Hi All,

Please read this important news announcement, and feel free to comment here with your questions and concerns:

https://www.game-guru.com/news-post/gameguru-max-development-review

No prob from me.
I would rather it was not rushed and we still get the builds anyway
Open ended release is better IMHO. Dont spoil all the progress so far by skipping things to get it done.

Sir, I applaud you for taking this course of action. Others may not like it, and I was certainly hoping to develop with it this year, but I like what you're doing and if it means a solid game creation tool and a more completed vision, then I am definitely on your side in this! Take the time you need and make GameGuru MAX amazing! As someone who pre-ordered, you have my full support in this!

That was to be expected I am super happy it wasn't released on steam, there are some serious issues with the graphics that would have ruined every thing !!!!!!

However I would like to know how this will affect future build releases will we still get the once or so a week build, I don't think there should be large gaps between builds as this may result in delayed bug reporting, delaying things even further. The software is almost complete and most of the functionality is there perhaps rename the beta versions 1.01 ect like in the old days no need to go back to alpha naming convention it would be confusing to refer to some thing that was beta and now alpha for bug reporting.Just stick to beta with better version numbering.

I'm absolutely fine with that. It's a great product, but it's a product that really needs plenty of time to get right, and i'm glad you guys are giving it that chance, we want this product to shine, and the longer you polish it the shinier it will be.

If you ever need anything from me on the modelling side of things you're welcome to give me a shout.

Agreed who's to know its more Alpha

It's funny, but as I was testing the last two betas, I was thinking, "There are too many issues and incomplete features to call this a beta, right?" So, yeah, you're right - MAX is still an alpha. The basics are basically "broken" at this point (model import not working properly in all cases, materials not being set properly after import and save, terrain still tearing and the player still walking through the terrain instead of on it, and so much more). So, yeah, do what you have to do. Take your time and let's see a fantastic official release when it's finally finished.

Going with the flow, got to be the right way to go. Thanks for keeping us updated

Dave

@ Lee and team
Your behavior just shows me that you are taking the GGMax project as seriously as expected, so I'm willing to wait all the time as needed, meantime let us walk together along the way. You just make GGMax amazing and 100% stable.

Without a doubt the product at present is not a Beta, I was worried that it would be released to hit a deadline date only to have post launch bad reviews and 1000's of forum posts stating we have a product that could be great if only the launch had been put back....

I am Glad TGC have come to this decision and a better rounded and finished game creation tool will exist at the end of the initial development period. Good decision!!!!.... be like ROCKSTAR.... When Its done, Its done!

But in the meantime keep the BETA updates flowing through and the weekly Wednesday updates even if they are more Q&A rather than showing new functionality.

Rome was not built in a day! But how glorious it was when it was finished!

Absolutely couldn't agree more, keep up the amazing work Lee and the dev team...

Yikes, I had expected to return here from the 4 PM announcement to explain the details of our decision, seems you all understand our reasoning without more words from me I am beyond grateful you understand and approve. We have used semi-distant fixed deadlines for SO many years at TGC, and it could be the first and last time we develop a product that has its end-date when it reaches a state of 'amazing'.

I can confirm we are working on a new auto-update system which will automatically detect new versions and apply them to your build, without the need for further installer downloading. We moved this way up the priority list as it allows you to get builds faster, and much less fuss at our end making the installers over and over and has the added bonus of self-repairing your files if any corruption occurs. Not sure how often the build cascades will be, but I anticipate they will be regular as we iterate through each major feature of the software.

I have always felt a super easy game maker was possible to make, and one that did not compromise either visual quality, performance, or functionality. That's all it really was, a feeling, and I am feeling a little giddy to think that MAX might just be the one (before I allow myself to retire to bedlam for a job well done).

Thanks again everyone - now let's create some serious ripples in the game making space!

Can you please as a top priority fix the stuttering/100% CPU issue as it makes it impossible for me to even contemplate testing anything!

This is OK with me too . No more beta releases , go back to Alpha ..
Like AmenMoses posted above , please fix the stuttering and 100% cpu problem .

Lance

Whether alpha release or beta release makes no difference wording wise, but to avoid confusion stick with the beta name convention. Like hell I am I going to provide feedback like the alpha build before beta builds this and that worked, in the alpha after beta this and that didn't works ect, ect. It is messy. Really no need to change the name go with beta v0.3 as that is current version and stick with it.

Really no need to complicate and make things messy. We are way past what would really be considered "alpha"

Ye i dont see the point in renaming ... Its functional, we all know the score ..
Beta 4 next as far as im concerned

I'm opening betting on what Beta number we get to ... roll up, roll up.

super beta 1.0. LOL

sure, whatever time is needed... maybe the extra time will allow for more (always great) assets to be included? The longer the wait - the more bangs you can allow?

No prob. There's still GG Jr Class. I'm using Beta 12.19 and it's fine
for what I'll be working on. Got a new game idea to keep me busy
scripting. Still, if only spawning entities via scripts where in it!
Glad to help out promoting MAX fundraising / any way possible.

At most go from Beta 3 to Betta 4
Cuz Betta 4 will be betta

As pointed out by me in the other thread, AmenMoses is absolutely right on that one. This is a blocker as it prevents a significant % of users from properly testing and therefore identifying issues that need to be fixed.

Aside of that, a very understandable decision. A sane but brave move, as I am sure you are aware of the legal implications regarding pre-orders. While I have no intention to cancel mine, and will happily continue testing the coming builds, others might be less patient and now they can claim full refunds with no questions asked. However, I believe that will be a minority.

Moving forward, I would suggest to keep the cadence of builds at weekly / biweekly, with a foreshadowing of what will be fixed / implemented next. Yes, this requires Admin time, but I think it is essential to stick to proper expectation management and scheduling ESPECIALLY with an "open end" release communicated. Transparency and tracking of progress is king, it makes the difference between failed and succeeded Early Access stories on Steam, too. Not saying you should post all opened / WIP / closed JIRA tickets in realtime here, but give the users a sense of velocity and remaining ToDos. Additionally this helps to see the users where their nagging points are sorted in and likely to be tackled.

If you need any help to professionalize / improve / polish your project management in general or sprint planning in detail, feel free to ask me, happy to help out a bit here.

As betas continue to be released, and since those of us who have pre-ordered are essentially beta testers, it would be great if you provided a list of what should be tested with each beta, including what's new. There is no sense in people reporting, for example, multi-material import issues of this issue wasn't even touched since the previous beta. Else, you will get people reporting the same stuff each release. A list of what to check and what to push should focus the people willing to beta test MAX.

Great news Lee and Team - really great news

Make MAX Great!

OldFlak....

Well i pre ordered not because of a timescale just because I'm a GG fan! I'm in no rush to see a rushed product and alpha/beta naming makes no difference to me, i have tested the builds and some were good the last one i didn't have many issues tbh (maybe just me) was just the GPU death thing everyone else was getting but i actually made a quite pretty little scene. As everyone else says Lee just do what you do and take your time no rush then optimize the hell out of it......= happy bunnies

Not entirely Max related but with this extension... I'm curious when we will see another GG Classic bug fix? The last update generated a couple new bugs.

Actually Pre orders did get the Beta / Early access that would have been released so the only users that did not are those who have not purchased yet and still waiting for release . Either way I doubt there would be any issue if you really wanted a refund.

Please re-read my statement. I don`t want a refund. I want to help finishing this product.

However, a change like that entitles everyone who pre-ordered under the assumption of the timeline posted and communicated at the time of the pre-order to claim a refund. Even the switch (euphemism mode: clarification) from "finished product" to "early access" that happened earlier would have warranted for a "change of heart" decision on the customers side in most legislations. A grey area, as delays in software production are common, so more likely it would have been a "you gotta expect that" ruling. For sure you cannot tell people who pre-ordered a product that the contractual obligation is fulfilled by providing an EA / BETA / Alpha build.

A move to "you get the product you paid for at some yet undisclosed date" is such an elemental change (don`t want to say breach) of contractual obligations, that it entitles the customer to withdraw from the contract - aka request a refund.
I hope no one will go that route, but it is why I called the move and the public posting "brave". And I stand with that.

And, again: I don`t want a refund. I want to help finishing this product.

No need to re-read I did not mean you personally, It was just a general statement to anyone but as I said it would not be an issue anyway.

I think Lee is doing the right thing to get Max is the state it needs to be in before it is announced as a release, so far so good, of course there are bugs and glitches, but it is only to be expected. Great work from all of the team.

No arguments here. I've said for awhile Max needs to have an extension on the official release date, as the job is just too big to hammer out super fast and be 100%. Lets all be united in this aim of getting Max's actual release to have a positive response from users and reviewers alike!

I always thought it was...hmm...optimistic(?) to announce a release date before almost any of the development - or even the due diligence - had taken place. September was always a long shot, even December seemed unlikely. I fully understand your reasons for the open-ended release date and part me sees this as a commitment to do whatever it takes to make a great product.

Sadly, there's another part of me - a gnarled pessimist part - that is worried we're setting off down the familiar 'perpetual development' route GG Classic went down. Look how that turns out; eight years of development and we can barely string three levels together without issues. Don't get me wrong, I think any software should be continually updated, but not like how we have it with Classic, where one bug fix breaks two other things.

Now that you've punted the release date into the long grass, this is a good time for some reflection on what you have achieved so far, and what still needs to happen. And, most importantly, what lessons can be learned from GG Classic.

You want my honest opinion? Throw almost everything you have in the bin and start again. There's too many fundamental issues and inefficiencies in the underlying architecture of the Game Guru family that cause instability. Why does fixing one bug in Classic break two other things? Because the core code is a decade-old spaghetti of contradicting commands and duplicated effort. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why a 500Mb Game Guru level takes up 2GB of RAM when running. You have a lovely rendering engine now, you have a nice terrain system coming along, you understand how VR works, you have learned lessons about UI from the predecessor; these can all be bolted on at a later stage. But the core stuff, loading and unloading stuff into memory, having a persistent code environment from one level to the next (not globals that only exist for the length of the level they are called), that's where Max truly has potential. All the other stuff that makes for pretty screenshots is just titillation.

Sorry to come down hard on you guys, please understand I only do so because I really do care. I want you to succeed in making the super easy game maker Lee talks about, if I didn't, I wouldn't have invested 1000 hrs into it already (plus the other 4000hrs making media for it, making videos about it, writing LUA scripts for it, and helping fellow developers with it). I know you want that too, but the only way you're going to get there is with an honest internal dialogue about the shortcomings of Classic and how you can overcome them.

All the pretty rendering effects and glossy terrain engines in the world don't mean a thing if the average user can't string together a five level game and have it run on their mate's PC without issue.

AE

Thanks for your work, Lee. I just want to point out that you shouldn't strive for competitive AAA visualization.
There will be enough stability and customization (Imho).

As someone who has not developed in Classic (only toyed with it a bit from time to time) and, thus, does not have any vested interest in Classic, I would certainly be up for MAX starting over, ensuring they evade the "mistakes from the past" (and hopefully not carrying over any bugs from previous stuff). However, there are certainly many here who obviously have spent time developing projects in Classic and who want to eventually port them over to MAX. Not only that, but Lee would be put between a rock and a hard place if they decided to start from scratch because he promised that Classic levels would open and run in MAX. The issue that came up the most when presenting MAX initially was the issue of promises not kept (Classic and FPSCreator). So, for good or for bad, it seems that Lee and company are stuck with having some Classic related code in MAX. But the good side of that is as they find them and fix them (as they are putting them in MAX), the fixes are filtering down to Classic.

