Id like to propose that TGC set up time lines and details. This would give their backers a better look into the products development they are financially backing and is general standard practice in the business world. If posted publicly on the site, may also increase backer subscriptions as they would feel better informed and more comfortable about putting their money in to the program.

Here is a sample I used in my business and be set up as a template for future use.







In the current state of progression, we have seen by user input several areas of requests for the FPSCR product and have set up a time line for the following changes.



(Main area of change) Description. IE: LUA, Stability, Performance or AI's

(Secondary area of change) Description IE. Models, Packs, Weapons ect. ect. ect.

(Third area of change) Description

(Fourth area of change)Derscription

(Testing) Testing will be done in this time frame to ensure that all changes work and function as planned.



(Potential changes) Include areas that may be added to the current build that may or may not make it into the next release.



(Expected release date) Stating a goal date of release will keep users informed and keep the team working towards the goal.



When I have presented a client with a time line, they felt they would know what was going to occur that day or week and typically left me alone to get my tasks done which often times allowed me to get even more done and the job completed ahead of schedule. Granted this isnt something that will ever see completion as every engine will always see improvments and changes.

I myself feel left in the dark about what is coming in each update as only the focus is stated. I dont know what else I can expect to see and what those changes will do with in the engine and how it may effect me as an end user.

They won't do this because things can change unexpectedly, take the ConKit for example, they had that planned for the next big thing but now it's been put back to get the AI up to scratch.



Also "expected" release dates will change and I'm sure TGC don't want members giving them verbal because they didn't stick to the date.

Sure things may change, they always do but thats where they come and say, " we have found this issue and will continue to work on it to resolve the (what ever). This may delay the release by a few days but we are sure the extra days will be well worth the wait. Instead of saying nothing. Its appalling that NOTHING is ever said about what the projected updates include other than their main focus. It resembles many many failed attempts and failed business's.



Id just like to see more information coming forth about builds and updates. Maybe this is beyond their capability? Maybe I expect too much above what they are capable of doing?

This most likely won't happen for the reason Madlad suggested, the timescales change so often and a document like this would be outdated within a few days.



What the community needs to understand is the TGC team is working incredibly hard and have very little time to maintain official lists of what is going on. I know how much time they all put in from working with the team and I can tell you now from seeing the internal documents they have a hell of a lot planned to do (loads of features coming up but some things take longer than others).



Do you want them to devote a member of the team (who could be programming or otherwise helping the development) to managing this list of changes in a public location and changing it every day when timescales are changed?



I know I'd much rather follow Lee's blog and see forums replies from the team rather than have some outdated timescale that will be impossible to be kept to.



Everyone involved in backing this project knew that the engine would be buggy, not feature complete and very much a work in progress. A certain level of complaining/feedback about broken features is to be expected, however I find the patience of a lot of community members very lacking. This is a game engine not some simple flash game they are making, they are slowly rewriting the engine in C++ instead of DBP which will benefit on all fronts but this takes time. If you are expecting an instant Unity clone your not going to get it here, Unity has been around wince 2004 to get where it is now just keep that in mind!

To add to this, I'm always happy to talk to any backer about current progress, and we post weekly news as well as a monthly newsletter.



SC

While I love the idea of timelines and details, I wouldn't think that such a thing would work well in a pledge-led project, if that's a proper term. My hat off to the team for continuing to make it pledge-led. It's got to be a real pain, but I guess it's also necessary when you are financed this way.



I'm also happy to see the recent addition of those assigned to work on the engine, forum, store and site, etc. While I will continue to complain (as in the case of performance) where I feel necessary, the changes and improvements have not gone unnoticed and I think you've been providing enough info and updates so far.



Keep doing what you do.

Brian.

Timelines just lead to disappointments..



I think we are informed and involved pretty well... In fact to be honest Lee gets involved and answers most questions daily ...That's better than most kickstarters I have ever pledged on



V1007 appears its going to be a big jump and then we will have all new questions and things we want added to the new additions

What?



It boggles the mind that they are wasting time reinventing the wheel when they could licence an existing engine and they'll instantly have something world-class for little cost. I mean, for just $19 TGC could get full access to the Unreal Engine 4 source code, and you only have to pay 5% of your gross revenue if you sell the game/product, which is nothing. Why spend months paying programmers to write an inferior (no offense, but it won't compare to something a team like Epic can make) engine supported by only a very small team, when you can licence very cheaply an amazing, next-gen engine? Not only this, but with an engine like UE/UE4/Unity you'd have instant cross-platform support, including consoles. It really makes no sense to write your own engine in this day and age.

A statement like this shows both lack of understanding about what TGC are trying to create, the Unreal engine is super in depth and not easy for beginners. It also shows an in-ability to read the Unreal engine website!



The licence for Unreal Engine is $19 per month to begin with and also it is per user of the system. So each month TGC would have to pay $19 dollars per backer then add in development time to add the easy to use features of FPSCR. then they lose 5% as well.



Yes maybe they could make a deal with Unreal to get a upfront licence but it would not be cheap.



This is not cost effective at all and you would all be backing at a much higher cost.

Thanks for the detailed reply.







A statement like this shows a lack of understanding in the idea of building software on top of an existing engine. Users would not require any understanding of the engine internals; it's the underlying engine, that TGC would build on top of.







Users wouldn't need to pay a monthly fee unless licencing the engine directly. In the case of FPSC-R they'd be using a product built on the engine so the conditions would be different. If not, I'm sure an amicable agreement could be made.







Incorrect. Could you explain why a company would have to pay extra to licence an engine based on the amount of people funding the project?



In any case UE was just an example; there are many excellent engines out there, Unreal Engine, Unity, and CryEngine being the most powerful and cost-effective to use, and many more that are available on a flexible licence.



