engine but not with some others ?

For 3D game studio :
I use the great plugin of Ventilator (thanks again ventilator).
It works great, and Blender is lot lot more advanced than
Fragmotion or milkshape

All affordable engines should support Blender Format also, caus it's free : anyone can download and use it right now !
and it's really Powerfull :
modeling ,animations,sculpting,normal map baking, retopology, UVW Unwrap, texture paint etc ...

With FBX you can export out the geometry, multiple UV maps per object (and per scene), all textures (where they go with each piece of geometry, etc), various types of lights, cameras, bones, animations and more.

Basically, you could create an entire level (geometry, a UV map for textures, a UV map for light/shadow maps, lights (if needed), animations, etc) and export it as one FBX file and then import that into your engine of choice (if properly supported by the engine/importer). This cannot be done with obsolete file formats like 3DS or even with the more modern OBJ format. This allows the end-user to work completely in one 3D package to create just about everything they need (levels, entities, etc) and export to their engine of choice.

3DS is extremely limited. Here is a list someone compiled for the shortcomings of the 3DS format:



The OBJ format has limits two. The one that gets me is the limit of only one UV map for the entire OBJ file. So if you have multiple objects created, each has to be exported as its own OBJ. If you have one object with more than one UV map (such as a piece with one UV for the texture and one for the light/shadow map) then you simply cannot use the OBJ format. The geometry will export, but if there is more than one UV map, then the object will export without any UVs at all.

A file format like FBX has none of these limitations. So the artist can freely create his scene and export it all into one file for use in the game engine.

I disagree. I am supposing that the Blender file format, like the native MAX file format, the native MAYA file format, the native Modo file format (etc) stores a ton of useless information (i.e. useless to any program other than the native application). These native file formats are bloated because they carry such information as the precise position of the view ports (how many, where the view port camera is facing, etc) and a lot of other program specific data that no other program can use.

Export file formats are created for the purpose of getting what you need out of the 3D app for use in another 3D app or real-time 3D engine. It keeps the other app from having to be programmed to ignore the redundant data in the native file format of the app that created it.

So, if I understood well. you can create your scene in your favourite application, without using the built in Game editor
However as far as the animation of characters is concerned there is no any advantage
Only the bugs
Am I right ?

If you visit Unity site you can see that also Blender gives problem , probably for the same reasons as FBX
It is a bloated file format

unity doesn't support any native file formats. it automatically opens the supported applications in a windowless mode and does a fbx export in the background.

the blender format isn't bloated. it exactly supports blender's features. it's a dump of all blender data structures.

Well in fact i didn't want to say the native format of blender.

Well, each engine should have a dedicated plugin for some 3D formats and extract only the essential informations.
but yes the problem is that FBX format export from 3DSMAX is perhaps not the same as Blender export FBX Format or another.

For example : Ventilator have been able to create a export plugin for Blender to MDL A7.
If Unity would give him the Unity Format , prhaps he could write a plugin for Unity.
Well : The idea is that teams could pay externals people to xwrite specific plugins for some popular modelers to the engine

Caus for Unity for example you could have two plugins :
plugin 3DSMAX : 3DSMAX->FBX for Unity
plugin Blender: Blender-FBX for Unity

i havent read past this point, but ineeded to say something here. you keep "repearing and repeating" that this is the problem (extra info in the file) but what happens when you use the milkshape file and you need the extra uv set. ok, so now you decide, Ill just make a secondary copy, re_uv, write code to take one uv set from one file and its material, and all the rest of the info comes from the other file. Ok all fixed... wait, no now you need weighted vertices, which im not sure you can do in milkshape. so now you go out, get another package and still end up using fbx.

There is an inbetween for all of this. If you dont need extra UV's and you dont need weighted vertices, then use milkshape or something else. but just because you dont use them, doesnt mean fbx cant be used for "indie games" because i use it on a daily basis, it just needs you dont need it, and and that your not willing to put the time into finding a pipeline that works (admittedly difficult, and if its not needed, then there is no point in putting the work in.)

MilkShape support weighted vertices

Should it miss some essential features for game programming than it would be nice to have it but it makes no sense to get started from bloated file format being a potential source of bugs

Make it simple but not that simple

No. Whatever advantages the file format would have would depend on the application importing the file. If an application used bones, then FBX would have them there for the application to use.



None of the native file formats (.max, .lxo, .ma, etc) are bloated, per se. They are just right for their own applications because they carry all the data that their application needs. However, that data may not be usable by another application and, as such, it is not needed. So, from the perspective of the application that is doing the importing, it could be considered bloated (i.e. carrying data it cannot use), but it would not be from the perspective of the native application itself (i.e. the .max file format in relation to 3DS MAX).

