Leadwerks Engine 2.0 screenshots

Community Forums/Showcase/Leadwerks Engine 2.0 screenshots

JoshK(Posted 2008) [#1]





puki(Posted 2008) [#2]
Looking good - but also very Doom III plastic-looking.


Zethrax(Posted 2008) [#3]
Looks good. There's too much of a metalic-plastic sheen on the walls, floor, and some other parts, though.


MadJack(Posted 2008) [#4]
On the tiles maybe - but these shots are about showing off the bumpmapping etc..


sswift(Posted 2008) [#5]
I agree with the previous posters. Also, I think that increasing the contrast and saturation would do wonders for the scene.

I've made these mockups of what the scene would look like with said changes. I have included a link to the PSD with the adjustment layers if you wish to apply these changes to your textures. It wasn't a simple saturation increase, I adjusted the saturation and brightness of the reds, yellows, and greens seperately.




http://raccoonrocket.com/blitz/le.psd


ImaginaryHuman(Posted 2008) [#6]
Looks pretty nice. The one thing I don't find convincing are the hanging lights, the size of them and the amount of light they're supposedly outputting to light the scene is totally out of proportion. Either that, or your ambient occlusion lighting implies a source of light or an amount of light which does not match the number or intensity or position of your light sources.


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#7]
Agreed... there just isn't enough contrast. Obviously it's not supposed to look photo-realistic, but more contrast will enhance the atmosphere you already have happening, and make the scene feel more believable. Ideally in that scene you want your ambient lighting to be black... not the gray you seem to have from cranking up the AO.

Nice tech, tho ;)


North(Posted 2008) [#8]
Seeing all the techniques come together is quite nice indeed :)

But i agree the overall ambient lighting is killing lots of the possible atmosphear here. The contrasts need to go up.

And i cannot make out the actual lightsource for this scene. It seems the 2 lamps are just glowing but not lighting up the scene at all... the light comes from somewhere else? Well the shadows correspond alright but i'd expect a hotspot right beneath the lamps and then a visual fading of light . Right now the floor seems uniformly lit if you see what i mean ;)

I think you should revise the lighting model. Use inverse square falloff for interior lighting. It's more natural than linear falloff. And in this scene the white lamps don't seem to have any falloff... that makes the lighting unbelievable.

Other than that - great work Josh! You're on a good path.


Dreamora(Posted 2008) [#9]
nice but the question is the performance it leaves.
seeing the wasted NMs everywhere does not make me believe that this will run usefully on something below a 600 series Shader 3.0 card, which would make it an engine for the future somewhen but worthless till mid / end 2009


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#10]
For the casual market, and only if the effects couldn't be scaled back, yes.


stayne(Posted 2008) [#11]
Again, nice work Josh. Why aren't the pipes and cables lit? Goes back to what a previous reply mentioned I guess... the hanging lights don't seem to be actually lighting anything.

I understand your engine works hand-in-hand with 3DWS? This scene looks incredibly hard to pull off in 3DWS imho unless most of those models were imported. If it was 3DWS, which parts were done with it?


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#12]
It's not done with 3DWS 5, as it has only one layer for textures (no bump/spec). Speaking of 3DWS 6... is that still being developed, or...?


*(Posted 2008) [#13]
Looking good, nice to see someone doing something constructive for a change :D


Who was John Galt?(Posted 2008) [#14]
Looks great, but ditto the comments on the floor and wall tiles. The floor looks like it's made out of lead, coincidentally.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#15]
One thing kind of weird about the SSAO is it will darken fragments that are full-bright. The hanging lamps use a corona to brighten them, but then when you perform the SSAO it darkens the full-bright areas. This is why the lamps look gray.

I edited the shader so the SSAO effect is only applied when the greyscale value of a fragment is below a certain threshold.

A sort of volumetric spotlight sprite underneath the lights would improve the appearance as well.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#16]
Here is a shot with the improved SSAO shader. The bright areas stay bright, and only darker fragments are affected:



puki(Posted 2008) [#17]
Still has a plasticky look though.


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#18]
I don't think it looks that bad, but the specular and diffuse values really should be the same... unless you're trying to break with reality.


North(Posted 2008) [#19]
Aaah!

Much much better.

Next please post a high-res video where you swing one of the lamps left and right ;)

...and i guess what Puki refers to is the white brick normal map. It could do with harsher contrasts. (that or the shader is really blurring the specular highlights)

Go Josh go!


Ross C(Posted 2008) [#20]
Surely this is an engine though? Halo's skill at artwork shouldn't really be the point :o) ALthough, with no running code, it's hard to comment on much else.

