Originally Posted by marky_2
Title asks it all. Would you give up a kidney to get a completed copy of MMF3D right now? Let's assume it'll have a decent engine (let's say it matches the Quake 3 engine) and be really easy to use. Or would you prefer to wait? I know I probably would.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Why is everyone saying working with 3D is more difficult than 2D ?
From the point of view of the artist it's true because you have to model, texture, rig and then animate if you want to make a model for a Mario 64 clone for example.
From the programmer's point of view, it's the same exact thing except you have to the possibility of using another dimension and some more stuff you couldn't with 2D. And more possibilities don't always mean more complications.
The more difficult aspects of 3D programming would probably be already pre-coded such as a collisions, lightning and so on, so if you're familiar with the other click products (and assuming they keep the same interface) I highly doubt you'll have that many difficulties working with a 3D version of MMF.

 

Originally Posted by Johnny Look
Why is everyone saying working with 3D is more difficult than 2D ?
From the point of view of the artist it's true because you have to model, texture, rig and then animate if you want to make a model for a Mario 64 clone for example.
From the programmer's point of view, it's the same exact thing except you have to the possibility of using another dimension and some more stuff you couldn't with 2D. And more possibilities don't always mean more complications.
The more difficult aspects of 3D programming would probably be already pre-coded such as a collisions, lightning and so on, so if you're familiar with the other click products (and assuming they keep the same interface) I highly doubt you'll have that many difficulties working with a 3D version of MMF.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Johnny Look
hagar: I have to disagree there. You are implying that the engine might be more difficult to use because some of the new features brought by a 3d engine wouldn't be easy to work with.

3D physics work the same way as 2D physics except there's a 3rd dimension, but car physics for example are something that you couldn't do accurately in a 2D engine. It's a new thing that is not that easy to work with (I know, I did this a few years ago, you can check my F1 legends "game" if you could call it that), but it's something that was previously inaccessible, so if you want to use it you are forced to learn, just like you were forced to work with extensions you weren't previously familiar with.

But the more basic functions that MMF2 has that would need to be converted to a 3D engine, such as moving or rotating a model or a sprite would remain pretty much the same. I wouldn't say that moving object A from 0,0,5 to 0,0,10 is significantly more difficult than moving object B from 0,5 to 0,10 for example.

GamesterXIII: Pretty much every 3d engine includes distance calculation functions, so I'd be surprised if MMF3D(or whatever it would be called) didn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Johnny Look


GamesterXIII: Pretty much every 3d engine includes distance calculation functions, so I'd be surprised if MMF3D(or whatever it would be called) didn't.

 

if ( jim ) flag = FALSE;





if ( counter == 128 ) {


    cheese = TRUE;


    stringbuf[N] = '\0';


    counter = 0;


} 

 

Originally Posted by Johnny Look

3D physics work the same way as 2D physics except there's a 3rd dimension, but car physics for example are something that you couldn't do accurately in a 2D engine. It's a new thing that is not that easy to work with (I know, I did this a few years ago, you can check my F1 legends "game" if you could call it that), but it's something that was previously inaccessible, so if you want to use it you are forced to learn, just like you were forced to work with extensions you weren't previously familiar with.

But the more basic functions that MMF2 has that would need to be converted to a 3D engine, such as moving or rotating a model or a sprite would remain pretty much the same. I wouldn't say that moving object A from 0,0,5 to 0,0,10 is significantly more difficult than moving object B from 0,5 to 0,10 for example.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
hey, don't knock 3d gamemaker,

it's a good source of ready made 3d models with animations!

Think of it as just a model pack with an engine bundled with it to test them out, a good deal if you ask me.

Oh and distance calculations and movement engines aren't that hard at all, just like 2d cept like this

3D distance:
sqrt((x1-x2)^2+(y1-y2)^2+(z1-z2)^2)
3D platform movement:
X pos = X + cos(angle)*speed
Z pos = Z + sin(angle)*speed
Y pos = Y + Gravity

I've made some 3d games using DarkBasic about 7 years ago, and I was only 13, if I could do the math then it shouldn't be hard now.

I'll see if I can find those old games and compile one and post it here.

