Release the source to the Blitz3D engine

Blitz3D Forums/Blitz3D Programming/Release the source to the Blitz3D engine

N(Posted 2004) [#1]
I'm going to suggest that Mark and co. release the source to the Blitz3D runtime library/engine so that people can -really- upgrade the engine instead of just hacking at it via memory read/write functions.

I'm not asking for the source to the compiler/linker/etc., just the 3D engine (keep the rest of it to yourself- shouldn't make much difference). Doing this, people could move it to OpenGL or Direct3D 9.

As people may have noticed, Blitz3D is beginning to show its age with lack of support for now-common features like stencil shadows and mirrors- which Scouse has been able to add via access to the Direct3D Device- among other things (like decent support for normal mapping, specular mapping, pixel and vertex shaders, etc.).

So all I'm suggesting is that Blitz Research release the source to the 3D engine and give people the chance to make it better. This could potentially bring in a lot of new sales if people provide new graphics engines.

You could add in a license that does not permit commercial distribution of the engine itself unless in compiled form (e.g., in a Blitz3D application). Distributing it could be controlled through the Updates section of the Account page.

As I said, this could potentially bring in a lot of sales if people added pixel and vertex shaders instead of adding them via a third-party DLL that 'overrides' the normal engine and window (e.g. VividGL).


Ion-Storm(Posted 2004) [#2]
For once I think Noel is Correct, I also beleive its time to let the source become OPEN.

Ion.


N(Posted 2004) [#3]
Blitz3D's graphics engine is on its last leg, making it open source (to an extent) could support it for quite a while longer.


Clarks(Posted 2004) [#4]
that would be freaking amazing.


smilertoo(Posted 2004) [#5]
Not so sure mark would want to make it totally open, he could release it as part of the official Blitz3d package so licenced users have legal access.


N(Posted 2004) [#6]
he could release it as part of the official Blitz3d package so licenced users have legal access.


That's why I suggested distributing it via the Updates section (that one only users can get at).


Ion-Storm(Posted 2004) [#7]
dark basic will soon have an SDK, why not bb3d?


Tom(Posted 2004) [#8]
Sounds like it would be a good idea, but how much more could you add to this DX7 based engine? It's not missing much as it stands from what I've seen.

I could see something like this happening once Blitzmax is established and running smoothly.

What would be nice is full access to Blitzes structs for entitys, surfaces, vertex buffers e.t.c. The system property commands are a tease in some respects, like I can create a new DX surface with properties I want, but I've no way to return it back to BB and apply it to a mesh e.t.c.

Tom


N(Posted 2004) [#9]
3D GameStudio has had one for a long time, and people have had access to its entity structs, have been able to draw graphics, add their own model formats, etc.


TetraHC(Posted 2004) [#10]
Yes please!!!
I agree, blitz's core definitely needs to catchup with the latest technology available on the more recent graphics cards.
And who better to do it than the people who use it?

Vive la Blitz ;)

[Edit]
After reading another subject on Open source Maplet I kind'a fall back from my enthusiasm to have the Blitz3D engine open source, well for now any how. Like Tom said
"I could see something like this happening once Blitzmax is established and running smoothly"
It's more likely to happen then than now. So that's probably the time to ask.

It would be amazing to have it open source, but at the end of the day BlitzMax is on the way and I for one will buy it as I have BlitzBasic and Blitz3D. (If I remember correcly I got a discount on B3D for owning BB ;)

programming limitations = innovative programming/design? Some of the more interesting code is usually where someone's trying to create something that's not easy or built in.


BlitzSupport(Posted 2004) [#11]
I don't have any comment on releasing the source (that's Mark's business), but the next-gen stuff is going to be taken care of by Blitz Max's 3D engine anyway...


slenkar(Posted 2004) [#12]
it would be far easier and productive to use blitzmax or vivid than trawl through thousands of lines of code for a DX7 engine,
wouldnt you rather just spend $100?


N(Posted 2004) [#13]
wouldnt you rather just spend $100?


No.


slenkar(Posted 2004) [#14]
O.K. just for a laugh:

$100 = 50quid - around about

50quid=less than 10 hours work in a low paying job

fixing up the blitz3d engine will take - a lot more than 10 hours.

So, I take it you just want to do this because you are interested in the subject of coding rather than actually wanting to create a game with stencil shadows.


N(Posted 2004) [#15]
I think more people would want to continue using Blitz3D than migrate their project to BlitzMax or another engine such as VividGL.

If you upgrade the rendering engine in Blitz, it's just a matter of replacing the runtime library. The rest of your code will still work because CreatePivot() would do the same thing and RenderWorld() would do the same thing.


wizzlefish(Posted 2004) [#16]
Either release the source or release a new version....


Gabriel(Posted 2004) [#17]
Oddly, I had exactly this idea a few days ago and for some reason decided to keep my mouth shut ( I know!! So unlike me :P )

There are a number of things that can be added without moving from DX7. Compressed textures, working antialiasing and dot 3 bump maps just for starters. Since no thread is complete without a "wait for BlitzMax" comment or two, I'll ensure that the thread isn't complete without a "bear in mind, we don't all want BlitzMax" comment. Whether it's for serious work or just for curiosity and challenge, yes please, let's have the source.


Hujiklo(Posted 2004) [#18]
Hussah for the source!



Though I wouldn't know what to do with it.


Rob Farley(Posted 2004) [#19]
If the rendering engine was released as open source to the community and was kept open source, ie, If you update it you have to release it back to the community in source form it would be great. This way it will grow very quickly, it would be more optimised, ideas would be exchanged and problems solved.

However, I feel generally what happens here is someone would update it, and release and exe that no-one can touch saying "La La look what I can do and you can't" which I think would just be plain annoying.


N(Posted 2004) [#20]

However, I feel generally what happens here is someone would update it, and release and exe that no-one can touch saying "La La look what I can do and you can't" which I think would just be plain annoying.


I would suggest the use of a license such as the LGPL or similar for releasing the source under, that way changes to the runtime library would need to be made public.


Clarks(Posted 2004) [#21]
Ever tried building a rendering engine in c++, its not easy. Some of us blitz users wants all the lasted features of directx9 but dont want to spend any money for it. So some of us decided to write our own engines and access it through dlls. Dx9 was where i went first, and i didnt have any books on it all at, so it got fustrating. Then i decided to use Opengl. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, well some of youll dont like Opengl but its surely easier to use than Dx9. What are the possibilites of Mark releasing the source to the blitz3d engine. This is what i think us blitzers should do. Lets start a community project, consisting of people who know some c++ and build a new 3d engine in Dx9 thats very generic with some of its lastest features and of course it will be open source to only us blitzers only. Does it sound crazy?


Hujiklo(Posted 2004) [#22]
Yeh..but it might just work.

Oh Brad!


N(Posted 2004) [#23]
Clarks: Yes, and I know it's not easy, but if you know what you're doing then you can forego a great deal of pain and actually enjoy it.

I know how to use DirectX 9 in C++, and trust me at first it doesn't look easy or even good, but once you get used to it you can work with it just fine. (I know this because I've done it with DX8 and 9- 8 was the same, pretty much, albeit it had a few differences in the Direct3D device interface.)

GL is easier in terms of use, but then if you want to do more advanced stuff you will likely have trouble adapting to it. (GLSL is a literal pain where setting constants is concerned, because you have to use glGet to get the address of the constant and that's slow as hell.)


Clarks(Posted 2004) [#24]
Ok so it sounds crazy and i agree that it sounds crazy. It might cause mayhem.

Noel: If you can use Dx9 in C++ then why not just build your own engine. Youll be the programmer and youll have control of everything. Is it because of time or you just dont feel like it?

Well then what are blitzers suppose to do then, because alot of people are getting tired of blitz3d with dx7. It just doesnt cut it anymore. They want blitz3d with dx9.

Ill say it again is there anyhope. I would write a dx9 engine my self and release it to the community for free but i have to get books on it first. I dont really learn well from online documentation and those books dont come cheap and money is hard these days. So a dx9 engine from me you wont see.


N(Posted 2004) [#25]
Clarks: I'm writing my own engine in C# (its interface with DirectX 9 is much more pleasant than C++'s). I started this thread in the interest of Blitz3D being improved such that it would be an actual competitor- graphics wise, and I think we know how that sells a product these days- to the likes of other engines such as 3D GameStudio, TrueVision, DarkBasic Pro, etc. Because, obviously, people are still buying those engines- but how many people are still buying Blitz3D? I honestly don't think that much money is being made off of it anymore, and that's partly due to Blitz Research's downright horrible marketing and lack of engine features for Blitz3D. If you were in the position of someone who wanted to make a game using modern technology and graphics in a RAD environment, would you really choose Blitz3D? I know I wouldn't- its technological features have been outdated since release, and this in comparison to its aforementioned competitors is not going to make it fare well.

I would personally attempt to convert Blitz3D to DirectX 9 if the source was released, as this is in my best interest because I think it's a good development environment, but its technology is plainly and obviously outdated, which is why I've begun writing my own engine in DirectX 9 and C#- using the outdated tech. that Blitz3D has will -not- sell a product these days, and I'm pretty sure Mark knows this. Blitz Research is pushing dead technology, and I don't think there's a high chance they can do that much longer- it's like trying to produce a quality game in the original DarkBasic: not going to happen.

Bit of a rant there.


Clarks(Posted 2004) [#26]
I agree with you. You have a point. I have to check out C# and see what its like.


BlitzSupport(Posted 2004) [#27]
Blitz 3D sells plenty still, and would probably even lose a lot of sales if it won't run on the majority of cards out there. It's absolutely ideal for the shareware market.

The plan, as far as I'm aware, is for Blitz 3D to stay at DX7 and run on a wide range of machines, while the Blitz Max 3D engine takes care of the high end.

There's no point being 'against' such an OpenGL engine for the sake of it -- any card capable of running DX9 software will run OpenGL software equally well.


Ion-Storm(Posted 2004) [#28]
BlitzSupport. Why are you so against it Open Blitz3d to the public, parts of it anyway and you rejuexvinate the tired old horse that is blitz3d.
The point is it dosnt run as it should on many new cards anyway in the fact it dosnt use the FULL feature set. So if i was new to blitz3d .. and im not then maybe id turn the box and read the specs.. Directx7 wtf, ive got a directx9 speed machine here... turn the box round ona dark basic pro.. hum directx 9...No contest. 1 sale of DB pro.
Now if the box said Open source render engine.. then maybe id think well I COULD make my own DX9 interface... More options more control, people like to tinker..! 1 Extra sale to Blitz3d.

Just my mad ramblings...

BUT OPEN SOURCE RENDER ENGINE IS THE WAY.

ION


Hotcakes(Posted 2004) [#29]
Well, at least now ATI fixed their drivers for Doom3. The one decent thing Doom3 produced ;]


Mustang(Posted 2004) [#30]
but how much more could you add to this DX7 based engine? It's not missing much as it stands from what I've seen.


DXTC, render-to-texture for starters (actually DXTC is must-to-have, I've been begging it for two years now)... and you have been showing off Stencils and Texture settings yourself, so... :)


Shifty Geezer(Posted 2004) [#31]
Sounds like a good idea what with Max being OGL there being no competition really. Blitx wouldn't want the source for it's current engine out there.

But would user tweaks add instability, that thing that Blitxz avoids and makes it a useful development platform? I'd LOVE to have stencil shadows etc. as convenient Blitz commands, fully optimized at compile time, but could this actualy be acheived to a stable professional level?


Gabriel(Posted 2004) [#32]
There's no point being 'against' such an OpenGL engine for the sake of it -- any card capable of running DX9 software will run OpenGL software equally well.


That's a false comparison since releasing the source is useful not only for moving to DX9, but also for people to add crucial features which have been ignored and make crucial fixes. Still, OpenGL has a failure rate of somewhere between 30% and 45%, depending on which shareware authors who use it you ask. I don't have directly comparable stats for DirectX, but my own stats have it under 5%.

But would user tweaks add instability, that thing that Blitxz avoids and makes it a useful development platform? I'd LOVE to have stencil shadows etc. as convenient Blitz commands, fully optimized at compile time, but could this actualy be acheived to a stable professional level?



Well you wouldn't be forced to use it, would you? ;)


Anthony Flack(Posted 2004) [#33]
I'm still laughing at you guys that say you need the latest tech to create a saleable product. Since almost nobody here has yet managed to make a saleable product by the standards of 5 years ago. And of those that have, almost none have gotten past the initial demo stages.

So when you finally get your bang-up-to-date tech, what will the excuse be then?


Mustang(Posted 2004) [#34]
I'm still laughing at you guys that say you need the latest tech to create a saleable product. Since almost nobody here has yet managed to make a saleable product by the standards of 5 years ago.


Yep! I agree fully... most ppl just need convinient excuse to wait the-next-best-thing... "there's no stencil shadows and shaders, it's crap". Crap my sexy ass... I have more experience working with latest and greatest shaders than 99.5% of ppl here, and I know that I do not NEED them to make a great looking game using Blitz3D. I have already everything I really need, it's my own laziness / lack of dev time that slows my project, not Blitz3D in it's current state.


Regular K(Posted 2004) [#35]
It sounds like a good idea, it cant hurt Blitz3D? can it?

but i dont think it will happen


Strider Centaur(Posted 2004) [#36]
Im with Anthony, I don't see where the community has even come close to using the DX7 engine to its fullest. of all the projects I have worked with in the last 4 years, non of them used Blitz3D(save 1). The reason was not a lack of 3D capability in blitz, but a lack of any real examples or products that could get game houses to want to use it, versus other eqaully or lower priced options. So far its all been JAVA and C++ on the those projects.