Looks very promising though!


JustLuke(Posted 2008) [#21]
Nice art assets (really - the screenshots look lovely) but let's have a tech demo that we can run on our own computers. This could run at 1 fps on most computers for all I know.


xmlspy(Posted 2008) [#22]
Very impressive!


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#23]
I finally got some good-looking and reliable water working. This is an exaggerated bioshock ocean style, but it is highly tweakable and can take many appearances. I haven't added refraction yet.



Ruz(Posted 2008) [#24]
that looks awesome. well done


itsdanreed(Posted 2008) [#25]
Very nice, when I come into some spare cash I'll probably pick this up.


Matthew Smith(Posted 2008) [#26]
Josh - great stuff! Very impressive indeed


Hotshot2005(Posted 2008) [#27]
LOOK very good and how much is it?

$99.95 that like 50 pounds isnt it?


_33(Posted 2008) [#28]
Yes, that water does need refraction, and maybe depth fog also :P

I'll have to download some of your demos see how tey run on my system now that I have an 8800GTS :)

Currently, the demo doesn't work. Right after install, I try to launch any of the demos, and it says "Sorry, but your 30-day trial has expired ! Please register your copy at http://leadwerks.com


N(Posted 2008) [#29]
So, got animation in there yet?


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#30]
Yes. Skinned bone animation is supported with up to 4 weights per vertex.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#31]
Testing it on an ATI 3870. Obligatory terrain/water shot. Not particularly artistic, but I am happy to see this running:



Murilo(Posted 2008) [#32]
Well I think this is all looking pretty darn amazing. I don't remember seeing anything this impressive from BlitzMax before. Great stuff!


josk(Posted 2008) [#33]
I like.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#34]
New video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAYPTWqgF5U


M2PLAY(Posted 2008) [#35]
Eii Awesome !!!


VIP3R(Posted 2008) [#36]
Very impressive!

Excellent work Josh


puki(Posted 2008) [#37]
That video was terribly exciting.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#38]
I am really pushing it now, analysing the heck out of everything and trying to make it as fast as possible, without losing the user-friendliness. I have wanted to try a scene like this for a while, and though it runs slow the results are encouraging.




MadJack(Posted 2008) [#39]
So is this engine/scripting language really at a stage where it's viable to create a complete 3d game with it?


JA2(Posted 2008) [#40]
Can Leadwerks Engine 2.0 be used to make games as is i.e is it necessary to use, for example, BlitzMax to create games with it?

The videos and screenshots are certainly very impressive. I have had a project in mind for some time now that I'd like to make a start on soon. Getting sick of waiting for a DX9/10 whatever engine for Blitz3D... Time to move on methinks ;o)


Loktar(Posted 2008) [#41]
Wondering the same thing as MadJack. Because if so I am buying it now :)


JustLuke(Posted 2008) [#42]
Wondering the same thing as MadJack. Because if so I am buying it now :)

Based on screenshots? They tell you nothing about performance, compatibility or stability.


GaryV(Posted 2008) [#43]
Always nice to see DarkBASIC/DarkBASIC Software/The Game Creators (or whatever their latest name is) products being advertised on the BRL forums.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#44]
So is this engine/scripting language really at a stage where it's viable to create a complete 3d game with it?

I like to keep the functionality on about the same level as Blitz3D, though I have added physics, vehicles, player controllers, and some other things. I am not going to program your AI for you, because I don't think that fits into the main engine very well, but yes, you can use the command set to design your own game logic.

I think the most important things for game design, besides being able to render everything, is the collision/physics/picking system, which is totally functional. One big improvement I made was to specify an optional collision type for line picks...I found that the Blitz3D "pickmode" paradigm was insufficient for handling things like bullets, AI line-of-sight tests, etc., and I wanted more control.

The engine can be programmed in any programming language that supports dlls and function and byte pointers, or you can use the built-in script language built on BriskVM. But I think you will get the most out of it by using BlitzMax.

Always nice to see DarkBASIC/DarkBASIC Software/The Game Creators (or whatever their latest name is) products being advertised on the BRL forums.

It belongs to me. TGC is a reseller. I asked BRL a long time ago if they wanted to sell 3D World Studio but they never answered. Do you even consider BRL and TGC to be in competition any more? They make totally different software.


Amon(Posted 2008) [#45]
Based on screenshots? They tell you nothing about performance, compatibility or stability.



All the Leadwerks Engine betas ran slow on my system. The latest one (beta3) runs slow between 14fps - 23fps and jitters alot.

