What are you'll thoughts about the Godot engine (https://godotengine.org/)?
At first glance it was looking pretty good (https://godotengine.org/article/godot-2019-showreel)to me, but when I ran the 3d platformer example (http://3d%20platformer%20demo)I was less than impressed by the collision capabilities.
Now I don't know if this due to bad coding in this particular example or that it's just the way it is in it's current state.
Anybody here who gave it a try? Any thoughts?
Checkout my "Maze Raider" worklog.
https://www.syntaxbomb.com/index.php/topic,4896.0.html
With 3.1 release of Godot especially my problem with hint typing should be solved. It improved in that area.
Bye
Ron
Wow, didn't see that before Derron. Nice job.
However, when I tried that example I mentioned, I found that either the way the collision handling was coded is poor or.. it's the engine itself not handling (physics)collisions properly: character and limbs partially going through walls and stuff.
A bit hard to determine without doing some actual real code testing, however I do not feel like wasting time on something that's perhaps not worth it (yet), while my time is sparse and also have to focus on my new job.
I'm already in love with AGK, but some features like vehicle physics are not yet implemented and TGC are overhauling the IDE and moving towards Vulkan, which will all take a considerable amount of time, and then still have to keep fingers crossed they'll finally implement that stuff. That kind of uncertainty I'm not especially fond of.
So was wondering if anyone round here actually tried it and found it's crap, not feasible for now or that it's just a bad example?
With 3.1 they added some physics thing for moving objects (they use "slide"-function which handles a lot of physics for them). But yes, even in the new videos of 2D-slide-physics you see slight offsets of eg. "moving platform" and "unit".
Collision is always a compromise of the "hull complexity" you use for simplified checks. Make it too simple and you will move a bit into a wall during animation (foot crosses wall) and so on.
I would not skip Godot if your game idea is a "simple" one (so arcade games and the likes) as they benefit from the visual-creation process.
bye
Ron
I gave it a brief look.
However, I'm satisfied with the Torque and 3d gamestudio engines. I also use Unity and Lumberyard for console output. Taking on another engine is just too much work, and slows down progress on my current projects.
hi bsisko,
what do you think of unreal? How do you rate torque against 3dgamestudio?
I haven't used unreal that much. Though since they are offering that mega grant deal, I may give it a try this year. Many of the games that I've bought are built using that engine, so its features are cool.
As for Torque and 3D Gamestudio, I've been concentrating on torque since it is geared towards FPS networked type of games, (though to be honest, I haven't used the multiplayer aspect of the engine yet)
Depending upon which version of Torque you have (the now unsupported TGE or T3D which is supported at [url = www.torque3d.org]torque3d[/url]) creating levels and art assets can be difficult if you don't have the proper tools (which I fortunately have). 3D Gamestudio on the other hand has its own modeler and world editor built into it, plus you can also use external tools if you so desire.
Unlike the torque engines, since it is merely a blank slate when yo atart it up it is easier to create all types of 3d games with that engine rather than FPS.
My goals is to use the Torque, Unity, and Lumberyard enignes for FPS'es and RPG's, while UNity, Blitz3d, CerberusX and 3dGamestudio for other type of 3d gaming experiences.
Thanks for asking.