Hi all,

For this reason, I am posting this issue here instead Steam forums.

If I well remember, the FPSC and FPSC X10 Classic had implemented the following features:

- Characters (NPCs) could walk without problems, following a system of waypoints for several stories above the ground.

- They could go up and down stairs, also following waypoints. OK, glitches sometimes happened, but it worked anyway.

- Those programs had a reasonable water system for that time, much more advanced than what we have today with GG.

- Each material (wood, metal, ground, etc.) and characters (male, female, etc.) had a particular sound by default.

- If the bullets hit a specific material, e.g. wood, so was shown a bullet hole for wood, if steel, a bullet hole for metal and so on.

- The system of waypoints worked satisfactorily, including various levels above the ground, but sometimes the characters could remain stopped sliding in place forever.

- Artificial intelligence was not very good, but much better responsive than the one we have today in GG.

- Weapons had a good targeting system

- Lifts and mobile platforms

- Translucent glasses with adjustable transparency

- Breakable glasses, if hit by bullets.

- Barrels and boxes after any explosion were shattered in several parts.

- A static lighting system and dynamic decent

- Various types of switches to activate doors and lamps by default.

The question is: Why after more than two years since the beginning of this project, we do not have all features above implemented in GG, at least the way they worked in the FPSC and FPSC X10 Classic, and without a secure warranty, we are going to get those features listed above, working correctly at medium or long term.

What have happened? Why do people (team) who produced the FPSC and FPSC X10 Classic, have not been able so far to incorporate all the good characteristics previously described successfully in GG?

Now, let's suppose that nowadays, the GG already had all the peculiarities above, working at least as they were working in the FPSC and FPSC X10 Classic, perhaps would be a far better product.

For at the moment, all we can do is only have a sit and waiting for an uncertain future.

Sorry, I know it's not pleasant to anyone to hear criticism, and in advance I apologise if I am being rude or unfair, it's not my purpose.

Sincerely,
Northern

That is because, all the AI, the working waypoints, water was a mod, before it come into the vanilla engine or from a modder. Bit GG is not open source anymore, so you must wait on Lee to finish this.
I think Lee lost his view on this project and should make a break. He just try to make the most responded request true, and that again and again. There is no real plan for the future. If they will set a vote online with a clear structured plan and the forum can vote and then all this will be implemented from the highest request to the lowest, they could make their customer happy.

Actually there is a plan and a list of high, medium and low priorities, features, that the development team works by as well as having monthly meetings, things are discussed either down graded or upgraded or added to the list.

Unfortunately, most of these things that have been done have not been seen by the community as it's things that are done under the hood of the project, which might be giving some idea of lack of progress.

What lee is doing, is perfectly normal, add a couple of features take stock on feedback and then either move forward or rework and tune up what has been added.It's not a random set of events or a random task for the week, its meticulously planned and set in motion.Lee is not the only programmer on the project and he does not only program, he delegates task, takes stock of those tasks handed to the dev team provides feedback on what the dev team has done, integrates what ever is complete.

Then there is delegation to the freelance developers, feedback, testing, more feedback, testing and more testing and finally integration.New ideas, fresh or old approaches is bounced around the development team, ideas cut refined and further improved on.

There is definitely a feeling that nothing is being done or it's just a random set of tasks for the day or whatever lee feels like doing for the day.I am sorry that the guys feel this way, but there is a lot of planning and continued activity some times well into weekends to get things done, and on a set time line.

I really can't stress enough, that TGC takes feedback into account, they often have very little time at the end of a very long day to explain what has been done, some things is also not mentioned, not to keep things under wraps, but because it's still early in the development, and will take some time before completion.

I think we really need to take a step back and consider if these complaints are warranted ? Consider when development started, how many programmers there are in this team, and what the realistic projections look like for when, who and what gets released next.Some rational thinking on the part of all community members is needed for a change.

I can for one see that some things the OP has mentioned in this thread is not only possible, but far exceeds what X10 and classic could have done, and made me realize the software is only as good as the person using it.....

