Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

will you buy this?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
9 replies to this topic

#1 newtechnology   Members   -  Reputation: 731

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 July 2014 - 03:43 AM

I am planning an library which handles all kind of hard work of loading and rendering stuff for models (will support animation as well) in directx 11 and if you don't want the library to render stuff (it could be because you are using opengl), then the library will give you all kind of data necessary for rendering. There will also be a short documentary plus a demo project showing how to use the library. The question is will you buy it? It'll be 8$ for each download (one time payment) and then you receive all updates for free.

Sponsor:

#2 Lithander   Members   -  Reputation: 245

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 30 July 2014 - 04:45 AM

Wouldn't buy it. Why don't you offer it for free? Establish a user base first, worry about monetarization second. If I were you I'd even open source it, then earn some cash by providing "premium support" or some such. That's a proven model.



#3 tonemgub   Members   -  Reputation: 1125

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 July 2014 - 05:28 AM

You mean something like Assimp? Why would I buy something that's already available for free?



#4 Buster2000   Members   -  Reputation: 1664

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 July 2014 - 05:46 AM

Absolutly not.  If there is a library that is free and I think it is useful I'll use it.  If there isn't I'll write my own solution.



#5 newtechnology   Members   -  Reputation: 731

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 July 2014 - 06:22 AM

You mean something like Assimp? Why would I buy something that's already available for free?

No. Even with assimp, you have to handle everything yourself. Mine would be like (infact mine would be based on assimp) :

Model.load(path);
And
Model.render();
Model.setanimation("name", animationtype.loop);


Mine library is not like assimp. It makes the process of using assimp very easy. It handles all animation stuff and you have to just pass the name of the animation and the library will play it on the model.

Wouldn't buy it. Why don't you offer it for free? Establish a user base first, worry about monetarization second. If I were you I'd even open source it, then earn some cash by providing "premium support" or some such. That's a proven model.


Well I think I am going to do this.


To everyone -
Thanks for your reply and feedback.

#6 Ohforf sake   Members   -  Reputation: 1829

Like
8Likes
Like

Posted 30 July 2014 - 06:42 AM

I wouldn't buy/use it for two reasons:

1. I have come to prefer custom file formats for the engine. The content pipeline handles all the conversions and what not, and the fileformat for the engine is designed in a way that almost all the engine has to do is blockread from the file to CPU/GPU memory. Obviously this means that I can write my own (very simple) loader.

2. I feel that animations and rendering are a both very "intimate" things of an engine, and they are definetly s.th. that I wouldn't want mixed with my model loading/importing code. How is the included rendering code supposed to interact with my material system, my lighting (defered, forward, clustered, ...) and my render state batching? How is the animation code supposed to interact with my CPU skinning, or my GPU skinning, or the animation of various non-skeletal properties like light colors, particle effect properties, sound effect volumes, ...?

#7 newtechnology   Members   -  Reputation: 731

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 July 2014 - 07:00 AM

I wouldn't buy/use it for two reasons:1. I have come to prefer custom file formats for the engine. The content pipeline handles all the conversions and what not, and the fileformat for the engine is designed in a way that almost all the engine has to do is blockread from the file to CPU/GPU memory. Obviously this means that I can write my own (very simple) loader.2. I feel that animations and rendering are a both very "intimate" things of an engine, and they are definetly s.th. that I wouldn't want mixed with my model loading/importing code. How is the included rendering code supposed to interact with my material system, my lighting (defered, forward, clustered, ...) and my render state batching? How is the animation code supposed to interact with my CPU skinning, or my GPU skinning, or the animation of various non-skeletal properties like light colors, particle effect properties, sound effect volumes, ...?

1.okay

2. It is just in built renderer for users who prefer to use it. It will give you animation and rendeing data if you want to do all things (not all) by yourself. (It is like :

Struct animationdata
{
float length;
string name;
std::vector<keyframe> keyframes;
Animationtype type;
//...
}

Model.load("name");

animationdata = Model.getanimationdata("name" or index);
K
And samething for rendering).

Anyways I will make it free as everyone is suggesting me to do that.

#8 cozzie   Members   -  Reputation: 1611

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 July 2014 - 07:09 AM

Hi.

I think the offered potential solution is a kind off 'wrapper' between the (assimp) library and a engine, where in a lot of cases the engine would take care of this



#9 Starnick   Members   -  Reputation: 1204

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 30 July 2014 - 12:41 PM

The problem is you're trying to write a one-size-fits all solution for an application. Not just a library that loads a model (like Assimp) but also gets it on the screen, so you're locking in users into how things are formatted and function. Basically you're offering a platform, which can be problematic if a user wants to do something different. And you aren't going to get buyers unless if there are a lot of features that sets it apart from free/open source competitors.

 

I think you'd do better if you wrote plugins (for profit) for an already established and mature platform. E.g. write something useful for Unity and sell that.



#10 newtechnology   Members   -  Reputation: 731

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 July 2014 - 10:40 PM

The problem is you're trying to write a one-size-fits all solution for an application. Not just a library that loads a model (like Assimp) but also gets it on the screen, so you're locking in users into how things are formatted and function. Basically you're offering a platform, which can be problematic if a user wants to do something different. And you aren't going to get buyers unless if there are a lot of features that sets it apart from free/open source competitors.
 
I think you'd do better if you wrote plugins (for profit) for an already established and mature platform. E.g. write something useful for Unity and sell that.

Okay. Thanks for your feedback.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS