TBH I was starting to have high hopes for Reloaded and feel the same disappointment as everyone else with the last Beta, however this doesn't put me off completely as it's not going to be the last let down and I reckon some good one's will come too. It's easy to make assumptions on TGC and their development plan from the comfort of our armchairs and I suspect they are feeling a bit of a sting from reaction to 1.005.



I think some of the newer features have been added because they haven't been too time consuming overall and seemed like a good idea at the time. You will find some who requested these features will now defend it all the way but seriously it isn't helping now to tout FPSCR further to any more pledgers.

The time for dreaming and imagining what this could become is gone and now it's about delivering a working product. The disappointment stems from the fact that it's simply not going to get better without going back to the very start and that's about as bad as it gets when everyone thought it was well on it's way.



A couple of small thoughts of my own.

I cant really say how much memory is being eaten up with entity's placed in editor, but do notice that LOD is being used even when I right click an entity and as the camera zooms into it you can see this. Just for starters only lower LOD should be loaded for editor placement, same with editing in 3d test level.

I see no real reason for shader effects and animation running in editor, this is obviously chewing up more memory. There are a lot of things you don't need running when simply building the level and these should only function when fully testing. A single LOD model might come in at 3,000 poly's but when you add the other two levels at load time your getting at least another 75% added, if all three are loaded in editor. Plus calculating all this to swap LOD's and such.

All the frills are unnecessary and maybe a proxy system for builds would be better, I wouldn't mind a simple marker for characters,trees etc.



The level build feature right now to me is the worst idea yet, not only does it let loose the bad presentation of this product but I am loathe to put media into the store as it wont be protected in any way when released by users who post it wherever. All anyone has to do is go to the folder and copy it over to their own. This is particularly true of skyboxes, but entity's are the same at this time. It's alright to say that users could use a packer but they simply wont bother, particularly if they have to pay for it.



There are quite a few things wrong on different levels with the way development is going here and some of the issues could be seen before they happened and avoided, I hope TGC take it all on board and instead of concentrating on more pledgers they concentrate on fixing whats wrong here.

I for one am an old die hard and will stick with it but others who haven't been around for long will start to abandon it and that would be sad to see, not only that but their opinions will be spread around before things change for the better and first impressions stick.



I wish TGC all the best and reckon it will get better but without going back to the very core of this engine it's simply not going to work as it should and marginally better may not be good enough.

Well not all hope is lost, the Engine is splitted in modules

and therefore Lee can even rip out the guts if it needs to be.





I have read plenty of threads now that all deal with dissapointment, well am to

but i dont need to make it worse.



Lee will return - will get a heart attack or 2 but at the end

the ppl will be heard and its just 3 days from now.



On Monday we can expect a statement from Lee or even earlier but

we should all cool down.

The wave of dissapointment is only killing R´s reputation and if we are honest

we are still in beta and we will reamin for months in beta state.

Lets stick together and rebuild the ship!

+1







+1









+1







+1







+1

I don't think anything I say here can make things worse than they already are and in fact am trying to put a lid on it.

Everyone around here is free to post their thoughts concerning this product.



I am one of TGC's most ardent supporters (probably worst critic too though) and NEVER whined about Classic, in fact I would squeeze things out of Classic where most would think it couldn't be done and I expect to do the same with Reloaded.



It may appear to you that this can be fixed easily but without an upgrade for DBPro itself its not going to improve much, this is where it should have begun, not with features, terrain, Rift support or otherwise. If you have nice clean code which utilizes current hardware and operating systems then features should not break it, if they cause the engine to lag at this point then the problem is not with the core but the feature.

there is no easy way to fix something like this, i had my fair share of working with engines and codebases along with compiling more complex stuff with fail and success.



However only because something is not easy does not mean that it cant be done.



And am sry that it looked like offensive against your post but there was no way to split it there and that what i wrote was ment in general.



We received the latest beta in a rush and Lee went on holidays.

Now he is just gone for a couple of days and RickV is trying to keep the cardhouse together and am sure that this is no easy task even if some of us think that it is their own fault but being honest - we asked for features, we asked for more and TGC just tried to get it delivered.

Sure we never asked for Lua and its implementation took some important time away - for the good or bad cant be told yet.



No question important time was wasted in the last months, one would even ask

what the so called Main Pledgers think about this scenario?



However collateral damage, some ppl might move on to other engines but most will stay and more will come and some even back within time.



See am not even a optimist, totally different actually but

i for one didnt came to Reloaded to give it up.

I agree with in general with the assessment here.



Not sure though that at the efficiency measures mentioned regarding the use of or display of entities and so on in editor, for example reducing the number of real time features of high quality display at build time by replacing say Characters with markers is and answer at all at the end of the day to any issue.



Yes no point in particular to see full entities in editor perhaps like Characters which could be replaced by markers. On the other hand many objects users may need to place exactly and with precision and also adjudge many other things in relation to them, how the cast or receive shadows. The exact scale and position and so on. Minor things perhaps you could get away with ignoring perhaps though unless you are like me and are fussy about what everything looks like down to minute detail and care about tweaking until just right. At least to the best of your ability.



Not quite sure how you can replace actual real presentation with a marker for many items. Some yes. Perhaps for example an entity could just display wireframe so one can see the form - though thats a half way house.



Anyway In test run of level you still need real visual feedback for quality game making and you need to have WYSIWYG or you would have to rely on "Save or Game Publish before you can actually see play your game - walk around what may be a massive game level just to find out if each and every entity if anything not fully represented in your editor game making actually looks and perhaps behaves correctly to some extent at all. Placing a large number of entities you want and perhaps need to be just right and not being able to see that in editor puts you back to Classic where you can spend months just testing and looking around levels and tweaking more than developing.



Still that's some concern but at the end of the day the principles you refer to of things like LOW LOD versions and so on are fine given that such would be sufficiently capable of providing sufficient visual feedback in game making to alleviate any serious levels of major reworking later issue when you actually publish a game.



Of course non of that will actually tell you what really matters - which is not ultimately how the editor performs - but how your published game does and and is there any variation. At the end of the Day its how your game looks and performs and plays that matters. For that you would in any case have to constantly publish and test your game to actually find out if the game plays as you intended with less editor and game making real time feedback. i.e. is what WYSIWYG in final published game what you had envisaged or intend in building or not.



If you remove the game visual and performance and other types of feedback e.g. physics perhaps in editor so as to make the editor more efficient it will not show you how your game or reflect how your game and gameplays visual appearance and performance will behave as it will be different. It may also as said affect the development time and make it longer.



It is going backwards to past software to some extent at least and that's where you seem to be now going backwards while attempting to go forward.



Still the current reality is the current reality and someone has to make some decision about how to proceed/progress in ideally going forward and not backwards ultimately by whatever avenues are or can be employed or you end up going totally backwards or nowhere at all.



Forward is the way to go which is the whole point of Reloaded so having come this far and to date having what we have some progress has been made in moving Reloaded forward from what existed previously.