You can´t think rational if you love something.

Maybe it would help if you show us this plan Then we see how much time is needed for our projects...

Hi guys,

I'll ask Lee to comment on your questions (when his Internet works again!)

We're 100% committed to improving and adding features to GG. Remember that GG ended up being a complete re-write in many areas and as such lots of features from the FPSC days are taking longer to develop and make available to you.

We will be improving the enemy AI in many ways in the weeks and months to come.

Rick

Not at all...its just rare that we have eligible, well put and on the spot criticism that doesn't go along the lines of "its not unity".

I'll await Lee's reply.



-Wolf

@Northern : Great feedback, a very concise list of what I think are the stand-out missing features from Game Guru. Just so they do not get buried in forum history, I have copied the whole list into my main feature board in no particular order so we don't miss any of them. I have posted in various places at various times possible road maps for where Game Guru is going, but it really boils down to the immediate needs of the software the responses from the community. It's pretty common to run a bulldozer over a previous road map because the feedback we receive send us another way. Despite the weaving, we have achieved an enormous amount in the two years, packing in stuff FPSC Classic could only dream of, and we're as busy adding features now than ever before. I will refrain from posting a list of the features added in the last 24 months, it would be insanely big.

The bottom line and only question I have for you right now is I am planning to do a week of testing for V1.01.002 and performance work for the next V1.01.003 build that follows. Which one of your features you mentioned in your list should I start work immediately on instead of the current plan? It's a question I face every day and I would like your honest opinion on what you would do differently from the 8th to the 12th June? My experience tells me to ensure the release next week should be well tested and that I should move quickly on the community need for increased performance in the engine. Happy to get alternative perspectives on my daily challenge!

I personally don't mind the post-processing development. I was just concerned about other things I was personally hoping for, not making it into the development list at any point in time. I can't speak for everyone though obviously.

In regards to performance, I mainly experience a major slow down when populating too many trees. I plan on getting a new video card this summer (August) and have some ideas for optimizing trees that I am going to test out soon with the LOD system.

Thanks Rick and Lee for getting back to us!

@Mr. Bamber, Mr. Vanner and @all:

Hi,

Lee Bamber wrote:



Firstly, thank you all for your comments.


This is really a pretty difficult question to answer, because the complexity involved in creating a program as GG, since even smaller changes can sometimes result in drastic problems in software execution until ruin it completely.

Mr. Bamber, I think you should continue your present action plan, and when, if possible and appropriate in a progressive and continuous manner, taking care not to lose all the improvement made so far in GG, try to incorporate in the code some of the features I have listed in my first post.

Preferably beginning with those easier ones to add until reach those most complex, so that gradually all of them may be added in a secure way and without setbacks in the existing program quality.

I've seen other programs out there (open source and closed source), where the updates, in fact, became update of new glitches or just for removal all of good existing features, they had in previous versions, completely destroying those ones.

Regarding what features, which I have listed that you should start working immediately, once again, anyone of those easiest to implement at this moment and which it does not compromise the final quality of the program. It's trying to make the integration of the simplest features up to get those more complex, but always maintaining the progress made in previous updates.

For example, if the bullet holes or lifts, maybe mobile platforms, is the easiest thing to implement right now, you could try to start with it, otherwise you could choose another one by order of difficulty of incorporation if applicable or feasible nowadays.

The GG users need to feel those good features that have been existed in the past, are being gradually, one by one, incorporated in GG in upcoming updates, at least working the same way as in FPSC Classic or FPSC X10 or better, as well as, new ones, because that list is not definitive, at all, but just a basic reference about some good points, there were in the previous products and which are not anymore present in the current version of the GG, my opinion though.

Sadly, I do not have enough knowledge or a basis to indicate where you should start right now. It would be unwise and arrogance of me to point out what features should be or not incorporated at this time. Again, in my opinion, if possible, always try to start from simple to complex tasks, and struggle to maintain the level of quality achieved, in previous versions.