I'm more concerned with other things with MAX. For example, many of us fought for having real-time lighting in Classic (before there was a MAX on the radar). Now, MAX has real-time lighting ... but no lightmapper! That's a flip in the opposite direction. And while you can make levels look great with real-time lighting, if you do what you need to properly light some areas, you will most likely start to experience a real drop in FPS. Wicked in MAX, as it is currently, is already a bit slow, even in empty levels. So, we don't need more potential slow-downs. Optimally, MAX should have both real-time lighting AND a lightmapper to be used together to get the best of both worlds.

While I agree that Max needs extra time. I have observed however that with out set deadlines things have a tendency to not get completed.
There is always something else that needs doing on the project always something that is not quite right, always a reason to delay release.
Always a new direction to explore.
There are also other things with deadlines that take priority.
Other things/opportunities arise and anything without a deadline can easily be pushed aside.
There are also times when things get tedious, times when any distraction is a welcome break and with out a deadline there is no reason to get back to it quickly.
Unrealistic deadlines are bad, no deadlines are worst and open/flexible deadlines are just another way of removing deadlines completely.
I personally think this project needs more deadlines not less.
A clear road map needs to be created with many small obtainable deadlines ones that have to be achieved before the next step. Each a stepping stone to completion, each with clear simple targets. each completion should be accompanied by a review . A chance to evaluate what went well, what did not and see what new ideas/approaches were found. Then use that info to set and create new development targets adjusting the road map as needed.
Everything needs to be recorded in detail so it can be review and checked preferably by someone not directly involved in the project. Someone who can ask seemly stupid questions that cause rethinks and honest revaluations, remove the blinkers that come from getting to close to a project.
Also I would recommend doing user documentation as you go as it forces you to look at things from a different angle its also worth releasing the documentation to trusted users for feedback you will be amazed at the things they will spot.

Well that's what I think.

There is a difference between having an internal deadline and having an official release date, though. So, just because there isn't a hard release date now, does not mean the team doesn't have set targets to hit internally.

There's certainly some incompatibilities from GG Jr Class to MAX-- garnered
by reading these threads... so hmmm....?? IDK?

I just wanted to originally lay off being critical about the open development
window because nobody likes a critique- but honestly open as mentioned by a
couple others is probably tooooo flexible. There is little structure or discipline
with a fully open project time frame. This is for all pre-order folks to chime in
though mostly. Again, I don't have MAX and maybe it'll be 6-8 months before it's
good enough to buy a new computer for? But I'd rather hear that we're just
extending the latest date by...? 60 days.... something like 02 / 01 / 2021.
That date (February 01) looks good written down -

It'll always be in development anyhow for the next few years- yeah?

I have not closely followed these forums of bug reports and fixes, but I can confirm that on both machines I've tried GG:Max (NVidia Geforce 970 and Geforce 2070 top-end machine) I experience this same thing. Every 1-5 seconds the entire app and CPU locks up to 100% and then takes another 10-20 seconds to jump back down, and this repeats forever. So I've not been able to do anything with the builds yet.

I agree with Ratall's post. TGC have decided this route then it has to be done that way.

I made this in 5 minutes, so please don't make fun of my paint skills. But I think it gets the point across. Something like this (obviously way more detailed) could really go a long way. This way everyone is on the same page, about what is being worked on. What we are testing for. What has been done and what else is coming. But if choose to go with a roadmap, and hopefully you do then for each thing listed when it's done - that means 100% ready to go.
Does not mean,
Here is the zombie model that has no animations, no blood splat effect, no audio, no AI. Cross that off the list!

Does not mean
Here is the zombie model, it has AI, but just don't put it indoors cause it will get stuck on every corner and try to walk through walls!

Does mean,
Here is the zombie model, it has AI, audio, and is at this moment 100% ready to go. Test away!
Then in testing if certain things cause zombie to bug out, it is reported and then fixed. And certain things can be placeholders like audio. But if that is the case somewhere down the line has to be a bulletin point with - Final Audio Implemented.

And with each update, some sort of detailed post about what was released, what is being done, what we should go and test for. Live broadcasts are cool, don't get rid of them, but It would be very productive for a 3 paragraph article with a few screenshots about what is being worked on every now and then. Not what is "new and coming" but what is being done to things that need to be fixed right now.
And really for most companies releasing and ill go ahead and call it "early access" product. This is the BARE MINIMUM - but I personally would hope for a lot more. I mean this ain't GameGuru:Minimum we're talkin about.

