The segment editor was the thing i was most hyped for when Fps Creator Reloaded was announced back then.
New graphics and everything. Now i took a pretty long break and returned just today to see what's new with GG. And it seems the Interior editor is not yet complete. So, does anyone have a slight idea of what's going on with it?

I'm mostly to create indoor levels and i don't fancy the outdoor so much. As i want to create a dungeon crawler rpg game of some sort.

So has there been any news with it?

Easy Building Editor is next on the list after the save/load feature Lee's working on now.

https://www.game-guru.com/feature-vote/results

Save / load was at the top of the list and had been for weeks when the C++ was complete and it was the next thing to be added .... Since then users have selected the next thing they want after that which has brought the editor to the top of the list ..

I have no expectations when it comes to GG. I backed it a long time ago as Gold and after long waiting only thing is possible is to create scene. Total dissapointment ... i will not reccomend it anywhere .. sorry but it lacks basic features. I left it when it was FPSC Reloaded, don't know what version... and when i came back .... only a little bit has changed.

No, a lot has changed, fixed or added have a look at the change log in your gameguru directory

I think GameGuru has come a long way since it was Reloaded, I'd be worried if it hadn't. We have 3rd person, Character Creator, entity grouping, clipping, growing LUA commands, Object Importer, DBPro -> C++ conversion (not a quick or easy task), Marker Mode and I'm sure tons more that would take me ages to list manually. Features (Save + Load) now being worked on and then Easy Building Editor. Based on the company size and number of programmers I think that's pretty good going.

I just wish that they had prioritized the *segment editor* hence it's always been a big par of FPSC community

definitely would have loved to of seen segment type editor for GameGuru, the original prototype looked pretty good from what I remember.

it was horrid as a beta tester, you were only able to create, buildings in game, camera angles were messy, and would have taken ages to building any thing constructive, it was literally a block by block.

Honestly I don't give a hoot about it, as it is going to approach the same FPSC mentality as the previous one construct 4 x 4 rooms with a roof, wall, and ceiling, I have given feedback on it already that we need to move away from 1999 block room approach, and was told that they need to keep it simple, in other words they need to dumb it down so users don't complain if it's too complex.

If you have any expectations of it being more then just a 4 x 4 room builder you are setting your self to be sorely disappointed, while lee might mention you will have the ability to add your own meshes ect, it defeats the purpose, default library should have automatically have more then the standard 4 x 4 blocks, meaning again users will spend more time outside the actual tool creating meshes, then using the actual software.I have made my argument and suggestions on the matter, and the ideas were rejected, I have written it off completely, unlikely i will be using it at all.

It's nothing mean, TGC has their own ideas, and right to implement it as they see fit, I just see it as potential to create some thing entirely unique and worthwhile, while TGC wants some thing safe and trusted with taking two steps back to do so.

I'm writing my own editor so I don't need to wait and it will certainly go beyond 4 x 4 ha

I kind of struggle to see the difference .... Instead of rectangular ( all the same ) segments ...
Game Guru offers the option for Module packs that are far more complex like WOI's for example .. Either way you had to buy whether it was the TGC pack or now a pack on the store that are much more reasonably priced and as I said far more complex... You can also create your own with virtually any model program. Manually importing is also far easier .... If we have an editor I'm kind of hoping its far more than just the old segment editor ..

Just my thoughts


If its anything like your importer then I'm sold

@synchromesh

The problem is I have been "fighting" with TGC with regards to the software for a while now to convince them of taking a different approach. I am spending 80% of my time not using the software, because it lacks primitive creation even a BSP editor would almost reduce time spend outside the software by 60% I think. Lee will not be adding a BSP system not now or ever in the future, a nightmare from a programming perspective, as it would require major code rewrite, performance will also go down the drain So don't get your hopes up, being able to have a quake 3 type editor, this engine will remain a drag and drop engine and adding a system like that would wipe out sales, for DLC's by a large margin.While not bad, the functionality is severely limited to advance users, it may benefit beginners but only so much.