That's all!

Thanks a lot.
Northern

I like the sound of lifts & platforms ( i like the way you put over you views Northern,not abusive & to the point )


Dave

I have been using Lifts (and Teleport) for a while now . The script for Lift and Teleport are in the scripts thread . Most were written by 'smallg' .
Others have contributed also . The scripts for switches and door use are in there also . I do miss the 'enemy' characters being able to walk up steps and be on other floors of buildings . It's getting pretty old just having them on ground level or in a building that is sitting on ground level , can't even walk over a bridge because it's not 'on the ground'..
Lance

Speed is the biggest issue GG has for me and from what I read others all feel similar. I have had several comments on my youtube channel to use Unreal or Unity because "they don't lag as much". Now forgetting the misuse of the word lag here which is common, many willl have seen GG slow down considerably when you produce anything of any size, or even anything which is small but complicated.

For instance I have a very small level which runs at around 20 fps or so in the main on highest settings. It is not a huge map. It is a small map for a silly game idea I started messing about with in April. I deliberately did this as GG's speed suffers with a lot of entities so I thought i would scale down my expectations for awhile. Now, 2 months later I find the game struggling considerably. It is near complete with the basics, but to make it any more than a 5 minute demo I need to add more options. I seriously doubt that GG will cope with them as it adds a LOT more entities to the scene and I have already had to drop the terrain and graphics settings down so it runs at a playable rate.

Most issues many complain of are actually scriptable and can be done with some work in Lua. Obviously not all by any means, but it wouldn't take too many more commands to make a lot more things possible than is presently. I have listed these several times, sometimes at TGC's request, but so far have seen no mention of adding any. For me if these options were added, then many more possibilities present themselves. Also game speed may be helped simply by needing less entities to start with.

Spawn an entity at any co-ordinates. This would be very useful indeed and I have been waiting for something like it for many months now. If only so you can respawn enemies easily, but obviously has far more uses than that.

Change an entity. This could work for many things and could be very useful. My game idea above would then be able to have far more variety without slowing things down beyond belief. An example would be say a new shiny item and then an old destroyed item for after an explosion. At the moment we would have to add both and hide each as needed, which is fine, but can get difficult if you want to have everything destructible for instance. Being able to switch the objects look to another entity would be far better.

Camera controls. Possibly a second camera for even more control. Again many plus points for having this control and many games use alternate cameras for effects such as mirrors or cameras. Does anyone else remember the bullet cam that was promised many, many moons ago? I wasn't much bothered, but it did kind of lead me to believe there would be multiple cameras down the line.

Speed though is king and even a novice (some may say particularly a novice) who has never used any game making software can slow the engine down within 5 minutes of using it if they put down enough things (and not that many). It is the first thing anyone will notice, quite possibly well before they need more advanced features. AI slows things tremendously it seems and more so than it used to, or at least it seems that way. It doesn't even have to be complex AI, simply adding butterflies to a scene can drop it down quite a bit, and I consider those mere eye candy rather than AI.

I am unsure as to when we will see multi core support or occlusion. Both should reduce and spread the load somewhat and that might be a very big factor in maintaining speed.

Interesting response to say the least. I did a cursory read of the responses in this thread, including yours, Lee, and I still don't see an answer to Northern's question. I've been wondering the same thing since day 1 of the beta. The question is why those features aren't in the product when they already existed in previous products. Based on the tech demo video we saw at the beginning and knowing that the previous products already had all this, there is absolutely no excuse, in my opinion, that the baseline beta shouldn't have had all that from day 1 and that other features would be added on top of that. And yet 2 years later we don't have those baseline features.

So, the question isn't a matter of community feedback on what they want right now, it's a matter of why wasn't this product at least on par with the previous products from the beginning? The fact that you're saying you are now copying those features into your main feature board astounds me. Like they weren't already there? You didn't remember what your products had before and what made them so cool?