One thing I would like to mention is that developing a 3D engine is sort of counter productive these days, IMHO. With the number of high quality engines out there, some of witch are even FREE, rolling your own is usually just a waste of development time. That time could be used much more productivly working on the actuall game. Natuarally many of us like the tech details and pride of doing it ourselves, and this too is fine for a hobby, but if you plan to go commercial, get a engine and use that.

Here are 2 free 3D engines that are being used to create games as I write this:

CrystalSpace
Genesis3D

I have mentioned in the past that these should be looked at for use with BlitzMax, but if DLL is your bag of tea, you could probably wrap these for use in Blitz.

The biggest problem I see with roll your own engines, is that they never seem to go gold. Its always in a eternal development loop. You create the engine, but by the time your about halfway done, out comes DirectXnextRevision with a ton of new cool, all be it totally not required, features with just enough changes to the base set of features to make its easier to start over from scratch, in many cases. In a way Im impressed with Mark and BRL, they stuck with DX7, no constant version chasing to add bloat and features that 90% of the users of B3D will never even use. Its not easy to stand your ground on these things.

As for Open Source Libs, while I think it would be kind of neat, I don't see it really having any real impact for the masses of Blitz Users. So I can't say I'd like to see mark waste time on this, just get on with BlitzMax and more TOOLS!

PS: Im was a Linux user and supporter back in the .9x days of the kernal( when the whole OS and tool set fit on 2 3.5" floppies) and I still am, I do support open source. But not all things need to be or even should be open source. :)


N(Posted 2004) [#37]
Blitz 3D sells plenty still, and would probably even lose a lot of sales if it won't run on the majority of cards out there.


Who said that the new runtimes would be included with Blitz3D?

DXTC, render-to-texture for starters


Both would be very handy.

But would user tweaks add instability


Nobody is forcing you to use said tweaks, so if they do add instability what's stopping you from using the original renderer?

I'm still laughing at you guys that say you need the latest tech to create a saleable product.


I don't think a company developing games using the latest tech. is going to hire someone based on a resume full of 2D puzzle games.

no constant version chasing to add bloat


If you want to talk about bloat, look at the size of Blitz EXEs as it is.

So I can't say I'd like to see mark waste time on this


What? 5 minutes to package the source and upload it?


GR(Posted 2004) [#38]
I doubt this will ever happen, because I doubt Mark wants an upgraded B3D to complete with BlitzMAX, I mean if we had a B3D with cool new features supporting the newest technologies then how much would that cut into BMAX's potential sales? I am leaning towards buying something else... probably will NOT be BMAX as the support issues with B3D have been telling.


N(Posted 2004) [#39]
I mean if we had a B3D with cool new features supporting the newest technologies then how much would that cut into BMAX's potential sales?


Depends, how much do you want OOP, cross-platform support, a nifty modules system, and how much will BlitzMax cost?

If it costs the same as Blitz3D, then it'd make Blitz3D just as appealing to anyone looking to buy. If they didn't need cross-platform support or found OOP somehow confusing (trust me, I don't know how anyone could find it confusing, but I'm mentioning it for the sake of it), they might want to buy Blitz3D more. Then, after browsing the fora, they'd find links to the new runtime libraries and take a look at those.

probably will NOT be BMAX as the support issues with B3D have been telling.


I can see where you're coming from on that.


AdrianT(Posted 2004) [#40]
I'd like to have someone fiddle around in blitz3D and open up extra UV channels, DXTC texture support. Perhaps look at some better alpha sorting and then just see what they can do. Would certainly be nice to get some extra functionality out of B3d pipeline that could only be done with a few tweaks inside of blitz.

For me at least, the things holding back blitz from making commercial quality games can be fixed with the few changes made above. Presently the biggest issue I have with any ambitious graphical project is alpha sorting which allways gets in the way with anything outside of a tech demo type affair.


Warren(Posted 2004) [#41]
What? 5 minutes to package the source and upload it?

You're assuming that the 3D code is already broken off into it's own lib file, ready and waiting for you to link to it.

I highly doubt that is the case.


Warren(Posted 2004) [#42]
I don't think a company developing games using the latest tech. is going to hire someone based on a resume full of 2D puzzle games.

They should. That person knows how to take a project from conception to completion, and don't have a portfolio filled with tech demos. That person is worth their weight in gold.


Rambus(Posted 2004) [#43]
I'm for this, but I doubt simply because of a false sense of greed that it will ever be released.
(If you had the engine source, whats to stop you from making blitz3d better then blitz max *Shock*)

On that note, I'm positive the community could pop out a true DX9 render system with the source before we ever see blitzmax :P


Shifty Geezer(Posted 2004) [#44]
BlitzMax isn't about graphics but a better development language with better language features. Proper OOP is valuable and I miss it in Blitz3D.

A couple of simple extra features could make a lot of difference to 3D visuals. Per Pixel lighting so you don't get lighting 'jaggies' on curved surfaces for example, as well as shadows and bump mapping would be cool.

Most of the limitations with current Blitz projects is that people using Blitx are at best, coders, if not just inexperienced hobbiests with a dream. A lot of the modelling and texturing that makes commercial releases look good is beyond the talents and resources of those working on Blitz projects.


Duckstab[o](Posted 2004) [#45]
I agree
An artist can paint a brilliant Picture Yet a Director Can make a film from the artist impression


Gabriel(Posted 2004) [#46]
I'm still laughing at you guys that say you need the latest tech to create a saleable product. Since almost nobody here has yet managed to make a saleable product by the standards of 5 years ago. And of those that have, almost none have gotten past the initial demo stages.

So when you finally get your bang-up-to-date tech, what will the excuse be then?


That's ok, since I'm having a fair chuckle at someone who uses the 3d engine almost exclusively for 2d games telling people who use it for 3d what they need. It's not all about "the latest tech". Render to Texture, Texture Compression and Vertex Shaders for skeletal animation would simply allow you to get a lot more performance and get your games running faster and on lower spec machines.

If we're having to prove ourselves worthy of an opinion, I've written three saleable products in Blitz ( at least, I think they're saleable, since people are giving me money for them. ) The finished products could have been more saleable if I had been able to do the things I wanted to ( and did ) do faster thanks to vertex shaders and render to texture. They would also have run better on 8mb videocards if I could have used texture compression. I have two more completed products waiting to be released, both of which I have every confidence will be saleable. I hope that qualifies me for an opinion.


Duckstab[o](Posted 2004) [#47]
Yep Deffo true Sybixus this engine can still make saleable products but sadly most people buy games on the value of what they look like and not play like this is proven day in day out anything 2d as in code makes the game yet 3d sell the product since the most current titles look nice but play like **** I think i should mention doom3 at this moment


namar777(Posted 2004) [#48]
For once that im with noel crower. Release the source....plzzzzzz


Duckstab[o](Posted 2004) [#49]
any ideas howmany registered users with blitz3d and still active in forum would be handy to have them around still when blitzmax arrives to give advice and info to new users.:)
give them some candy if only a treat to comfort them while they wait :)
Please Please Please#

Setup a good stable format that the Customer thinks is working to help them and you will find most will stay or
it will go the way of micropants


Ziltch(Posted 2004) [#50]
It is not just about New fancy commands. It also would mean lots of small missing commands like in the "Blitz is hacked threads'.
Alot of commands to 'Set' do not have a 'Get' counterpart. This makes writing functions alot harder and or messy.