My issue is simple, content creation systems TGC will have in place, benefits no one, and it doesn't make my job any easier, nor does it or will it reduce time spend outside of the software it self.While I definitely enjoy content creation, I would have liked to spend less time creating and more time using.

4 x 4 block creation isn't going to make things any better, I would still need to create massive amount of content in order to make use of the building editor, and then it will be grid based system which means, a bunch of restrictions as well like the segment editor originally had.lee mentioned adding additional snapping abilities, remains to be seen what that is.

The only thing that is worthwhile to me is the composite entity feature that is being planned, meaning I can create meshes assemble them in the editor and "build" the entity as a single mesh and contain all the windows, doors and attached scripts, which in my opinion is much better then the building editor by a long shot.

There is some serious time management issues with the software, programmers and none modelers might be quite contend to using what is already available, I am not, as I am sure there will be others.

While 4 x 4 room assembly is not entirely true, it will allow other meshes types, curved and such it will still need to follow the grid based snapping, which limits meshes severely, meaning odd shaped meshes is going to be absolute nightmare or not possible, or require to slice meshes into some thing the grid system can deal with, but it again comes down to unnecessary extra work and time spend outside of the editor a co-ordinate placement system could drastically improve the snapping system, and negate the 4 x 4 grid system.

Some thing which should be default. This is honestly the only thorn in my side with gameguru...

I think it is a total waste of time. If you want aaa type buildings learn to model or buy from shop. If it is for making indoor tunnels I made a free mesh with mapped out uv for people to learn and understand and be able to create dungeons or scifi. No one even bothered. So this is a complete load of useless time if ask me. You have hundreds of free models and lots to buy If needed.
It's a gimmick
Character creator is a gimmick. Not seen too many created characters yet?


Oh wait another none completed product.
Need to sort other things before doing a project that to me is a total. I mean total waste of time.

I be happy to make segments for free for people to use and map it out so that you are required to actually get textures and actually make something not rocket science

Anyway rant over. Just a complete waste of time and I for 1 am going to totally not use it I can't swear but the building creator and my views are un repeatable

sounds interesting, I'll have to have a look into that.

Nothing wrong with internal Features and Tools inside any engine - it just depends on how good the features and tools are, much as the base engine platform itself.

In this case the features and tools I guess will be much like what we have so far so will not be what one might refer to as advanced by current and near future commercial game standards but rather more relative to the target user audiences of the product and their needs.

The feature voting list is there and they have voted. The majority of voters do not necessarily vote as many of the users here may wish for and many user voters may not even be ardent or long term users of the software line or even these current forum boards. Who they are I have no idea but apparently they want an easy building editor as a matter of priority. Easy building editor could mean a lot of things to different users and to TGC too.

The base line I guess is that the editor building tool will be inkeeping with things in general which are as you see them to date however you personally view them.

Personally I can see that a Building editor, much like a model import tool and the character creator along with other things are and can be a good idea and a help to many current or would be users. The idea of helpful internal tools is not a bad thing but a good thing - its just the actual tools can be bad or not depending on what you expect and want from them.

To many users perhaps the majority I don't know any tools are better than no tools and the results they deliver better than no result. Many are happy to have what they get I guess and just get on and make a game with whatever they have available.

I have been an advocate of quality over quantity and finishing things to a high standard as you go, though as far as the success of the software, the majority of users and TGC are concerned that may not be what is preferred nor wanted so I or others that may take a different view and wont see things as to their own personal preferences.

Whatever at the end of the day its down to TGC, the majority vote as it stands and waiting to see how GG develops.

I think its clear that GG will not become a world beating engine with leading edge advanced AAA game features for its time. TGC will have its own ideas about what they want it to be and achieve and it will be no more than that and what is possible given a variety circumstances, known or unknown to us end users, the majority or minority.