I suggest that features in previous products are not yet in the current product because the current product is not the previous product. Game guru is not a rehash of FPSC classic or FPSCX10 it is a new concept/product.

You may suggest that, but it misses the point. This was originally called FPSC Reloaded and we were shown a fairly advanced tech demo. It was assumed by everyone that we'd be starting with at least what came before and much more. After all, when a company releases a new version of a product, you expect to at least get what you had in the previous version, right? I think I heard somewhere that there was some vote that the community voted for a complete ground-up remake of the tool, but I wasn't aware of this when I pledged and I certainly didn't see any mention of it in the information or video.

In any event, even if it was a remake from the ground up then why didn't they remake what we had first and then add on top of that? My honest opinion at this point, despite my own clamoring for features along the way, is that all efforts be focused completely on putting into this product everything conceivable that we had in FPSC and X10 to bring it to where expectations are. Secondary, would be to then optimize and tweak performance and then, and only then, to add new features.

That is correct. There was a vote if FPSC Reloaded should be a improvment or a complete new product. Everybody wished it should be a new product. So some features are not included.

If I could make a list:
Performance
ConKit
Performance
....

That would be my list, after that you could do what you want again

OK, so to be clear then. When you got the first version of FPSC Reloaded, you had absolutely no expectations of it being at least as capable as the previous products plus some new stuff? You didn't even think twice about it?

@ Tom:

GameGuru is still relatively young, when you compare it to the nearly 10 years of development on Classic. Although there was some legacy code used in the beginning of GameGuru's development; most of it has been replaced at this point, because what was acceptable 10 years ago, isn't always acceptable now. This all takes actual time to implement. While it may seem (to some) that GameGuru development isn't moving in the right direction, or at the right speed; rest assured that the Team is working very hard and very diligently on each and every (frequent) update. As we've either eluded to, or actually indicated in postings; we've heard everyone's input. Work is being done to implement things as quickly and effectively as we can. As the saying goes: "Rome wasn't built in a day". Although I wouldn't compare GameGuru to something as vast as the Roman Empire; it is going to take a good amount of time to get GameGuru to the point where the majority of the Community is satisfied. To be sure, some people will never be satisfied; not matter how much time goes into development, but we can't please everyone (something that life teaches you, at some point).

Again; as I've said in the past, constructive criticism is great. It "feeds the machine", and steers development in a fruitful direction. Constantly trying to make a point, or bringing up issues that have been addressed, isn't quite as constructive. Talking about "moving to application "X", etc, if things don't move in a certain direction, also isn't productive. Although I don't endorse it; I do wonder, at this point, if moving over to another application/engine wouldn't be beneficial to some; who just can't wait any longer?

The Tech Demo you speak of, was part of a pitch for the KickStarter of ReLoaded. The KickStarter failed, and we were/are funded by a private party. As you know, many changes have taken place since then.

It is and always had been the plan to implement all features of classic, but based on community feedback. This will happen in time. It should also be borne in mind, that users aren't always privy to internal communications nor private conversations, and a feature they may feel isn't popular may have received a large amount of support from private emails. PM's and other methods of communications.

I don't believe the point has ever been addressed. I think maybe you don't understand the point and that's why some keep bringing it up. I didn't bring it up this time, but I did chime in. The point is that expectations from a great many were that day 1 of the beta would be a product "at least" as capable as FPSC and X10. And while there have been answers, they don't address this point. They skirt around it and say it's a new ground up product. Yes, it is, but that is not what the expectation was from many, including myself. Why did I and others even support his product to begin with? Because we loved FPSC and X10 and what they could do and we had the hopes we'd have that and more. And when so many core features of those products is still missing after 2 years, it is frustrating to say the least. If you truly want to address the point then tell us something like "We decided not to implement any classic or X10 features because we didn't think they were important" or "We didn't implement those features because...<insert reason>"


I myself didn't do that in this discussion and have refrained from doing so since the whole 10 minute challenge fiasco. So saying that is unnecessary. If you were referring to someone else in this thread then I apologize.