Ultimately no matter what engine we have or use if anyone wants to make a really good game no doubt they will always have to do a lot of development and hard work testing both in editor and Final Published games and Yes re-working a lot perhaps. Thats how it is if you want something good. Much like making a game engine. No one minds that at all if at the end of the day they know that they can succeed with the tools at hand. However thats one of the issues to keep an eye on as always. For example how will this be when say we have a game comprising of more than one level. 3, 5, 10, 20, 30 levels? At the moment one level may be a problem. Do you have the platform to manage the memory and so on to make and publish and for the end users to run your full game that you will make with more than a single level. Things yet to be tested and perhaps that may be a good idea to look at once one single full game level generation to a standard of quality your games will require can be successfully output and played at acceptable quality gameplay levels. If you can get to make one game level then can it and will it make a whole game with many levels? Just an aforethought though we understand that we have enough to contend with at the moment without going there. Sooner rather than later however it has to be considered and confronted. Preferably before the engine is said to be completed before you can find out there are problems looming with making a full game as has been the case in the past with perhaps who knows how many levels. How many levels will you be able to have and manage successfully to publish quality? Yes. This is one of the haunting core issues from the past not yet even considered by us this end.



Anyway Reloaded is and has made some progress. It seems to have some basic issues and users have some concern over the similarities and concerns in particular to the past versions where core issues are concerned and have proved to be inadequate perhaps or at least decidedly needed some improvement. This latest version seems to have brought those to attention as you might expect as Reloaded engine gets put under more and more pressure and falls over. Not quite there perhaps but together with as has always again seemed to be the case in the past and of concern a forever dusting of new issues and bugs with each issue some re-occurring and not being put to bed and going around in circles, slowing progress.



As I have no understanding of the internal workings in any detail of Reloaded then personally I have no real idea of where we are other than what I can see from running the engine in a personal situation like everyone else.



Now Rick and I guess TGC currently say, have patience and all will be OK. You worry too much. Which may well be correct and the concerns shown by users since this last Beta totally unfounded. Users may not know what they are talking about despite what they find in practical application you could say.



No idea which is a correct assumption which is what they are. Certainly I know nothing and just commenting as I understand things to myself.



Whatever, I guess if users concerns are unfounded then all will be fine and with some updating, re-working, issue fixing and so on shortly to come perhaps following Lees return then Reloaded could be back on track in getting the core and further releases kind of a little more stable and efficient in performance and level handling. At least it would be helpful if that were the case perhaps and stability, performance and quality brought back and maintained from here on in. The actual performance thing perhaps being the optimum item or not as will become even more apparent in time.



If Reloaded is brought back on track then together with the forthcoming additional features it should be then well on its way to make some real progress.



Bringing it back on track may be a matter of somewhat basic updating, more complex updating and fixing of those things that may have gone off track as a result of recent inclusions and additional work in the last Beta. It may require removal of some things and or backtracking in a more major manner. I don't know the answers as I do not even know what the internal engine issues are if any as said being an end user only. I am sure Lee will give it some consideration and decide on how it will proceed best as possible.



I presume the over-riding factor is what Reloaded engine power as a core can possibly deliver or be made possible in reality to deliver at best. How efficient can it be in managing the things users need or aspire for it to do? Now seems to be the time to find out, confirm or decide what to do based on any judgement and knowledge if there is indeed any certainty about that at all which others not I can credibly and accurately come to a conclusion about.



Whatever again the general thinking and user findings are clearly made known and a lot of them so how TGC proceed will I guess be down to their own knowledge of making a successful or not game engine. Not a lot we can do about it only comment. Down to TGC as always at the end of the day.



Update :



I guess the real question here is not Reloaded at all but the underlying core technologies and how efficient they are and suitable for the task in hand whatever that is.



(a) I can't see Reloaded being started from Scratch. Thats not going to happen I would not think. New base language, 64 Bit, Direct X 11 and beyond and so on. Perhaps the next engine after Reloaded but perhaps not.



(b) I can't see DBPro being re-written in any major, meaningful way from scratch from the bottom up as it were which is not an answer as you may as well, almost and it may be easier to start from nothing (a) above) I would think unless it incorporates some of the (a) items above or it still leaves other things of possible problematical issue I presume. Memory limits, module plugins and so on. Halfway house maybe at best.



(c) Continue on regardless using current technologies and updating DBPro wherever possible which is presumably what is being done now in the main apart from what other technologies like Bullet physics are incorporated.



It would seem to me that choice (c) is what TGC will continue with out of few available real palatable options now at this stage in development and just make the best of it.

Like most editors they give you the option to turn off shaders, animations, lights, markers, water, etc - all within the editor so that you use less memory while editing.



Basically you'd have an option called View at the top that drops down these options. All editors have this.







I agree that we need a type of library file system to handle these files. In the case of Fallout and Skyrim they have one file that handles all models, one for textures and one for sounds.



This would help protect us against piracy.







I think we really need the BUG section of the forums to be properly attended. All the main issues are in there and its hard to tell if any of whats posted there is being read. I've seen bugs there that have remained in future builds. Its important to know if a BUG is confirmed, fixed or closed - by the developers.







If it disappoints the Steam crowd were in big trouble. If you ever seen the movie "Indie Game: The Movie" you can see how harsh and fast the internet can respond to failure and doubt and it can quickly end a project and ruin a reputation of a company.



I think we need to keep a bit of optimism in our posts as supporters. As these posts are handled in search engines in reference to the product.

Maybe I should have been more clear.



Testing a level and the ability to edit in 3d level is fine. Turning off shaders does not help in top down view, I am talking specifically about memory management in this case not performance itself which is an issue done to death around here. It is an added issue that you cant place enough objects before running out of memory and preventing crashing doesn't cure the problem in the long term we all know a standalone level should run better without the editor open at the same time. I am merely throwing my two cents in as to why you are all running out of buffer space here.

If you place an entity in editor it is using all three levels of LOD I can see this myself when right clicking in the editor it is a waste of memory and you cant turn off shaders in the editor either. If you place a character do you really need to see an idle animation? This can all be seen in test level with no need for it when editing. In test ironically you can turn off shaders.



Why do you need to see your character in edit view? You can view this in test level same with all those vegetation entity's, if you can get by with a paint view of grass why not a proxy of a character or a tree,rock, whatever. I don't need to see shadows and normal mapping in top down edit view, that's what test level is for.



I can assure you there would be no major difference between the lowest LOD version of your rock and the highest when it comes to either top down edit or even test level with 3d edit, LOD_1 and LOD_0 should be reserved for built games when it comes to level design.

Why is it possible for people to open up editing mode in the stand-alone anyways? I highly doubt any developer would want that. Also wouldn't we save up some memory by not having that function as part of the stand-alone builds?

I reckon it gives those who are handed a standalone a chance to play around with things, which may pull in more pledgers.

+1

Yes I understand that of course but that's not the issue at all is it? So how does that make it possible to make better games with better and or acceptable developer or end user game play experience? Improved engine suitable for now and the future?



All along the line we know that you can improve performance by removing everything and turning off everything. That does not improve the core editor or engine efficiency but simply makes it less usable from the point of view of a developer and game player by removing as many features as possible or not having them in the first place. Thats the whole point here.



