sorry 'bout that HK... no more pics.
do you need me to take those out above, as they really arent necessary... the opinions are the important thing here...
ok... first of all, this is not a matter of BMax being more complicated... if anything, it is more easy to use for me, i'm used to working with classes and methods and stuff like that as opposed to long threads of procural strings and keeping track of em in various include files... the OO solution is far more condusive to development... i've said this all along...
... and while in the beginning, it may seem like a lil more effort, if am hour or two is taken to just step back and examine what your goals for your game, not only your current game, but whatever you may do in the future, and then code accordingly so that the basis of your development can be used again and again... then you will find that game development in BMax can become a much more streamlined process than you might ever imagine... with the game going from conception to prototype in a matter of hours... your ability to do this being leveraged from your existing classes...
in short, the hardest thing about Max may be that employing its potential requires that you employ your brain before starting to type... a lil planning first, that's all...
second... i'm sure mark is planning a really great 3D implementation... and of course, in order to get it to work there will be some abstraction of the 3D layer and the different OS linking layers... all of this is not what is under contention here...
what i'm saying is that further development of Blitz3D, to inlcude, but not limited to DX9 functionality, shadows, etc... plus the availability of an SDK allowing the advanced coder a choice (c++, .net, delphi) to code aginst it, surely would have been past completed by now, would have been productive by now... and we would still have BMax coming down the pike...
these things could've been done...
to leave the flagship product without any prime movement, was, possibly... a mistake.
--Mike
do you need me to take those out above, as they really arent necessary... the opinions are the important thing here...
ok... first of all, this is not a matter of BMax being more complicated... if anything, it is more easy to use for me, i'm used to working with classes and methods and stuff like that as opposed to long threads of procural strings and keeping track of em in various include files... the OO solution is far more condusive to development... i've said this all along...
... and while in the beginning, it may seem like a lil more effort, if am hour or two is taken to just step back and examine what your goals for your game, not only your current game, but whatever you may do in the future, and then code accordingly so that the basis of your development can be used again and again... then you will find that game development in BMax can become a much more streamlined process than you might ever imagine... with the game going from conception to prototype in a matter of hours... your ability to do this being leveraged from your existing classes...
in short, the hardest thing about Max may be that employing its potential requires that you employ your brain before starting to type... a lil planning first, that's all...
second... i'm sure mark is planning a really great 3D implementation... and of course, in order to get it to work there will be some abstraction of the 3D layer and the different OS linking layers... all of this is not what is under contention here...
what i'm saying is that further development of Blitz3D, to inlcude, but not limited to DX9 functionality, shadows, etc... plus the availability of an SDK allowing the advanced coder a choice (c++, .net, delphi) to code aginst it, surely would have been past completed by now, would have been productive by now... and we would still have BMax coming down the pike...
these things could've been done...
to leave the flagship product without any prime movement, was, possibly... a mistake.
--Mike