I can see all points of view and they are different for different individuals or groups with different general approaches, viewpoint and line of thought perhaps. I would hope that everyone gets what they want but alas its not possible.

Save/Load when it gets done - then Building Editor - so lets have them and move on to the next features. How good they will all be is out of my hands.

Things have to be progressed or nothing will move forward - or backward as the case may be depending on expectation or need.

Why are all against a blockwise building creator? I liked the FPSC Classic editor. It was fast, easy and if you want to, you can easily model your stuff outside of GG. Of course this would be a lack individuallity, but come on, the terrain is also not so individual, 3rd Person also not.

I would like to see some great stuff, but this needs time. Lee should create basic tools so he can develope them with time to more advanced tools with feedback of the community.

I am not sure, but do all these beta testers represent the audience good enought?

Not everyone is against a "Block" type editor. I am not. It can have a place alongside importing models or other methods as to a users preference, so all users needs may be better catered for. Many real world buildings, structures and are built on a block, grid basis but then again others are not so and more complex construction features need to be supported one way or another.

Ideally I would agree with those that want something more flexible than a simple basic block grid type building editor - as - well it is more flexible and better for the end users as a best option overall for more users perhaps and could result in better games being made by more people in theory at least.

At the end of the day as afar as I understand it - like some other things the building editor is likely to be a relatively basic tool and not an all singing all dancing tool as that's not how TGC/Lee I believe has referred to it previously.

Whatever the case I am not sure why I keep commenting as by now TGC should know what Indie developers need from a game engine without asking and if they need to ask all they have to do is just that. They also would know what they need as a commercial operation from the product - not necessarily the same things.

TGC ask users what they want but perhaps not in detail - and they dont specify in detail exactly what they will provide - apart from by any other means by nature of the Voting List. That's it - they ask and users vote.

Users see Easy Building Editor and they want that apparently as a priority. Presumably TGC will deliver it but what it will be able to do and how well or suitably for any individual user is unknown or unspecified at this time.

Easy Building Editor could potentially be Basic or more Advanced I guess or somewhere in the middle. Advanced can mean Easy too and does not rule out Easy. So the named term could be misleading or not. Just as GG the easy game maker. Could be advanced or not - Easy is term which relates presumably to ease of use not the quality or capability of the tool and does not necessarily define that.

TGC Vision or aspiration for GG apart from other aspects of real life will I guess govern things in the end.

Whatever some movement and progress in a forward direction whatever that is would be good at this stage I would think as it seems to be frozen in time currently while we debate these things to no avail.....

Me done on this one.

It's clear none modelers simply do not grasp the concept of time management.

Lets give you a break down how many hours do you think I spend in gameguru this past 4 weeks ? 50 hours ? a 100.

Not even remotely close I spend a measly 5 hours in the last 4 weeks in gameguru, I basically worked on gameguru every day of the past 4 weeks some times on Sundays as well.

Is it because I am managing my time spend badly, or is perhaps because the lack of primitive creation, composite entity feature, and building editor isn't there, there is simply no other way of creating level other then modeling them or using the stuff that is already there, that is how important the system is, mess it up and you will continue the ability to create lackluster corridors with symmetrical meshes.

While uman tries to give a positive spin on things, he forgot I have been working with the segment editor for the past 10 years, short of being a expert with regards to it's use, limitations, there is things that simply can't be done, or can be done with seriously amount of polygon slicing and importing 100's of meshes to make one simply entity. Let not forget the 100's of times the editor crashed while importing these meshes, often you could not move a mesh in the editor as it would crash it outright.

Block buildings is not AAA standard it isn't even indie standard, it is as old as a game like systemshock 2 for example, and at that systemshock 2 however dated it is will still look 100% better then any thing created with the building editor and the block system.

The Building editor, by any definition will gather dust the end.How do I know this, lee personally via email correspondence told me that they will not be looking at any advance features or any thing remotely capable of creating a decent building or level, it will simple be block rooms on a block flat floor in a block sky box, on a block water plane, with a block terrain, and at no point do you see a problem with that, guess you are easier to please than me.

