tournamentdan

As I first said. $99 for existing customers is fair. I think some smaller improvements should be free. Like hopefully in the future more modeling tools will be added for free. But for the larger features like, high end render, networking, crowd steering path finding.ect... so my only problem is the new customer price. You talk about return customers. Return customers should never have more invested into the same amount of features. Earlier you referenced a cable company or dish. Yes a new customer will normaly get a few months cheaper if they choose to get the same old cable box that been out for a few years. Where the award or benefit comes to the return customer is that the new customer normaly pays full price for new technology like a new and Improved cable box. And the loyal, faithfull, reliable return customer get the new tech for a discounted price. I think each feature could be a seperate add on. And depending what your needs are you could pick and choose which feature is good for your game.

From this blog right above our comments. "Leadwerks 3.1 for Linux and Windows will be released together next, with the exact release date to be determined. Leadwerks 3.1 for Mac will follow this, with mobile add-ons for iOS and Android coming last. (There is no upgrade purchase necessary for the mobile upgrades for Leadwerks 3.1.)" Each "feature upgrade" should be an add on. Not bundled into the sdk. Most of the products you are referring to Rick are cheaper because they became older overtime. Most likley no new features where added to the product or software. When windows 9 comes out I will think you will able to "upgrade" to 9 from 8 cheaper than buying 9 outright. Right? Edit- p.s. the people that bought Leadwerks 3.0 were the real beta testers!

Let me just say first that I think that $99 is a good upgrade price for existing customers. However I am trying to figure out why loyal customers (beta testers) had to pay $400 for Leadwerks 3.0. And new customers get a hell of a lot more features for half the price. There is not one company out there in buissness land that does this (repeatedly) to it's loyal base customers. Cost of Leadwerks 3.0 $199. - Windows and Mac. Low end renderer Cost of ios add on $99. Cost of andriod add on $99. Cost of 3.01 upgrade $99 Cost of Leadwerks 3.01for new customers $199- windows, mac, linux, ios, andriod, high-low end renderer and additional features still to come from kickstarter. Being slapped over and over again by Josh- priceless

There are two problems with intersecting mesh. How you plan to use your models will decide how major those problems are. Problem 1. If you plan to have your intersecting model bend with animation. It will not look very good where the mesh intersect. Problem 2. It depends on how many times you plan to instance the model. Say if you make a vegetation model like grass. You are going to instance that model a lot. Especially if you have a large world. Then you will have a great deal of wasted polygons. But if your model is a shelf you probably will not have a bunch drawn. P.S. I am not sure if Occlusion culling will help with underlying mesh. But if it did. Problem 2 would not matter.

Having a bunch of boxes fall and interact with each other is practical for making games. It is a test. You see some people want to make games that have destructible objects in them. And what better way to see how many objects or small pieces the engine and hardware can handle. To me, being able to have destructible environment is much more game play than opening a door

Great find Kennar.

Yes, you can not use tesselation untill josh implements the new renderer. But there is plenty to be done before then. I do not know about automatic. Tesellation will be handled in a shader. You with code will have to specify level of tesselation and distance from camera. The way I decribed will allow you to increase/decrease poly count in a specific local area instead of across the whole area. If you plan to use the "automatic" tesellation with your method you will have to do all that picking and checking every frame or at least many times per second since every time the camera moves, more or less vertice will be created or deleted. Good luck with your prodject.

Your terrain mesh would have to be extremly high in poly count or it is going to be blocky around where you flatten. So your game will not crawl at 3 fps you will need a normal terrain poly count and then somehow add vertice around where your buildings are. Oh yeah, I guess you could tesselate. Which will most likely be easier than your above method.

Using a decal is not complicated. Tesselating a displacement map is not complicated. Doing a ray cast is not complicated. What is complicated is just flatening mesh in a realistic manner.

You should be able to create a displacement map of the size of the flat area you need for a building. Then use the displacement map as a decal, then tesselate the terrain. Although nav mesh is now not dynamic. So they will not match. It would be a nice feature if we could update the nav mesh with a specified distance from a ray-cast.

I think we are going to lose this feature. Not sure if we could have dynamic nav mesh zones so it could help speed up large terrain.

How many times per second are you checking and updating?

You do not need to click on the move or rotate buttons with your mouse. There are short cuts. First click the object you want to move, scale, or rotate. Then if you want to rotate that object once selected hit the "r" (r=rotate) on the key board. After you hit "r" you can also select which axis you want to rotate on. So hit "r" then "x" or "y" or "z". The axis can be global or local. Same goes for the other transform short cuts. In blender the word "grab" is the same as move. So if you want to move a vertex or object hit "g". Hit "s" if you want to scale. The short cuts in blender will make things go a lot faster.

The sapling add on in blender works well but, not very good for games or close up for a video render. It generates a good bit of polys. Mainly in the leaves. That is not so bad because you could easily randomly select the leaf planes and delete two thirds of the planes created (for games). Then scale the rest (planes) larger.However, when the planes are generated they are not generated compared to the origin of the branch. Meaning if you plan to use only a few textures for the leaf planes, they will not all be facing the correct way. Many will have to be rotated. I would use the Sapling add on for games or cut scenes, but I would model my own leaf planes.

I think Flexman was thinking of somthing different than simply tesselating terrain. What if you were to use a displacement map as a decal to tesselate a bomb crater? Once the crater was made the physics mesh would not be anywhere close.You would some how have to tesselate the physics mesh also.

Something like the video below would be incredible.

I never thought that farmers dreamed to become practical and realistic. Problem is this topic was closed before he even started programming Leadwerks 3.

Practical and realistic is fine if all you ever want to do is to be like all the others. I will not allow myself to plan for mediocrity.

While this is absolutely true. If all you ever tell your self is that you can not accomplish something. You certainly will not.

I will not be fooled by comments like this any more.

You did. And not long after you promised, you created a console section in the forum that was private. I knew I should have screen captured that post. I would not still be here. I said in the "port to xbox" topic that support for the consoles was a make or break feature for me. You then said you were going to support them.

Yes, this is common knowledge. But what if we develop our game first. And then that game turns out to be kick ***. We then try to get a dev kit with that said kick *** game. If the consoles like the kick *** game. We the developers would have to find another engine.(because you refuse to support them) Learn that engine. Develop the kick *** game on that new engine. All of which will take more time and more money. It seems to work good for a other engine. Why not you?

In the " port to xbox " topic from a little over a year ago. And now that entire topic is mysteriously missing.

This is the reason it would be so much easier for a Indie if you supported the two largest game platforms in the world. A developer could invest their time and money into making the best game they can make. Instead of spending money and time that they most likely do not have trying to get a dev kit. You have already promised to support the two consoles and now it looks like you are pulling back from that promise also. And what do you have in mind that would be better than a billion dollar market?

You have obviously disliked the consoles for sometime because of their "quality control"measures. Let me ask you a question. What is the difference between their selective process and you not wanting to allow people to create an add on for your editor?