Crystal Space
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 23, 2014, 02:44:47 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
8990 Posts in 2037 Topics by 7617 Members
Latest Member: Wschodni1989
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Crystal Space
|-+  Crystal Space Development
| |-+  General Crystal Space Discussion
| | |-+  Making Crystal Space Easier: Tutorials, documents, wiki, demos
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: Making Crystal Space Easier: Tutorials, documents, wiki, demos  (Read 21643 times)
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1704


View Profile
« on: February 01, 2006, 08:56:44 am »

One of the biggest issues that Crystal Space has in its acceptance as a good 3D engine is the (apparent) lack of tutorials, documentation, demos, and so on. OGRE gets a lot more good reviews and that's mostly because it is a lot better in these areas. I would like to get rid of that image so I think we need to work a bit more on this. I will cover all these points in detail in this article.

-= Demos =-

OGRE has a lot more demos and they also look nicer out of the box. The main reason is not necesarily that OGRE is better but more that they appear to have better artists and were able to better bring it together. Currently work is on the way for two Crystal Space demos:
  • Crystal Core (http://crystalcore.svanfeldt.com) is the major CS demo game project but this is still a long-term project so I don't expect this to become a major demo in the first few months.
  • A new cartoon like level+physics demo is in the making right now (Erroroman). I hope this will be a nice addition at least.

I would also like to see a replacement for flarge. 'flarge' is a very nice testing level as it demonstrates a lot of the features that are in CS. So in that respect it is a very useful level for the developers to see if some CS feature has been broken or not. However it is not a very good default level to start walktest with as it really looks like crap smiley  So we need a new default level that concentrates on being beautiful.

-= Tutorials =-

There are already several tutorials. Most of them are made by me. I think we need more user contributed tutorials but more importantly, we need a central place to put all these tutorials so that people can find them more easily. Perhaps the community site is a good place for that? Another solution would be to put more tutorials in the main documentation. Also the tutorials that we have don't go that far in functionality. The tutorials in the basic documentation would also need to be a bit more advanced and show more features of CS.

-= Wiki =-

The Crystal Space site is a wiki. People tell me the OGRE wiki is very active and updated a lot by the user community. I wonder why this is not happening with the Crystal Space wiki? Do people actually know they can edit pages (as long as you are registered)? I would really like to see the wiki being used by YOU (the community). That is the easiest place for people to contribute to the documentation. Don't be afraid to make modifications there. Also don't be afraid to make structural changes or additions either.


-= What I want from you =-

1. Who can make a VERY nice level for CS (preferably with Blender)? The level should be beautiful but don't overdo the textures as the textures would have to be put in CVS so don't use megabytes of texture data.

2. Who can make nice tutorials for CS and CEL? The format doesn't matter. As soon as a tutorial is made we can easily convert it to TexInfo (if it is going to be fitted in the main manual) or to whatever is needed. You can even  make it directly in the wiki if you want.

3. Edit the wiki! Please do. It is there for you to use (and also for us of course) smiley
Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1704


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2006, 09:13:22 am »

BTW. It would really be nice to have one or more people in the CS team who would take care of issues like this. A bit like a technical PR team smiley

Any volunteers?
Logged
LordGordon
Newbie
*
Posts: 19


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2006, 06:35:43 pm »

Hi,
I am developing a game* to learn CS, following the Jorrit advice. 
I can invest approximately 7 hours every week in developing.  I hope to release the first beta in august (2006).   
My idea is to make a tutorial that explain how i have done the game.  I will write it in italian (my language). I will translate it to english after (with some help because my english is insufficient).

I can't promise nothing but i will work hard to learn CS and make my first demo.


*: At the begin is a simple game. I'm working on a easy game where some objects (spheres) fall down on a terrain (plane).  The mission is to destroy it before they impact on the terrain. (yes, this is a innovative idea!). I will improve it step by step (ex: best mesh, more gameplay, etc...)
Logged
rvl_
Newbie
*
Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2006, 12:52:13 pm »

I think it makes a sence to give novice CS users precompiled pseudo-stable version of CS SDK. Look at support forum: "...problem with compiling...", "...problem with building...", etc. When documentation is Ok there is no need to have sources for most people.

You will find good artists for "beautiful level" much quicker if the task of conversion to CS is fully placed on developers. Don't induce artists to make their work in Blender. Blender is great project but habit is big power and it's absolutely useless to fight with fact that most of 3D artists like Maya, 3DSMax, ... and not Blender.
Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1704


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2006, 12:59:19 pm »

I think it makes a sence to give novice CS users precompiled pseudo-stable version of CS SDK. Look at support forum: "...problem with compiling...", "...problem with building...", etc. When documentation is Ok there is no need to have sources for most people.

Well this is technically very hard as we would have to make a version for every kind of compiler then. i.e. one for MSVC7, one for MSVC8, one for Mingw, one for cygwin, ... The binary version of the SDK is simply not compatible.

