 |
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
charlieg
@ 86.130.180.127
on Jul 14 2005 9:03 AM
|
 |
Perhaps you should be asking that question the other way around; why use CS over OGRE?
OGRE is now stable with several 1.0.x maintainence releases out. It is well documented, and has a thiving community, lots of projects using it in diverse ways.
CS seems stuck in perpetual development (0.97->0.98 took what felt like years, and it could be another year or so before you see a 1.0 stable release). It seems to have lost momentum massively. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
Anonymous
@ 68.116.253.186
on Jul 14 2005 9:18 AM
|
|
| So it's not useable until it hits 1.0? You do realize that there is nothing magical about that number, right?
PlaneScape and the likes have seem to of put it to good use. The new renderer seems to work very well. What's the real complaint?
I'm forced to ask again, why use this over CS? The reasons you gave are, well, not really of value.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
Anonymous
@ 70.97.193.226
on Jul 14 2005 3:19 PM
|
|
BECUAS IT IS TEH 0.02 MORE TAHN CRYTSAL SPAECE!!!
(Sorry! Couldn't resist it.)
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
charlieg
@ 81.171.255.66
on Oct 4 2005 1:49 AM
|
|
| When there is the amount of difference between releases that there was between 0.97 and 0.98 for CS, yes, version numbering does matter. Those two releases were poles apart. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
jorrit
@ 134.58.179.18
on Oct 4 2005 2:24 AM
|
|
| We are now trying to do more releases regularly. Only a few weeks ago we did a pseudo-stable release. That's a release that isn't tested as heavily as a real release but we're pretty confident that it is more or less ok.
Greetings, |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
| |
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
Anonymous
@ 205.251.80.220
on Sep 4 2005 10:52 AM
|
|
| At the risk of being condescending, if you're really that interested in a feature comparison, why not look it up? Both projects have a website with feature lists and API documentation...there's no reason you should be lacking for an answer. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
Anonymous
@ 68.116.253.186
on Oct 8 2005 12:18 AM
|
|
| Actually, for game development, Crystal Space seems to be much more feature rich and complete than Ogre. I know Ogre has quiet a few fan boys supporting it, but it seems Crystal Space is still far ahead. From what I can tell, if the primary purpose is game development, then you would be foolish to look at Ogre over Crystal Space...at least right now. If on the other hand, you want to render fairly static scenes, then Orgre seems to become a much stronger contender.
Comments?
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
michtoen
@ 212.202.177.87
on Nov 24 2005 9:55 AM
|
|
Simple comment: You are the fanboy here. You are posting in the ogre comments that your favorit is better.
Why a fanboy? Because you has not given even one serious technical point?
CS is "better"? Ok... Where. Tell me why CS is better. With examples. How many polys it can render? What is better coded, better to understand, etc?
We don't talk here about aliens. We talk about 2 engines where you can compare not only the performance but also every line of the open code.
So, give examples with numbers please.
It should also not THAT hard to write some comparable demos.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
Anonymous
@ 66.169.220.62
on Nov 30 2005 7:59 AM
|
|
"You are the fanboy here."
You seem to have an attitude problem here! The use of "fanboy" is not jab. It means it has supportors which may be blind to the merits of the other. CS also has fanboys. Shesh. To be clear, I certainly am not a "fanboy". My statements are based on my own research and investigations.
"You are posting in the ogre comments that your favorit is better."
Seems your zealotry is showing through. Your statement is 100% false and I have not said a single thing which any reasonable person can interpret as zealotry on my part. Again, your "fanboy"-zealot status is showing. You might want to keep it in check if you want to be taken seriously.
"Because you has not given even one serious technical point?"
I see, so I have to write a technical white paper to be taken seriously? Yet, according to the local OGRE zealot, my comments should be ignored. You might want to take a look in the mirror, take a pill, and figure out why you're a zealot without even bothering to look at alternatives.
"CS is "better"? Ok... Where."
Appears to be much more feature complete...as I said. Sure wish you could read. If you can't follow a conversation which is lacking technical detail, why in the world do you presume you have any hope of following a conversation which has technical detail?