N(Posted 2004) [#51]
Alot of commands to 'Set' do not have a 'Get' counterpart


Yeah, those would likely be easy to add as they just return values which are likely stored somewhere. If not, you could simply add fields that store them.

One thing I really wanted with Lotus R2 was to be able to use EntityRadius/EntityBox to set emission areas- couldn't do that 'cause it'd require 'unsafe' reading of memory that for all I know will change with the next version.

Setup a good stable format that the Customer thinks is working to help them and you will find most will stay or
it will go the way of micropants


Are you implying they'll become a multi-billion dollar corporation?


Gabriel(Posted 2004) [#52]
Alot of commands to 'Set' do not have a 'Get' counterpart.


Ooooh, good point. Code symmetry for the whole entity system would be very useful. Having to add variables and type fields to store these manually is clunky at best.


DNielsen(Posted 2004) [#53]
I'm still laughing at you guys that say you need the latest tech to create a saleable product. Since almost nobody here has yet managed to make a saleable product by the standards of 5 years ago. And of those that have, almost none have gotten past the initial demo stages.

So when you finally get your bang-up-to-date tech, what will the excuse be then?

@Anthony Flack well said.


Hotcakes(Posted 2004) [#54]
support issues with B3D have been telling.

http://www.proteanide.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2443#2443

(If you had the engine source, whats to stop you from making blitz3d better then blitz max *Shock*)

Well, the language would be crap, comparitively.


DNielsen(Posted 2004) [#55]
I have my own idea about how things will evolve.

BlitzMax will be released, Support for BlitzPlus and B3D will be discontinued, and those two products sold for $49 "as is" with special deals to schools etc. Moving forward BlitzMax will be the only supported tool, but still, nothing is preventing me or anyone else creating cool products with B3D or Plus.


N(Posted 2004) [#56]
Bump.


Dreamora(Posted 2004) [#57]
The stencil part is outdated now ;)

But still one of the most needed things is missing: DDS / DXTC or S3TC hardware compressed textures which give 4-6x as much space in graphicsram and would allow an acceptable graphics quality.


N(Posted 2004) [#58]
The stencil part is outdated now ;)


So is DirectX 7, but unlike DirectX 7, people can still find a use for the stencil buffer.


Dreamora(Posted 2004) [#59]
didn't mean it this way but stencil buffer stuff can be done with 1.88 as you have seen in the mirror example and the stencil shadow example :)

therefor you don't need any sources anymore.


N(Posted 2004) [#60]
Yeah, but you see it's a sortof hacked implementation 'cause it's not straight through Blitz3D- it had to be done by a third party. Now obviously it wasn't that hard to do, so why didn't Blitz Research do it?


Dreamora(Posted 2004) [#61]
1) compatibility ( you perhaps saw the probs with ati and different nv drivers )
2) stability
3) Blitz3D has a very far "downcompatibility" ( remember the multitexturing problem if you have a layer with an alpha texture? ) ... and for a usable stencil speed you need GF4 TI 4400 or higher or you would see a stencil dia show.
beside that the shadowing isn't right so far as selfshadowing is missing :D ( haven't seen many stencil shadow implementations where the self shadowing was not totally bugged )

the thing I don't understand is why we still beg for DXTC textures. thats 5 years old stuff and quite needed ... it would help Blitz3d to survive quite some time due to the raised texture quality that we could offer.


Filax(Posted 2004) [#62]
i'm right with Noel Cower about the source engine release, why ?

because simply mark and the blitz support seem to be full time
on bmax, and blitz3d will see its development stopping
at one moment ?


Gavin Beard(Posted 2004) [#63]
OK, just purchased Dark Game SDK (from darkbasic) and its kinda cool (although the way darkbasic works kinda sucks but i wont go into that) its fast .exe's are smaller and having the chance to use c++ is great.

It was ported straight from DBPro source and i think it would be great to have this with blitz as blitz rocks so much more.

Hope this will one day happen


N(Posted 2005) [#64]
Bumpetty bump bump.

Why the heck aren't my posts getting added?

Edit: Seems like 'Bump' as a reply doesn't get added. *Sits in Blitz Research's head* Now why would you go and do a thing like that?


Braincell(Posted 2005) [#65]
Ok, i want to sign this thread too meaning i'd like, no no no would just LOOOOOOVVVVVVE BR to release the source to b3d under certain conditions they set. Any conditions. Just GIVE US :) and i know for a fact that b3d will stand a great chance for improvement.

But perhaps i believe that Mark is trying to sabotage b3d now that bmax is out to force people to get bmax and join that community instead of this one, perhaps as it will be more profitable for him. So that might be one of the reasons he wouldn't give the source which would mean huge improvements to b3d.


JoshK(Posted 2005) [#66]
Why do you need texture compression? Where are you hiding all these big beautiful 1024x1024 textures you must have?


Damien Sturdy(Posted 2005) [#67]
Bump.

[edit]

hey it worked for me.

I beleive releasing the source to b3d would be a good idea but he has admited that b3d will still be worked on now that max is done, once the bugs are removed i assume. (lets hope bug removal doesnt take 5 years, then....)


Sledge(Posted 2005) [#68]
I think it's fairly rude to keep bumping this as if it were a "normal" request because (i.) I believe we can take it as read that eveyone likes getting something for nothing so "signing" is pretty pointless (of COURSE you'd like the source released!), and (ii.) Blitz3D is still a fairly unique product meaning Mark would have to be a NUTTER, in capitals and everything, to release it now (there's a reason, after all, why ID doesn't giftwrap its engines until they have been firmly put in the shade by the company's new tech).

While I'm moaning, how does moving the engine to DX9 make it better when one of the nicest things about it is the fact that it's DX7 and therefore shareware friendly? Who gets to decide what's "better" in this utopian open source future?


Gabriel(Posted 2005) [#69]
Who gets to decide what's "better" in this utopian open source future?


Since no one's going to come around to your house and forceably install a new modified DX9 version of B3d over your original BRL one, you do, and so does everyone else.

Your comparison with ID is completely spurious, BTW, since they give away the engine and source, whereas BRL are being asked to release the source only to paying customers. There are many high quality, modern 3d engines which allow customers access to the source ( sometimes in return for additional fees and sometimes not. )

And your point (i) that everyone likes getting something for nothing applies equally to every "normal" request, which is what you just said this wasn't.


Shifty Geezer(Posted 2005) [#70]
release the source only to paying customers.

What's to stop competitors buying the product and getting access to Blitz's implementation? It be giving away Blitz's trade secrets.


Sledge(Posted 2005) [#71]

Since no one's going to come around to your house and forceably install a new modified DX9 version of B3d over your original BRL one, you do, and so does everyone else.