We aren't asking for AAA features, simply asking there should more to it then grid snapping and creating 100 x 100 x100 rooms, it's dated, no engine uses this method even axis game factory has a better system in place then gameguru ever will, and lee has a copy of axis game factory in his library.

Uman to be to the point you don't get it I don't expect you will, spend some time creating a 100 item asset pack, and see how much time you have spend in the software made to use them, you will find that at least, half of those entities with a proper system could have been created by software it self.

I warned TGC as much that they will likely pick a considerable amount of flack on steam for a half baked building editor.Fine you want to make the building editor easy, do so, but don't do it at the expense of 100's if not 1000's of users who expect more from it. They have done this before case point of high end users, they completely ignored them and only focused on low end and mid range, and eventually was forced to look at the high end users when numerous rendering bugs came about as a direct result.


While I mentioned symmetry here, lets have a closer look, the more symmetry there is in a level the worse it will end up looking, 90% of games released with commercial success be it an indie game or AAA is asymmetrical, symmetry is about the worse thing you can do to a level, the less there is of it, the more likely the better the overall look will be, human mind is hot wired to look for patterns, and the less there are the better the more involved the end user will be over all in the content they are presented with, you are welcome to google this.

Building editor has nothing to do with triple AAA games, it is the visual presentation of symmetry, which is going to kill the quality of what can be created and that is still with the most basic of building creators, 4 x4 block rooms is bad period, no point sugar coating it, you can ask ANY professional or indie game developer out there. You do not under any circumstance create a 4 x 4 level it doesn't work because of the symmetry.

Now while I am more then able to create rooms and entities, I can say with certainty will rival any thing you can create with the building editor, not because I am experienced in creating them you simply with grid snapping restrictions and mesh size limits be unable to do the same.While I can create those entities there is 1000's who can't.Lets give you an example, with some effort, I will be able to create a Counter strike source De_dust 2 map, with relative ease, and with great accuracy, I have played that map enough times to know it by heart.With the building editor will you be able to do the same without having to resort to creating meshes to import first, as that defeats the purpose of the editor in the first place, you might as well then create an entity and import that, instead of using the building editor.

The building editor isn't even going to deal with convex and concave angles.

So no while this may selfishly sound like I am the only wanting more, or better, I am fighting for the 100's of other users unaware of how mediocre the system is going to be.

I am saying not good enough, do better, accommodate every one not just your beginners, if you don't want to, keep on getting a bad rep, I have washed my hands clean of the building editor as it has fallen on deaf ears, and fought long and hard enough for betterment of the software, dig your own grave, I am not providing the shovel for it any more.

I don't disagree with anyone particularly. All for accommodating everyone.



I did not forget, but try to give a positive spin out of lack of expecting anything more than :



Presumably TGC have no interest in it becoming anything else and that is an end to it and there is nothing to be done other than put a positive spin on it.



Amongst other things Unfortunately.

I don't disagree with wizard of id at all.

I really am out of here now.

lol no problem Uman, i just felt you were supporting TGC a bit more then you should . While it sounds that I am negative towards to product as a whole I am not, I am happy with it in part, content creation aspects is what is the most annoying aspect of gameguru, as it was for FPSC and X10.

I don't think it sinks in how much time is spend on importing and creating media, it's ridiculous, to the point of being counter productive.

I will take my leave as well, just getting annoyed again on a Friday of all days

I'll be honest, I was intending to use GameGuru to make a game, but right now despite the position of entities etc and getting them into the engine it doesn't quite live up to the "easy game creator" moniker.

So i'm using it as a training ground, to get used to the quirks of scripting, to increase my knowledge of modelling and to simply play around in the editor and get rough ideas for levels. When it comes to actually making a game I will probably try a few different engines first before settling.

What's needed for me to stick with GameGuru once I start making games?