The Editor is not the issue - lets get to the bottom line here. The games you can make are the issue at the end of the day and Yes it would be nice also not to have to spend forever making it and and fight constantly with an engine with all of the same developer issues as Classic.



You can publish a game now so is it OK and of the quality you can deploy? You can't turn off all of the features in that can you so how will you get it to deliver what you need. The editor and engine are one and the same here are they not to all intense and purpose - i.e. WYSIWYG. The editor, test game is what you get in published game.



The published game is what matters so given you drop editor or even test game features or turn them off which would agreed be nice as an option to have though not ideal. Turning things off somewhere along the line is not much use ideally as all that does is make dev time longer without doubt. The fact that the editor you lets say can't handle it and causes delays is another issue altogether reflected by the fact that neither can the published game. One and the same problem and issue. Somewhere along the line you have to turn things on again and if nowhere else in your published game so lets get to that as that's exactly what you get in editor.



Currently editor cant handle it and game cant handle it as being a clone or mirror of one and the same. If game can handle it the editor can handle it vice versa or something along those lines. If the editor cant manage it then it is showing you your published game cant either as that will behave in the same way at least as it works now and always has done. Both editor and engine have always been reflective of these things.



Yes I understand the point of course but how much you can remove or disable in your editor or game is not the real issue as we know, is it? even if that's the reality as it stands. How much you can add is what is important not so how much you can remove.



It's much like telling half of your users to turn off features and quality in your game at a level which makes it looks well quite awful. Not really whats looked for or needed is it when what they want is the highest quality, obviously.



This is Reloaded - aspired to be meeting the needs of the users and game players of the future.



Hopefully then at least the end published games will not see too many more menus, sliders and so on for turning off of features and quality and something worthwhile can get left in for end users to enjoy.

There is something obviously not right with the editor itself when you cant even get enough entity's into it and maxing out before even reaching a point to test. I get the feeling it's not just been memory leaks that cause this but the eye candy way it's been developed. Lets not confuse the editor with test level here.



I know where you are coming from and as I said it's mainly performance issues you are referring to when you say you want to test with full shaders, which as I said won't be getting a lot better without some serious backtracking.It is known that a full game will run better without the editor open. I can only guess at how much extra memory is been chewed up with editing being enabled in built games as it is now. This software is single core does it surprise you that its maxing out when building levels. the models and textures are higher poly and higher resolution With LOD and shaders enabled in edit mode this increases greatly the chances of running out of space when building. Again I am not referring solely to test level.



TBH I don't expect WYSIWYG throughout development and don't know that any game engine provides full graphics while building, I can turn shaders on occasionally to view it even it lags at this time, I expect my game to run full steam at build and not in test.

Which is the real purpose in being able to turn off shaders, sadly this seems to be viewed as final result not editing and testing. I don't need full shaders to test a script and as I say only occasionally to view my designs before completion.

It would reduce the amount of memory being used while in the editor so you can place more objects/characters without peaking the limit.



Least I would assume? I'm not sure if Reloaded is trying to predict the overall memory that would be used when testing the game, or if its totaling the amount of memory being used on your current map based on what resources are available.



I think we can all easily agree on that the core of the engine needs some serious work though.

Sink. or was that a rhetorical question?



I think I'll just take a six month break and come back to see how things worked out. I've already complained and said too much.



Brian.

An Idea About the Editor:

How about the ability to turn the textures off and just flat shade the models or edit in wireframe. I don't need the complete model. A silhouette/shape mode might help. Toggle between different modes maybe. I kinda like the edit in test mode. It makes editing the terrain much easier. Not so good for placement of entities yet but works great for clean up when you sprayed too many trees Great for looking at your scene from a wide angle. Helps you see what can go and what needs to stay and where you need to put your landmarks. A compromise between modes can be found somewhere. But above all find and FIX the memory leaks. A level that refuses to run..... I can save it, close everything, reboot my oc then reload it and it runs good. And I am able to add more things. For a little while at least. It seems to be cumulative. The longer it runs the worse it gets.



The Entity/Memory Cap:

I really haven't hit it yet. (Refer to statement above.)

Many others would disagree but that's with most collisions turned off or reduced by using limb collision on a dummy object. I cannot say anything about models with animation and use of scripts and physics yet, I really haven't tried. Because to me, if you can't build the scene, why are you worrying about animation/AI/scripts/tons of "Smart" enemies/etc. etc. etc. All those things are of course needed but...

You MUST be able to build a scene to put all the other stuff INTO.



The multitude of other issue mention about beta 5:

Cannot comment. Didn't even install it.



Artist's concerns:

As a last generation modeler trying to bring his art into the next generation, I agree with rolfy and I am also hesitant to make assets available and have concerns in this area as well. But at the same time I know that whatever you come up with to secure anything, it can always be cracked, hacked, jacked etc. So I all I can say I guess, is that ultimately, in the end, this will be up to the modeler him or herself whether the asset becomes available or not. Someone please enlighten me if this is not so.



To me the bottom line is no performance. No engine. Maybe there truly is not much more to be found, but the way I see it, "It's all "machine code" in the end. If DBP can't do It maybe DGDK can? No coding skills so no clue there but you Gotta try something cause it's not working.



edit

Overall:

I Love the idea and concept of Reloaded. There is a way.

Hi all,



The storm clouds are still over Reloaded (and the UK) and you all need to know things will get better. Well all I can say for now is that we will deal with the issues and we will make the engine work for you. The last Beta has done us no favours but it has highlighted issues we have to focus on and fix. We will not shy away from the work required.



The older FPSC went through similar development phases, it didn't just work on release, it had to be updated many times.



The other key thing to remember is that one small issue can affect the whole engine. So put that issue right and the product improves ten fold.



Even smaller developments have moments like this.



Please trust us and give us time. We will prevail.



Lee can give you his perspective soon too.



Rick

We all should expect little hiccups like this from time to time, after all this is software development so not everything is going to work the first time. I know, I have been in the same situation when I worked in development.



But we all know that this is essentially Beta testing, so all we need to do is keep FPSCR informed of when things don't fly and they will fix them.



I am a keen supporter of this software and can't wait to see what they will be able to do, after all we have seen the software develop quite quickly so far already.



It is a shame that this beta has quite a few problems, I personally have gone back to working with Beta 4 as for some reason I can't get it to stop flickering on my screen (which is very annoying) but this does not make me lose faith in the product in fact I am sure that everything will be ok as soon as they are able to get back to work on it.



Great work by the way.

perhaps we should look at this software as an alpha rather than a beta?, I think some negative thoughts from some are based on this, maybe some people have a set idea of what a beta should be like and not understand this is very early software, especially steam users who are used to early access games and software at beta level working alittle better than what reloaded is working at right now?. I personnel thought it abit early for a steam release even though I voted for it on steam to help reloaded, perhaps it should of been held off till it was a better functioning beta engine or labelled as an alpha project instead??.

If it went anywhere near steam at this point it would destroy fpsc reloaded and any other projects down the line steam users are ruthless and would demand there money back that i can grantee

yep, I agree, I often use green light softwares and read the forums there, its very true they are demanding of a product once released even in alphas it seems.