True, but the demo existed and so didn't that code exist somewhere? Why wasn't it used? I think what you're admitting is that the tech demo was smoke and mirrors, which makes me feel like I was deliberately deceived at the outset.


Sounds good. I challenge you to take a poll and see just how many pledgers had expectations that the first beta of FPSC Reloaded would be "at least" as capable as classic and X10. I doubt I'm the only one who had that expectation.

And please don't take all this as a brutal unfair attack against GG or hate posts. This is far from it. I have always had high expectations for your FPSC products and high hopes for its future. If I didn't want to see it all that it can be I'd just move on. I don't hang out here to bash GG. I have far better things to do with my time.



Many have done that and I use other game engines as well. But just because I use other game engines doesn't mean I have to leave GG. I can use multiple engines for different purposes. I still see GG as a future tool for my game development needs in some capacity.

There's no skirting around anything at all. GameGuru is new from the ground up (with the exception I listed). As far as expectations go; expectations and reality don't always go hand in hand. Expecting something to be useable, and relatively feature rich, from the "get-go" is hardly reasonable at all...especially from a beta (that's what the whole Early Access was about).

I'm no coder; but I would imagine you can't just "lump in" code from Classic, and expect it to work without flaws in a completely new project. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you want; but, as I said, expectations and reality don't always go hand in hand.



If it applies to you, it applies to you; if it doesn't, then it doesn't. General statement.



No idea; I wasn't on board then. I would imagine just about any project that is trying to get "KickStarted", would need something to show (as far as the direction intended)...in order to get backers.



I'm not sure that would be constructive or relevant. Additionally; I don't feel the need to start threads or polls that I know will only lead to "forum drama". Take that however you like.

I will say this however; posting here is a privilege and not a "right" (check the AUP, if you need verification). We will be closely monitoring users who like to "break/skirt the AUP", troll other threads, try to start useless debates (yes, there is such a thing), etc. Those users will be dealt with in short order. Just a heads-up and a reminder for everyone.

Then deal with me already. I'm fed up with your threats. Have a nice day.

When characters work above ground level I'll be happy to at least make a start on my game. My frame rates are very low but that's not something that will prevent me from doing the essentials and I have faith that this will be fixed later on.

Not too worry this is being looked at In the very near future.

Post removed by the author.

Hi to participators in the above forum which is pleasing for the honest, critical but fairly expressed viewpoints of serious issues.
It makes me feel happier in that I had wondered if I was the only one who could not do on GG what I could on FPSC classic!

The problems are like Groundhog Day (a risk of going round in circles) and that one's man's meat is another's poison etc.

However one suggestion above that stands out as immediately practical is:
1) more Lua commands. Will benefit serious and able users.

My own point of view is that the glory of FPSC was the ability to paint segments and without that GG is unlikely to be more than a glossy scenery creator, so
2) get a segment method into the program. Will benefit first time users.

Best wishes
Roger
CRGSOS

Its slowly evolving. If you click on a floor entity and use the snapping tool and hold shift you can essentially paint them on the floor. Hopefully more tools in this area grow so we can easily build segments like we could in FPSC. Because its a reality that FPSC is "the easy game maker" when it comes to building an interior map.

I can see where Northern is coming from. I am only a new user and became a FPS-R backer around 6 months before the change to GG. I was under the impression that GG was the "New name" and not a completely new product.

Unlike Northern I didn't have a lot of experience with FPS-R however I can see his point of view as he has been developing his games on a highly developed system with a lot of features then the new branding and products comes along and replaces it with less features resulting in him not being able to develop games to the same level as before.

However from a TGC point of view (I am not an employee or know anything about their business model) I would assume the following:

This product is very cheap yet I would assume takes a lot of work. Since the product is cheap they would have to sell a large volume just to cover the bills. There are no ongoing charges to use the product so all revenue would be coming from new sales.

TGC would have to keep current users happy while still trying to attract new users. I would only assume they reach some limitations with the old platform FPS-R was running on and had to make a call, stick with the old or move over to the new?

Moving over to the GG engine and Steam platform would make good business sense to me as it opens the doors to many more users. However that also means giving up some of the features of FPS-R.

At the end of the day TGC staff all have to eat and pay bills (Again, only assuming this, for all I know they don't have to eat and sleep). If they can't make enough money to pay the bills development will stop and we have no more updates or platform.

Their position seems pretty clear:

1. Must keep current users happy = development = $$$$
2. Need $$$$ to keep up development = New customers or introduce licensing fees

Since the product will be less appealing to current and new users if there were licensing fees the only option they really have is external funding and marketing for new users. This means they have to be attempting to work with the latest platforms and in some cases results in losing some features in order to be able to keep up with the ever changing tech world.

I believe Steam was a very wise move for TGC and I hope it increased their sales so they can afford to continue paying for the development. Yep it sucks there are a lot of features that were dropped however I am sure they will appear again.

The market they are in seems to be pretty tough, there is a number of different packages a person can get to make games now and they are all pretty cheap. I have no idea how they all make enough money to pay the bills.

TGC needs the support of current users as from what I can see it is the users that are coming up with the cool scripts and a lot of cool ideas. Scripts like the RPG script by DVadar opens GG up to a whole new level of game making, without users like that progress would be slow.

Again this is just my view on it all, like I said I don't know TGC business model or why they decide to do things however I do know business pretty well and I know the types of issues businesses like this can face.

I would say accept the loss of features and enjoy the added features that come with GG on Steam. Sometimes taking a step back can help you take a successful leap forward later.

Just my opinion.

A suggestion for the GG team re revenue.

Maybe introducing an optional annual subscription that offers advanced access to some custom scripts, custom entity packs. It would increase the revenue to put towards development and I am sure there are a lot of users that wouldn't mind paying something each year if they are also getting something in return.

@ Bradaus:
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. It is a business and these guys do have bills to pay and mouths to feed like the rest of us. Development money does come from new sales and for a small team they do a decent job. Reading Lee's blogs are a good indication of where things are heading and are at right now in terms of what is being worked on.

Thank you on your explanation on business models. Should be informative for most.

Just to answer an original question I missed as to why we did not add all the features of the latest modded version of FPSC Classic to Game Guru, it was really a process that involved adding mutually exclusive features. For example we added LUA, so decided to remove FPI as it made no sense to support two scripting languages. Of course this meant removing EVERYTHING that depended on the FPI scripting system, including the Ally and other behaviors that required FPI script files. We decided to use Bullet physics instead of ODE as it produced faster simulations and had more capabilities, but that meant removing EVERYTHING that used the old physics system including walking on multiple layers. When we replaced the segment editor grid with a terrain system, we had to remove EVERYTHING that relied on the segment data system and so on and so forth. Now take two years of swapping in new technology, and removing the old and you end up with quite a different looking beast which bears little resemblance to its former self. It's fair to ask why all the functionality was not restored before moving on, but we decided early on that full backwards compatibility would not restrict us, allowing more features to be added. For example, LUA obliterated a lot of cool FPI scripts, but we gained SO MUCH MORE with the power of LUA over FPI and the potential flexibility of the new script system completely overshadows the limitations of the old system and I believe it was a good decision to sacrifice some FPI functionality. Also bear in mind the features from FPS Classic where written a LONG time ago, sometimes as long as eight years ago, and I have learned a few things since and so starting with a fresh canvas allows the feature to be rewritten in a cleaner and friendlier way, and reflective of the needs of the present community. It's also worth stating that 'adding features based on what the community wants' --IS-- 'our plan', and alas it's one of those shifting sands situations where not everyone will be happy with the order, but then we could never achieve this impossible outcome. The best we can hope for is that the majority are happy with the order we are implementing features.

ANNOUNCEMENT: Watch a game being made and ask GameGuru questions live on WED 8TH JULY at 6PM BST on Twitch at: http://www.twitch.tv/gamegurulee