Mainly it's core features, things like being able to:

save games
easily edit HUD and GUI
have more diverse tools for sculpting terrain (even being able to use more terrain textures in one level would be a big improvement)
being able to add water at any level
being able to seamlessly move back and forth between levels so you can create open world games without linear level to level progression
basic inventory and statistics
3rd person for all character models
being able to have more than half a dozen characters in a small area without huge FPS drops (i'm noticing this mainly with the fantasy pack characters, and less with the soldiers and zombies)
being able to place characters above ground level without the AI bugging out

All the kind of things that are core aspects of an engine. Granted quite a lot of them we can do via LUA scripting, but we shouldn't need to do that with core features.

i find the entire building making and inserting an exciting thing as i get to see my creation in lights. a kind of kick when i see it work well. like my monsters or a reskin, i did the church reskin and looks so much better than original i think. but then some things fail. it is this that i enjoy. as to mass production no idea. but again.

i think there is ample to play with construction wise before doing another creator blocky maker. need so much other stuff to do. i am baffled why fantasy update dlc taking so long, and then we got lots of little things done by xmas, but january, may of not even come to the forums really. none progress and none productive. the software seems to of come to a halt. xmas blues or lack of interest not sure. i can understand that so much can interfere with your work and so i will take faith in the people who get harrassed by email. that can be the issue at hand not a 1001 meetings. ( arabian tales) anyway i think the building editor should be on the back burner as it is not a real deal breaker, yet we must spend months trying to make a creator for people who want to make something that is not already there. i mean how different can it be to the multitude of free build it kits, boreds segment maker importer multi thousands of store items. ( i keep getting told that this should be included as like many things not in gg but available in store, even if to be a feature) hence inventory and quests and other things rpg. so buildings should fall into this argument.

not going to change anything but feel a bit miffed if to be honest.

When it comes to something as generic a title as Easy Building Editor, there is no way I am going to please everyone. if I recreate a 3D modeller, I will alienate users who want to block paint for ten seconds and have a completed building to show for it. If I make it a one-button press random building maker, I forever upset the crafters out there who want full polygon control. As a compromise, I will be adding FBX support during the Building Editor work in order to help users who want to create more advanced content and import it into GameGuru. As much as I'd love to spend 6 months creating a kick-ass geometry editor, I am pretty sure the majority would want me working on something else. In my mind, that's a 'snap together' editor with the art already created for you that allows the rapid creation of buildings (rooms, corridors, stairs, roof areas, balconies, ladders) that then work seamlessly with the physics and AI systems of the engine. This limitation of the scope also means I can give sufficient time to testing and refinement of the editor, before making an update and moving to the next item on the feature board. I will also be making continual tweaks to existing features as they are reported so we get a balance of new features from the voting board and existing functionality fixes and improvements.

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.” - John Lydgate

That's Bethesda's approach. They don't really have a building maker tool its just assets that snap.

sounds reasonable, so as it is already made basic style ( remember the paint roller etc.) that can be sorted in a week? then ai and stuff water weather x11 etc etc etc

I thought I would put in my 10c worth, I personally wan’t a programme that is a relatively easy game maker. I have used most of the affordable game making software available, and have made a four level RPG in Unity.

I realise that most of the comments and idea’s stated in this post are from very informed, and to say the least brilliant game makers, who would be at home using most game making software today.

I would speak up for the thousands of people that might just be having fun making something as a hobby, maybe for their children or grandchildren, nothing to complicated, maybe to keep the brain functioning in their latter years.

Once I believed that nobody could possibly be interested in blocky looking games, how wrong I was when Microsoft purchased MINECRAFT for millions of dollars, and the kids just love this software.

How many of us have a staff of 60, with three years to make a game like Oblivion, lets face it we cannot compete with these fellows.

To Lee keep up the good work, a game maker for the average punter.

Don't forget the advance users and users that want more then lego land, not sure how exactly, FBX format support is going to remedy the issue. You still going to have spend vast amounts of time outside of gameguru, you still going to be saddled with limitation of grid snapping.

Give me a building creator that can do this and I will be happy, include setting the grid snapping values per entity, meaning If I wanted to snap a 100 unit wall with a 89 unit wall it should do it, and the 76unit object ect.Snapping irrespective of dimensions, that is all I want, there would be no limitations with regards to meshes.

Nice to dream anyway that GG should have capability in any way, shape or form of that nature, including rendering of the scene and alike too.

Asking a bit much isn't it.

@Uman that is modular design and assembly in it's most basic form, you can't get any easier then that, will be up to artist to create quality assets like that, don't even get me started on the graphics But for the purpose of the video I ignored the graphics my interest was the buildings.

While it is still block by block assembly the asymmetrical aspects of the assembly and layouts doesn't even remotely look like lego land, there is some issues like the perfectly flat roads.

But what I like about this, 100's if not thousands of modular parts, try this in gameguru and you will fall flat on your face. Lee will mostly likely remedy this by allowing to merge meshes, and "build" the entity so to speak, port cullis will likely also return for indoor scenes.

Gameguru has no effective measure to reduce draw calls, other then reducing rendering distance. occlusion, and some thing to do with group rendering or some to reduce draw calls....ect .My problem is however the engine is vastly under preforming, with vast amounts of load on the GPU, just in the editor, my GPU touches 60 odd degrees in test game up to 67degrees.

I hardly get these temps with any other engine or game, even GTA V is around 58 degrees, it is the most graphic intensive game I have, that tells you some thing about performance or lack of it.

Late last year I developed a modular pack, while it has it's own share of issues, gameguru simply couldn't deal with 600 draw calls, no practical way to release it not without having to worry about users having performance issues.

I think it is also one of the reason, why it may seem that I am over critical when it comes to the building editor, there is so much that can go wrong. If you can't plop down 1 million polygons, and with a mixture of occlusion, merge function, have reasonable frame rates you are wasting my time, and do not want.

There is easily a couple of million polygons in the above video, and how much problem does it have to render, none ? Want to see what a million polygons does to gameguru, load up morning mountain stroll map, and increase rendering distance, and turn off occlusion perhaps, watch the frame rate drop to possibly single digits.

Now there is some insistence on using LOD from TGC. ? Why ? Is it magically due to the fact the engine still can't deal with high amount polygons, where do you draw the line and say fine we applied LOD, but how about fixing the performance it still isn't all that great.

While some might not be aware of it, DX 11 implementation was suppose to include the next set of improvements as DX11 allows meshes to be sliced for rendering, which would have dramatically increase performance, the engine's approach to rendering is using a very narrow pipe with a funnel at the end.

Not how I wanted to end my Tuesday with another rant...but I come to remember an old adage...which I prefer not to mention here, not because it is offensive, it rings true here but is particular negative.But like I said with regards to the building editor I wash my hands and ride off into sunset......

wizard of id,

Yes following your 2 posts and the consideration of your content as well as video.....

I don't think it is ever going to have or intended at least any longer to have sense of comparison to that and I may be mistaken unless the vision and other things as I understand them now evolve again in another direction by some act of fate or other. Not that I have any idea about any of that other than what I read here.

I understood the hidden implications of your first post and the inferences/overview of the implications in your second post...which is why I said...after the first...

Asking a bit much isn't it. Not to say that users are asking or expecting too much from a tool they use but rather that the tool cannot or will not deliver for whatever reasons which may be known or unknown.

Riding off into the Sunset there I see you have too many polygons.

I hope Lucky Luke there has more luck than I making a game with the tool.

It's not it is the most basic, basic, basic assembly there is if you can't even allow that or implement it.......to put it simple and straight forward......don't bother.It's so rudimentary a 5 year old can use it.

meh....at it again Leave me alone uman

BTW lucky luke is 135 odd years old this year O.0