I previously used the example of creating and exporting a scene using FBX, but that is not the only thing you can do with it. In other words, FBX is not limited to exporting levels and environments. You can certainly create an fully animated character via FBX in order to import it into another application. Because FBX is not limited like 3DS or OBJ then you can do a lot with it. Perhaps the animated character model has more than one UV map, has a diffuse channel texture, a normal map texture, a bump map texture and a specular map texture. With FBX you could export out this model with all the animations as well as all the UV maps and all the separate textures.

A solution perhaps could be to create a general plugi,n import in a fisrt time ?
Import of :
-Model
-Animations
-UVMap and Diffuse
-2nd UVmap if used (for lightmapping for example)
Its the minimal thing we need.
If the plugin can do that we can do the rest of the job :In the engine editor add the normal map (specular or another) we need and and shaders to the model.

Well importing all maps (normal, specular,glow etc...)from FBX : don't work same way for 3DSMAX or Blender export.

Well I am not definetly a graphic expert but honestly what rachet said it is what I thought
A game oriented file format should supply the essential data only, the rest is up to the engine

However, many games have different requirements depending on what they support. So one game file format would not work.

What if I wanted/needed my model to have more than two UV maps? Perhaps I needed one for the diffuse channel, one for the normal map and one for the bump map? It is not likely, but it can happen. If the game file format does not support it, then I cannot do what I need.

FBX is a good, all-around file format that can be used for a variety of applications and a variety of reasons. What needs to happen is the developers that want to use FBX simply need to make sure it imports what they want correctly and then to instruct their users what to avoid, if anything, when exporting/importing via FBX.

Probably we are saying the same things

What I mean is that it make little sense for me to get started from a complicated file format and to extract just the information which are needed
It is more reasonable to keep the " the native engine format " updated with the progress of the hardware and the API's as well as to have application which export to the native engine format or even better to have a standard game oriented file format

Thanks to the progress of the hardware many features are moving from the package ( offline ) to the engine ( inline)

There is nothing complicated. There is no need to "extract". When the original file doesn't have a second UV, then this information doesn't get written to the FBX.

But it makes on the other hand trouble to use a "native" format that doesn't support all needed features. It is simply no good idea to use "the native engine format" in all cases and under all circumstances. There are thousands of engines out there. Can you imagine the chaos that would mean when they would all throw their native engine format onto the table? There is simply a need for a more general file format. A file format that covers most of the needs. And FBX is one of them. FBX is your "standard game oriented file format". X is another.

The best way for the developer of Engine XY is to offer special exporter for each major 3D-Application. This way you dont need in-between-formats like FBX or Callada. Sure... it is a lot of work to support several 3D-Applications.
The advantage is: Only engine-xy-required structures are exported.

Each engine has special requirements for their mesh-file-format. Thats the reason why Gamestudio's mdl, Torque's DTS and so on exist.

The new Torque-Engine (T3D) can import Collada's but these files are converted internally to DTS.

Apart from that... Conitec's way is the correct way. You have your MED to import FBX, X, 3DS and so on. Now you can tweak your model and export it to MDL7.

But: If possible i would always prefer a special (and optimized) exporter for my favorite 3D-Application.

What if I wanted/needed my model to have more than two UV
I've never seen more than two UV for games ?
I can't imagine how game making could be lot more complicated with one more UV
Well it's just an appart remark.

Unreal Engine 3 supports 3 uv-sets (for color, light map and I forgot about the third ).
It reads ASE and Collada. And it supports some special export plugins.

Currently many engines thend to support Collada (C4, Torque, Shiva, Unreal 3, Unity, S2, XNA ...). FBX is another choice. But Collada is more open, you can read it easily, like a XML file. FBX is property of Autodesk and you get "only" a SDK.

Both formats are able to store geometry, several uv-sets, cameras, animations, bones, lights and more. Colldada can even store data for physics and shader.

@AlbertoT: Yes, it can happen that FBX or Collada files work fine in one engine but do not work perfect in another. Each implementation of exporter and importer can differ.

Hey Frank, do you know how much UnrealEngine costs?

Enreal Engine in fact use lot of tricks
For example in some games (Last Remnant,Gears of War 2) :
they put some walls with a very not detailled diffuse map for color variation and they apply a detail texture for the normal map.

But integrating lot more things from a modeller to an engine by plugin (import lights, paths, effects, anything else) make more work in each plugin and more dependant the engine to the modeler !