And if I'd prefer DX7 bump-mapping to DX9 shaders? I'd rather petition Mark for those directly than rely on the community's sense of direction, ta.


And your point (i) that everyone likes getting something for nothing applies equally to every "normal" request, which is what you just said this wasn't.


I don't want to labour the point, but no. A normal request, ie a feature request, asks for Mark to upgrade, fix or alter some aspect of the engine, something we got to do as part and parcel of the b3d package (given, of course, that there was no obligation for BRL to do anything but bug fix). Releasing the source is not a normal request in this sense and would involve you getting something you HADN'T paid for; something which, until recently, it would have been completely out of the question to even mention.

But I'm not saying it's an awful idea; I'm suggsting it's premature and that now it's on the table people should maybe have the good grace to just wait 'n' see rather than mithering. It's not like the thread will have gone unnoticed.


ThomasD(Posted 2005) [#72]
Hi. I am using Blitz3D but noticed that when i test the demos(eg. letters.bb) it says blitz runtime window in a dialog screen before the demo itself runs. How can i make the blitz runtime window disappear or alter the window title screen?


wizzlefish(Posted 2005) [#73]
I don't think it is possible.

I say they release the source to the ENGINE, nothing else. Not the IDE, etc. Just the ENGINE. It would work. And it will stop in development, because BlitzMAX will rise. So if we want it to continue in development, we need to have the source!


Braincell(Posted 2005) [#74]
Ok ok, how about releasing only PARTS of the source that do not give competitors the edge. I mean Scouse is doing miracles using DirectX 7 SDK and blitz, he asked Mark to at least tell him details about Structs that Blitz3d uses, Mark declined!! Why?!?!?!?!!!


Gabriel(Posted 2005) [#75]
And if I'd prefer DX7 bump-mapping to DX9 shaders? I'd rather petition Mark for those directly than rely on the community's sense of direction, ta.


Then make a feature request, and do just that. I certainly wouldn't post in that thread telling you you were being rude for asking for it, or that you should wait or that you didn't need it or whatever else. ( Not specifically directed at what you said here, just a general attitude towards feature requests around here whereby anyone who doesn't personally need something tells everyone else what they need. ) I don't rate your chances of getting that request filled any higher than I do this request ( IE: real low ) but I wouldn't tell you not to ask.

Releasing the source is not a normal request in this sense and would involve you getting something you HADN'T paid for; something which, until recently, it would have been completely out of the question to even mention.


Must be a perspective thing. I never really felt that I was getting something I'd already paid for with new features. I could equally argue that it's less than a "normal" feature request insomuch as there is no debugging and testing required, just whatever tidying and organisation was required ( which could be a little or a lot of work for all I know ) but we'd probably both be splitting hairs.


RGR(Posted 2005) [#76]
;--


Sledge(Posted 2005) [#77]

Then make a feature request, and do just that. I certainly wouldn't post in that thread telling you you were being rude for asking for it


I don't think Noel's rude for asking. But however it's dressed ("Hey, the community is doing ya a big favour by adding to the engine!") it's still a massive, massive thing to request... the clamouring's making me cringe a bit. Don't any of you play Poker? :P


Must be a perspective thing. I never really felt that I was getting something I'd already paid for with new features.


It is a perspective thing. When I bought B3D there were a couple of updates out and I think there might have even been a features request forum -- it was pretty clear to me that I was buying a program that would be bugfixed and for which Mark would consider feature requests. But there was no mention of us getting the source at any point... which is why I think it's in a different league. I can certainly see what you mean about it being a "sub-normal" (if you pardon the expression) request though.

By the way, Sybixsus, I really appreciate the tone of your reply.


Hi. I am using Blitz3D but noticed that when i test the demos(eg. letters.bb) it says blitz runtime window in a dialog screen before the demo itself runs. How can i make the blitz runtime window disappear or alter the window title screen?


Updating should do it (remove the runtime title, that is) and there are a couple of app's knocking around that hack a customised startup in although I don't have a link (check the archives here and at Blitzcoder).


JoshK(Posted 2005) [#78]
Blitz's trade secrets.

Haha, the "trade secrets" are just a bunch of data buffers and DX commands.


N(Posted 2005) [#79]
What's to stop competitors buying the product and getting access to Blitz's implementation?


Simply put, the license. Law is on their side.

one of the nicest things about it is the fact that it's DX7 and therefore shareware friendly?


I don't care that it's shareware friendly, you can shove the support for your low-end users up your left nostril for all I care.

And if I'd prefer DX7 bump-mapping to DX9 shaders?


Then don't use any DX9 upgrades. Geez, is it that hard to do?

Releasing the source is not a normal request in this sense and would involve you getting something you HADN'T paid for; something which, until recently, it would have been completely out of the question to even mention.


What is your definition of a 'normal request'? Really, how is this out of the ordinary to request that we be able to add in our own features that would otherwise be impossible without hacking away at Blitz? And why would it have been completely out of the question? Because Mark is your lord and savior and you must get down on all fours and lick his boots just to be in his presence? (Edit: By the way, I'm not saying Mark wears boots or enjoys having boots licked, just an expression)

Hi. I am using Blitz3D but noticed that when i test the demos(eg. letters.bb) it says blitz runtime window in a dialog screen before the demo itself runs. How can i make the blitz runtime window disappear or alter the window title screen?


Don't hijack my threads.

What if Mark puts the source on a server ... Users who have signed a special contract with him get access and can alter and add Commands and compile their own new runtime.dll ... download it to test it ... maybe everybody could test this beta-version...


I would be willing to make such a compromise.

Haha, the "trade secrets" are just a bunch of data buffers and DX commands.


Obviously.

For the record, Sledge: I don't mean to sound rude or offended, but your being against the benefit of the Blitz community is something I do not like.


Sledge(Posted 2005) [#80]

What is your definition of a 'normal request'?


This has been covered with Sybixsus.


For the record, Sledge: I don't mean to sound rude or offended, but your being against the benefit of the Blitz community is something I do not like.


Assuming once again, of course, that you know what will best benefit the community from that vantage point up on Mt. Olympus. But seeing as patriotism is the last (and all too often first) refuge of the scoundrel, you'll excuse me if I don't take your jingoistic nonsense to heart. It's not this community I'm against - what sort of moron would be "against" an internet community of programmers anyway?! - but the notion that Mark's work should automatically be open sourced because it doesn't satisfy the neophiles amongst us. I beg caution, because I suspect it's the singular vision behind B3D thus far which is largely responsible for the quality of what *is* included.

With that in mind, I quite like RaGR's idea of a more tightly regulated community effort. I'm not a luddite, but I do think we should attempt to move forward in a considerate, respectful manner at least.


you can shove the support for your low-end users up your left nostril for all I care.


And that's your pitch for gaining access to the source?! You make my point for me.


Ruz(Posted 2005) [#81]
welease woger(no release woderwick)


N(Posted 2005) [#82]
I have an idea, let's bump this.


Tom(Posted 2005) [#83]
U go gurl!