It'd save a lot of money due to significantly reduced development time, and zero time spent on bug-fixing the core. They'd have to give the 5% but in comparison it's nothing, especially considering the thousands of potential customers that would like an easy-to-use game maker built on a world-class engine.



Really at this point there is no point wasting time (and the backers' money) writing an in-house engine when so many options are available. It's just not cost-effective to do it yourself.



I'd like to hear Lee's opinion on switching to such an engine. I think under these conditions he'd agree that it's a win-win solution for everyone.

How does a thread asking for more communication turn into a debate over building on top of another engine?



The monthly fee is per machine the software is installed on, maybe we could all share a comp...back off it's my turn



Somehow I doubt any of the above would allow a company to build their own game development product on top of their engine and no further license for use, it is after all how they make their own income. It is expected that a company would build upon existing features and make changes to suit an in house development but I don't reckon this includes taking the engine throwing an IDE on top and selling it under a different name as your own game making product.



Yes it can be as low as 19 dollars per month to create with it, but that doesn't include up front license and percentages to release it which in this case would require payment from every individual (you) that used it to create yet another product (game) and released it commercially.



You don't really believe if TGC pay the license then you wont have to when it comes to selling your game using Unity or Unreal engine?

If that was the case then I can see the AAA companies using Reloaded and avoiding the license fees..happy days for all





To answer this question I suggest you contact them with your proposal and see what they say, or even better ask them why their product is so difficult for you to use..demand they make it easier for you and move onto that one..of course you may have to be patient with them while they meet these demands and you wouldn't be seeing it any time soon



There is a definite pattern of hijacking threads with continuing debates which have been already been played out elsewhere.

Using any commercial games engine is going to cost a lot. Any game made from it would require a license fee on our part. Unreal and Crysis Engines both are made in the main to sell as a games engine for game devs, not to repackage as their games dev engine. As Rolfy say's it's highly doubtful you could just build an IDE around it then sell that as a competing product, for way cheaper and no license fee. It makes no sense, everyone would move over to the £70 non license based version of Unreal in that case!



If they were making a game fair enough, but they are making a game engine, a world of difference in my opinion. Your unlikely to see any other games making system as cheap and easy to use as Reloaded. You may feel frustrated as it doesn't perform like those engines, but as always you will have to live it, unless you want to pay that extra and go for another tool. plus of course learning other languages to get it to do anything.



I downloaded Unreal when it first became free to play about with. Incredibly complicated looking, looks powerful with good potential, but just the initial look for 5 to 10 mins was enough to convince me to leave it. You could spend years learning how to use it and still not know half the things it can do. Too complicated, a true professional tool, but for most of us here just too daunting to consider.



I'm fairly happy with Reloaded at the moment. True it definitely needs more speed as yet. More options also, but it is starting to look a fairly solid engine in the latest release. Hopefully 1.7 will don nothing to change that.



Even Games release schedules can be put back many months, and in some cases years. Nobody in the industry took much notice of them, you certainly couldn't rely on them to be even half accurate.

I'd imagine the majority of their income comes from royalties, not the nominal $19/mo they charge for access to the SDK.







No problem; build it as a front-end that still requires the engine to be installed separately.







If anyone plans to create a commercial game (and I have yet to see a successful commercial game out of FPSC) they have to be prepared to licence the software they are using. If it's going to make money then I'm sure you're prepared to put some money up front. The vast majority of games will probably not go commercial though so this isn't much of an arguing point anyway.







I didn't say that. It's obvious anyone using the software would still have to licence the engine if they want to go commercial, but that shouldn't be too much trouble for a business venture.







Any commercial game, yes. Many engines don't require a licence for freeware releases, which is what most of the games will probably be.



Why not combine the ease of FPSC with the power and stability of a world-class engine?

I agree with Imchasinyou, I don't see a problem to have initial goals stated for each build, even if those goals change. I don't care. At least I will know what will be coming somewhere down the pipe. If not in the next build, the build after that, fine. No need to always update list, as I just read Lees blog, easy...



On the off topic: there is no other engine out there like Reloaded. I have used cryEngine, and it's like pulling teeth making games with it: no service, user manuals are outdated and convoluted, and the community seems desperate and left to fend for themselves. The reason I love Reloaded is not just because of the mind-blowing simplicity it offers to create complex games, but the support of the great community. A good community can mean more than the best tech for reaching goals... cheers!

Its this simple....



Unity, Unreal Game Development kit, Leadwerks game studio are all out there....If they are so much better why are you here ?



Reloaded is different in its own right and is very early in development compared to many others...



I have wasted so much money on other game engines that really have no assets, no user friendly interfaces and something like " Get to the river " would take about 3 months to create on most of these other so called superior products..which have just as many issues ( If not more ) than reloaded....



if they are that good ..Go buy them and good luck ...Sorry getting annoyed now..

There has already been one thread that got nowhere on this (and was locked as it was going nowhere) so why start again as has been getting said if you prefer all the other engines then use them most of us here want to use reloaded as its what we want. Also there's no point comparing fully completed engines to one that's still early in development but anyway that's my first and last post on the matter

@ Seditious, your not listening, you are simply assuming your idea is easily implemented without getting any info from the companies concerned. As I suggested you should contact them with this and see what they say. Then come back and present your ideas.

End of discussion! Next thread that turns around like this will result in a ban for the user that caused it. Nothing constructive is being gained here and we have had far too many of these threads.

@Imchasinyou : For what is happening, check out my blog. It's all in there I cannot promise times and deliverables as this never worked out too well in the past, but I can say V1.008 will have a focus on more performance, more LUA commands and more ref