Beta 2 was worse so at least something is improving.

I'm not seeing this as a worthy contender to any other Engine, like 3impact, TV3D, MiniB3d Extended, Cobra etc

It needs a lot of work to be worth my $100 which I've already spent on it. The first one ran perfectly on my system without the defered renderer and I was happy. It had good FPS speeds and was a very capable Blitz3D/SDK replacemnt but this new 2.0 version is just too slow and buggy.

I've seen stuff done in 3impact and TV3D 10 times more graphical and the framerates are superfast.

I would suggest that you guys wait for a demo of the engine before purchasing. I wish I had.


GaryV(Posted 2008) [#46]
I asked BRL a long time ago if they wanted to sell 3D World Studio but they never answered.
They were probably waiting for a stable release before they gave an answer.

Do you even consider BRL and TGC to be in competition any more? They make totally different software.
Yup, one makes software that works and one doesn't.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#47]
That's odd because another person with a GEForce 7950 gets 50-125 FPS. Actually, I get a faster framerate than your with my 7200 test card.

Generally the SM 3.0 cards have shown pretty good framerates, something I am frankly surprised with. Come on by the forum and help me optimize it.


Amon(Posted 2008) [#48]
That's odd because another person with a GEForce 7950 gets 50-125 FPS.


And that's a good FPS for such a scene running on such a card?


Dreamora(Posted 2008) [#49]
definitely not given its one of the top 10 cards.
definitely not acceptable for the nothing there.


Retimer(Posted 2008) [#50]
TV3D (6.5) is fast because there is practically no error checking in their code, and the devs admit that is why it is so fast.

Would be nice if there was a demo comparison to a similar scene on the leadworks vs other engines.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#51]
And that's a good FPS for such a scene running on such a card?

Yes, all the demos I am making are stress tests, and I usually leave the settings turned up high in the betas. You can decrease the shadow quality, shadowmap sizes, and it will also make a big difference if you use a simpler scene.

My goal for the island demo I am working on is to run at 30 FPS on a GE Force 8800 with all the settings on high. Of course the quality can be scaled down quite a bit for older machines or faster performance.


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#52]
Stability would be my number one concern, and is why I'm looking at TV3D instead of Leadwerks. Plus there's the question I have about 3DWS 6, and whether it's ever going to arrive... or whether the Leadwerks engine has taken number one priority and 3DWS has been placed on the backburner.


Gabriel(Posted 2008) [#53]
TV3D (6.5) is fast because there is practically no error checking in their code, and the devs admit that is why it is so fast.

You're very misinformed. Not only is there plenty of error checking, but all errors are also logged to a text file for you to read at your leisure.


Ross C(Posted 2008) [#54]
I think all the bad mouthing can wait till the demos come out? Apart from AMON who has bought it. When is the demo coming anyways?


Retimer(Posted 2008) [#55]

You're very misinformed. Not only is there plenty of error checking, but all errors are also logged to a text file for you to read at your leisure.



Am I? The debug file is mostly a log of actions, driver issues, and BASIC errors (like not being able to load data>missing files) not something that checks for correct values passed, or correct methods used [like the old 6.2]. I purchased the beta a long time ago, and due to the fact that a lot was changed from 6.2>6.5, and there was absolutely no documentation, it was clear something was wrong when I was getting app freezes when passing things in a logical way. People wouldn't have complained as much on their forums for testable apps if there was better error handling, or good examples/docs. It seems they have done better with this by now.

On an old post called Bad Error Handling, responded by Sylvan:


It's quite a dilemma for us.
Either add more checks in functions and make the engine a little slower (checks + checks + checks => some slowdown ), or don't put too many checks in critical functions that are called a lot to preserve all speeds.



Which is fine, and a it's pretty good idea not to make it too newb friendly vs speed costs...as long as there is good documentation. I'm wondering if Leadworks has too much error checking causing the slowdown in the demo that was mentioned.

I am just stating a possible difference as to why TV3D might be faster. Just trying to present a solution, instead of poopoo'ing this progressing project.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#56]
The slowdown is caused because we are using very high-poly scenes with very large textures, and real-time lighting. Just the chainsaw in that screenshot uses a 2048x2048 texture.

So not only can you expect the lighting to eat up a lot of frames on older hardware, but we are also rendering a scene that is much higher detail than what you might have used in the past. A simpler scene with less texture data will render much faster.

The scenes I am testing with are designed to use the capabilities of high-end GPUs. If I don't use something that stresses the system, I can't figure out what the limiting factors are and how to optimize the renderer.


Gabriel(Posted 2008) [#57]
Am I?

Yes, very. This isn't the right thread to get into back and forth, but pretty much everything you've gone on to say is either wrong or misleading. I'll leave it at that.

I am just stating a possible difference as to why TV3D might be faster. Just trying to present a solution, instead of poopoo'ing this progressing project.

I'm not poopoo'ing anything. I'm interested to see how this engine progresses, although I must admit my interest was dampened when Leadwerks said that he was aiming for 30 FPS on that scene on an 8800. I just felt it was unfair to make false statements about another engine tucked away on a thread where they can't be debated, but knock yourself out.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#58]
I must admit my interest was dampened when Leadwerks said that he was aiming for 30 FPS on that scene on an 8800

You realize it is rendering 1.4 million triangles each frame? Not scene triangles, actual polys drawn onscreen. If it will run a super-complex scene at playable framerates, it will run a simpler scene at lower quality settings at a much faster framerate. If I only test with simple scenes I will never find out where the bottlenecks are. You don't have to use scenes as complex as what I am throwing at it.

I could just use lower-poly trees and a smaller scene (the actual screenshot above isn't representative of the size of the island I am making), and it would run at a faster framerate, but I want to push the hardware to the limit. Obviously if you want something faster/lower detail you can design your scene for lower-end cards, or turn the quality settings down.

Something like Blitz3D would never be able to handle the scene, even with no effects or lighting, because the actual scene polys can be upwards of 50 million...it's just stored and culled very efficiently.

The actual release date is May 19th. A demo will be available some time after that.


plash(Posted 2008) [#59]
I'm sure none of us are looking for science accurate stuff, and more towards 60fps nice looking scenes. How about some real game scenes?

EDIT: And a damn demo already.


*(Posted 2008) [#60]
as soon as I get a video card that supports it I will give it a look :), at the moment im on a radeon 9600Pro :s


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#61]
Tech shot with bad art, but what this shows is a very high number of grass instances with shadows. It would be much more optimized if a mesh with several plants was used, instead of using a single mesh for each tuft of grass. The meshlayer system was the last thing I wanted to add before releasing, so now I will just do testing and make demos.



JA2(Posted 2008) [#62]
Leadwerks: What sort of graphics card would you recommend for running your engine? I just upgraded my RAM to 2gb and I'm planning to put in a new gfx card by the end of the month :)


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#63]
I recommend using a GE Force 8800 GTS. You can get one for $140 on newegg.com.

The best way to handle grass is to set all the normals to (0,1,0). This gives the best approximation of lighting.






Reactor(Posted 2008) [#64]
I know you're running tests but... I hope I never make a scene which looks like that, made up of 34,000 polys.


plash(Posted 2008) [#65]
I know you're running tests but... I hope I never make a scene which looks like that, made up of 34,000 polys.
Seconded.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#66]
I told Rich there was no limit on texture resolution or polygon limit. The spotlight renders a lot more than what is onscreen, but it's all shadow polys, so they are pretty cheap to draw. Our new policy is it doesn't matter how high-res things are. I need stuff that will choke the engine. :D


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#67]
Fair enough :)


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#68]
Improved the SSAO post-filter quite a bit:



Tab(Posted 2008) [#69]
Powerfull engine and extremly nice price. D:

I will use the engine in a future project.

Thanks for your continuous work improved the engine. =)


chwaga(Posted 2008) [#70]
can this be plugged into bliz3D?
Also, can custom postproccesing be used here (like HDR, discolorization, distortion)?


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#71]
can this be plugged into bliz3D?

No
Also, can custom postproccesing be used here (like HDR, discolorization, distortion)?

Yes.



puki(Posted 2008) [#72]
I like those rubber plant things.


plash(Posted 2008) [#73]
Those are definitely small 'Para' rubber trees.

EDIT: With moderately large leaves :o


SabataRH(Posted 2008) [#74]
Halo, any new demos yet? Or perhaps some of these screenshot's compiled to exe demos? I'm in the market for a new gaming engine and yours is certainly a contender. I ran some of the earlier demos and they wern't up to my standards but that's been along time ago, I'd like to see how these run on diffrent computers I have before making a purchase.

Thanks.


EDIT: Ah nvm finally went to your website, looks May 19th is the day, can we expect a demo on that day or shortly there after?


_33(Posted 2008) [#75]
Leadwerks is up to something


Naughty Alien(Posted 2008) [#76]
..only concern with his system is that you never know what is the really final version and one called stable...long as i can keep track, this system keep changing with no significant signature over one single version as a stable..