Sledge(Posted 2005) [#84]
[GRIN] If he'd let the community dive in and fix the FMOD functionality it would be a different matter. :)


Ice9(Posted 2005) [#85]
Unleash the dogs. There are interlopers afoot.


Naughty Alien(Posted 2005) [#86]
..I'm on Noels side..releasing Blitz3D source would me more than reasonable way, since Blitzmax 3D will cover all hi end GPU features (according to BRL), so whats the problem for releasing Blitz3D source...I just purchase Torque game engine, comercial license, and they provide me full source for all tools...so, if Torque is proven with some AAA titles, with cover for all features whats impossible for Blitz3D, whats the problem to release Blitz source for guys whos ready to spend some time and make is DX9 supported?? I mean, even with released source Blitz3D cant be opponent for Blitzmax, since Blitzmax will run on OpenGL, so why is problem to eventualy make Blitz3D DX9 powered to make full 'Blitzline' covered properly for this two API's..I'm absolutely on Noels side..


Raitsun(Posted 2005) [#87]
i'm on aliens ans noels side...
So that the Alien (the naughty one) can complete the DX9 Wrapper faster :]


Gabriel(Posted 2005) [#88]
Since it's entirely optional, and affects no one unless they choose to let it, how could I possibly be against it? And the plus is that there are a lot of little things which are never going to be added to b3d which might actually be available if we choose.


Alienforce(Posted 2005) [#89]
If the Blitz3D source was released, would it not take the focus from Blitzmax ?!?

I think it a Developer SDK for the "engine" would be better.

/Alienforce


Gabriel(Posted 2005) [#90]
If the Blitz3D source was released, would it not take the focus from Blitzmax ?!?


For how long? The entire ten minutes it took to upload the source?

I think it a Developer SDK for the "engine" would be better.


Which - unlike this suggestion - takes a lot of time to set up. You're mixing your messages a bit here.


Makepool(Posted 2005) [#91]
Role on BlitzMax3D! I agree with Anthony, nobody publicly has made anything as good as DX7 can do and so people ought to be doing what I'm doing; working on a game with the emphasis on the game rather than the graphics until Max3D comes out, then I'll port it and I'll have the best of both worlds.

There's not a lot of point waiting for Max3D to start your game. If you’re one of the few people here that can see a project through to the end then by the time you've built a decent game on top of the cutting edge graphics then graphics probably won't be cutting edge anymore. My advise for what it’s worth; game first, graphics after.


ozak(Posted 2005) [#92]
Anthony is right. Spend more time actually completing a game instead of gaping in awe of all the cool new directx features which the Unreal 3 engine uses (which won't be out for a while). Good gameplay still beats fancy graphics, and most homeusers either have old gfx cards or never update their drivers so for indies stability is of the essence :)


Hotcakes(Posted 2005) [#93]
I'm all for B3D being open sourced, but I think only after Max3D is out.


GfK(Posted 2007) [#94]
Any possibility of this happening now that Max3D is sort of off the radar?


(tu) ENAY(Posted 2007) [#95]
Give the source away to Mark's best work to date? I doubt it.


bytecode77(Posted 2007) [#96]
blitz3d is still selling. its old but it works on every machine. in a year or two, everyone will be using bmax, so blitz3d will may be open source as soon as it wont be selled because of bmax.

i would like to see it opensource, too, but i think mark sibly decides that on his own, and not what you guys are talking in this thread :)


Rroff(Posted 2007) [#97]
I'd rather see a few more updates to B3D than see it going open source personally... theres not a lot more it needs imo but a few features wouldn't go amiss... (proper 3D sound support, stencil shadows atleast if not a more complete real-time shadow implementation and a few other little things that escape me right now as I'm pretty tired)

And again personally I dislike blitz max, B3D feels much more intuiative to play with...


Pinete(Posted 2007) [#98]
yes, Rroff is right...

I don't like Bmax because it seems to be more exigent, less
intuitive... the learning curve is rough and hard...

I'm sure just another Blitz3D based on DirectX9 bringing
new visual posibilities and fixing some of the lacks of the
current Blitz3D would be more than enough to make the blitz
community the most happy community all over the world.

regards!


H&K(Posted 2007) [#99]
I don't like Bmax because it seems to be more exigent, less
intuitive... the learning curve is rough and hard...
You can use Bmax in just the same way as you use B3d
What makes the hard learning curve is the leaning to use it differntly to B3d
So if that the way you like it, you dont have to learn much.

. instead of /
' insted of ;

Not difficult is it


Trixx(Posted 2007) [#100]
Another vote for B3D here, and I don't agree that it won't be selling in 1-2 years from now... With little improvements, I think it can continue to sell for another 5-10 years, even if there is a 3D module for BMax.

There are many new "basic like" languages, many of them similar to B3D or BMAX in their language structure, many of them are free, but none of them has stability , easy of use, easy of 3D etc. like B3D.


Curtastic(Posted 2007) [#101]
You can use Bmax in just the same way as you use B3d

Actually for example using using a list is more complicated in blitzmax. wich probably makes it more "exigent" whatever that means, sound like complex


John Blackledge(Posted 2007) [#102]
(Firstly, Curt, please don't criticise someone else for your own lack of education.)

As I've so often said, I would happily pay for B3D again if that's what it takes to keep Mark & Co in business, even though I don't use BlitzMax. I'd definitely pay again if a few tweaks were added. I rely on B3D for stability and compatibility, as well as ease of use.

As for releasing the source code, it's about time this thread was locked and scrapped - people are too happily free with other people's work.


Dreamora(Posted 2007) [#103]
For compatibility, B3D would need a DX9 upgrade.
I've head some serious problems in the past months to get modded drivers (for mobile) on ATI that do not cut the DX7 support for DX9 (omaga for example)

I would most likely happily buy Max3D or a Blitz3D 2 (B3D + updated rendering + extend on types - don't need full MMO but extending types is very powerfull and saves lots of problems and workarounds)


Pinete(Posted 2007) [#104]
I jave just an idea, maybe its silly, but could works.

Imagine we open a poll in which all the people interested
in an updated version of B3D in which we could find all the features we have been claiming for at least the two last years, vote as a potential user to pay, I guess, 100$ for that version.

Maybe, if there are a lot of people interested, Mark could re-plan his policy with Bmax or simply, invest certain time making a B3D 2.0 because he detects "bussiness" there.

Imagine there are 500 users could pay 100$ for B3D 2.0...
100*500 = 50000$... Should be Mark who decided if it is
interesting to work in a new version that SURE will sell 500 units (I have said 500 as 5000, is just an example)

comments and suggestions???


regards!


ShadowTurtle(Posted 2007) [#105]
I think Mark do use the new Max3D Engine (OpenGL) as new Engine for Blitz3D.


(tu) ENAY(Posted 2007) [#106]
It's interesting to read the 2 year old argument in this topic and I'll bet 99% of those people haven't gone on to do anything productive since their posting.