And you know why that is... because none of them have any idea the amount of work that goes into projects of that size and the commitment made by all involved. If they had any idea they would not complain about an alpha development. But it will always be the way unless the users have tried themselves they won't quite understand.

I'm quite shocked at the response to the latest beta. It's not as bad as people seem to make out. Yes, there are issues, it's a beta after all. Memory issues are a problem, and I can't see them being resolved any time soon without a major rework of the engine. Still, the engine was developed by TGC and can easily be updated by TGC. I see no reason why people are worried things need to be started over, it is simply not the case. Things will improve, give them a chance!



New features should not impact the engine at all. They may cause oddness when first implemented, but that is the joy (or not) of programming! I personally have found 1.5 to be faster in general, having slight (well massive) slowdown issues when say, inside an object, but that is just something to be expected in beta. Anyone who says a feature here and there, shouldn't cause something else not to work, obviously has not spent much time coding! It happens! It's normally something silly, but when in development you can miss things!



Anyway, I just wanted to say the current beta is NOT as bad as some seem to think. We are all just impatient gits! I for one am pleased with the new update as far as it goes. It could have been better, but then again it could have been worse! Generally, it seems faster and we will just have to wait for an update to make it more useable!



I have purchased a few alphas off Steam, They are released well before they are ready but no-one seems to complain much. Space Base DF9, Project Zomboid, Godus, Towns and Prison Architect to name a few I have tried. Believe me the updates for Reloaded are way more frequent than any of them! I still see their potential, with the possible exception of Godus, to be great games. Peter Molyneux, what are you DOING?



I wish TGC all the best in getting Reloaded into a better state that pleases more peeps!

Frankly I find this incredibly patronizing, I am not completely ignorant.



The problem here is that any real performance increase so far has been by removing shaders and 'flat' terrain, the very features that sell Reloaded in the first place. If you have poor performance from the get go then I don't need to be a coder to know that it's not going to get better later on without looking at the language it's written in.



What do you suggest we test these beta's for...eye candy? You might be getting along fine with it but even at that you yourself say it has issues. Why if you state issues it's alright but if everyone else does its 'complaining'? Worse, complaining out of ignorance.

My point to this thread is the loss of users who will abandon it. Since the software is aimed at non coders, then what do you expect the reaction to be? If you think this is complaining rather than pointing out issues then you miss the point of it being beta yourself. Maybe some of us could find a better way of putting our point across but this project has been in development for a while now with no real improvement where it counts, it's not the users to blame when they are hyped up by news of what to expect in next beta then find it's still running like treacle. The alpha worked better than this version but still those issues pointed out by Gold pledgers then didn't seem to be addressed, instead it just got worse.



Beta 1.005 was rushed out the door prematurely, it obviously hadn't been tested properly before release. Performance has been bad from the outset and added features are not to blame for this they just make it more obvious, so features aren't the problem here for me, the way they have been given a priority over the core engine is a frustration though.



The why's of it make no difference and the assumption that none of them know what's involved is way off the mark....if you don't deliver then don't blame the customer and I wont apply these comments to users around here though the implication is certainly there. If it were issued free for EA Beta testing I could see the point, but people are parting with hard earned cash up front here. And the most basic fundamental part, a working engine with good performance, is not in place, everything else is merely decoration.



Would just like to point out one thing here, no I am not a coder, eye candy is my business, so my 'complaining' about performance is actually deeper than you think. It is not in my interests to lose a user base.

I have to say that we all do understand the approach that Reloaded is in Beta.



Beta releases that TGC ask users to test and comment on and that's what they do. If they say it has issues then it has issues "as far as they see it" rightly or wrongly. Whatever its pledgers and users that matter and perhaps eventually game players too. If they give bad feedback again rightly or wrongly. Its their opinion and all are entitled to and will make it known at these forums or outside of them. It is therefore important to the success of the product that users viewpoints and concerns are listened too if possible and any issues addressed if possible.



Some users may have one opinion others another so but whatever the numbers bad feedback is just not good for the product so meeting users aspirations is the best recipe for success whether they are seen as right or wrong.



Again users can only comment on what they have to date and how they see things. Thus some are happy enough to consider even when they have themselves to say that the Performance is inadequate that they are happy enough as long as the can walk around that's OK. Some don't expect too much perhaps and would be happy if they drop frames and move erratically, some wont mind. Some will put up with anything they get as long as they can keep trying to make a game. Some are happy and have the patience, stamina and tolerance to wait and see how Reloaded develops believing it will get better and everything will improve. Some want to make a zombie game and will be happy to shoot a few zombies in a dark level and get a good fright. Others want to make different types of game and have a little game play fun without any blood. Everyone is different and that's fair enough.



There are others users that believe that Reloaded is struggling to find enough efficiency to take the development forward in a manner which will provide the kind of game quality and performance they look towards for the future of a much improved engine over what they have had before. Some think it will just not deliver to expectation and vision either of some users or that of TGC and so wish to bring that opinion to attention of anyone listening.



It has to be said that Reloaded when delivering fps of 12fps for instance thats not changed a great deal since the first beta release albeit having fair enough had to contend with some minor additions to the engine which don't really in and of themselves call the engine to become overburdened, then one could be forgiven in having some little concern that such performance levels which are as low as any I can ever remember in any version of FPSC over ten years except when it has returned 0 and simply refused to work at all - one can find it difficult to see that under current circumstances things can improve enough given the additional high engine burden features that have not yet been added and some which exist that are way under completed and untried or tested.



It would seem to be relative common sense to think that a very major and substantial increase in performance and other areas of a very large order of magnitude will be needed. If such efficiency is not available now with little call to the engines capabilities then why would it be possible later when much more will be added and called to accommodate.



Thus far any efficiencies introduced in an attempt to maintain the current low performance throughout at a level as approx the first Beta has been achieved at the expense at least substantially of end users/game players needs. i.e. by removing/reducing quality or features to a level below expectation and the vision for the product itself. This is the very opposite of the aspiration and vision of users and TGC which calls for higher quality and better features and games all round. Which to call into question the reality of the vision and aspirations may be well too unrealistic.



To be fair here I have understanding of all viewpoints here from different perspectives. However the over riding factor is to date that some users do see a concern perhaps legitimately so that should not be dismissed that despite a lot of time invested in apparent Performance enhancing little or no improvement is shown for many other than by the facility to reduce/turn off or remove quality features and not by improving the core whilst improving performance significantly and additionally maintaining high game visual quality and content levels to a level expected by users and game players now or particularly looking to the future of your game making endeavors when surely the quality bar and expectancy for your deployment will be even greater.



If you look at that then the performance fails and has failed to date severely to provide promise or indicate in any meaningful way that this is likely to be an issue that can be seriously and significantly affected to make the large gains which at least some users see as being a pre-requisite to the core engine which will allow them to develop games to the quality standards they aspire to.