Max is currently not where people really thought it would be. I don't think anyone thought it would be done but most hoped for a little more than what the Beta 3 is. Not talking about me, but the dudes that have been here a while, the real community, the people that are so friendly and honest and helpful to new users and old users alike, when sometimes newer people ask questions and I want to vomit but the other dudes here step-up and genuinely care about helping that person out. Those guys deserve at the least some sort of roadmap.


If there is no solid gameplan then this beast will be a chicken without a head....... Just for example. Mr. Lee recently asked about making the grass and terrain look good with lighting. I personally set out to recreate the Good Grass photo he posted, only to discover that you literally cannot use any terrain editing tools in Beta 3 and hit Test Game without the editor crashing. So why even make that thread if it is near impossible to even test the terrain/grass? But at the same time in my head I'm thinking,

"well last week he posted a video of particle effects? So... does he even know the terrain doesn't work? Surely he does but then why would he even be messing with implementing AGK particle effects?"

I dunno if anyone here has played Star Citizen. But this is what playing that game feels like. It has been in "early access" since like 2011. They refuse to release a roadmap and seemingly do nothing while working on a bunch of stuff at the same time. And it is near impossible to actually play, because it is so buggy. Nothing gets fixed, and stuff starts getting worked on before the broken stuff is fixed. It is really bad and destroying what could have been an amazing experience.

I don't think im gonna post for a while anymore after this one lol.

TLDR - Would make people happy to have a roadmap, and would help this project.

There is a roadmap, the road map is to get the ggc functions working in Max :p

@Kitakazi
Generally you have a small team ( who do have their own internal Roadmap ) but I do not see how showing us pretty pictures of it will help in any way. If a Team member finds a problem which delays a set task what do you do .. All stop and wait ?
Of course not you get on with other things.

This is exactly what I meant.
Fixing this freeze will lead to many more users doing actual design and work with Max, which is critical to identify most issues.


In that case you have a dependency and blocker for the scheduled task. The fix for this problem would get the same priority (or a one level higher priority) as the scheduled task. Of course the person scheduled to do the blocked task would work on something else in the meantime, if he / she isnt the one to resolve the problem blocking.

The problem with me is I don't even understand what I'm to expect from Max anymore. Is it going to have better multiplayer, or really is the idea of publishing a 1-map multiplayer standalone game a novelty - making multiplayer a side-feature at best? What can we expect if we don't know what the scope of GG Max is, for developers' sakes?

From what I understand, the multiplayer will remain the same as in GG but with Photon support.

There have been plenty of questions regarding MP and the answer is always the same.
The only difference will be it now uses Photon instead of steam meaning your friends will not need to own Max to play it. Everything else remains the same.

For those without GG, those answers mean very little. Gg isnt as well documented or often used as folks think, and there arent too many examples of what can be pulled off with GG's multi. Thus its more important for the devs to shine a light and not depend on previous community experiential knowledge from previous years.

For those without GG they would probably never ask
Just kidding
Max will be fully documented this time round and to be fair go look at Leadwerks, S2 engine HD etc non really go into any detail regarding MP on their main pages. If you dont see the information your looking for you would usually ask on the Steam or main forums before purchase ( i know i do )
Most game creation engines seem to focus on the Single Player experience whereas most games focus on MP side of things.

Thanks for the great answer, that's what I thought. It feels like the nature of a small engine like this. I guess if I had GG Classic I could become familiarized with what to expect from the standalone game options.

As it is, learning about GG is very cloudy and non-specific from the perspective of someone who is coming in with GG Max.

Virtually 90% of the functionality of GG MAX as far as games you create with it will be the same as GG Classic, the really big changes are in the UI for game creation and the rendering engine.

So if you want to know what the engine will be capable of in relation to the games you want to create with it I suggest learning what GG is currently capable of!