IntenseX: We, the community, are waiting for you to fix the bug

Edit: Thanks Conitec for your great support by moving this topic to a forum of no interest.
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Conitec Team,
Dear JCL,

As a longstanding user of Gamestudio and Intense Illusions` Pathfinding solution I`m very sad to mention that IntenseX and Intense Pathfinding will most likely being discontinued because of a "memory bug" that is caused by the Gamestudio Engine.

Just if you missed it: Intense X is a big, if not the biggest advancement for GameStudio within the last years and allows both newbies and advanced users like me to realize their game design ideas without investing hundrets of hours just to get a working prototype of own software solutions. It brings the idea behind GameStudio to a conclusion and has real potential to encourage potentially new customers to purchase your game development kit altogether with IntenseX.

We, the still increasing community of Intense X and Intense Pathfinding are waiting for new versions and updates of this great software solution and are more than afraid that you guys of Conitec don`t even mention that everything is dependant on you and your support team. Please reconsider your work in view of GameStudios future that is more and more pending on solutions like IntenseX.

Best regards

I agree with Rondidon!

Agreed !!

Because intenseX takes the most of the work for a fps. it takes the code for moving shooting weapon inventory and so on... i really think you should support the guy, because if it will stay like this and nothing changes, then maybe i will give up 3DGS. IX is sooo important!
you really should think about it.

just my 2 cents.

Agreed!

Lets put it this way:
if there is a Memory Bug, it should be adressed anyhow.
Or a workaround should be given.
Its a core part of the engine to run stable.
(Where I have to say that gamestudio is a very stable
product compared to other engines)

Agree with u guys

agreed.

Agreed. Dont let IntenseX die!

intensex should not die. ever.

If there really is a memory bug then I'd like to see it fixed - independently from IntenseX as it may be a problem for other programs as well.

SED still has this annoying memory leak btw.

we could start a list of bugs that we have found and then email a link to JCL.

we already know the ,bugs. they are mentioned at the IX Forum.

I agree to all the things said.
Intense-X is indeed essential for Game Studio, and the most solid base for a fps!

..not only for FPS games. Intense Pathfinding can be used for all game types that require pathfinding. RTS, RPG, Jump&Runs or even Adventures. It`s the best pathfinding solution for Gamestudio - and it`s free. And it will be discontinued if Conitec doesn`t help Aris/Intense Illusions (and they`re evidently not willing to).

Hm... I start to wonder about the overall commitment to Gamestudio. Every two weeks a mini feature like "panel digits can be colored now" but where is stuff like a working PSSM solution or a replacement for ODE? Half-working community contributions don't cut it. Even the forecast page doesn't contain anything exciting anymore. Where are the new developers JCL talked about? The competitors get ahead more and more...

yep, i also wonder whats going on, have the developers given up? the forecast page is well... empty, as if they have all the features they need, or they dont wish to play with the core of the engine because its 'good enough', good enough for whom? ppl making quick playtests of their games and prototypes, the developmenet process to get something 'good' is PAINFUL, now am not saying you cant get something good, you can match torque, unity, maybe even current gen quality but the time you'd spend would be rediculous.. if it werent for extensions, i'd have left this engine ages ago...

not, if it werent for work DONATED to the community, i'd have left, and dont they plan to upgrade the website? look at torque and unity showcasing their third party tools, they could overhaul the website and show the GOOD side of gs, intenseX, anet, shadeC and all the good work done

i asked some friends who know nothing of game design, which of these three engines would they buy and showed them a couple websites and noone even brought gs into their minds when making decisions

now, they ARE working on the engine but the choice of feature implementations and the time it takes to be added is rather dull, i dont think anyone here is excited about a new update any more

Same here. I almost had it with Gamestudio. The support is just terrible, years of work flew into various community projects like IntenseX and Intense Pathfinding enabling adding BASIC features to the Acknex Engine by a one-click solution - and Conitec is to be about even looking into it a bit deeper or giving a status on paid support for engine-caused memory bugs. Other helpful projects, IceX, Easy Particle disappear from the scene within few weeks because Conitec don`t feature community projects although they`re absoultly dependant on them. At least some of them go to the crappy Acknex Unlimited site that looks like a confusing hobby homepage from 1998.
Every child, every new customer knows that such acting can`t go well in a long run, especially when there`re heavy competitors like UDK, Unity, Torque.
It`s not about a "good will", it`s about "damage limitation" and they just don`t get it.

If it wouldn't work in the long run, then why is gamestudio still alive and running around?
UDK, Unity, Torque, they may all be a bit better than gamestudio in general, but not for starters and quick mockups. That's where gamestudio's strength lies. And with conitec's GALEP business, I don't think they NEED to earn much money from gamestudio. I'm very happy this engine is not depending on making money (at least I think). Development ain't very fast, but it's stable, steady and still going.

This was coming for a while now.

It all boils down how much you are willing to pay for a game engine.

Unlike UDK, Unity and torque GS is a very good price and you don't have to pay any additional costs like royalties, per year licence etc.

Just one price and you can do whatever you like within reason.
I started with good ol A6 and c-script.

Most of the addons,plugins & AUM are free and just look at how much development has been put into the engine since A6 oh yeah and the updates are free until v8.0

You also have to remember that only a few developers are now working on improvements unlike there where when they first started.

Fair enough I get disapointed when I see nothing happening on the Beta & Future updates pages but then I relize it's proberly all for the best.
Although I would've really liked to seen the FPS templates finalized and work on allowing for an external sound engine started he he.

You get what you pay for and I for one love GS A7!
No insults intended but people are just to demanding and impatient these days,
and i ocassionally am one of them lol.