I have said this before and see some relevance myself which may not be embraced by others and that is in no way is a top level performance level fps feedback any judgement of value. It does not matter at all if you have and can maintain 200fps no one is worried about that. Its the low fps that matters. If you cannot maintain permanently without variation below that and lets be sensible about it 25fps minimum - 30fps minimum ideally at any time in your game play then that is unacceptable. If it falls below that ever then its unacceptable. 25fps say minimum everywhere constantly during gameplay at full high quality and why should you not be able to do that? Your game players will expect at least that kind of return and smooth gameplay at high quality. 25fps is not asking for something other than what is acceptable fps speeds to human beings so they can enjoy the game play experience at high quality. High quality means reasonable or acceptable will do. Currently neither the fps nor low quality settings many need to employ to maintain them are acceptable. There is therefore some justification for some concern I would say quite legitimately.



Personally I cannot say what performance levels others get or what those with very high end systems get. Only what I can see here. It seems that quite a range of users are not seeing the performance levels they would like and have some concern that these can be maintained ongoing. It is too as far as I am aware some concern that no matter how advanced and powerful the hardware used it may not be enough to make enough difference due to old core technologies being something of a bottleneck perhaps in not being able to make full use of any amount of power you throw at it. As I don't have such a TOP end range hardware system I cannot comment but it seems to me the logic would hold good.



i.e. the future is unknown and until we get there we wont know so now is all we have to comment upon.



Everyone can comment at any time during development but we have to wait and see what actually transpires.



We are told that concerns are unfounded so we have to accept that and bear with TGC. TGC will I am sure do the best they can.



P.S. I seem to be the only human being active at these forums again. Hope that picks up and improves soon too.

I'm alive i have just ran out of things to say, im feeling rather let down with all the comment's about how people feel me being one of them i don't feel there is proper direction and no feed back. From all the comments no one is on telling us ok guys look this is A and this is B it is only hurting the product even more. I have said over and over we need more feed back and communication on hear from the team questions need answers .

I don't know, call me silly. But this is the only Beta (or Alpha, really) that I've fired up, after uninstalling the old one, and can't get to work properly (ie., go to build test game, and get a black screen every time). I've heard people talking about deleting bin files, etc. I don't think I should have to delete any files. Uninstalling should take care of that. I didn't have this issue with previous versions of the Beta/Alpha; why is it happening this time?



If I can't get it to work correctly, at a fundamental level, it's a 100% fail for me. I'm not an impatient "git"; in fact, I'd be perfectly fine with just hanging it all up and letting them send me an email when it goes gold. I was under the impression that TGC wanted our help sorting out issues though...perhaps I was mistaken.

Life preserver. And I'm never rhetorical.







Will not be just you, considering the user base I would guess over half would feel the same way.







There are many apps that do the same thing- you uninstall and there are residual files (folders) you have to manually delete. I myself like to ensure any software we push out does uninstall completely to make easy for the user. There is obviously something getting overlooked if the uninstall routine is not cleaning it out properly.







Probably because you are attempting to use it on your holidays...











If there is anyone I would value for their opinion, Rolfy would be it. He might make skyboxes and terrain, exploding walls, and a few demon characters (I know you do a lot more than that), but I have learned over the years knowing him that he knows this engine and the field very well. I have to agree with his assessment, as well as Uman's.



As I was reading this thread, it was a "deja vu" moment all over again, like we've been...here...before... <queue the Twilight Zone music>

In the case of X10, as far as I can tell there were no public alphas/betas released before the product was launched. There were just some general discussions and wish lists in the forums in the months leading up to it and presumably only a few internal testers, with Rick sharing teaser videos and screenshots every so often. I think having more direct user feedback by releasing betas like this is much more logical--at least then all serious issues will be known beforehand and hopefully TGC can correct them.

I would not worry too much about the feedback affect on Reloaded. That can only be a good thing in the long run bringing things out in the open to attention. Transparency is good. Its up front and thus one can follow progress and then see later when such things are being corrected or not. Either way they will be or not.



If there are issues its best to have users find them, bring them up and fix them and better that than deny or try and brush over them and sell the product to people who don't know they exist only to find out they do. That's the worst thing of all to do as it will come back round to bite sooner or later. Earlier versions like classic suffered from some things somewhat and you can see the legacy of that haunts us even now. Thus Reloaded should be a little different.



Everyone here and in the wider world understands its in development and in Beta. They expect some issues and difficulties along the way.



I can understand that some things in development may need to be included in a basic form at an early stage like enemies for obvious and reasons unknown to us, commercial or other, whereas you could otherwise leave them until later. It may be necessary to have them early so say you can test the impact of two large important components early on combined and any affects or issues they bring up. You may need to share or adjust resources or redesign or and something to accommodate them and so on. Of course some things also help make the product look good in screen shots and things and that may be helpful in attracting more pledgers early on when needed. Fair enough.



At the end of the day those that have already pledged and some quite some time ago perhaps legitimately so might expect that following progress of releases that each would be better than the last by and large barring any new or minor issues and not show stoppers. Don't always work like that I know. However in general that what would be expected and so what seems to have not quite have been managed too well is the quality of control along the way. I am not quite sure how anyone for example could possibly miss the issues with enemy Character behaviours as being in need of attention and continually release more of the same. The same issues with them still appear since the first release. Again I understand that AI is not yet being looked at. You might as well then have left them out until the engine was in a condition to insert AI in earnest and avoid ongoing releases with the same issues unless you will address them as you go.



I digress now and not sure why I repeat things endlessly. Time to go.



Whatever there are issues or not as they may be seen by different people. Users and there comments are all helpful so they can be taken into account or at least considered. Releasing Alpha or Beta Versions to pledgers is a good thing as you cant avoid them getting hold of the product at some stage and better sooner rather than later when they will surely find issues to be confronted. The good thing about them doing so is that they can be found early and addressed if that is seen as being required to be done. The frustration of users comes from them finding them but them not being addressed from one release to another and so more and more become apparent as time goes on.



For many users improvement does not necessarily mean more features unless they can be integrated with some level of completeness and or stability and not make things worse, but improving what already exists of some importance to them and Yes then with something new added along the way of making a stable forward progress.



All easier said than done agreed.



New year so we will see some more progress onwards.

Anyone who says a feature here and there, shouldn't cause something else not to work, obviously has not spent much time coding!



Frankly I find this incredibly patronizing, I am not completely ignorant.



I didn't say you were. However you did say.



Which is not entirely true. If the engine is struggling (which it has from day one), adding in features could cause it to slowdown, even if the feature is fine. Let's face it, each entity we add is technically a new feature for the game, and each one of those slowly, slow it down.



I can only judge this update by how it runs on my system. I have not noticed any noticeable slowdown in it (From prior versions, obviously I can get it to slow down)), in fact the opposite is the case. This may not be the case for everyone, and it seems as if it is a bit of a mixed shop at the moment. It's definitely not as stable as the last major update, and can crash more often, but speed is as good if not better than the last update.



I'm not saying you can't report issues you find, that is the point of being in a beta! I'm not saying you, or anyone else are complaining either. I certainly don't intend to be patronizing at all, I was just stating a fact of coding. Adding in new features can invariably break things, or simply help highlight an existing problem. I agree it needed more testing, but they ran out of time, no doubt if they had turned around and said they couldn't release it because it was not ready, it would have spawned posts about that instead!