 

Originally Posted by ..::hagar::..
The maths above is rudimentary basics. Making a decent engine would involve a lot more . Even my isometric game involves a lot more than that

 

X pos = X + sin(angle)*speed


Y pos = Y + cos(angle)*speed 

 

Originally Posted by UrbanMonk

---

---

Basic Isometric is more difficult than a basic 3d engine.

For most users the engine I described is exactly what they'd want. Everything else is just a basic modification similar to what can be done in mmf.

Friction for example is just a simple coefficient multiplied by the speed value.

A simple loop for getting the height of the ground, jumping would just be a matter of modifying the Y position and disabling friction.


But I do see your point, if you've never made a decent 2d game how do you expect to make a 3d one.

 

 

Originally Posted by UrbanMonk
Well no one here really makes real physics engines even in their 2d games.

Point is, these engines aren't any harder to do in 3 dimensions than they are in 2.

 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Aloan Moreira
Until an intelligent guy like me, but with the x,y,z know-how shows up with the concept I'm about to disclose, the world will not be wowed. Here it is: Forget 3D modeling. I said: Forget 3D modeling. Hate it with a passion and don't even think about it. It is possible to make a 3D game with REAL HD DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY ALONE! HOW? MMF2 does the rest already. So Just bring a blank X,Y,Z plane capability or option to it's Level Editor. I wish I could show this on video. Then, place your active objects on that x,y,z plane. Once you run the game it would be on a 3D space. And once you walk about the landsdcape your HD actives will differentiate according to your position to it. Say you go past a person. It's perspective will change depending on your position to it: if you are in front of it or beside it or behind it. We can create pre-defined 8 directional views of an active, simply by importing digital photographs of these objects taken from these 8 directions and put them in MMF 2D1/2. And if you want to see my concept in action but unfortunately without MMF2 interactivity since it's not a Clickteam product, go here for the youtube video demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp2ceb2gd-A&feature=related - notice at 1:28 and at 1:51 that the trees are real photographs and they follow your eyes. They're in 2D .tga format with native transparency of course, although I like .png because it's smaller in file size and MMF2 supports .png. So the only thing this video needs is animation which mmf2 does well. Then just throw a main 2d active character in there and you can go explore and interact. Go see and tell me if you understand my concept. BTW, the program used in the video is called Realtime landscaping by ideaspectrum. Their website is: http://www.ideaspectrum.com/

 

Originally Posted by Aloan Moreira
Until an intelligent guy like me, but with the x,y,z know-how shows up with the concept I'm about to disclose, the world will not be wowed. Here it is: Forget 3D modeling. I said: Forget 3D modeling. Hate it with a passion and don't even think about it. It is possible to make a 3D game with REAL HD DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY ALONE! HOW? MMF2 does the rest already. So Just bring a blank X,Y,Z plane capability or option to it's Level Editor. I wish I could show this on video. Then, place your active objects on that x,y,z plane. Once you run the game it would be on a 3D space. And once you walk about the landsdcape your HD actives will differentiate according to your position to it. Say you go past a person. It's perspective will change depending on your position to it: if you are in front of it or beside it or behind it. We can create pre-defined 8 directional views of an active, simply by importing digital photographs of these objects taken from these 8 directions and put them in MMF 2D1/2. And if you want to see my concept in action but unfortunately without MMF2 interactivity since it's not a Clickteam product, go here for the youtube video demonstration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp2ceb2gd-A&feature=related - notice at 1:28 and at 1:51 that the trees are real photographs and they follow your eyes. They're in 2D .tga format with native transparency of course, although I like .png because it's smaller in file size and MMF2 supports .png. So the only thing this video needs is animation which mmf2 does well. Then just throw a main 2d active character in there and you can go explore and interact. Go see and tell me if you understand my concept. BTW, the program used in the video is called Realtime landscaping by ideaspectrum. Their website is: http://www.ideaspectrum.com/

 

 

 

Originally Posted by urbanmonk
Well no one here really makes real physics engines even in their 2d games.
Point is, these engines aren't any harder to do in 3 dimensions than they are in 2.