Yep, unless something written in C that does not require me to write a wrapper for advanced programming stuff rolls along that is of equal quality, Ogre looks like a win.
Now I need a magical way to get it talking to BlitzMax, since all the released Ogre wrappers seem to have fallen off the Earth. (Extern functions and a lot of luck, I guess?). This is why MiniB3D is nice to use, but in this case I have been drawn to some fancy features that happen rather quickly here.
That 3DS max stuff sadly would not work for my project since levels for it amount to some guide meshes and a bunch of variables. The graphics engine alone would not know what to do with any of it; the game mixes together a small number of arbitrary assets using blending algorithms that will magically come to be one day, creating visuals around the guidelines set by the levels. I want a few basic properties to control every part of how an object interacts with the game, where every object is unique and can be controlled quite extensively, but is still based on some very basic properties. Trusting arbitrary assets created for each object to do that sort of thing takes up space and time, and is likely to not work since people would never go to such detail to manually craft a couple hundred unique objects like that. Look at any first person shooter, for example, and count the number of repeated textures, decals and sound effects! For extra points, count how many times the sound track loops. Arbitrary repetition of any one chunk of media (without any change to it) for a game encouraging exploration is rather ugly. (And no, I am not hyping alpha blending; I am thinking vectors, scripts and insanity!)
That rambly nonsense, of course, is precisely why I don't want a nosey graphics engine messing with it.
Your 3DS Max stuff does, however, look very cool... Good thing I don't own the program, or I would be changing my plan already :b
Now I need a magical way to get it talking to BlitzMax, since all the released Ogre wrappers seem to have fallen off the Earth. (Extern functions and a lot of luck, I guess?). This is why MiniB3D is nice to use, but in this case I have been drawn to some fancy features that happen rather quickly here.
That 3DS max stuff sadly would not work for my project since levels for it amount to some guide meshes and a bunch of variables. The graphics engine alone would not know what to do with any of it; the game mixes together a small number of arbitrary assets using blending algorithms that will magically come to be one day, creating visuals around the guidelines set by the levels. I want a few basic properties to control every part of how an object interacts with the game, where every object is unique and can be controlled quite extensively, but is still based on some very basic properties. Trusting arbitrary assets created for each object to do that sort of thing takes up space and time, and is likely to not work since people would never go to such detail to manually craft a couple hundred unique objects like that. Look at any first person shooter, for example, and count the number of repeated textures, decals and sound effects! For extra points, count how many times the sound track loops. Arbitrary repetition of any one chunk of media (without any change to it) for a game encouraging exploration is rather ugly. (And no, I am not hyping alpha blending; I am thinking vectors, scripts and insanity!)
That rambly nonsense, of course, is precisely why I don't want a nosey graphics engine messing with it.
Your 3DS Max stuff does, however, look very cool... Good thing I don't own the program, or I would be changing my plan already :b