I also agree with you that the build feature is not really needed at the moment. Perhaps it is interesting for test purposes on different machines, which can only be a good thing, but beyond that, no you wouldn't be trying to show anything much off as yet. I also agree with the media thing. I was thinking of releasing a demo of one of the levels I made for a video. However, I used a lot of media from model packs, and I would hate to distribute them to people who would then rip them out of the game. It's not really fair to the artists who sell them, or to the people who buy them. Indeed, this very fact has stopped me from releasing demos I made in the original FPSC. It only seems to copy DBO files over to the full game, but obviously they are quite useable in FPSC, or DB.



Anyway, I never mean to offend anyone on these or any forums. If I have done so, I apologise. I just wanted to say that this release is getting a real panning at the moment, and really I don't think it is that bad. It certainly needs to improve of course, but it has some good as well as bad!



The issue with deleting BIN and DBO files is nothing to do with an unistall by the way. Those files are part of the media you then copy in. If Reloaded sees these files in the folders for each object, it leaves them alone. If you delete them it rebuilds the models, and creates new BIN and DBO files. With Reloaded changing fundamentally in how it handles objects this is needed. Any models with old BIN files may not work. Again, I am only trying to help here, not lecture you on what is happening behind the scenes. I believe someone wrote a little batch file that can do it all in one fell swoop for you. Fair enough Reloaded could do that itself possibly at some point, or a more refined way to check to avoid real slow loading times.



Oh the "We are all impatient gits!" was an attempt at humor, I included myself in that statement. I meant no malice at all. Still, I hold to it. I really think we are all guilty of being impatient for faster and more progress as time wears on. It's only human and to be expected!

The features are as irrelevant as the last beta.



The problem is that after more than a year in development, the only way to get a decent FPS is to look at the sky. I'm really sorry for those who are hoping beyond hope, but the next beta is not likely to fix what has not been possible for the last year.



Disclaimer: If I'm wrong and a miracle happens that makes the next beta run like a scalded dog, pretend I said something completely different.



Brian.

This is patronizing, whatever else you say. Without including this your attempt at smoothing things over would have been acceptable.



Apart from contradicting yourself.

I said:



You said:



Are we not saying the same thing here.



If it's so obvious to you perhaps you could elaborate in a little detail as to how this could all be fixed. I know you are referring originally to workflow on the project in a coding sense but there is a lot more to it than that, and I would love to hear from coders around here what they think. If we are getting wires crossed here then fair enough but take care how you present your argument.

I don't want to hark on a theme anymore and if users around here are feeling let down and struggling with the same issues since day one then they are entitled to speak their mind without put downs from those who feel they have some kind of insight. Call me impatient if you want but don't patronize me. Explain to me why I am wrong and I will take it better.



The word I get from respected programmers who know FPSC inside out is that Reloaded will require a beast of a machine and that been since the start, maybe you know better and I am always open to other opinions.

What? I can't quote what was said before to clarify what I am responding to?



I apologised. If you can't accept, then that is your issue. I really don't want to cause bad feeling. We all have our opinions and are free to express them here. This is a long thread and I have read through all the posts before I add my thoughts, so I am just responding to the overall thread, not individual posts.



I felt that people (in general) are getting too hung up on the fact this is created in DB Pro. DB Pro was created by TGC, in C++, there is nothing to stop them updating things as needed to improve DB's core. Lee has even said he can resort to assembly in parts, if needs be to improve speed. We will have to see on this front.



If the speed is still terrible after another 3 months, then I will become more concerned. I've been a loyal TGC user since before 2000, and realize that were not going to get the fastest engine out there from experience. Still I think it will improve a lot in the coming months.

Who said any thing about quotes? No idea what you are talking about now.



If this is so then why hasn't it been done by now, why are we seeing removal of features to improve speed? Why would you get hung up on how others think around here and make it your job to sort this out? You may not have noticed it but you are in a majority of one who is happy with things as they are.



I need it explained to me how everything you state is as you say, I think you are talking for Lee here but you don't really have a clue just guesses which you present as facts.



Another quote for you:

Why should I listen to you and not those who do have extensive knowledge of programming in C++ and DBP itself. I haven't heard either way it would be possible, the question is why it wasn't done in the first place if it is.



Till Lee himself comes right out and say's why he hasn't tackled the things you speak of I reckon we are done with it.

Time to chill guys .



Dave

Agreed we just need and step back and await lee's return but when he does come back i would like to see him on the forum more answering questions giving a little support now and then.

When does Lee return?

Wednesday I beleive

As this topic is for us share some thoughts, i would like to share mine also.



First of all, i agree totally with Rolfy, because he is one of the oldest FPSC users, who knows FPSC from since it`s beginning, and have showed us too many cool things which can be done with FPSC, whilst people thought it would be impossible.



Also i feel towards him a lot of respect and i admire his work in FPSC, because he also helped me too much, gave me a lot of tips and so on.



Like him, i also love FPSC, also because it was my first tool in the game creation world.



However, some of the weak points and limitations of FPSC Classic are the Polygon Collision issues (especially when importing custom meshes to design a level instead of using segments), the Enemies A.I and the overall performance.



Whenever i knew that the Bullet Physics Engine was integrated in FPSCR i became happy and thought that now all the problems were gone.



However, from the betas, there is still a lot of bugs and also collision problems.



And i heard that the enemies in FPSCR would be very smart, would even decide new routes to attack the player, cover, go down and upstairs, and so on. The animations Bond1 have made are perfect, however the integration in the engine was not that cool. The enemies are very dumb and stupid at the moment, i mean, that not everything was shown to us in the teaser videos is getting done in the betas.



I sadly say that if the FPSCR product stay with these bugs and lack of stability, i will try another engine, also because i would have to learn LUA Script from beginning, so if i will need to learn something new, i can learn a new engine.



Sorry, i love FPSC, i am not understimating TGC folks, however, this is my feelings toward FPSCR at this moment.

To be honest, I think Rolfy is taking this way too personal, not the first time I've seen it on these forums.

Here.





In your own words, if I hadn't included that quote, apparently all would be forgiven. All I did was the same you have done on every post you have aimed at me.



I am not going to say any more. I have programmed since the days of the ZX Spectrum, I've used DB and DB Pro extensively. AGK has been my main toy for the last year or 2, and Reloaded is again a bit of fun to play with. I know a bit about coding. I'm not a master, and don't claim to be.



I'm not sure what it is I am supposedly claiming here. I have stated my opinions and hopes that is all.



Lastly, you don't have to listen to me. Just because I don't code in C++, doesn't mean I have no understanding of it. If you have coded long enough, any language is fairly readable. It's all the same principles. And no I am not being patronizing I am stating a fact, unlike your last 2 posts , which frankly have been aggressive and rude. You accused me of patronizing you, and yet you do it constantly in your replies to me.



I could be wrong in prior statements, Lee may be at the point where no performance is left to be had. In which case we have all wasted our money.



As to why hasn't the engine been optimized if they are able to go into lower level programming? I don't know, I am not programming it. I am just saying that it is possible to do. They have stated this in either blogs or interviews. Perhaps you think Lee and Rick are lying their heads off.



Anyway I'm not bothering to read this post again, I have started to become personally angry at this point and so, will avoid looking at all now. I saw how Lee reacted to bad mouthing posts before he left, and I have to agree I see his point. He posted practically nothing, and there were more responses than ever to his blog.

