Moderators: Despellanion, Dr. Best

Despellanion
Forum God
Joined: March 26th, 2006, 8:41 pm

July 3rd, 2008, 7:00 pm #31

Bami wrote:
skarik wrote:Could you just hurry it up, 'cause http://gdk.thegamecreators.com/ is looking a lot more appealing to me right now. Still. Yeah. You can blame it on my hard drive, but I just want shaders. And I like the shaders in U3d. And I hate moving on. But I geuss that's what I'm doing.
Don't you ever dare buy anything from TGC. Their products are horrible, support is horrible and the forums are worse then the GMC.

edit: Didn't see benny respond to that. I still stand by my point though.
What's so horrible about it? Dark GDK seems alright, though I've just recently installed it and played with it for a couple of hours.
Quote
Like
Share

skarik
Forum God
skarik
Forum God
Joined: October 4th, 2006, 11:56 pm

July 3rd, 2008, 7:45 pm #32

Bami wrote:
skarik wrote:Could you just hurry it up, 'cause http://gdk.thegamecreators.com/ is looking a lot more appealing to me right now. Still. Yeah. You can blame it on my hard drive, but I just want shaders. And I like the shaders in U3d. And I hate moving on. But I geuss that's what I'm doing.
Don't you ever dare buy anything from TGC. Their products are horrible, support is horrible and the forums are worse then the GMC.

edit: Didn't see benny respond to that. I still stand by my point though.
Yeah, well you can be assured that I will not be able to use it until I get a better grasp on those classes, arrays, and objects.
Quote
Like
Share

Ben
Advanced Member
Ben
Advanced Member
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 8:39 pm

July 3rd, 2008, 9:55 pm #33

@Despellanion - Many things are wrong with it in my opinion. Its tremendously slow compared to other engines ( that are FREE and OPEN SOURCE ), it has poor functionality, some functions do not actually have a use, the shader support is poor, meshes are limited to *.x and *.dbo ( very poor implementation of *.3ds ), impossibly hard to access vertices through faster methods, as they hide it in many parent structures ( that the SObject struct inherits ), so that in turn makes it hard to implement physics. And on the top of physics, their "Dark Physics" implementation is terrible, and they haven't supplied much support for it. They still have features missing from PhysX, and as well, charge for an otherwise free sdk ( PhysX is free ). Really, everything they do is to get money, and to scam people who are otherwise not educated in that area. And yes, Dark GDK being free is not a move of a money hungry company, but if you dissect why they would do such a thing, I believe it would come down to they want more people using, therefore more people to be tricked into buying their "easy to use" "plugins" for gdk, however easy it is to implement one of the countless physics engines available ( Havok, PhysX, Bullet, Newton, ODE, Tokomak ( however I believe work on this has been halted ). The company just provides very poor support, and overall I have had a very bad experience with them. The only good thing that ever came out of me using their products was realizing if you want something done correctly and fast, you must do it yourself in C++. Or buy a $10,000 sdk. Your choice.

@Skarik - To your luck, Dark GDK actually makes NO use of C++ features except for its inner workings. The have done everything they can possibly do to limit functionality and add work for you to do if you want to use OOP! :D And this is yet another reason I don't like them.
Quote
Like
Share

Bami
Forum Leader
Bami
Forum Leader
Joined: May 14th, 2006, 8:00 pm

July 3rd, 2008, 9:56 pm #34

skarik wrote:Yeah, well you can be assured that I will not be able to use it until I get a better grasp on those classes, arrays, and objects.
First, Darkbasic or the DGDK is not a lot faster then Gamemaker with Ultimate 3D. I even think GM is faster in some areas.

Think of this first:
With gamemaker, you got loads of free dll's, libraries, scripts and whatever made by users. The userbase of the DGDK is a lot less giving, and basically if you want physics, you gotta pay for it. You want better multiplayer/networking, you pay for it. The list goes on and on.

Also, DGDK is basically darkbasic pro, but presented in a neat microsoft wrapper, with the procedural scripting of darkbasic basicly molded in a half-assed attempt at OO.

Another thing. What you learn with gamemaker, DarkGDK or any "easy to use" programming tool isn't going to improve your coding whatsoever. Sure, you finetune the basics, but if you later want to get a job in programming, these semi languages are not really that awesome on your CV.

If you want to get away from gamemaker, go learn something worthwile.

I suggest just picking up the VC++2005 from the microsoft website, the platform libraries and either OGRE, CrystalSpace or Irrlicht, and for sound something like openAL. There are loads of opensource extra's such as ODE, Tokamak, Bullet, hell, intel gave havok the incentive to make their physics library opensource (under a license though).