_33(Posted 2008) [#77]
Well, if you have a sandbox with the physics engine, the day/night cycle, the shadows, excellent water, the post processing effects... I mean, you're pretty damn close to the crysis engine.


plash(Posted 2008) [#78]
The only way I would consider this is if I could try highly scalable demos.

But this seems like a high-end nVidia and ATI only engine.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#79]



Yahfree(Posted 2008) [#80]
lets see a demo :)


plash(Posted 2008) [#81]
Is it really, really that hard?


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#82]
I already said there won't be a demo until after May 19.

The shot below is not using any LOD, so I can still improve the framerate a lot.



Wiebo(Posted 2008) [#83]
Looks like you are on to something :) well done!


Happy Sammy(Posted 2008) [#84]
Is this engine only for BlitzMax?


JustLuke(Posted 2008) [#85]
I already said there won't be a demo until after May 19.

So why don't you get back to us when it's ready?

Screenshots of appealing media are utterly meaningless.


SabataRH(Posted 2008) [#86]

So why don't you get back to us when it's ready?

Screenshots of appealing media are utterly meaningless.



Ahmen.


plash(Posted 2008) [#87]
So why don't you get back to us when it's ready?

Screenshots of appealing media are utterly meaningless.
I agree, if you kept out all the screenshots and left us with one demo, I'm sure everyone would be alot happier.


Retimer(Posted 2008) [#88]

So why don't you get back to us when it's ready?

Screenshots of appealing media are utterly meaningless.



I also agree, only because usually people post links along with demos/app links in this section; this whole topic looks like a work blog. It seems like a great engine, but i'm not convinced by images. Even a single packaged app with a single scene showing frame rates. You should really just zip it up already before many of us lose more interest.

Or maybe release some demos ON the may 19th release?


SabataRH(Posted 2008) [#89]

You should really just zip it up already before many of us lose more interest



Or move to another engine all together.


JustLuke(Posted 2008) [#90]
There's something suspicious about people who refuse to release demos before their 3d engines are on sale. I wonder what Leadwerks is hiding? It's got to be either performance or stability issues.


Retimer(Posted 2008) [#91]

Or move to another engine all together.



I already have licenses to other 3d engines. I just like checking out and or supporting new projects if they are worth it.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#92]
Too busy right now! You should wait for a demo before buying this, unless you know for sure you want it. I do not need your money right now, but TGC wanted to start with pre-orders since we missed our expected May 1 release date.


N(Posted 2008) [#93]
There's something suspicious about people who refuse to release demos before their 3d engines are on sale. I wonder what Leadwerks is hiding? It's got to be either performance or stability issues.
It's because this is simply incomplete. There's no hidden reason for it, if it's incomplete and unreleased then that means you shouldn't buy it unless you're prepared to deal with that fact. I don't see why there has to be an ulterior motive here.


plash(Posted 2008) [#94]
Too busy right now!
Yeah, apparently your 'too busy' posting snapshots.


SabataRH(Posted 2008) [#95]
I do not need your money


Yah right... if this were the case you'd made the engine freeware but instead you struck a deal with TGC... for what? 'money...'


Naughty Alien(Posted 2008) [#96]
>>I do not need your money right now<<
..im very sorry to read this..its reflecting loads of things..


plash(Posted 2008) [#97]
I do not need your money right now
Fine with me, I would never pre-order something based on vaporware - for all we know, you could be showing off things done in a completely different engine just to get money from pre-orders and disappear afterwards!


Gnu(Posted 2008) [#98]
Hey Josh
Keep poting the screenies. It looks great and I'm sure they're are others who find it interesting.

Gnu


degac(Posted 2008) [#99]
I dont' want to be the classic devil's advocate, but I can confirm that the engine exists, it works, it requires a high-end graphics card: I'm using a 6600GT and with 2048x2048 shadowmap texture with HIGHPOLY models/scenes + postprocessing fx and to be honest I cant' reach a stable >30 fps.
But - if I 'get down' with my hardware (lowest resolution for both screen and texture) the FPS rises up.
And to compare I can assure you that every last demo game I downloaded (Bioshock, Crysis, Quake Enemy Territory) is a pain...pure pain to play.
Considering that NOW my graphics card is out-of-market this means that the ALL NEW computer will handle this engine without problem.

Said this - none is obliged to buy this engine. The pre-order story *maybe* is due to the contract with TGS. I doubt that Leadwerks disappears...


