Man Ogre is fun!!

Discussion in 'Game Development (Technical)' started by zoombapup, Feb 1, 2008.

  1. zoombapup

    Moderator Original Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm a long time user of Torque, from the pre-v12 days and I still use it. But recently I also started using Ogre for some other projects with different requirements.

    Man its fun!

    Torque is such a big codebase and really needs a severe refactor (thats ongoing).

    Ogre is still big, but as its mostly libs and dlls and whatnot it is a lot easier conceptually and actually is easier for my students to get something visually pleasing with (might not do anything useful, but at least its motivating to see the fruits of your labour).

    I just find it fun to be able to get in there and literally code from the basics again (I'm used to code+script and lots of other issues now).

    I'm just going to get my traditional object+components+messages framework going and I should be set for a few little AI demos.

    Fun!!!
     
  2. MacMan45

    MacMan45 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been playing with ogre for a few years now & it really is nice to work with, very clean & consistent.

    Recently I have been playing with Python-Ogre, which is a very complete binding, not only of Ogre, but of 5+ physics libraries (including PhysX), 4 gui libraries, input & sound.

    All through python, all working with Ogre.

    Great for rapid testing & prototyping!
     
  3. Applewood

    Moderator Original Member Indie Author

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yeah, torque is basically just a game with the game code ripped out. It surprises me how many people pick it up when there's other more standalone engines about.

    Personally, I think the C4 Engine is way ahead of any of them. By miles. Miles and miles. You can't knock the price either!
     
  4. Backov

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ya I love Ogre as well - I did a lot of work in it last year and it never disappointed. I'm hoping to get back into it this year and if things work out actually complete something of my own (rather than something for a client) with it.
     
  5. zoombapup

    Moderator Original Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul: I wouldnt knock C4 either, but frankly I just dont like some of its architecture. Plus being closed source it seems to have the problem of being tied to Eric a bit too much for my liking.

    I might give it a go though.
     
  6. Bad Sector

    Original Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,742
    Likes Received:
    5
    While it's cheap and has nice screenshot, i disagree with it being ahead of others. I would say that Torque at least is a much better solution, although it seems (from the demo) to lack a bit in the effects area. The major reason is that C4 is *very* slow. Also the editor expects from you to do manual placement of sectors (areas or zones as they call them) and portals between them. This is a big time waste and very error prone.
     
  7. Applewood

    Moderator Original Member Indie Author

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    2
    I guess it comes down to how you prefer to use something like this.

    We have our own full featured cross-platform game engine now, so we don't use any of them. But, when I was sussing out stuff that's around, I found C4 great. Torque is nasty imo - it's not what I'd call an engine at all, it's a game.

    Ogre isn't bad at all, but I find it to be like one of those libpng things where you can't see the wood for the trees.

    Horses for courses :)
     
  8. Game Producer

    Moderator Original Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,418
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yeh, Ogre is fun.

    You might also want to check out NeoAxis engine - that brings lots of stuff & uses Ogre for rendering.
     
  9. zoombapup

    Moderator Original Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tried it, but it needs C# and I dont want that dependancy.

    I'm using Ogre partly because of its open source nature, because I'm teaching a class with it and buying C4 for a class like this is a bit daft.

    I think C4's biggest downsides are the reliance on a single developer and the toolset (I really dont like relying on some home grown interface for editing things).

    But C4 definitely has some upsides in terms of architecture, just not my "taste" I guess :)
     
  10. tagged

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been researching for a few months trying to decide what engine to take when I move to 3d late this year. I just settled on Ogre last week :D

    I also stumbled on NeoAxis and had to read up on c#. From what I've read I fell in love with the improvements over c++, and learnt .net wasn't restricted to windows only (a little behind the times). But it does seem like a great addition to ogre, and will no doubt take it into consideration (meaning, if he still releases updates every month when I'm ready, I'll grab it!)
     
  11. OremLK

    Indie Author

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love C#, but you should keep in mind that the .NET redistributables are rather large, perhaps prohibitively depending on your target demographic and how big your game file sizes tend to be. (I'm not sure if this applies to portable .NET though). I dived in head first with XNA (which uses C#) because I liked the language so much, and regretted it.
     
  12. andrew

    andrew New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Messages:
    487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ogre is really nice, I spent 6 months working on a prototype with it. It's only a rendering engine, but it's nicely architected and has a great group of developers on it. You can easily add your own scripting and physics engines of choice and get a surprisingly powerful package. Obviously, though, if you need an entire art pipeline and level-building tools and etc, it's probably not right for you.

    Torque IMHO is a complete mess. Strangely enough it's the same kinda problem that Unreal 3 has... it's a game codebase, only with the game part ripped out. Both are very suited to making one particular style of game, and aren't very good at anything else.