He started it officer...! So...now following posts are as rude as your own?



Frankly Lee has reacted really well to anything said around here, I have no more idea than anyone else what he thinks privately, though you seem to have some more insight than us.





I will just ignore this assumption, why even say it?



You are just as guilty as I am of keeping this going, so you don't have exclusive rights on angry.



I don't actually disagree with any of your opinions, well maybe I do.....but that's irrelevant.



You'll get over it, or you won't...truthfully, I hope you do.

Unfortunately despite all of the words anyone at all can write in our deliberations and its good that all concerned can have the opportunity and use it he only thing that is for sure is the Product and that at any stage in time.



What it could be, might be, is possible to be, can potentially be accounts for little as do the deliberations.



Reloaded has and will have to stand on its own and be accounted for in reality.



For some it will fit the bill, for others perhaps not all in unknown numbers which may affect its success or not as yet another unknown other than any stage at any time. Thats all one can have to consider.



At the end of the day whatever users think, want, suggest, request, comment and so on its down to TGC alone to develop the product and they bear the responsibility for the product success or not and which of those users it will fit the bill for or not and how many. It will be what TGC make of it and there is little we can do about it.



There are many kinds of users who aspire to different things and so results, opinions and satisfactions may be widely varied. Again those numbers may be unknown but do and will matter both short and long term.



You could say that Reloaded can already make a game and that would be true would it not? so you might say then whats the big deal? Well we wont go there as its too big a debate all over again that has existed well forever when it comes to indie engines at this level, eh!



The end result is as said at the end of the day down to TGC. Technologies used, click and play engine, programmers engine, features, quality and so on. All out of users hands. This is not pledgers or users choice in the final analysis at all. TGC make all decisions and Reloaded is and will become what they make of it.



The users really should not and I am sure do not have to assist TGC in this at all but it may be helpful. That decision too is down to TGC at the end of the day.



Opening up for users to comment and potentially give feedback which may help influence the shape of the product as seen as being suitable to indies needs from their perspective can be helpful in as much as - well its end users who will use it and despite the fact that such feedback is not universally agreed in total does not mean its not valuable or valid anywhere along the line.



If nothing else it does provide an actual indie developers viewpoint overall which as I have said personally many times is not necessarily the same in its objectives as a game engine developers in the detail at least, however one point all should be able to agree on is that success for a product is required by all if they are to remain happy chappies.



TGC have priorities of their own commercially - and they also may have a different viewpoint to indie users overall as to some of the actual products development and end deliverable and potential and purposes.



TGC run a business - they do not necessarily see the same priorities as indie developers anywhere along the line or agree with them at all.



Thus we have not only a wide range of users which may not agree but also developers with whom some conflict of interests and opinion may exist and I am sure it does. Finding then a workable solution and end product solution was always going to be difficult. All notwithstanding any other obvious real world constraints, risks and checks and balances and so on to contend with.



Challenges to any project exist and how they are dealt with and overcome or not is how success is achieved or not.



All of that is still somewhat irrelevant at the end of the day. Down the road outside of those of us caught up in the mix and perhaps unduely influenced by the personal involvement - many of those at least that look at the product and consider it as a tool overall will be much like many already here and me myself perhaps.....



If you want to make something and need a tool to do it - it does not matter to me at least in this instance of Game Engine specific product what technologies it uses in the past, now or in the future. No one really cares how its made or what its made with - who cares? No one cares what problems there are a for a manufacturer making something - game engine or anything else (well apart from we have friends here of course) though there may be associated other concerns relating to some in the world. Wont go there either.



Bottom line is a product either does what you want or not - how the product maker achieves and or delivers that no one cares. Thats the harsh reality.



We can only do so much the rest is down to TGC and Reloaded to deliver the desired end result, of course the irony of it is no one can probably agree on that either!



Ah well as I keep saying - next beta please

I made it a point to get back on the PC this evening to go through the forum posts. That was 8PM and it's now 11:30PM Boy can you guys post! You could post for England (as we say in England). I happen to know both ROLFY and DVADER are excellent people and highly creative guys, and it's clear that I am ultimately responsible for the rift here. It's fair to say that I could communicate a lot more here and fill in the gaps about where we are now and where we are going next. I'll see what I can do about this and let me know if I am still an absentee landlord a month from now.



I started writing notes to reply to this post, but it became clear my own post would be insanely huge, so I recommend you first have a scan around my other forum posts from this evening and if you need any direct answers, please post again and I'll try to help during the week (or email me directly if it's urgent).



Speaking to the development so far, I might be hideously deluded but I am quite pleased with the coding and overall progress done in 2013. Of course hindsight is always 20-20, and if I knew then what I knew now I would be much further along. I would not have bothered writing a real-time light mapper, an instance stamp system for segments, several terrain prototypes which ultimately got replaced with Blitz Terrain, a super huge AI state machine that failed to deliver even the simplest of convincing enemy behaviors, an instance stamp system that saves an incredible amount of memory but hits performance too hard and a series of over 30 small prototypes that could have been coded directly into the engine using my new 'integratable prototype method'. Twelve months of work could easily become six, which would have meant six fresh months to work on more performance, memory optimization, stability, rounded game play features and refined editing controls.



I don't beat myself up though. I used to work in a factory, pealing potatoes, and you pretty much knew how many spuds you could get through in a day. This helped my manager work out how lazy I had been during the week by multiplying my best day by five. That was many decades ago, and I since learned that writing software is very much a research and development process. Almost all of it is disposable, and only the final product is retained. I look at the deformed lumps and maniac creations roaming around the place and appreciate them for the value they provided along the long path to eventual success (or failure). You will be surprised how many expensive R&D projects end in abject and total failure, but are still heralded as a success in terms of the lessons learned. When I write my memoirs, the final line of my book would read 'I did not fail, I just found 1000 ways not to make a game creator'.



I am very excited about 2014, and have a head bursting with ideas on how to improve every aspect of this product, from the things you see and do, right down to the nuts and bolts that run the whole show. With your support and continued prodding, I think we're going to have a very fast, very easy to use and gorgeous looking game creator that will justify your patience and your faith in what are very early days in the life of this project. Thanks to your pledges, we now have several coders working on the product in parallel, which means you should get much more in 2014 than you did in 2013 when it was just me.



As a final note before I finish this little post. Until further notice, when you read about a new feature or 'thing' that gets added to Reloaded, assume that I am not the person doing the coding. My current role is core feature coding and overall optimizations ONLY, which ensures that the foundation of the engine is being worked on first and foremost. Look upon these additional modules and features as bonus items you get as part of your pledge, allowing you to create more things for your level while I work on making your game faster, more efficient and utterly world-proof.



It's now 12:15 which puts this reply at 45 minutes in length and me past my bedtime. I still have a few outstanding forum posts to read and reply to, then I am off to get some sleep for another full day of coding on Tuesday. I have posted my current internal development list in another thread and my blog post for Monday so if you want a glimpse of what I might be coding, check it out and enjoy the read: http://fpscreloaded.blogspot.co.uk/

Welcome back Lee hope you enjoyed the short break.