PS: I dont' know if I can post something like this, in case I will delete this post if required.


xlsior(Posted 2008) [#100]
Considering that NOW my graphics card is out-of-market this means that the ALL NEW computer will handle this engine without problem.


...Except that a huge portion of new computers sold use the craptacular onboard Intel graphics adapter, which is orders of magnitude worse than your 6600GT.

Now, while I'm sure that there will be plenty of systems capable of running this engine, it's most definitely not going to be 'ALL NEW computers'.


taumel(Posted 2008) [#101]
I enjoy looking at engine screenshots so keep on posting them.


Ross C(Posted 2008) [#102]
You wouldn't really be daft enough to play AAA games with an onboard graphics card though. :o)


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#103]
Yes, but no one on here is going to make a AAA game.

Perhaps the better way to say it is people shouldn't expect scalability right down to DX7/8 for onboard graphics cards from an engine that primarily aims to produce DX9 quality effects. It's hard to get right, and it's also a nightmare from a game design perspective.


RexRhino(Posted 2008) [#104]
Leadwerks:

I am wondering how well this engine works on the "craptacular onboard Intel graphics adapter"? If I am creating something like a strategy game, and wanted to make a version that will have low-detail for Intel graphics users - and at the same time have a high-detail version with eye candy and effects for people with capable hardware, can I use your engine with both?

I realize that the low quality version would have to use lower quality models, textures, leave out the shader effects, physics, etc... but assuming I programmed those changes for the low quality version, would it run OK on the Intel graphics drivers?


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#105]
It will not run without a GPU. It requires SM 3.0 support just to run. I recommend an 8800 GTS. You can get one for $140 at newegg.com, and they will include "The Witcher" for free.


JustLuke(Posted 2008) [#106]
Interesting. I wonder who your market is for this?


_33(Posted 2008) [#107]
JustLuke: The mid/high end for sure. But today, a high end card can be had for not so much cash. And SM 3.0 cards are not a thing of the past. Ever heard of SM 4.1? You got to move on.


RifRaf(Posted 2008) [#108]
Well, at least the engine will be falling into mass market, and not out of it in the year(s) to come. ?

Josh, I didnt see any command references for Low level mesh creation ect, do you include a command set for this ?


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#109]
Yeah, the surface command set is almost identical to Blitz3D.


JustLuke(Posted 2008) [#110]
Well, at least the engine will be falling into mass market, and not out of it in the year(s) to come. ?
I wasn't implying anything negative. I think that the engine looks pretty promising, actually.


RexRhino(Posted 2008) [#111]
Leadwerks:

I have a powerful enough graphics card, thank you... however, I would like whatever games I make to run on both new and old hardware.

How different is the engine to something like the Blitz3D SDK? If one wanted to maintain two versions of a program, one based on the Leadwerks engine, and one on the Blitz3d sdk for older machines, do you anticipate it would be a lot of work?


bytecode77(Posted 2008) [#112]
bombastic dude!
how about making a 'playable' demo with a tower of crates you can knock off and some shadow casting,hm?


deps(Posted 2008) [#113]
SM3.0 cards only? :(
Don't have one. My laptop claims it supports 3.0 but I don't trust it. :P

Oh well. It looks great! Good luck with it and I will try it out when there's a demo to see if my laptop tells the truth or not.


IPete2(Posted 2008) [#114]
You guys really need to find out the whole story about this engine - so pop over to http://www.leadwerks.com to find out how, what, why, where, and possibly even when you seem to be deseprately seeking, most answers are over there!

This is NOT a low end engine - it is not really a mid-end engine either. Josh originally set out to create something which could compete with the top end of graphic performance and feature sets, but with a simpler interface for users to use. If you have anything less than a SM 3.0 supported card then forget it, it you want it to work on anything less, well truth is it won't...that's the intention - Josh has never kept that a 'secret'.


IPete2.


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#115]
If you have anything less than a SM 3.0 supported card then forget it, it you want it to work on anything less, well truth is it won't...that's the intention - Josh has never kept that a 'secret'.


Just out of curiosity- who is the target market for this, other than people who want to muck with shaders? I can't imagine anyone using it to develop a game if the requirements can't be scaled back somewhat (and I'm talking in terms of card requirements, not how detailed each of the effects are).


IPete2(Posted 2008) [#116]
I guess you'd really have to ask Josh who he is aiming it at, but for the price, it is got to be people who have may be small teams and small budgets and yet have big ambitions. Their target audience are gamers who have high end kit to show off the kind of content this engine can deploy. Josh has always wanted to offer some of the feature sets of the high-end game engines along with accessibility for those professional game makers with a serious attitude towards their projects at an affordable cost.

