Crystal Space
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 31, 2014, 02:33:02 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
9005 Posts in 2043 Topics by 8263 Members
Latest Member: Shiecuanco
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Crystal Space
|-+  Crystal Space Development
| |-+  General Crystal Space Discussion
| | |-+  CS vs Ogre3D, NebulaDevice
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: CS vs Ogre3D, NebulaDevice  (Read 64684 times)
Escorter
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2006, 12:23:51 pm »

If you a hardcore coder, I think OGRE is the best choice. If you have MSVC, and you looking for a commerical-quality engine, choose The Nebula Device. If you a beginner in game programming, and you want a great engine with lot of features, choose CS.
Logged
jtarbox
Newbie
*
Posts: 1


View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2006, 12:32:27 am »

If you a hardcore coder, I think OGRE is the best choice. If you have MSVC, and you looking for a commerical-quality engine, choose The Nebula Device. If you a beginner in game programming, and you want a great engine with lot of features, choose CS.

Actually, OGRE is easier for beginners then CS is.
Logged
Escorter
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94


View Profile Email
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2006, 12:41:55 am »

It's easier, but it's just a 3D engine, while CS is a complete game engine.
Logged
[SOM]Roberto
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 79


View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2006, 05:37:50 pm »

OGRE is a very nice and easy-to-use rendering engine, but if you want to make a game, you need to integrate a sound system, script system, etc. I worked with it, and its a great stuff! The Nebula Device is a professional game engine, but you can't compile it with GNU tools under Windows. I think CS is great, but it has a very annoying "feature": millions of plugin DLLs (the most annoying - why need separate DLLs for Fire, Fountain, and Somke particle system? :S)


Ogre can mesh, texture and bone export only. Cs can bone animation, lightmap, multi shader, emit, hide, skymesh, refelctmask parallax, bump etc. in world file. Wink Very cool. If u want, u using Ogre and u must implement all things etc. in your program. But I click in exporter with CS simpletely. Wink Good luck! Tongue
Logged
Escorter
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94


View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2006, 07:16:39 pm »

Yes, OGRE has a very poor Blender exporter. But it has a MUCH BETTER shader and particle system than CS... Sad
« Last Edit: February 14, 2006, 07:24:10 pm by Escorter » Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1706


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2006, 07:28:50 pm »

Yes, OGRE has a very poor Blender exporter. But it has a MUCH BETTER shader and particle system than CS... Sad

Beter in what sense?

Greetings,
Logged
Escorter
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94


View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2006, 07:57:36 pm »

OGRE can handle the standard ARB, CG and FX shaders, you don't need to learn a completely different shader system. It has a great particle system: the engine can load the *.particle files created with the particle editor (it's an user-friendly, easy to use, and powerfull editor). You don't need to hard-code the particle system to your world file.
Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1706


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2006, 08:18:14 pm »

OGRE can handle the standard ARB, CG and FX shaders, you don't need to learn a completely different shader system.

Same as CS. CS handles ARB, CG, and FX shaders just as well. You just have to wrap them in CS specific XML stubs but the shaders as such are supported.

Quote
It has a great particle system: the engine can load the *.particle files created with the particle editor (it's an user-friendly, easy to use, and powerfull editor). You don't need to hard-code the particle system to your world file.

Ok, so you mean OGRE has a better particle editor. Not that the particle system as such is better.

Greetings,
Logged
Escorter
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94


View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2006, 08:43:17 pm »

OGRE's particle system is better, because the *.particle file format. In CS, I can use the hard coded particle systems (fountain, fire, smoke), or I can create it with a ...ehh... not so great editor, then copy-and-paste it to my XML world file.
Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1706


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2006, 08:44:30 pm »

OGRE's particle system is better, because the *.particle file format. In CS, you can use the hard coded particle systems (fountain, fire, smoke), or you can create it with a ...ehh... not so great editor, then copy-and-paste it to your XML world file.

Hmm? The 'particles' mesh is also very generic. It is not hardcoded at all. So how is the XML format of that worse then the OGRE particle format?

Greetings,
Logged
Escorter
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94


View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2006, 08:50:50 pm »

So CS supports external particle scripts? E.g.: I make a particle spawn point in Blender, then I can attach a particle file (eg: smoke.xml) to it? And how can I save the particle scripts in partedit?
Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1706


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2006, 08:53:28 pm »

So CS supports external particle scripts? E.g.: I make a particle spawn point in Blender, then I can attach a particle file (eg: smoke.xml) to it? And how can I save the particle scripts in partedit?

Yes, a particle system is a mesh like any other. And any mesh you can separate in a different xml file that you can include in a world file or create instances from in code. So basically you make an XML file describing the parameters of the particle system (or genmesh, or thing, or sprcal3d, ...) and then in code you make instances of that.

partedit is unfortunatelly only for the old 'emit' particle system. This is indeed one thing that could be better in CS. We need an editor for the new 'particles' mesh.

Greetings,
Logged
Escorter
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94


View Profile Email
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2006, 08:59:31 pm »

Oh, it's cool! Are you planned to make a new particle editor for the new CS release?
Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1706


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2006, 09:00:50 pm »

Oh, it's cool! Are you planned to make a new particle editor for the new CS release?

Well I have no personal plans for that as my todo list is already huge but I sure hope someone else volunteers for this task smiley

Greetings,
Logged
dingobloo
Idle Extrordinare.
Global Moderator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 125


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2006, 03:04:24 am »

OGRE can handle the standard ARB, CG and FX shaders, you don't need to learn a completely different shader system.

As jorrit said, CS supports those shader formats just uses an XML format for shader management allowing fallbacks and snippets and templates and conditional attributes to shaders, it makes using shaders more manageable, you can fallback to different shaders for different cards, you can modularise your shader for common features (like CS does with fog, and projected textures) so really, i don't see using JUST cg or ARG as a huge plus. The format isn't that complicated, especially if you do not need to use those extended features.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 6.264 seconds with 16 queries.