OGRE GPL'ed 3D Engine

Steve Streeting writes "Version 0.99b of OGRE (Object-oriented Graphics Rendering Engine) has been released! OGRE is a well designed, flexible and easy to use 3D engine released under the GNU Public License. This version adds highly customisable, scriptable particle systems, generic billboard support, compatibility with VC.Net, performance improvements and various bug fixes."

Comments

Re-Inventing the wheel..again !

[Anonymous Coward]

Good to see people are still trying to re-invent the wheel again

there are over 600 3d engines out there in various stages of completion, yet none of them are " really good(TM) "

3d engines have been done to death
so why can't developers focus and colaborate on making 1 really good engine and make it "perfect" instead of fragmenting into their own little GPL projects that are nothing more IMO than a waste of time ?.

I guess time is what programmers waste best

Re:Re-Inventing the wheel..again !

[delta407]

600 3d engines ... yet none of them are "really good"

Uh, you did notice the part saying "last modified on 23.6.2000", didn't you? Two years is a long time; Crystal Space and others have come a very long time since then.

so why can't developers focus and colaborate on making 1 really good engine and make it "perfect" instead of fragmenting into their own little GPL projects that are nothing more IMO than a waste of time ?

3d engines have become a much larger project since two years ago, what with people wanting platform independence, 3d acceleration, and lots of other technically demanding features. The only 3d engines that are getting anywhere have lots of developers coordinating.

I guess time is what programmers waste best

He says smugly, as he pushes the Submit button and millions (if not billions) of lines of code are executed for his message to be posted.

Re:Looks nice, but....

[g4dget]

You don't need artists to make a "playable and interesting game", you need smart game designers. Nice visuals is icing on the cake. Sadly, many game design companies these days make the same mistake: they assume that great graphics makes for great game play. In some cases, I think graphics actually detracts from game play; for example, I like Nethack a lot better than the graphics-based equivalents--the monsters I can imagine in my head are a lot more interesting than the cheesy commercial graphics that kills the imagination.

I would actually argue that many, perhaps most, great game designs originated in open source or the public domain. Those designs were then picked up by commercial gaming companies, branded, trademarked, and augmented with lots of graphics.

Re:Looks nice, but....

[rabidcow]

You may not need good art to make a good game, but you do need them to market a popular game. Every review will feature screen shots.

Yet another engine ruined by the GPL...

[BadmanX]

I've been looking for a full-featured 3D gaming engine for a while, as I wish to write a hobby game in my spare time. But since I want to keep the option of selling my game open to me, I can't use any of the currently existing 3D engines. Nor can I use the Quake 1/2 source. Why?

They are all GPL. While I will be the first person to admit that Free Software has its merits, it simply does not work for game software. Releasing a core component of a game under the GPL means that only GPL games can be made with it "That's great!" you may be saying. The only problem is that games are not just programming. They are programming, music, art, and level design. Musicians, artists, and level designers (even hobbyist ones) are used to making money for what they do. But since the core engine of the game is GPL, no money can be made on the game.

(Aside: And don't give me that line about how it's perfectly legal to sell Free Software. Sure, it's legal, but that doesn't mean it works. It's like another poster in another thread said: "Sure, I't's LEGAL for me to try to sell my used car for retail price, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to." Aside over.)

And you guys wonder why FreeCraft and FreeCiv have such lousy art. It's because there's no Free Art Foundation going around saying, "You should give your art away! It's immoral to charge for art!" Same thing for musicians. Same thing for level designers. Hell, same thing for just about any skilled work that combines technical expertise with creativity EXCEPT FOR PROGRAMMING.

The GPL doesn't work for gaming. Please, I'm begging you, stop releasing game libraries under the GPL. Release them under the LGPL or the BSD license. If you do, it means professionals can use and maintain them, benefiting and giving somthing back to the community. And we can all stop having to start from scratch (or use crappy middleware like NetImmerse) whenever we want to make a game.

Re:Yet another engine ruined by the GPL...

[VortexVertigo]

Why would they want you making money using their 3D engine? I don't believe the LGPL or BSD license gives them any right to seek their share of the profits from your game sales. If you want to make a saleable game then license a closed source engine. That's what everyone else does *cough* Unreal Engine *cough*.

I always get a big laugh out of people who complain that they can't make money if they use GPLed code. That's the whole point, you aren't supposed to make money that way. If the authors of the GPLed code wanted it to be used by others for the purposes of making a profit they would SELL the code to you.

Completely wrong.

[Doktor Memory]

The only problem is that games are not just programming. They are programming, music, art, and level design. Musicians, artists, and level designers (even hobbyist ones) are used to making money for what they do. But since the core engine of the game is GPL, no money can be made on the game.

This is completely and totally wrong. (Or it's an artfully constructed troll; can't tell which.)

You are only required by the GPL to release any changes you make to the engine itself. If you take the Q2 engine and make a game with your own models, textures, levels and game logic, you are not required to give away the models, textures, levels and game code.

Remember, the engine and game logic are seperate codebases: Id Software releases the game logic seperately from the engine code, and usually years before, so that mod authors can play with it. And of course, the GPL does not "infect" anything but code: your textures, skins, models and levels remain your own no matter what.

If you really need to make changes to the rendering engine itself (highly unlikely for a hobbyist game programmer) without giving away your code, consider looking at the Torque Engine, which you can license for $100 and a revenue-sharing agreement with GarageGames.