On Dec 8, 2005, at 2:33 PM, Seth Willits wrote:
Can you not switch to full screen mode in RB?
Sure you can.
... using a plugin or declares. It isn't built in.
What the heck are you talking about. Put an Rb3DSpace that complete
covers the window, and check Full Screen on the window's properties.
And with a small fraction of your $10M budget, you could hire
somebody (I nominate Frank Condello!) to write a Direc3D renderer for
Quesa, and then with the same models and code base, have your game
run
...slowly...
Define slowly. Once I got rid of threading, A-OK! WoM routinely gets 30
FPS on Mac OS, more on Windows. In the new simulator where things like
the control panel are also using Rb3DSpace (and the acceleration that
comes with that), I am getting 40 on Mac OS. Both products simulate
real physics (though WoM is simpler) and all the spacecraft systems.
Add to that the fact that both products deal with huge numbers and it's
not doing so bad.
Quesa needs improvement and for some situations it will slow down, but
if someone is really writing a game that can bring Quesa and RB3DSpace
to their knees, then I submit that the complexity of the project will
probably cause it to fail anyway.
There are also a number of direct-to-OpenGL plugins and code modules
for REALbasic floating about, though of course those pretty well lock
you into OpenGL on all platforms.
If you're not into the idea of requiring OpenGL (GameDev.net had a
poll and the API most people preferred was OpenGL [46% vs 38% to
DirectX]), there's no reason you can't write an abstracted API that
renders with both.
Yes, there is. We're talking about a project that is completely too
large in the first place, even if you use a tool like RB and the native
3D stuff. If someone's going to write a 3D API and try to get to work
with both renders, they will never, ever get to the actual game.
Over the last 8-10 years, I have watched so many proclamations on why a
certain engine is better than another, always by individuals who are,
as John Balestrieri said, " looking at the trees instead of the
forest." and never actually _release_ anything.
As John and Joe Strout have said, scope is everything. A huge mistake I
made with WoM was to add feature after feature, mostly because I was
waiting for improvements or fixes in RB :-), until it became a very
complicated program to manage. People would buy it with HALF it's
feature set. Why, because it is so unique and finely targeted that it
has basically no competition, not because it gets xx frames per second.
In the end, the limits are not in any of the tools you use as much as
it is with your own ability to manage the project from all aspects.
That is the challenge.
So my advice to Gerald is to think about a game that is so damn unique
that it will NOT require you to go toe-to-toe with Everquest. If you
can find a subject that no one else has done, you can release a game
with 1/20 the complexity and half the graphic details that these big
productions have and still be successful. It will STILL be a big
multi-year undertaking, but you have a real chance at making it happen.
Perseverance Furthers!
--
Joseph Nastasi
Pyramid Design - a software development firm
http://www.pyramiddesign.us
Voice 609 601-0814 Fax 609 601-0815
Products:
A-OK! Spacecraft Simulation System - http://aok.pyramiddesign.us
A-OK! The Wings of Mercury http://www.aokwom.com
FTP Suite for REALbasic - http://ftpsuite.pyramiddesign.us
Columnist for REALbasic Developer Magazine
Proud Sponsors of REALbasic Olympics 2005
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|