    - andrew
     
  13. Mikademus

    Mikademus New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nobody mentions Irrlicht. I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on how these compare. Both Ogre3D and Irrlicht seems pretty comparable to me, though I like Irrlicht's code conventions and structure a bit better. I have no experience wth C4 or NeoAxis though.
     
  14. jeb_

    Indie Author

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    We decided to adopt irrlicht a couple of years back. The reason it won over Ogre3D was because we thought Ogre was a real mess with all those libraries and dlls. We tried some example games, and every one had 6-10 dlls in the game folder. :(

    That's a couple of years ago, though, so it may have changed.
     
  15. tagged

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    That was one initial turn-off, but I decided it wouldn't be that big of a negative given the planned genre/demographic and expected game size (>80mb). The only real negative that I'm hoping will be fixed by the time I'm ready to dive in is NeoAxis supporting linux and osx. That may be the deal breaker for me.
     
  16. Bad Sector

    Original Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,742
    Likes Received:
    5
    This is not a bad thing actually: Ogre is a modular engine and those dlls you mentioned are the modules needed by the example. If your game doesn't require all modules, you distribute only those required and thus you save space.

    The other methods are:
    1. With some modifications (if the building system doesn't support that) you can build a single DLL containg everything. However this is not a good idea because Ogre contain a lot of stuff you won't use and i believe that under Windows this single DLL will eat more memory.
    2. Statically linking the library. By doing this, the linker will remove unused parts (although this depends on the linker) automatically. However, unless your game is LGPL or GPL or you agree to distribute the object files of your game, then this isn't much of an option. Also doing something like this means that if you have two executables for the game (a setup and a game program or an editor) that use the engine, the engine code will be duplicated.
     
  17. zoombapup

    Moderator Original Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm really only using Ogre as the render backend for the game code. So the game wont be bound to any particular render API (by design). In theory I could knock together an alternative renderer and still have the game work.

    I've worked that way before and it works (there are some downsides, but the upsides are better for my usage).
     
  18. Sybixsus

    Original Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Messages:
    959
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why is this not much of an option? Ogre has an alternative license now for people who don't want to be restricted by the LGPL. So what's the problem?
     
  19. ChrisP

    Indie Author

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    Messages:
    971
    Likes Received:
    0
    An alternative paid licence, yes. The website doesn't say how much it costs, though I found this thread quoting GBP£899 per project.

    It's worth dynamically linking to save that kind of money. :)
     
  20. brett_seyler

    brett_seyler New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just wanted to reply to the ongoing complaint that:

    -Torque's architecture is too complex
    -Torque is only an FPS engine

    So, these are both valid complaints depending on your perspective, but I want to address the first and offer some counterexamples to the second.

    First, as Zoombapup mentioned, a huge refactor of Torque has already happened and a next-gen Torque engine has been in development for months. No doubt current Torque codebase is showing it's 7 year history (like any engine would...someone mention Unreal?). If you read Matt Fairfax's blog post, you'll see that we're constantly working to transition our current engine products (all 3 of them on the C++ side) to the newly refactored engine. It will take time and tons of effort on our part, but we're definitely addressing this complaint. We're plenty sick of "shapeBase" too :) You guys will continue to see a transition, as quickly as we can manage, to a fully componentized refactored version of Torque. It should be much easier to work with and much more powerful. Even with the changes we implemented in this big update to TGEA, we're seeing big performance gains and really positive feedback from early adopters on the changes to the directory structure and other changes. Torque is already known for it's performance, so we're really excited to see where we'll go (and what Torque users will be able to do) with this new tech.

    On the second issue, again, this is a fair critique. Looking at Torque source, it doesn't take long to discern that its origins are in a fast-paced, networked FPS. That said though, if you look some of the published games powered by Torque, you find top-notch racing games like Mini-37 and Metal Drift (demo'd at Indie Games Con this year), original casual games like Snapshot Adventures and Rack 'em Up Road Trip (made with TGB), MMO / RTS games like Dreamlords, turn-based strategy games like Bellatorus, MMOGs like Minions of Mirth and a whole bunch of stuff you'd never think of when Tribes is mentioned. Again, even though Torque's FPS roots are visible, it's very powerful and very flexible.

    Brett Seyler
    GG
     

Share This Page

  • About Indie Gamer

    When the original Dexterity Forums closed in 2004, Indie Gamer was born and a diverse community has grown out of a passion for creating great games. Here you will find over 10 years of in-depth discussion on game design, the business of game development, and marketing/sales. Indie Gamer also provides a friendly place to meet up with other Developers, Artists, Composers and Writers.
  • Buy us a beer!

    Indie Gamer is delicately held together by a single poor bastard who thankfully gets help from various community volunteers. If you frequent this site or have found value in something you've learned here, help keep the site running by donating a few dollars (for beer of course)!

    Sure, I'll Buy You a Beer