I've been over this subject so many times; I almost don't even feel like commenting on it anymore. (Along with this post now, I have made other posts/comments on the GS forums, IX forums and YouTube supporting IX, saying what a great product it is (and GS too).) I will say that when I purchased GS (Extra version first and then quickly upgraded to Commercial because it supported decals and Intense X needed that for its blood decals.) last year back in May, I had already done research and comparisons of all the game engines and decided that GS was the best choice due to its cost, simple licensing, documentation, relatively good performance, stability, fast results (for prototyping/simple games), and most importantly, THIS COMMUNITY. Afterwards, I decided to take another chance on another product, Intense X. And let me tell you, in my opinion it is one of the best purchases I have made. I have learned so much more, so much faster because of IX. It gives you this great base to build off of and it is very flexible. I started off just using the basic features, of course, but after a while I inevitably wanted to do more. And with a little persistence, the help of this community and the flexibility of IX, I have been able to add and do just about everything I have wanted to so far. IX Copper is designed specifically to create first person shooters. But right now I am using it to make a third person/isometric game. After some tweaking of the camera code (and a few other things), it works great, and I have, what I feel is a pretty solid, decent looking little game that I can easily expand on and tweak/perfect when I have time after (sometimes before ) work/college/home. So if this issue with IX is really due to a memory problem with GS, exposed because of IX’s heavy use and reliance on structs, I feel that Conitec should do everything they can to help correct the problem, because IX is really a great asset to GS (and vice versa) and because it is a problem that effects GS as a whole (viability, users, projects, etc...). Also, I do not feel that the decision to correct the memory problem is JCLs. I am sure that JCL has a boss and is told what to do, what is important to spend time, money and resources on and what is not. I am sure JCL has a voice/input on decisions made, but it is not his alone. So we shouldn’t attack JCL, who may be on our side and just as adamant about this as we are.

If JCL doesn’t fix the problem he is missing out on the best Add On ever developed for 3DGS, if completed the sales for 3DGS will go over the top.

I cannot understand why this project seems to be going the way of all the others. IntenseX makes 3DGS the easiest AI to implement of all game makers.

Please don't turn this thread into another engine discussion as then it will only be moved to another forum and completely ignored!

Thanks.

Feel free to open another thread for another engine discussion.

I wouldn't have purchsed GS if not for IntenseX. I'm not a programer and I suspect a lot of people that purchsed GS aren't either.

Quoting Rondidon.

Where is the explicit definition of this "memory bug"?
Almost certainly, it must be in plain sight.

If there would be an expicit definition the crash wouldn`t exist. IntenseX crashes unreproducable by E1513 and E1514 errors after some gameplay. Just read yourself a bit into the IntenseX forums. http://www.intense-i.com/forum/showthread.php?t=447&page=2 (post number #15)
JCL knows about this bug since a few months and it`s caused by the Acnex Engine and not IntenseX if Aris is right.

That doesn't sound like an engine bug, it sounds more like an bug inside Intense X... =/

reading the IX-Forum, Looks like a problem with handeling very big scripts.
(the Example script in the discussion is huge - 12.000 lines of
code, and its just a part of IX.)

Anyhow, lets see how this will resolve, and what the
problem was in the end.

Hmm, "waiting for you to fix the bug" is a strange strategy for a developer.

Please understand that we can certainly fix engine bugs, but normally just don't have the time and resources to fix other people's scripts. IntenseX was an exception here because it's a really excellent software.

We were asked by its author some time ago for help, and could reproduce a crash bug. I remember that it was a handle issue, causing a pointer crash. It's supposed to be fixed in the latest IntenseX version - but I'm not fully sure. The version I got still had that bug, and crashed when the player died.

According to IX`s developers the engine still produces those E1514s that are not caused by IX`s code itself. It has to do with the Acknex Engine (handling big scripts) and can`t be resolved without Conitec`s help because Acknex is closed-source. That`s what we`re waiting for. Are you still in contact with them or did you quit support?

then this can be a mithyc AI case?
I really truly to Aris and have all my hands

Moving this topic was a mistake, JCL.

O.o ou...ouu.... i think a big debate will start now , JCL

I really thick you ought to find out that problem, before any fight starts

Hmmm, very strange. Both Jcl and Aris are saying its the others fault its not working. I was hoping the problem could be fixed, but maybe not.

Well, I don't know who or what is to blame at this point, but obviously someone is not telling the whole truth.

I don't think they communicate all that well, which is then IntenseX's fault because they use 3DGS's services, not otherwise around. If answers are unclear after good communication attempts from IntenseX's side, this would have been known by now, no? But it seems the whole problem resides in an unknown state of either parties.

Nothing more to add, I don't read the IX forums. Just pointing out a plausible weak point of where the problem REALLY may be.

JCL is correct here "it was a handle issue, causing a pointer crash." This is in the code for IntenseX so it's up to Aris and the IX team to fix it. They are aware of the problem so now it's a waiting game. Since IX was designed to work with GS the responsibility lies with IX not GS. My opinion.

Ye not problem of gamestudio appear
but I have the same problem with my programs
also the ode physics continues flickering incluse with the last
template, never make a fixed from G7, is very old post, I not can tell how gamestudio make the test of the engine but is good only for hobbie not for other thinks
hope in the A8 include all the IA, effects, physics ...

Oh me!

I bought IX just a week ago. I got no crash since now...
Is IX going to die? Then i am getting really angry...

Please say someone he is fixing that bug and Copper 1.1.0 comes out tomorrow!

He should take it of sale until the bugs are fixed!