We are repeating and repeating alwayes the same stuff

Everybody knows that FBX is supposed to be a common standard for graphic application
As Frank said , Collada would be even better from this point of view

However one thing is the theory an other the practice

FBX and COllada are around for a long time nevertheless they are still buggy

I dont care if I nust blame the file itself or the application or the converter or the engine
I know that I must cross my fingers whenever I try to upload these file into my my engine
I know that I have never had a problem with .mdl or Blitz or Milkshape

If even AUTODEX MAX \ FBX converter is not 100 % reliable than this is a serious issue

I really dont know how you insist to claim that these files ate not bloated
"Bloated" of course for game programming, not in general
Ventilator has clearly explained to you the reason why FBX is not 100 % fit for a game engine
If FBX support nurbs, just an example, while game engine work with triangulated meshhes only, ins't a case of redundancy ?

Virtual reality \ movies and Games are of course close relatives but , upt to a certain extent, they are also substantially different

In my opinion the game programming market segment need dedicated tools i.e dedicated files format and dedicated modelling \ animator packages

Yhey might be FBX \Collada and MAx\ Maya light and tweaked version

One word more about " redundancy "

I made a simple tesr

I have a MilkShape animated file , its size is : 900 kb
I converted it into FBX format

Apart from the fact that it does not work any longer in my engine but its size is 3.7 MB
The same file with the same animation is about 4 time bigger


Is it the same for you ?

Hiya.



I'm going to guess that is isn't working any more because when the program does the converting, it's expecting information to be laid out in some particular way...and Milkshape has 'simplified' this info for it's own use (in order to cut down on file size).

Here's a totally fictitious example:

Your test model might have something listed like this:


Now you try and convert it, and the FBX might be expecting to read it as this:


HOWEVER, the problem comes when FBX is expecting to see three separate lines, and doesn't get them. So it tries to make a "guess"...and ends up with something like this:


So, basically, the problem would be in combination of Milkshape's format being "compact", with locations abc being all in one line, while FBX is expecting 3 separate lines, one each for a, b and c. When the conversion happens, all the info is still there, but not in the correct location; ergo, it doesn't work and the FBX file size is much larger.

That's my basic understanding of it all. It's like asking someone to say all the numbers from 1 to 10...but not telling them which order to do it. Most people would say 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10...but there is nothing stopping them from saying 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1, or even 1,3,5,7,9,2,4,6,8,10.

I think the best solution is for a game engine to develop it's own import/export plugins for a few of the most popular formats, and list the version of those formats supported. This is own the C4 engine handles it. It uses the Collada format, and Eric (creator of C4) keeps it up to date from within the engine. If something changes, he mentions what particular version of Collada is needed. Conitec needs to do this. As long as whatever program you are using to export from is using the correct version, there should be very little problems (if any). It's when the company gets vague on the import/export and simply lists "Imports/Exports PIE"...ok, are we talking any pie? Like apple, cherry, blueberry? What about pumpking? How about shepphards pie? Or bannana-cream? Maybe the 'pie' the game is expecting isn't actually any type of pie...only fruit pies...so the last three times wouldn't import properly. Now all the people who spend all day making the best damn bananna-cream pie get all frustrated when they can't actually import their pie because the game eninge doesn't recognize banana-cream as an actual 'pie'.

...mmmm....banana-cream pie....

...ok, gotta run to the store now! C'ya!

A couple of GameCore videos I made:

Helicopter Test
http://www.vimeo.com/4443711

Render To Texture Test
http://www.vimeo.com/4455928

Well done BigDaz, the physics look believable.

yeah it looks like it has a better physics engine. nice videos.

I think the best solution is for a game engine to develop it's own import/export plugins for a few of the most popular formats, and list the version of those formats supported
Yes i thinhk also it's the better to do.


Now all the people who spend all day making the best damn bananna-cream pie get all frustrated when they can't actually import their pie because the game eninge doesn't recognize banana-cream as an actual 'pie'...mmmm....banana-cream pie....

...ok, gotta run to the store now! C'ya!
Ahhhaahaaahahaaaa

The videos are cool, but any engine have already that style of physics.

@BigDaz: The videos are great!

I bought BV in 2006, so am I able to get the update?

They said in this actual thread it would be free for old buyers of Gamecore(old Beyond Virtual) ?

Well try to have it and tell us if it is really possible ?

When will we see some real demo of the engine ????

If you have your serial number then you can

i watch video, and what can i say, there's nothing what GS can't do

Yeah GS can do it.