As Rob Farley says, barely anyone will do anything useful with it, anyone that does do something will probably keep it to themselves or show off like a prat. I have this feeling the source code will be out of most people's leagues, especially since it's not coded IN BLITZ and most people here don't even finish anything in Blitz.

So, of course he should keep his intellectual property to himself!


Ricky Smith(Posted 2007) [#107]

I'll bet 99% of those people haven't gone on to do anything productive since their posting.

barely anyone will do anything useful with it

anyone that does do something will probably keep it to themselves or show off like a prat

I have this feeling the source code will be out of most people's leagues

most people here don't even finish anything in Blitz


Your disdain of 99% of the members of the Blitz community is now getting very tedious & boring.
What are your great achievements in Blitz3d ?
Please show us lesser mortals what the mighty and superior Enay has done recently.


Warren(Posted 2007) [#108]
It doesn't matter what's be done recently. He's right.

Releasing the source would result in, maybe, 1 interesting project which would fizzle out in a month.


Rroff(Posted 2007) [#109]
As I've said before, I'd happily buy B3D again to see a few little extras added, I'm not concerned personally over a full blown DX9 renderer but a few decent feature updates would be nice... B3D is so near to my requirements but not quite and a LOT nicer to play with than any similiar product I've ever used...


Ricky Smith(Posted 2007) [#110]
He may be right about how many new projects will be created but who knows for sure. The Blitz3d community was very active & productive until the release of BlitzMax which killed it stone dead.
However I think that his opinion of 99% of Blitz users is a gross exaggeration and I would like Mr Enay to put his latest project where his mouth is.


Gabriel(Posted 2007) [#111]
It doesn't matter what's be done recently. He's right.

Well since "most people here don't even finish anything in Blitz" then it surely follows that Blitz even existing is a futile effort. Might just as well scrap the whole thing now and save everyone the trouble of trying.


Curtastic(Posted 2007) [#112]
(Firstly, Curt, please don't criticise someone else for your own lack of education.)


just noting that I was able to basically understand the sentence without knowing what the word means...

I think Mark should release the source to Blitz3d when he decides to stop updateing it completely and move on to blitzmax, that way the community doesn't feel so abandoned and they can attempt to maintain b3d.


Who was John Galt?(Posted 2007) [#113]
By open-sourcing B3D he'd essentially be giving away his product for all and sundry to copy, modify and release their own product. Why would anyone do this with a product that is still commercially viable?


*(Posted 2007) [#114]
TBH I think Blitz 3d should stay the way it is, its a perfect starting block for people to come into Blitz coding and learn 3d etc. When they want something more they can move to Blitz Max and learn more experienced stuff.

If I were you guys instead of asking about Blitz3d going open source I would start a community project in Max and create a kick ass engine that is under license or something that way at least its there and done, something like MiniB3d.


Pinete(Posted 2007) [#115]
But, really I don't understand as well as I wish the problem
with asking for upgrades!

A lot of people here starts to do demagogy talking about
how many projects blablabla or if blitz3d is perfect for
blablabla...

Just asking for more features to do more beauty and interesting programs that could fit right now with the exigences of the market!

Is like to have a car... what's wrong saying for a more powerful engine or a better MP3 radio?

I am pretty sure there are a lot of people has left Blitz3D
in the last year because is very difficult to make some things because it lacks of features in some aspects (speed, more visual FX, Alpha objects management, animation system, 2D layer for writting text on screen at a reasonable speed, lack of unicode support...)

Blitz3D is for me the most amazing language I've ever seen, its concept is really brilliant, very far from other attempts from other companies.

Just to say that is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY if Blitz Research or Mark want this community continues alive, introduce some improvements in Blitz3D, in terms of UPDATES or in the format of a new application (i.e. Blitz3D 2.0).

During a lot of time this has been topic of discussion, and just that means something.

I will pay another 100$ or even 200$ in order to see a improved version of Blitz3D, with the same editor, same commands and same whole language, but improved.

Thanks and best regards!


Who was John Galt?(Posted 2007) [#116]
Blitz3D 2.0=Max+Max3D. He's working on it. B3D was difficult to maintain. That's why Mark created a new product.


Gabriel(Posted 2007) [#117]
(Firstly, Curt, please don't criticise someone else for your own lack of education.)

Actually the word was being used in entirely the wrong way, so even if Curt had been criticizing ( which I don't beleive he was ) he would have been correct. Unless BlitzMax really is more "urgent" than Blitz3d.

By open-sourcing B3D he'd essentially be giving away his product for all and sundry to copy, modify and release their own product. Why would anyone do this with a product that is still commercially viable?

Oh geez, do people really still not understand the difference between open source and public domain? Open-sourcing B3D is not essentially giving anything away. If anything it makes it MORE commercially viable because he's giving them more for their money.

When you buy one of SSwift's systems, shadow, gui, whatever, you get the source to it. That doesn't mean that one person buys it and gives it to everyone else, does it? That doesn't mean he distributes it for free to all and sundry, does it? Of course it doesn't.

All it means is that paying customers get the source code as well.

TBH I think Blitz 3d should stay the way it is,

And why would the source code being made available make it anything other than what it is?


I really think some people ( not anyone specifically, or related to the quotes I've made above ) just like to try to scupper anyone else's reasonable request.

I would have thought that GFK would have been the one person on this forum least likely to be accused of requesting something frivolously and never getting anything done. I'm probably a fool to myself for even getting involved in this thread, but it would - in my estimation - be a damn shame if this request got ignored for some of the bizarre reasons given so far against it when there is a strong case that it would benefit BRL, a good case that it would benefit the community and no case at all that it could hurt anyone.


Warren(Posted 2007) [#118]
The trouble is that it opens up a world of support woes for BRL as well. Somebody mods their Blitz3D library, has a problem, BRL refuses to help (rightly so), and then that person gets pissed off and bad mouths them. Don't tell me that wouldn't happen...


Who was John Galt?(Posted 2007) [#119]
I don't see anyone trying to scupper anything. I don't believe anything discussed here will affect Mark's decision.
When you buy one of SSwift's systems, shadow, gui, whatever, you get the source to it. That doesn't mean that one person buys it and gives it to everyone else, does it? That doesn't mean he distributes it for free to all and sundry, does it? Of course it doesn't.
The shadow system is of interest to a more limited audience (i.e. ppl who use Blitz). 3D engines are more widely sought after - only recently someone tried to sell a wrapped version of B3D for use with other languages.


Gabriel(Posted 2007) [#120]
I don't see anyone trying to scupper anything. I don't believe anything discussed here will affect Mark's decision.

Sadly that's probably true that Mark won't be affected by good reasons for or good reasons again, but that doesn't mean people aren't *trying*.

The trouble is that it opens up a world of support woes for BRL as well. Somebody mods their Blitz3D library, has a problem, BRL refuses to help (rightly so), and then that person gets pissed off and bad mouths them. Don't tell me that wouldn't happen...

You know perfectly well that I can't tell you that wouldn't happen. I can tell you that the kind of person who does that is just as likely to badmouth them because they're not updating the engine or letting anyone else have a go. Idiots don't need any help to be idiots.