We are not currently talking casual game makers, or people who want the lowest common denominator PC to work with their game.

Remember as time goes by this kit will become standard and eventually in a year or so, mid-low end! This bang per buck and ease of use will then be a premium, as if its not just now.

IPete2.


SabataRH(Posted 2008) [#117]
Good point IPete2.

No question the engine appears to be a step up from blitz3d, looking over the engine list on gamedev i see more and more of these features present in the modern engines.

It would take a small team at least a year to put out something decent in which time the standard for pc-hardware would had only increased more.

Possibly a good investment long-term when you look at it through IPete2's prespective.


M2PLAY(Posted 2008) [#118]
IPete2 ---> Yes
Awesome engine Josh.
I like so much the OGL graphics.
I´m waiting for the next week !!!


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#119]
We are not currently talking casual game makers, or people who want the lowest common denominator PC to work with their game.


Most small teams aim to have their game work for the 'lowest common denominator' because it means more sales. I'm yet to see a small team spend a year or two on something aimed at the purely high-end of the market. It didn't work for Crysis and it won't work for them, even if they do release in a year's time, because the majority of the PC market is slow to adopt new tech like high-end video cards.

But hey, if they want to do it for fun, power to 'em ;) If I were going to use an engine though, I wouldn't pick the Leadwerks one based on the above reason. People with any kind of budget, whether small or large, generally try and capture as much of the market as they can.

Remember as time goes by this kit will become standard and eventually in a year or so, mid-low end!


I don't think that's correct. Standard for whom? While it's expected tech for the console market (or two thirds of it) it certainly won't be standard for the majority of the PC market anytime soon. Do you have any stats to back up the idea high-end dx9 will be commonplace in a year or so, or are you just guessing it'll all be fine by then?

I should also mention that aiming for the high-end of the market isn't just about the shaders you have access to. It's also about the quality of the artwork, and the guys who target the very high-end of the market commonly have teams of the best artists in the world pumping out the best art assets imaginable. If you're a small team with a tiny budget, you're not going to be able to match the 'big guys' no matter how hard you try, because quality art assets take more time to create than those you might find in a typical dx7 game.

I guess what I'm trying to say is- while it's all fine and dandy to say, "We'll just target the high-end PC market" there are a bunch of issues that go with that. If the game you're producing can't be scaled down to reach the (at least) mid-range of the market you'd better have wads of cash or a seriously huge team behind you, or selling the thing you've made is going to be a real issue. And, that's why I'm questioning who it is the Leadwerks engine is being aimed at.

My two cents, anyway :D


plash(Posted 2008) [#120]
It seems wrong to pay $250 for an installer for a program that costs less than that.
It seems wrong to pay $150 for an engine for a program that costs less than that.

:P


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#121]
I agree. You should not use this engine.


plash(Posted 2008) [#122]
You never made a good point, if the installer was $250 and you sold 2 licenses it would have already payed for itself.

EDIT: Have fun with your silly attitude, it may get you places elsewhere but its no good around here.


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#123]
Who are you talking to Plash?


IPete2(Posted 2008) [#124]
Reactor,

Although ALL your points are well founded and well made, and true to some extent, I think you are missing the REAL and possibly only valid point here. This is Josh's engine and he is doing what he wants. It is for him to be able to offer to people like him, and maybe me, something which isn't/wasn't available when he started, at the cost/featureset balance that he has in mind.

I have been around computers a long, long while now, and I have seen the change in power and capabilities and price. I have had to develop across a multiude of CPUs and graphics cards over the decades.

I have long been an avocate of pushing the technology, trying to do MORE than is currently possible, or expected. My experience is what I base my assumptions on Reactor, not stats or figures but pure 'I was there and I know'. Now I may be an oddball, because I work very hard to bring to my clients those things I know they wish they could ask for, but believe they can't afford with the budgets they have. I have clients who want fantastic looking stuff and have enough budget to allow me to develop exhibits and interactives efficiently (which I am now also able to provide high end graphic assets for - see the website of the company I work for now - http://www.studioliddell.com ) I just need the power on an engine I can get to grips with quickly and where a small team can create the type of interactive exhibition which people only dream of for the budgets we work to. We currently do not develop commercial games.

I am keeping a close eye on the Leadwerks Engine 2.0 along with mulling over developing my own engine in C#, or perhaps looking at a 3rd engine.

