:-) Frankly I don't have nearly enough time. I'm a corporate executive in IT for a large telecommunications company, so I'm lucky I get any time. I'm married with three teenagers, so I have even less time. The time I do get is usually between 12am and 2am. When I was in my twenties that was my prime time of day. In my thirties, I was able to get by. Now that I'm in my forty's it's stressful, but this is still my passion.

Don't misunderstand either, the latest terrain system has only been maybe a 6 month project, and the networking infrastructure another 2 months. This is probably my 5th engine, but this is the one I think meets the level of functionality I need. I took at least a year maybe more off to regroup. I was using DX 1 when it was called the game sdk, and I spent some time in OpenGL before returning to DX.

If I were young, single and didn't have the responsibilities I have it would have been done a long time ago. Actually, until recently, the technology didn't exist to do what I want, and there is no game on the market today that even comes close to my vision, so I guess that's also why it's been more of a concept then a game for many years. Yes I've been developing but more prototyping and learning. It's only recently in the past year with broadband become very common place, Linux reaching a new maturity level, database clustering and grid computing topping the scale, where I can finally achieve what I've wanted.

I know I might sound like a dreamer and someone who's unrealistic, but I do have credible references behind me.

These are me:

Oracle 2005 CTO Award: http://www.oracle.com/technology/oramag/oracle/05-nov/o65awards.html#grantanand

Info World CTO 2005 Award: http://www.infoworld.com/reports/15SRcto2005.html

I'd love to take a look at your particle system, thanks for offering.

[Edited by - QuadMV on March 15, 2006 10:42:14 PM]

Quote:Original post by QuadMV
I’m really getting frustrated. I’ve been working on my own engine for a long time now, but I really don’t want to be working on an engine. I want to be working on my game, but I have specific requirements and years ago when I started no engine had the features I really wanted.

One of the hardest skills in life is to learn to compromise. If you want free-roaming terrain, but can't get it, but you want to make a game even more than making a terrain engine, then make a game without free-roaming terrain. You can always add that feature later. Same thing for every other feature: do you REALLY want that feature more than you want to make a game?

Quote: 1. Models: Reliable modeling system for animated and non-animated objects. I originally wanted to use .X models, which I’m currently using, but I’m finding that the exporter is terrible, especially for animation. I’d love something like granny, but it’s too expensive.

Cal3D comes to mind. However, .X isn't that bad -- it depends on which modeler you're using (Max, Maya, Milkshape, ... ?) and which exporter (Microsoft's, PandaDX, something else?)

Quote: a. I’m particularly fond of the way HL2 and Quake 4 animate the upper torso when you move the mouse while keeping the lower torso fixed. This isn’t so much an animation as they are moving the bones connected to the gun as the gun swings around. It’s a great effect

It's very easy to implement on top of .X models, too. You just fix up the spine twist after you evaluate the animation for some specific time. Or, perhaps, you can play an animation that twists left/right, and add that on top of the other animation, moving the position in time of the twist animation based on how you want to twist the torso.

Quote: 3. Particles: I need a good particle system to bring the world to life. Smoke, fire, rain, clouds, vapor trails, etc.

Particles are relatively easy. I actually wrote a fairly re-usable particle system back in the CarWorld demo days. It sits on top of OpenGL, but you can probably slot it into DirectX with some work (it knows about vertex buffer-like things). IIRC, it uses XML to configure the particle effects; using the XMLSCAN fast XML loading library. It also has a small dependency on ODE that can easily be taken out.

Quote:Instead of getting a formal rendering engine that would limit my abilities to use what I’ve already done, I think maybe what I want are libraries, preferably open source, but I’d even pay if it’s not too expensive.

Why don't you make a mod to a game such as something based on Source? Or buy Torque? Or use OpenSG, or Ogre, which are two relatively high quality renderers? (OpenSG is GL only, though) Note that Ogre is ONLY a renderer; it is NOT an engine (contrary to popular belief).

Again: do you REALLY want to make a game, or do you absolutely have to have everything to your specific specifications?

Quote:Original post by hplus0603
Again: do you REALLY want to make a game, or do you absolutely have to have everything to your specific specifications?

Quote:Thanks guys, but I've thoroughly researched Ogre, irrLicht and Torque as well as others. Although these all have their benefits, none have the features I'm looking for and after evaluating the amount of time it would take to integrate my required feature set into them, I'm believing it'll be less work to add the aforementioned features into my engine and will give me more control and flexibility as I know my engine very well.

Along H's train of thought - even commercical engines are modified by their licensees on a regular basis. The reasons for this can vary, but they are generally things like:

- Integrating some new middleware package (animation, physics, ect)
- New graphics techniques/algorithms
- Engine changes to support gameplay additions

So even people who spend lots and lots of $$$ on an engine generally end up spend even more money modifying it to suit their needs. Using it out-of-the-box isn't always (or even commonly) realistic.

Quote:
Again: do you REALLY want to make a game, or do you absolutely have to have everything to your specific specifications?

It's not about any old game just for the sake of making a game. There is specific functionality that is integral to my game and it goes way beyond just free-roaming terrain, which barely begins to descibe what I'm trying to accomplish. For the game to succeed Terrain is one of the integral parts, which I think I've gotten under control. Mind you, this game is my dream and my passion, and I wont cut corners on the critical elements. You are right for things that aren't critical, but everything I've built so far is crtical to the vision. The features I'm referring to are integral to the gameplay, and too dificult to get into details on this thread. I'm sure for most, they can find what they are looking for in these engines, but I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing them and think it'll be more work to make them work, then to add what I need into my engine. But I appreciate the advice.

Quote:
So even people who spend lots and lots of $$$ on an engine generally end up spend even more money modifying it to suit their needs. Using it out-of-the-box isn't always (or even commonly) realistic.

Exactly