Quote
You will find good artists for "beautiful level" much quicker if the task of conversion to CS is fully placed on developers. Don't induce artists to make their work in Blender. Blender is great project but habit is big power and it's absolutely useless to fight with fact that most of 3D artists like Maya, 3DSMax, ... and not Blender.

That we cannot do. 3DSMax and Maya are not free software. Blender is free software so it fits nicely with CS. People are free to use 3DSMax or Maya but from our viewpoint we will always promote free software as the best way to make art.

Greetings,
Logged
rvl_
Newbie
*
Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2006, 02:20:21 pm »

Quote
Well this is technically very hard as we would have to make a version for every kind of compiler
btw 1, OGRE made this for MSVC. Obviously there are no problems to make this for MinGW (devc++, codeblocks)
btw 2, codeblocks (http://www.codeblocks.org/) has template of OGRE application.
Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1704


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2006, 02:28:29 pm »

Quote
Well this is technically very hard as we would have to make a version for every kind of compiler
btw 1, OGRE made this for MSVC. Obviously there are no problems to make this for MinGW (devc++, codeblocks)
btw 2, codeblocks (http://www.codeblocks.org/) has template of OGRE application.

OGRE has this easier because they don't have to worry about the plugin/dll system. They are a regular C++ library.

Greetings,
Logged
rvl_
Newbie
*
Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2006, 03:04:05 pm »

Is a problem to have precompiled plugins?
MinGW:
All precompiled/stripped/zipped plugins take 13.5 Mb + zipped libraries 2.5 Mb + zipped headers 1.5 Mb + cs-win32libs 7 Mb. Total 26 Mb.
It's enough to work with CS in codeblocks for example (without debugging inside CS, but who needs this)
Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1704


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2006, 03:11:48 pm »

Is a problem to have precompiled plugins?
MinGW:
All precompiled/stripped/zipped plugins take 13.5 Mb + zipped libraries 2.5 Mb + zipped headers 1.5 Mb + cs-win32libs 7 Mb. Total 26 Mb.
It's enough to work with CS in codeblocks for example (without debugging inside CS, but who needs this)

Um. If you develop a game using CS then debugging inside CS is pretty essential IMHO. Otherwise how are people going to find out what is wrong?

Greetings,
Logged
rvl_
Newbie
*
Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2006, 03:45:00 pm »

I agree. But first time user tries features/demos, making light changes. If the project attracts him there no problem to take sources & try to compile, but at this moment he already know he can obtain from CS. In other words the possible difficulties of compilation don't affect user's wish to start with CS.
Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1704


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2006, 03:51:24 pm »

I agree. But first time user tries features/demos, making light changes. If the project attracts him there no problem to take sources & try to compile, but at this moment he already know he can obtain from CS. In other words the possible difficulties of compilation don't affect user's wish to start with CS.

Well I agree that we should release more demo/artist packages. In fact I asked thebolt to update the artist package this weekend.

Greetings,
Logged
allpowerful32
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 62


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2006, 12:48:53 am »

I think it would help dramatically if there were CS "wizards", like the "MFC App Wizard" in MSVC.   I say this because it took me a few weeks to understand CS enough to make my first app, but using ogre (notice: i didn't capitalize that on purpose) it took me only a few days via its MSVC Wizard.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2006, 03:09:30 am by allpowerful32 » Logged
ibob
Newbie
*
Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2006, 01:03:25 pm »

I think it would help dramatically if there were CS "wizards", like the "MFC App Wizard" in MSVC. I say this because it took me a few weeks to understand CS enough to make my first app, but using ogre (notice: i didn't capitalize that on purpose) it took me only a few days via its MSVC Wizard.


I think that the people which are going to use CS to really develop a game/app are not going to be discouraged by the lack of Wizards. However, I haven't used these wizards you say, so I can't say for sure..

The lack of more demos and step by step demos is what makes the learning curve harder to follow. I think that in order to make CS easier, that's on what the efforts should be concentrated.

I pesronally haven't used CS much, but with a couple of fellow students we are planning to create a simple game for the next semester. When that finishes we would gladly share the application and write some kind of tutorial for the demo app.
Logged
Escorter
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94


View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2006, 07:40:36 pm »

I think it's time to re-organize the plugin system. Eg.: I think we don't need hard-coded particle systems (fire, smoke, fountain). We need a good particle editor, a good particle loader plugin, and an unified particle file format (like OGRE's particle system).
Logged
jorrit
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1704


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2006, 08:12:24 pm »

I think it's time to re-organize the plugin system. Eg.: I think we don't need hard-coded particle systems (fire, smoke, fountain). We need a good particle editor, a good particle loader plugin, and an unified particle file format (like OGRE's particle system).

We're already busy with this. The 'particles' mesh will be the only remaining particle system (except perhaps rain because that one is a bit different from the others).

Greetings,
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 9.241 seconds with 14 queries.