In A7 you put physics and t otweak you have to go to sed and relaunch each time your game
Gamecore Visual Physics editor avoid that painfull workflow , A7 would need this to really level up the workflow with also a physic editor.

yeah,
hope GED evolves in complete full featured editor.(also a better physics engine :))

I like A7 and i hope it will have something like that
Conitec would pay a third party to make it ! why not ?

GameCore's now hiring new developers if anyone's interested.
They're based in Florida, USA.

http://www.gamecore3d.com/careers

BigDiaz

Compliment for your demo
I am testing in these days Game Core 2.0 mainly due to the fact that it is hard for me to import FBX models in Unity3d , apart from that it is ok

I got a very good impression of Game Core 2.0 but its reputation , B.V. acctually , is quite bad because of the bugs

You already answered this question, claiming, if I remember correctly, that this issue of the bugs have been widely exagerated

Have you ever finished at least a casual game ?

I am not interested in esoteric features

I am happy with the essential game engine features ( I\O , collision, animationts etc)

Do you think Game core is reliable at moment ?

not work well if more slow that gamestudio
is really low even with the hd3470

I am concerned that you may be right
The tutorials run at 60 hz on my ( old ) PC but it is just a cube or so

Any other feed back from Core users on this issue ?

Yep
As i mentionned many times : Gamecore team should put a real demo instead of a sandbox to play with cubes.
A demo with real detaillled textures, shaders ,lights to see if it can handle some serious Next Gen scenes ?

The fps display in the editor is actually linked to the refresh rate of your monitor so you might get an upper limit of 60, 75 etc depending on your monitor setup. This is deliberate I think but I can't remember why, I think it's to display an actual frame rate rather than a threoretical one.

I would say that GameCore is stable and capable of releasing a finished game. The developers have recently finished one but it's not available yet. I think it's a casual tie-in game for a childrens TV show. I haven't personally, but I'm getting further with GameCore than any other engine, including 3DGS. It's now my engine of choice, it's dead simple workflow seems to suit me very well. I do struggle a bit because I'm an amateur programmer and tutorials are scarce.

Speedwise I'd have to say it's fine, I've certainly had no problems even with loads of polygons on screen. The physics engine is capable of handling literally hundreds of objects. The demo's are just templates designed to be easily accessible, they're not really there to show off. Rachet is right though, we haven't actually seen a fullblown game running to see how well it does so there's no real proof.

BV had some major issues, I feel this overshadowed an otherwise great product. The biggest problem so far has been a lack of support rather than a bad tool. At this point there is still a question mark over support, i.e. if you discover a bug today, there's no guarentee it will be fixed in a reasonable timeframe so you could be left waiting. However this has dramatically improved in the last few weeks under the new owners, they're evidently investing in it, hiring a lot of new staff and I'm pretty confident things are going to get even better. I don't want to sing it's praises too much, I'm starting to sound like a GameCore salesman

The price is too hight i think also

And a good engine is an engine where you can find games made and selled commercialy with it !
if you don't find any, there is some problem with the engine.

For example : the old Blitz3D even have games made and selled with it today, Unity have a good amount of them (just go to it's showcase ), Even Ogre3D that is free you can find successfull great selled games, Torque 3D etc ...

With Gamecore, there's nothing, or give us the link to buy the game (or it's demo) ????

OK, based on the number of commercial games released, GameCore is a terrible engine.

if this were the case no game engine would ever sell because initially there wouldnt be any games made with it. Its a rediculous statement (not that i know anything about gc so i cant tell how good the engine is) but to say that it should be judged by how many games its sold is dumb.

Nice demo, Daz. Look forward to seeing more!

Thanks. I've now made available a playable version of my helicopter if people want to try it.

It can be downloaded here
http://rapidshare.com/files/234933301/SAR.rar

You can't do much at the moment other than fly around and pick up things with a hook but it's a start.

Controls
Arrow Keys - Roll Forward, Back, Left & Right
A - Up Thrust
Z - Down Thrust
Delete - Rudder Left
PageDown - Rudder Right

Mouse to rotate camera, mouse wheel to zoom in and out.

This site gives you a better idea GameCore's potential I think.

http://www.vizsimx.com/gallery/
http://www.vizsimx.com/demos/

It's called vizsimx but it's clearly the same engine and editor. I think they're marketing the engine as a game engine (GameCore) and also a serious world builder (VizsimX) for 2 different audiences.

