I imported a small Team Fortress 2 map as a test and I've been meaning to show everyone what I've been up to so here is a video. I was also going to upload a small demo but I'm not sure if I should worry about using copyrighted assets...

Post code or it doesn't matter.

Post code or it doesn't matter.

It's open source. Just click the link in my signature.

Ah, gotcha. Wasn't at all obvious from your post that you expected people to click a signature link to go see the content.

I guess I could go re-enable signature viewing, but I'd have to go hunt down the setting again

Ah, gotcha. Wasn't at all obvious from your post that you expected people to click a signature link to go see the content.

I guess I could go re-enable signature viewing, but I'd have to go hunt down the setting again

http://ovgl.org/

[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]Steve,
I don't want to sound harsh. But I probably do. I have been there as well and I just warn you of the perils ahead.[/font]

Let's start from the video - Demonstration of new OpenGL 3.1 graphics pipeline. - Ovgl using a small imported TF2 map.
I'm very sorry to say but what this demonstrates is purely rendering capabilities... and the ability to move a kinematic actor apparently using ballistics?
There are no animations, no specific effect I could point out as GL 3.1, perhaps HDR, I don't know, or perhaps some halos. It seems apparent some meshes are missing. No advanced shaders. I am not confident with HL2 tech but if it works by having explicit shader code then loading it probably isn't much of a big problem. Nonetheless the amount of shaders involved appears limited. At the very least, load up a few maps. Personally I've tested my system with 7 "premium" maps, 15 total "test" maps and over 30 before switching to proprietary implementation. I wish I had done this before.

What worries me most is the total lack of logic. This turned out to be troublesome in my case, especially when claiming to support "advanced features".

Open Video Game Library or Ovgl for short is a sophisticated and easy to use open source cross platform SDK for next generation 3D video game development.[/quote]Be honest to yourself. You'll be extremely lucky to hit current-gen complexity. Personally I'd still be satisfied to hit last-gen complexity.
Don't get me wrong. Getting something to render is difficult, I understand. But it's only the beginning!
Rendering engine yes. Game engine? Not really.

As a comparison:

[font=arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][size=2]

0:04: approximated highlights on pillars[/font]
0:05 - Animated texture using texcoord transform manipulation.
0:10 - Actual gameplay. Pretty much everywhere: marks on walls.
0:31: other forms of texture manipulation, jumppad and thunder platform.
1:24: that texture in the corner is actually a non-trivial multipass effect.
1:33: animated textures.
1:43: other nontrivial multipass effects.
You can as well stop there.
And that's GL 1.2 (maybe 1.1 will do as well, I don't remember), year 1999.

What do you have more? Maybe HDR and maybe some bump maps? Ok. That's something. But I'd have some problems in calling it an "engine".

In general, I'd say that you chosen your showcase poorly. Use a more impressive map!

It looks nice; from what little the video had to show, it looks like you did a good job with the lighting and movement.
The video doesn't really demonstrate all the engine claims to offer... only static collision and the visual side of things.
The lighting looks nice, but the dark walls shouldn't be pure black, you need some ambient lighting to make them at least visible.

Hmm that's actually a bug. I thought they did that on purpose for some reason. lol I'm going to have to fix that. Thanks for noticing it!

EDIT: Fixed!

More precisely, what makes this an "engine?" From the video, It looks like a BSP loader and basic renderer (considering all the textures + light maps are recalculated in TF2) with some rudimentary FPS controls.