Core 300 Linux: won't compile

[Andazeus]

dgWorkerThread is missing.

I know it hasn't been implemented yet for Linux a few months ago.

Looks like it's still not working. Any updates?

[Julio Jerez]

actually it is implemented using Posit thread, it should compile fine in an Unix based system, Linux based on Unix

I realized that I was spending way more time modeling demos than working on feature, so I decided to push the editor a litle bit so that I can make all modeling using the editor
and play then using the serialization feature of core 300.

As usal the sanbox demos has grown to a level of complexity that it is amost and editor, yet making demo procedurally is still a time consuming task.
in most cases people do not undernad the demos, for whatever reason. most peopel beleiev teh sandbox is a Game.
In fact I have email from casual beginners thinking that the sandbox demos the engine and go out ask hwo can the do that using some other engines.
Many of them do not even bother to look at the code, they already have thier mind set thinking it is Havok or Physx.

with the editor all demos will be unified, and I will use then all the vieweres I have writen (the SDL tutorials, the sandbox, and the mobile devices)
I might even make special Game Plugin Packages for popular game engine engines.

[pHySiQuE]

actually it is implemented using Posit thread, it should compile fine in an Unix based system, Linux based on Unix

I realized that I was spending way more time modeling demos than working on feature, so I decided to push the editor a litle bit so that I can make all modeling using the editor
and play then using the serialization feature of core 300.

As usal the sanbox demos has grown to a level of complexity that it is amost and editor, yet making demo procedurally is still a time consuming task.
in most cases people do not undernad the demos, for whatever reason. most peopel beleiev teh sandbox is a Game.
In fact I have email from casual beginners thinking that the sandbox demos the engine and go out ask hwo can the do that using some other engines.
Many of them do not even bother to look at the code, they already have thier mind set thinking it is Havok or Physx.

with the editor all demos will be unified, and I will use then all the vieweres I have writen (the SDL tutorials, the sandbox, and the mobile devices)
I might even make special Game Plugin Packages for popular game engine engines.

It sounds like you are trying to please non-programmers who won't ever be happy with a programming library. What they want is a visual game maker. Once you start making a visual editor, they're going to expect to be able to do more and more without code. Is that a path you want to go down?

[Julio Jerez]

Not I am not going the rout of visual modeling for everything.

The idea if to provide an editor which is a Shell, that allows editing of all functionality of the engine.
This any use can integrate the engine into their game and start using features exported from the editor.
One in the editor the application can query the effect and add they own custom code. That can never be provided by an editor, at least not without a script system.
The editor is made very flexible so that any end using can interface with it by writing a Plug-in the can author the data with keywords for them to hook up in their project.

The editor has it out format (the same I was writing for the old Alchemedia)
the format is extensible and any application can use it if they chose to.
However the engine supports binary serialization that can be read by the engine without having to link to any external library (with the exception of the joint library)

As for try to please non programmers, the fact of the matter is that it is those non programmers who determine of you are useful or not.
Many of them have lot of power and make comment as if they were experts.
Some of they are very dishonest and but have a lot of influence on the internet.
When you read answer to question like this:

“bert wrote:
newton got released under the same license as bullet!
i think it's an interesting alternative to bullet. similar features but force based instead of impulse based. what do you think?”

to what a selft appointed expert answers with this

/Kenneth
Kenneth Bodin Holmlund
VRlab/HPC2N, Umeå University, Sweden
Given that both use discrete time, the difference between an impulse and a force is a constant - the timestep, dt.
So, all in all, this force vs impulse vs velocity based physics is just a matter of confusion and reluctance to use real math to describe the problem.

Speaking of Newton, I am very curious about the statement "Our engine implements a deterministic solver, which is not based on traditional LCP or iterative methods, but possesses the stability and speed of both respectively.".

This is what people are fed in places like Ogre Forum, GameDev.net and some dishonest and plegiares forums.
The porpuse of these answeres are to scare anyone form even consider take a look and the engine for the get go, and to make a record on the interent.
people like Kenneth Bodin Holland form virtual relaity lab has a vendetta against Newton because when Newton came out it became the engine of chose for Academic projects
sicne is is an real lagragian dynamcis solver that gives much accurate and stable results that Vortex and any other physics simulator.

They count on the end user to find the engine difficult to use, and on the court of public opnion for the misinformation to keep propagating.
It is my intention to remedy that.
and I beleive that a tool tha alloer the use to make real comparison rather than taking the openion of these "Experts" can make the play field more even.

The editor will have a 100% collada compliance exporter and importer.
It will be campable of loading and saving scenes that can be loaded and play with any simulator that supports collada files.

[pHySiQuE]

Sorry, I misunderstood.