Fascinating. 1000% better graphics and presentation!

or the producer of gamecore use a opensource engine
and other make the same compile and sell a opensource engine
how owners

No, it's the same Florida address where the new owners of GameCore are located.

some of us are not so idiots !
In the alternative site , they have only videos, no demo.
An better the traffic simulation demo with lot of polygons is pre reended, no real time (or give us the real demo to download ??? ) !

And some scenes with some meshes , anyone can buy ones good on a site and put them together ...

Stop pictures, video, or LEGO demos and give us a real Next Gen running demo to download

You are right
I loaded several animated files but the fps did not drop

well, the price policy is quite fair in my opinion
With Unity3d and 3dgs you have to buy the Pro version even to get essential features (shadow and weights)
With Came Core 2.0 you get everything for 400 usd
The Pro version ( 1500 usd) basically gives you the possibility to publish your game both in window and in Mac
This is definetly a pro feature
Hobbyest programmers dont need it and Indie's can survive without it

Many new engines ( well B.V. is not that new ) did not supply a complete game just some pictures nevertheless people wrote enthusiastic reviews

It is a strange situation

This game engine , at a first glance, does not look good, it looks great...better than Unity3d in my opinion

Maybe a poor marketing
If so it would be a shame to let it die

I decided to buy the casual version( 100 usd ) anyway
I do hope many others would follow me

That's cool, you pay some money to support it

In fact , there are no better visual engine than other today :
All use the same shaders and graphic cards !
Well for 400 $ you could buy the new Torque game engine ?
It have complete lightening/shadows build in support.

Well shadows , don't do all a game, specially casual game.
You can make a platform game with simple blob shadows, or a space shooter without.

Even more on some games like Follout 3 , what is impressive is the amount of polygons , and the great quality of textures/models of the scene : During combat or play , you'll even forget shadows !

Well , let's perhaps one day we'll find a real complete demo to download ?

I purchased it just for testing it, at a reasonable price, after expiring the one month trial since I have got a very good impression
Torque ?
The new engine may be good , not yet available as far as I know, but the "classic" Torque is simply horrible

People are complaining about the lack of documentation
I went through Game Core 2.0, well I could grasp the basic principles
Torque's doc is, or at least it was, when I tried this engine an insult to the common sense

You dont notice shadows in game ?
Arent' they important for a game , do you mean ?

Why dont you just use opengl or direct x then ?
Everybody can design an " essential " engine...no shadows, no advanced animations, no shaders, none of such useless stuff

Come on , you must have some prejudice against Game Core

i just said, if you don't have shadows you even can produce commercial title !
(don't worry, we have shaders and complete animation with unity indie) !
That's A7 commercial that have animation weights limitation.

Well, the main thing is tha you have pleasure using it
And perhaps make a commercial/casual game ?

For me, price is too hight ! I'll wait a year and i'll see
how have evolved Gamecore and Torque 3D

ok what I mean is

Shadows are supposed to be a standard feature nowadays
A guy who bought the Unity Indie version sooner or later wishes to have the pro version , too

In case of Game Core on the contrary there is absolutely no needs to buy the pro version for an amateur even though he can affordi it due to the fact that the Game core 2,0 Pro version supply real "pro" features

I mentioned the possibility to publish both for windows and for Mac
I can add the support to set up a master server etc

Game Core 2,0 price policy is quite fair and the lack of a finished game is not a main issue , for a new engine

If it is possible to code fragmnents of game or small levels than it is reasonably sure that the engine is stable

Well , peronnaly i target casual games (causual action/RPG or flying game) .
I have shaders i need , so shadows are not an issue for my case.

If buyers want just an engine to play with , theres' cheaper solutions like Unity, A7, even more Ogre 3D (complete but needs programming a lot).


Well for Gamecore, ok it can be a good deal for 400$ , but for that price , i really hope people buying it will sell something , and for the moment there's nothing ?

I simply dont like so much this kind of marketing strategy

I would prefer something like " Unity3d cost 1500 usd being much better than the competitor "
Probably it is true , unity3d really worth the money

Otherwise the price scheme must be consistent with the actual use of the sofware

Game Core 2.0 did it

Pro version is really for Pro users, only

I dont know whether Game Core 2.0 is good or not but I can not but appreciate this decision

Just tried the new Gamecore Release and cant complain. I think the casual version will suit my projects fine, but have come to love some of the effects and features in the indie version and can see a pro version in my future with funding.

I am comparing multiple engines at this point, but the ease I got stuff working impresses me, specifically in the art pipleine(animated models integrated SO MUCH easier than Unity, and I didn't think that possible). Haven't tested anything complex on the scripting/physics side other than tutorials and script functions provided, but so far I am impressed.