elfprince13 wrote:
Also, last I checked, replacing the physics and graphics subsystems of a game engine count as actually improving the engine, and not just hacking on features.
Amen to that. 
You'll get nothing but support from me on this; it sucks when people belittle your months or years of hard work (cough DCS cough).
elfprince13 wrote:
OpenSceneGraph and Bullet (which I'm also working with) on the other hand are probably an order of magnitude more complex than equivalent components of the Unreal Engine. Certainly OpenSceneGraph is, since it is designed to work with the optimized rendering of geometry databases on the terabyte scale and has clustered rendering capabilities. I could trivially make an LDraw->whatever format Unreal uses converter, but I wouldn't have direct control over the geometry caching mechanisms or the graph structure needed to build and merge models in game. I still haven't seen anything that suggests Unreal is capable of dealing with hundreds of thousands of scene objects or makes use of the newer and more sophisticated culling algorithms I'm planning to make use of.
Also, last I checked, replacing the physics and graphics subsystems of a game engine count as actually improving the engine, and not just hacking on features.
Unreal Engine 3 uses PhysX for it's physics library usually, which is technically superior to Bullet (but hopefully Bullet surpasses it soon).
UE3 is far more optimized than Torque + OpenSceneGraph ever will be. You are crazy if you think OSG is more complex than what UE3 has. I just read through the OSG's introduction, and it all sounds like fairly standard stuff for graphics engines. I think your work on Torque has gotten you into the mindset that most graphics engines suck.
You might want to actually download the UDK before saying what you can and can't do.
But regardless, swapping Torque out for a better game engine that already has things like Bullet or OpenSceneGraph is still a far better use of time. Torque sucked, it was terrible. Scraping it is one of the best things you could do.
ITT: Kllrjohn is butthurt.
Quote:
UE3 is far more optimized than Torque + OpenSceneGraph ever will be. You are crazy if you think OSG is more complex than what UE3 has. I just read through the OSG's introduction, and it all sounds like fairly standard stuff for graphics engines. I think your work on Torque has gotten you into the mindset that most graphics engines suck.
Note that I didn't say optimized, I said complexity in the comparable areas. UE3 and OpenSceneGraph have different strengths and weaknesses (UE3 is a full game engine and OpenSceneGraph is a renderer). But I did just read an interview with Tim Sweeney who straight out said that UE3 is only designed to run on a single GPU, and I certainly haven't read anything about it being used for parallel rendering or rendering from multi-terabyte geometry databases, which are things OSG has been designed for.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
»
Go to Registration page
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
