OHHHH!!!.. lol thanks pappenheimer, lol, w/e that means... lol...

ah, its actually chris3D but you can see where the confusion comes in

yh.. i found the shader, i actually had it already, it looks great.. doesnt take long to implement, too bad its a demo.. lol... oh well, great things comes to those who wait

"I havent finished mine with anything more than one directional light, having some issues setting it up, but they are just issues with things i havent fully studied or tested yet"

And you prove me fully right

"DOES IT MATTER????!!!! i mean, come on guys, nothing we say here will make the engine better"

You should check the forum you are posting in before posting. The purpose of this forum is to post other game development tools and engines and critique and compare them with gamestudio.

"what???? normal mapping and bloom take a couple of minutes to set up, and have absolutely nothing to do with dynamic shadows"

So your actually saying that we should be satisfied with normal mapping and no shadows ?

Didn't you just say some posts earlier doing everything seen in the Torque3D demos I posted could easily be reproduced with gamestudio , yet you are here saying you still can't get dynamic shadows working properly ? So which is it lostclimate , can this things be easily reproduced with gamestudio , or can they not ? There's no sense in saying they can and then state you've been working to get shadows working but haven't been able to , that statement COMPLETELY contradicts your whole argument on the subject

ummm.. hello, i know the purpose of the forum, whats the purpose of THIS thread??? i mean, even the author seemed to have abandoned it and here we are

"ummm.. hello, i know the purpose of the forum, whats the purpose of THIS thread???"
To show the progress of the current Torque3D game engine which is currently still in beta.

"i mean, even the author seemed to have abandoned it and here we are"
Well since I am the author of the thread , I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I've abandoned it.

I do: by indulging in an argument about the capabilities of THIS engine in a thread about another engine.

First: even though the guy who made the 167k or whatever terrain example said he'd like to see it kill other engines, it actually wouldn't. It's really not a big deal. And on his dual-graphics card PC (which is not absolute latest-gen but more than enough for any modern game [I'd say even Crysis on full settings, given I have ONE of those graphics cards and handle full-Crysis beautifully]) he raved about getting up to 40 fps AFTER adding LoD. 60 fps as a general rule is ideal for an actual release game (though in the PC world you obviously can't account for everyone's different specs).

So no, performance-wise, not amazing. Not something that will kill A7. The shadows are nice, the graphics are nice. Nice that they're built-in. Nice that they're easy to use. You complain about A7's lack of non-programmer features and art pipeline, fine (as long as you're in the appropriate thread for it), but don't complain about the engine itself, it's capabilities, and it's performance, because A7 is really good in those regards.

I do like the soft-particles example for Torque 3D. If I used that engine, that would probably be what I'd most be looking forward to -- even most current-gen games on PS3 or XBox 360 still suffer from edgy particles that lose the illusion of volume when they interact with other surfaces, but these look really awesome.

Jibb

"do: by indulging in an argument about the capabilities of THIS engine in a thread about another engine."
That is the POINT of this ENTIRE sub-forum.

then y title it torque3d and not, 3dgs versus torque3d or watever, cuz the focus of all these posts seem to be on 3dgs and not TORQUE, which is the heading...

I probably wasn't clear: by "THIS" I mean "A7", and by "another engine" I mean "Torque 3D". This sub-forum is not about talking about A7, it is about talking about "Competitor products & game development tools".

To make this extra clear so you cannot twist my words: You deviated from the topic by arguing about the capabilities of A7 and what A7 can do, in a thread about Torque 3D, in a sub-forum about non-A7 tools.

Stick with comments about Torque 3D and links relating to it (those youtube links earlier were really cool, and great discussion material for Torque 3D).

Jibb