I do agree that they would need to make the support position very clear though. They couldn't and shouldn't offer any support for the source. It should be entirely at one own's risk.


LineOf7s(Posted 2007) [#121]
Actually the word was being used in entirely the wrong way... Unless BlitzMax really is more "urgent" than Blitz3d.


Actually, based on the (second) definitions I've found, I thought 'exigent' was rather well-used in context.

ex·i·gent
adj.
1. Requiring immediate action or remedy.
2. Requiring much effort or expense; demanding.

I don't like Bmax because it seems to be more exigent, less
intuitive... the learning curve is rough and hard...

A small point, I know, but I'd hate to see someone inaccurately accused of word misuse. :o)

On-topic: Open-source Blitz doesn't effect me directly, so feel free to fight it out amongst yourselves, but I think it's true that it's unlikely BRL will formulate a position based on a thread of this calibre (no offence to the posters within).


(tu) ENAY(Posted 2007) [#122]
You may as well just accept the simple common sense fact that releasing the source code to the public now is just as dumb as an idea as releasing just over 2 years ago was.

Whilst there are some great reasons mentioned here as to why having the source open would be useful, what would Blitz research gain from releasing the source code to their longest running (and still to this day most expensive) blitz product to date?

Nothing really, except for a bit of business suicide of course.


RGR(Posted 2007) [#123]
.

Last edited 2012


Carolinaaa(Posted 2007) [#124]
I agree that Blitz 3d needs updates, no matter if you have to pay for them, especially i'm concerned about compatibility with Windows Vista.

Regarding doing it open-source, that is a exclusive decission of the creator, Mark, and nobody can take that decission for him. He is the creator and he is free to decide what is best for his products. He is the creator and he rules on his creations, dot.
It is very easy to be solidary with the intellectual property rights of others, the difficult thing is to be solidary with your own i. p. rights, so those of you who are screaming "Blitz 3d has to be open source", begin sharing your own codes, to have, at least, the moral legitimacy to ask others to share their own codes.


Dreamora(Posted 2007) [#125]
Blitz3D actually runs better with Vista than with XP as Vista does DX7 through call translation (kind of) so you do not need DX7 drivers. On the other side, on XP you need DX7 drivers and I with you good luck when finding them:

Intel users tend to have broken ones (intel started hardware acceleration with DX9) and many ati users tend to use omega drivers because the official ones are not the best in many cases. And omega has ripped out DX7 as well.


H&K(Posted 2007) [#126]
Deleted By User


Naughty Alien(Posted 2007) [#127]
..I'm not Dinosaur..actually, I am King Kong..


Mattizzle(Posted 2007) [#128]
Well rats... looks like I'm gonna have to go to Full Sail and learn C++.... aww crap. :-P


_PJ_(Posted 2007) [#129]
I like Edzup's post, and Carolineaaa's.

There's no need to bring so much negativity here, if you guys just want to whine and whinge about Blitz3D, stop using it and go look elsewhere.

Personally, I think Blitz3D is a great package, so much has been achieved with it. It is already far more than it was intended.


Chroma(Posted 2007) [#130]
If I were you guys instead of asking about Blitz3d going open source I would start a community project in Max and create a kick ass engine that is under license or something that way at least its there and done, something like MiniB3d.


After reading all the posts here, the post above by Ed is the shining beacon cutting through the dark and stormy night. It's spot on.


bytecode77(Posted 2007) [#131]
1. this belongs to offtopic :)
2. this discussion does not even move mark sibly to a simply 'no!'


steve_ancell(Posted 2007) [#132]
I agree with EdzUp... 'Blitz 3d should stay the way it is'. There's been a lot of games made with it, comercial and freeware, so it is already a good piece of kit. It would be good if Blitz3D could read HexaDecimal numbers directly though, just like the old computers used to. ;)


Subirenihil(Posted 2007) [#133]
Blitz3D reads hexadecimal:
variable=$ABCDEF12
pixelfastcoloryellow=$FFFF00
pixelfastcolorblue=$0000FF
pixelfastcolorred=$FF0000
pixelfastcolorpurple=$800080
pixelfastcolorgreen=$00FF00

You just need the dollar sign in front.


Mattizzle(Posted 2007) [#134]
Bing Bang Bong... turkey in a thong. This might be close to the longest thread in the entire blitz forums.


bytecode77(Posted 2007) [#135]
the stencil shadow thread was longer :P
ps: why dont anyone move this to offtopic?


Mattizzle(Posted 2007) [#136]
Oh btw, devil, Your engines are awsome!


steve_ancell(Posted 2007) [#137]
@ Subirenihil...
Thanx for that bit of info. Can Hex be read from data statements without the dollar sine ?. It would be a bit of a pain having to keep putting it in every piece of data statement.


H&K(Posted 2007) [#138]
It would be a bit of a pain having to keep putting it ($) in every piece of data statement
Lazy

Anyway, if you didnt have to put $ infront of HEX numbers you would just have to put something else infront of decimal numbers, wouldnt you. And that would be a pain


steve_ancell(Posted 2007) [#139]
B-bu-bu-bu-but...Lazy is what computers were invented for :) . The primitive old Amstrad CPC let you do it that way. Ah well, it was worth a try I suppoze.


Smokey(Posted 2007) [#140]
Why releasing 1 year of work and probably more for free ? If I were Mark then I would'nt release anything.
It's worth 100$ for blitz3d compiler/ide, the source would be worth tousands of dollars.


Ian Thompson(Posted 2007) [#141]
Wait for the Max module... but what if you dont like Max? I personaly hate it and the day it came out as a demo it was a great dissapointment me... what am I supposed to do?

If B3D had just continued development, made it DX9/OpenGL, thread compliant, in-line assembler etc... :(

...then you would have had the nirvana of an easy beginners language topped of with powerful features. Instead we have BMax and its messy OO interpretation, beginner unfriendliness, steep learning curve and cryptic syntax... (this is my opinion on it).

This 'You'll swallow BMax' or starve attitude is wearing real thin on me... B3D is dead because the developers want it that way not because it has to be... I'm slowly coming to accept this.

NM, if I cant get an upgrade to Blistz3d, I can always try, Cobra, Nuclear Basic, GLBasic... etc...


steve_ancell(Posted 2007) [#142]
I don't think Blitz3D is dead quite yet, A lot of programmers are still using it (me included), and probably still will be using it for a few years. I think the final nail in the coffin, will be when stuff like 80 core processors start flooding the market.


bytecode77(Posted 2007) [#143]
thx Mattizzle :D


Mattizzle(Posted 2007) [#144]
80 core processors... wow. That's actually quite scary :-P


Damien Sturdy(Posted 2007) [#145]

Instead we have BMax and its messy OO interpretation, beginner unfriendliness, steep learning curve and cryptic syntax...



To me, Max is unfinished, but I picked it up in no time. Something has, however, kept me from going back to B3D- that must mean something as B3D was a pretty damn sweet language!