"With examples. How many polys it can render? What is better coded, better to understand, etc?"
That's a great zealot response. Meanwhile, that that care about the topic at hand, easily ignore your ramblings. Simple fact is, games require more than just a raw render engine. Gasp! What a thought. How about sound? How about facilities to better support object attributes and common behaviors. How about facilities to support iso-games and side scrollers as readily as it supports first person shooters? How about support for scripting in Python? How about better cross platform support? Ready availability of cross platform tools. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Seriously, have you bothered to take a look at what CS provides? Your zealot comments clearly indicate you have not bothered and are irritated that, gasp, I have, and it conflicts with your biased view.
Seriously, see if you can turn off the zealot in you and take a look at what I really said! I said, "Actually, for game development, Crystal Space seems to be much more feature rich and complete than Ogre. I know Ogre has quiet a few fan boys supporting it, but it seems Crystal Space is still far ahead. From what I can tell, if the primary purpose is game development, then you would be foolish to look at Ogre over Crystal Space...at least right now. If on the other hand, you want to render fairly static scenes, then Orgre seems to become a much stronger contender. Comments?" Any reasonable person would take it reasonably at face value. Did you? Nope! Exactly what did I say that was so bad? If you disagree...state why! State why CS is not more feature rich! I obviously was interested in an open exchange...otherwise I would not have asked for comments. Your response was to be negative and attack...taking to the position I'd somehow been insulting by using the word, "fanboy".
If you want to provide real content, act mature and reasonably, fine...then reply...otherwise, you're just proving how much of an unreasonable zealot you really are!
In all seriousness, have you bothered to look for your self why I'm saying what I'm saying...or are you just looking for something to bicker about?
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
michtoen
@ 212.202.29.148
on Feb 15 2006 7:25 PM
|
|
The problem is, that you has not understand what OGRE is and what is good for.
Ogre is a 3d engine - and ONLY a 3d engine. CS is also a 3d engine but it has alot featues what a game engine provides. Ogre don't want to be a game engine. Thats the point and that makes it valuable. Not for every game and not for every coder, true. But that was not the point. The point is, that you count bad whats the strength of ogre is: Not to have features which are not part of a pure 3d engine.
I am the project founder of Daimonin. http://www.daimonin.net and i have worked years as game programmer for money. You can believe i don't know where i talk about. Thats you problem. Just be sure we know why we need something like OGRE and not CS.
If you want a engine which provides things on the same or even better level as you mentioned (and thats a game engine): http://www.panda3d.org/
Again: All what you said it nearly senseless because you compare what can't be compared - a pure 3d engine and a mixed 3d/game engine.
Its like you say "i think a ferrari is a much worse car as my pickup, i can't even load in 1/10 of the stuff".
From that point of view - ferraries sucks. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
Anonymous
@ 66.169.220.62
on Feb 17 2006 1:07 PM
|
|
I call B-crap on your post. Everyone knows that CS is a render engine with a lot more. Don't want to use the "lot more", don't use it. Want to make a game? The building blocks are already there. Your post makes no sense what-so-ever.
Let's see, I have pick option 1 or option 2. Option one, I have a render engine. Option two has a render engine, plus sound, plus scripting, plus cel, plus...plus...
No one is saying that OGRE doesn't have its place. In fact, I clearly said, for mostly static scenes, OGRE probably is a better pick. What is being said, if you want to build a game, starting with 2 makes a lot more sense. Don't want to use everything that option 2 provides? Fine. Don't! See how easy that is?
You logic is badly broken and sounds like this: I can't use CS because it provides too much for me. That's bad becaues I like taking a lot more time to complete my game. What?
Nuff said.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
Anonymous
@ 194.250.98.243
on Aug 21 2007 3:08 PM
|
|
Yea, CS provides some "blocks", as you called them. Though the quality of the blocks is.. well, mixed. I for one, can't stand CS' API, it's just ugly, unclear and full of dirty tricks. OGRE on the other hand lacks (I'll get to that later) features other than 3D rendering (well, there's also resource manager but let's ignore it) but it does it's job extremely well. It's not average in everything, like CS, with dirty API. It's best at what it was designed for - rendering 3D.