I must say I enjoyed reading your post above. Almost as long as mine!

I'll be honest I actually thought that was you for a second there Uman lol



@Lee I'm sure there have been a lot of back-and-forth priority conversations that occur, that sometimes detail the key issues. Nobody to really blame for that as we are trying to appease to a very diverse audience and uphold the list of promised features for engine.



There's the group that want to see new things added and beg for use to move beyond the performance focus. Then there's the group that want the focus strictly on performance.



I'm a mix of both.



I like that tasks have been split up now so you can work on things while a few others work on some additional features. Though I do understand regardless of what new features are worked on externally it will still take time away for you to add them in.



I think I personally could become quite bored of the engine if each new build looks the same as the previous, even if I manage to gain a bit more frames-per-second each time, or small memory cap pushes here and there. Though those two issues have been the biggest issues we have faced.



Making more distant release dates is a good idea to ensure the next build is bug free and performances decently.



I do think however there should be a quick build to address the "show-stopper" issues we have faced since the last release. Freezes, crashes, black screens and the inability to use the engine. I have been thankful to not have these issues but looking over the forums it seems common.

Personally I have not had a priority since say the Feature Voting list was introduced as by that time I had expected that the core would have been stable ready to accept any additional features.



Initially I would have expected the core to be ready and prepared for those additional features. i.e. as an FP Shooter engine in the vein of incorporating a level of outdoors described by TGC in addition as open world which perhaps is over enthusiastic. Outdoors nevertheless and including Player and enemies as a basic necessity. Nothing else would have been expected early on so at the time of thinking about the actual incorporation of more features as opposed to the separate development not yet necessarily plugged in to the main engine at that stage then one would have expected the engine to be prepared to accept the additional features as they are developed and ready to be incorporated. As such I think the order of them appearing accepting the core would be in place would not be an issues thereafter. i.e. as TGC or the users decide.



The point here being that that had not happened in the opinion of many users who see the same core issues existing, indeed since it has come to light that apparently that factors unknown or unexpected earlier have or had come into play for consideration.



Apparent now is that there is additional to earlier performance concerns also existing a memory issue or limit and object limit which perhaps are necessary to try and circumvent the mem and performance issues and improve end users performance and fps by imposing either by intention or otherwise restrictions on users and their game making efforts. I know not the answer to that.



Anyway the fact still exists that without a better more efficient core currently apparently limits (varying I guess by all kinds of things known and yet perhaps unknown) are going to be reached early on in development and or users game making endeavors somewhere along the line. Not likely they will easily go away or be incorporated and improved perhaps given more features and undoubted pressure on the engine to add and come along.



If you take the object limit. FPSC had one - it was effectively removed at one time at least as it was internally imposed. This in much smaller potential levels than you have now and returning much faster performance at least eventually. In fact I never personally really found an issue with any number of objects being added or reached a limit once the internal hard coded limit restriction was removed. I had exceeded over 1024 separate entity objects when I stopped counting and never encountered the restriction ever again. Perhaps if I had added more then I would have. Numbers of entities can increase quite dramatically and its sometimes not easily realised how many there actually are until one actually starts counting them individually. I know that I could certainly have added a lot more before my game or single level even would have been considered by myself to have enough of them and be complete. Some games and levels may need few and some many more I guess depending on what your game is all about.



At the moment the limit seems to be an issue for many when their levels are not reaching the level of detail and number/quantity of entities/objects they need or would need so is clearly an issue of a core matter that needs attention along with the other core issues we have been considering.



These objects limits may I guess impact on a number of them and vice versa as its all tied up in the web of the core where many things rely one upon the other all of which must work in association with one and the other in balance. A bottleneck or inbalance does cause knock on effects somewhere which come to light recently.



I have no idea how all of that is or if indeed it can be improved or by how much or how new and additional features will, may or may not impact other than by applying common sense or simple logic at the moment.



I have attached a screen shot where I stand on a hill top so we can see as much as possible. You can see the scattering of entities. True there are more in the level a than you can see here - about twice as many or even more perhaps due to the fact that they are scattered around the level as a whole and not combined in a group density in one location. From the scene I don't think you could say we have enough to make it plausable. Its OK as a baseline but could be vastly better given the resources availability. This scene may not need many such entities but similar scenes typical of outdoors in similar locations of wilderness (or in doors too perhaps) could ideally need thousands more. Ice, open moorland or desert levels may not need many - on the other hand a jungle or forest or even a modern city might well do so and in that case both outdoors and indoors.



Take a look at the screen shot. How many more entities I could possibly add I am not sure. Certainly I could add some until my object limit bar is completely maxed out before the engine crashes or refuses to add any more, however adding more reduces my performance and fps which is at the moment way to low to make further additional level building possible. I am therefore jammed in between that rock and hard place and nowhere to go Whatever I do would result in a show stopper either way and or all ways. Combined all of these restrictions make it impossible to proceed.



I am not sure if Reloaded is actually using instancing and objects are all singular as the engine sees them, or if they are copies, instances, clones or whatever and if there is any benefits being reached from any such replicated objects. I am not sure if LOD and Dark Imposters are additional or replacing such as an alternative perhaps more or less efficiently if that's what they are. Nether do I know if the engine is actually culling anything Terrain, world objects, entities not in direct camera view and hidden to view by objects that are. No idea personally if occlusion is introduced, integrated or not or if indeed it would make any difference at all in any case. No idea if anything else either introduced, replaced, updated or changed would either to be honest myself. Sorry.



I have no idea if improvements can be made and TGC will be working best they can to that end and others I am sure.



I have no objections to adding features and never have of any nature and in any particular order - once the core FP Shooter ones are in place of course and adequately performing so that other features can be added in support of those core FP Shooter ones.



Disregarding core engine build i.e. the engine itself. Then we already have the main features of an FP Shooter in place so they should be improved and updated so that they stand at an acceptable level for that which Reloaded is envisaged to be expected to deliver - before adding anything else. At least to a level that is a basic minimum for the product aspiration of place in the market whatever that is seen to be.



Personally I am more than happy to see the Voting feature list followed as per the majority of users wishes given those core FP Shooter features are completed to a reasonable standard. As said apart from the actual core which is beyond any further debate in any detail - either it gets improved or not then the only actual feature that matters is AI enemy characters so the player and enemies can interact in a satisfactory manner at a level of choice of TGC I guess if that's not already in place.



You can not make an FP Shooter without the Player and Enemies/weapons behaving and interacting in said manner so best get that done whilst the other things are being worked on ready to go.



If the Construction Kit say comes along first fine. I don't really have any preference as everything has to be done eventually. If it does then I will use it to add Constructions if the engine will allow and still let me use it performance wise and so on without my grinding to a halt or reducing current gameplay performance. No worries.



I don't have any enemies in a level at the moment as they are not of a standard I can use so I will just make levels without characters using whatever is possible and available and be done with it. It won't be an FP Shooter however for me.



If the performance is not improved then I just wont be able to use it at all other than as now and that's just having a look and testing. That's fine by me as that's exactly where I am and have been for many years.



Anyway again as always awaiting the next Beta!

Very nice screenshot there by the way Uman