I don't know how i feel about this. If GG is to layer on an existing engine, wouldn't that mean we'd have to abide by their license agreements?

I just want to chime in on the Unity/Unreal layer topic. It was a question posted elsewhere and I encouraged debate on the subject. I have not made any plans to deviate from what I have already set out to do, which is continue making fixes and tweaks with each update, and taking items from the top of the voting board. Remember that the voting board is fluid, and if you really want to push for a promotion in the ranking, you are free to make your case to the community and get some momentum to shift the order of things. Nothing is set in stone and anyone can change their votes at any time. It has happened a few times and I recall Menu Editing got to number one, and is presently fighting AI for the top spot. I am quite surprised Menu Editing got so high, but I am a willing servant and will dutifully implement it when the time comes

Glad to know.
GG following their own roadmap.

3com

I take 2/3 of all I said back and applaude on 1.32 - both the performance boost and the impact on AI is amazing.

Quoting Lee:
"Menu Editing got to number one, and is presently fighting AI for the top spot. I am quite surprised Menu Editing got so high, but I am a willing servant and will dutifully implement it when the time comes"

Boaty McBoatface, know what I mean

A waaaay overlooked engine is NeoAxis. Which is open source and although GG has a far better community and the software is made by one man (same with NeoAxis), the ability to create a game in GG with amazing performance and graphics just isn't in scope right now. Performance is a major issue. Don't target lower PCs, it's not 2008. Obviously through MAJOR optimization in a game made in GG you can get decent visuals but let me show you a comparison. But still, even if you optimize, you need a beefee PC for a GG game.

1. I have a project in Unity which is an open world game, when you get into "zones" it loads and unloads entities to save memory. This game runs at minumum 45fps on my PC. There must be 600+ trees in the map. loading and unloading as you go.

2. In GG, an attempt to create the same map leaves me having to load new levels to compensate for the lack of performance. So you get to a point load the level and it still runs at 20+ FPS. AND my specs aren't bad. AMD 9290X, 8Gb ram, i7.

Sorry to sound like a knob, but get DX11 integrated and leave the OLD hardware behind.

@Lee, PLEASE look at NeoAxis and see what that guy has done. It really is worth your time for a bit of inspection.

Landman

a bit pricey, $695 for cheapest option, the free one is limited.

I think Lee did mention this engine once.

https://www.khronos.org/vulkan/

check thiss too

https://developer.nvidia.com/Vulkan

The performance is really good now. Like, REALLY good.

I agree ertlov, Id like to know exactly how Lee did that big FPS jump.

It was actually a suggestion by 'Stab In The Dark' from the community who suggested a single line of code in the physics finalization step which switches off the physics engine function to recalculate bound boxes for static geometry. As the static stuff does not move or change between levels, there was no need to calculate their bound boxes 60 times a second. This gave us a nice boost.

I am also working on another performance boost for the next update which similar shuts down static entity activity in both the entity and AI loops, and have already seen some huge gains for larger maps (levels with thousands of entities). Alas you will have to wait for the next update, but it's all part of the plan to include tweaks and improvements with every major update released.

Just as a thought experiment: how would you feel about FPSC Classic exactly as it is now PLUS complete Lua access to all underlying DarkBasic commands? Performance should be the same as in FPSC.

How long would it take to implement this so that it runs on 64bit machines, win7, 8, 10 etc.?

PS: I proposed something similar in another topic and it was ignored, so probably I am out of touch with the community wishes.

Yeah loved that software! The only issue I had was trying to edit the terrain on a new map crashed the thing every time, which really was disappointing because the levels that came with it were really cool and performed super smooth for me, and that was on a machine with lower specs than my current one.

That led me to search for other engines after which I came across Game Guru, and the stability of Game Guru had me sold - for me it never crashes.

But yeah must dig NeoAxis out again (it is somewhere on my harddrive) and have a play

Reliquia....

I think you are out of touch with the fact that performance was pretty bad in FPSC, lag was a constant moan factor. Also the latest update seems to have improved performance so there is no argument for backtracking.

@rolfy

You forgot to add null space the single biggest draw back FPSC classic had

There are a lot of drawbacks I could add, I think some folks forget how limiting it actually was compared to GameGuru even in early beta

Didn't fpsc have huge memory issues and problem exporting standalone too?

HUGE memory issues is right, but when you tackled those, exporting was not a big issue.

1. I am aware of the FPSCC memory cap. I did several small projects on FPSCC and never hit it.
2. For projects of the above size, I did not get any lag issues. And in fact, even with the latest update of GG, for the same size projects I still get better frame rates from FPSCC than from GG.
3. Never had export issues.

At any rate, I understand that there is not going to be any backtracking, there is too much momentum. I mentioned FPSCC+Lua as a comparison standard. I still think it would be a better option. Or maybe a nice mod of FPSCC. But, in all fairness, I have always been hoping for a different route than the one that GG has actually taken; and I would be really surprised if GG works for me anytime soon. But of course I wish it works for all of you guys.

I never used it myself, but i'm sure there was a big issue with exporting standalone at one point. Maybe i'm thinking of X10.

I thought fpsc looked pretty cool and was really fast on my machine ...
However then I put characters in

Nice one.



The trees could be good candidates, making the engine care about (collisionOn distance based), only when the player is near them.

3com

You are right when you talk about the beginnings, We had to deliver Anderson back in 2007 with each level being an own game.
But from 1.09 and especially from 1.17 on, it was really no problem if you had a decent machine and time enough on your hands.