For me, I have to think of the time investment required to develop my own engine - would that really be a sensible use of my time?

IPete2.


Tachyon(Posted 2008) [#125]
I want to see some code...how intuitively does this engine work with BlitzMax?

Is it cross-platform? I need Mac and Linux support as well. Any developer who ignores these platforms is just throwing sales away.


SabataRH(Posted 2008) [#126]
Mac support would make sense since Mac sales show a steady incline in sales each quarter report. I myself havent tried a mac but my next system will be a Mac - having said that anyone owning a mac and not devleoping on unity3d is wasting their time anyways.


IPete2(Posted 2008) [#127]
Swampdonkey,

absolutely - what a lovely thing that is to behold! I'm pretty sure that Leadwerks is PC only currently.

IPete2.


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#128]
IPete2, my original question about the market for Leadwerks was a genuine one. It's good to hear about your idea for using 3D engines like this (and really nice work, btw). Sorry for assuming you were thinking about games development... your post reads differently now I have some context. Still, I doubt there are too many guys around like yourself looking to take advantage of the engine as you are, so I'm still left wondering if Josh has a larger market in mind.

This is Josh's engine and he is doing what he wants.


Don't all developers? ;) Josh has a pretty new webpage and a new lot of example art. It's obvious the idea is to target people and sell the thing. So, it's not an odd question to ask what the main target market(s) for the engine are. With respect, you can't speak for Josh. The original question really was targeted at him.

It either comes down to good ol' blind, "I haven't got a clue about the market, but I'm just selling the thing and seeing how it goes." or, "My market is A, B or C." I'm more curious about what Josh thinks than anything, but I'm not holding out on getting a decent answer.


IPete2(Posted 2008) [#129]
Reactor,

Don't apologise you weren't to know, but there are possibly other markets too, although I think C# combined with XNA is closing in on them nowadays.

You are right about it being a question which Josh should answer, I suspect the whole strategy has changed over the last year or so anyway and hence the TGC connection. You should also understand that Josh has been on this quest since the late 90's and each year he gets closer and closer to his goal so I do seriously think Josh has a clear picture in his head of what he is doing and who his market is, but as I say things change and external influences can bring about those changes.

IPete2.


(tu) sinu(Posted 2008) [#130]
I think leadwerks is trying to create an engine for indie devs that will try and compete graphically with the latest and greatest and at much lower price point.

Sounds good to me, anyone wanting scalability or using it on their older hardware should look elsewhere.

ps i think it's a good move, has a different target audience than other tools/engines


Reactor(Posted 2008) [#131]
...has a different target audience than other tools/engines


Not really. There are many other dx9 engines out there with similar capabilities. As mentioned above as well, competing graphically with the latest and greatest isn't something I believe most indies will be able to do. (not to take away from those who just want to use it for fun, of course).

You should also understand that Josh has been on this quest since the late 90's and each year he gets closer and closer to his goal...


After seeing how 3D World Studio's development went... well, seemingly to slow-mo (or a dead stop?) after Josh realised a few dev groups weren't going to go out of their way to adpot it, I don't know if I won't to be part of that quest.

I should say I assume 3DWS is going nowhere... Josh doesn't seem to answer questions about it. (hello Josh if you're reading this ;)


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#132]
One thing at a time.


_33(Posted 2008) [#133]
Anyone seen what's on the cover of this magazine????
http://gdk.thegamecreators.com/data/newsletter/newsletter_issue_64.html


Cp(Posted 2008) [#134]
How did leadwerks get on that???!!??
whats up with the getting on the cover of THAT!!!????
*Faints*


plash(Posted 2008) [#135]
How did leadwerks get on that???!!??
He has a deal with them. Apparently they sell it for him and steal some of the cash.


_33(Posted 2008) [#136]
So what will happen on Mai 19????????? Will it be possible to buy the engine and use it in, say BlitzMax?


plash(Posted 2008) [#137]
Yes.


Mortiis(Posted 2008) [#138]
As far as I know, it's OpenGL but Windows only. It's not cross platform.


JoshK(Posted 2008) [#139]
The engine is released. If you have not received download information please contact me.

A demo will be available as soon as possible.


N(Posted 2008) [#140]
Looks nice. Only thing you really ought to do is use a model other than that old zombie in the video. Looks terrible, get some good looking thing in there.


plash(Posted 2008) [#141]
Update your site (it still says "Leadwerks Engine 2.0 Is Now Available For Pre-Order").


Leszek(Posted 2008) [#142]
This really good !!!! Cool !!!!

Can I use this with Blitz3D