Sure, Darkbasic, gamemaker and all those tools are great stepping stones, but if you are past that stage, don't look for an improvement of such a product, just go to the "real" world and start developing with C, C++, hell, even go with higher level languages as C#, Java or anything like that if the leap is a bit too big to handle.

You will find loads of excellent books at your local retailer/library, and there are tons of DVD's and such.

edit: rawrg, stop editing posts benny :(. For fact: this was made before he changed his posts, so two completely different opinions.
Here are the thrill seekers, corrupt and immoral.
Quote
Like
Share

Ben
Advanced Member
Ben
Advanced Member
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 8:39 pm

July 3rd, 2008, 10:02 pm #35

Haha, I forgot to address Skarik and add in who I was addressing at the beginning part ;) And indeed, it is your opinion. As I would suggest moving to MSVC++ 2008 ;)
However, it really does not matter ( plus damned ogre hasn't released a binary version of their library for VS 9 so you have to build from source ). But I'm glad someone else on this forum knows about how TGC is basically just money hungry pigs...
Quote
Like
Share

Eansis
Forum God
Eansis
Forum God
Joined: June 15th, 2007, 9:48 pm

July 3rd, 2008, 10:26 pm #36

Sorry to disagree, but has anyone heard of CodeBlocks? I believe it is platform independent, it has dozens of complilers, a visually appetizing GUI, and, best of all-free. I failed to mention that I do not like Microsoft Visual C++ 2008. Or 2005. Or any Windows software, for that matter.
VOTE FOR BUDDY ROEMER HE'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD, DOWN TO EARTH AMERICAN GUY WHO ISN'T PART OF THE BIGBROTHER CONSPIRACY
Til'c wrote:Things will not calm down Daniel Jackson. They will infact calm up.
Quote
Like
Share

Ben
Advanced Member
Ben
Advanced Member
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 8:39 pm

July 3rd, 2008, 11:02 pm #37

@Eanbro - Code::Blocks doesn't really appeal to me personally. I understand however that it is a choice. But to use Havok for instance, you have to use the microsoft C++ compiler ( yes, Code::Blocks can use it, as I have gotten it to before, as it natively supports it ).

And it is platform independent I believe, seeing as it does not rely on a certain compiler ( however I believe you can download Code::Blocks with the MinGW compiler if you like ). But I personally prefer Visual Studio, as I like to keep everything constant ( For example, I'm wrapping Havok to .NET languages, and I test in C# ).

And why do you not like any windows software? Just curious :think:
Quote
Like
Share

Eansis
Forum God
Eansis
Forum God
Joined: June 15th, 2007, 9:48 pm

July 4th, 2008, 12:14 am #38

benny wrote:@Eanbro - Code::Blocks doesn't really appeal to me personally. I understand however that it is a choice. But to use Havok for instance, you have to use the microsoft C++ compiler ( yes, Code::Blocks can use it, as I have gotten it to before, as it natively supports it ).

And it is platform independent I believe, seeing as it does not rely on a certain compiler ( however I believe you can download Code::Blocks with the MinGW compiler if you like ). But I personally prefer Visual Studio, as I like to keep everything constant ( For example, I'm wrapping Havok to .NET languages, and I test in C# ).

And why do you not like any windows software? Just curious :think:
That's why I don't like Visual C, because of the reliance on the .Net framework. There shouldn't be such a overwhelming dependancy on software that can only install on very few operating systems. My legal copy of Windows XP will not upgrade to Service Pack 2 without a complete system failure (the only way to reverse the effect is through a system recovery.)
VOTE FOR BUDDY ROEMER HE'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD, DOWN TO EARTH AMERICAN GUY WHO ISN'T PART OF THE BIGBROTHER CONSPIRACY
Til'c wrote:Things will not calm down Daniel Jackson. They will infact calm up.
Quote
Like
Share

skarik
Forum God
skarik
Forum God
Joined: October 4th, 2006, 11:56 pm

July 4th, 2008, 2:25 am #39

@Bami and benny...

Wait, so the GDK doesn't let you use OOP? How's that?
Quote
Like
Share

Ben
Advanced Member
Ben
Advanced Member
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 8:39 pm

July 4th, 2008, 2:31 am #40

The GDK doesn't make use of OOP. You can, however, go some odd route and make it OOP yourself by adding in classes to your own project. There is no native support for OOP. Again, you could use it yourself if you made it, but otherwise, it won't work.
Quote
Like
Share