Now from game development PoV, it's entirely up to developer and what he, or she, looks for. I, for one, like the freedom of choice. I choose libraries which are designed for specific task and handle it exceptionally well. I leave integrating those libraries to a single framework to myself because every other game needs something else and I really need to know the internals well and I need to be able to tweak things a lot. So I need OGRE for graphics, OpenAL for sound, OIS for input, Newton for physics and so on and so on. You can choose OGRE, FMOD, PhysX and Direct Input if you want, it's up to you.
Bah! But you can use only parts of CS functionality! - you'd say. Sure you can, but then why use CS in the first place? Let's all be honest, OGRE > CS in terms of API quality and rendering capabilities. Not to mention the documentation and community support. Can't compare CS and OGRE, as a whole products, directly. Just because they are not in the same category. CS is a full-blown engine and OGRE is just a 3D rendering engine. That's it.
Overall, I want more control over how things are done and more control over the tools I use - I choose OGRE & friends. You just want to build a game from bricks and you hate digging into internals, designing your own patterns - you choose CS. It's fine, we're both happy and so be it. |
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
Anonymous
@ 71.15.112.90
on Nov 14 2007 1:48 PM
|
|
| The comment about the API is certainly a reasonable comment. CS's API is certainly geared toward more mature developers. That's the trade off with an advanced, highly extensible, plugin-based API. I certainly won't argue the API isn't for everyone or that parts are cumbersome. To be sure, the API can confuse and lose developers which are already struggling with C++.
Overall, I want more control over how things are done and more control over the tools I use
So how does having more options limit your control? All of those same options are possible with CS too? Just because you have a pool table doesn't mean you can't use the one at the local pub too. This same argument seems to come up all the time yet it seems to validate CS is better every time it is stated.
I find it very interesting that the largest argument against CS, time and time again, is that CS is far more capable, offering a richer set of capabilities out of the box. Said another way, it offers too many options and is too complete. I'd say that's very telling indeed. What is funny about this position is I've never understood how that a compliment for OGRE or a bad thing for CS when everyone then follows up by stating the freedom provided by CS is what they like in OGRE (paraphrasing). If that statement sounds odd to you, that's exactly how it most OGRE defenders sound to other people. Not very rational in other words.
After having said all that, the API complaint is certainly valid in the eye of the beholder; and corresponding experience with C++.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
Anonymous
@ 213.133.193.90
on Feb 18 2006 4:42 AM
|
|
| Serious projects need stability. CS's 'pseudo-stable' release is nonsense - it's either stable or it's not. OGRE attracts people because not only is it fast and full of features, but it's very well supported, with 7 interface-stable maintenance releases over the past year as well as a separate development branch. That kind of support and parallel development takes resources and organisation, but the OGRE team have dedicated those resources because they understand that's what _serious_ developers making _real_ projects need. That's why you see more investment from companies in tech using OGRE than CS. Open source development is great, but if it means perpetually changing interfaces and a lack or organised support, it isn't worth the hassle when game development is already tough.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
|
|
Re: OGRE
posted by
Anonymous
@ 66.169.220.62
on Feb 18 2006 8:59 AM
|
|
This is the first reasoned response I've seen. Thank you. I would like to point out, just because a new version comes out, doesn't mean you have to upgrade. Do you buy a new car every year too? On top of that, CS for the last year has started making releases closer together, and the interfaces have stopped shifting. This means, despite no requirement to upgrade, you can if you want to.
Having said all that, your primise is based on a false enconomy. How's that? Well, by the time you add in all the extra work you spent making OGRE a game engine, you've easily invested, plus some, the time required to follow CS upgrades, when large interface changes occured. Since that doesn't happen now, the economy is even more tilted toward CS. This, of course, assumes that you want to make a game and not simply a rendered scene.
Seriously, thanks again for the reasoned and logical counter point.
|
| |
|
[Reply]
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
OGRE is a scene-oriented, flexible 3D engine written in C++
