[Ritz]

Stealth, on Jan 30 2009, 06:21 PM, said:

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

Would it really be enough for me to peruse the documentation included with E02 to get started? If not, where do I even begin? What concepts would I need to be familiar with, mathematical or otherwise?

If you're competent, yes. I already explained this to Rolken. Go read that. Otherwise, jman already put it best. I don't know why people just outright ignore the things they don't want to hear despite any truth to the fact

I wasn't "ignoring" anything. Your reply to Rolken consisted of little more than a bunch of highlights of various files documenting the scripting process, which didn't seem terribly relevant to what I was asking of- that is, how accessible the engine is to a person with no real programming experience to speak of. You say it's possible for a person to just pick it up and run with it; I'll take this with a grain of salt, as you seem to have an unusually lofty perception of the term 'competent', but your opinion is duly noted.

Though, to be fair, I did sort of unintentionally skim over the part where you mentioned that the scripts for Project Mettrix were included for reference, which seems just as reasonable a place to start as any. If you're genuinely curious as to how people so often skimp out on the finer details of your posts, personally, I'd attribute it to your tendency to structure paragraphs poorly. Just saying!

roxahris, on Jan 30 2009, 06:50 PM, said:

Chaos Hedgie, on Jan 31 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

Quote

No fuck your shit HEY EVERYONE I AM A COMPLETE ASSHOLE PLEASE MOCK ME

yes because replying in an antagonist tone is totally going to solve the problem. Gentlemen, let's be civil now.

I think he was being sarcastic.

Ding ding winner. You could even say I was being jovial! The strikethrough didn't set off any alarms?

This post has been edited by Ritz: 30 January 2009 - 10:31 PM

[Stealth]

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

Stealth, on Jan 30 2009, 06:21 PM, said:

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

Would it really be enough for me to peruse the documentation included with E02 to get started? If not, where do I even begin? What concepts would I need to be familiar with, mathematical or otherwise?

If you're competent, yes. I already explained this to Rolken. Go read that. Otherwise, jman already put it best. I don't know why people just outright ignore the things they don't want to hear despite any truth to the fact

I wasn't "ignoring" anything.

I disagree. You quoted only the first sentence in his response and said "NEXT!". You actively fought against accepting what he had to say. Does that not follow the definition of "ignoring" anything?

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

Your reply to Rolken consisted of little more than a bunch of highlights of various files documenting the scripting process, which didn't seem terribly relevant to what I was asking of- that is, how accessible the engine is to a person with no real programming experience to speak of.

That was not the response I was referring to. Judging by something you later said in this same post, you know that, but you still saw fit to include this statement. I don't see how it's of any relevance when your question has indeed been answered

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

You say it's possible; I'll take this with a grain of salt, as you seem to have an unusually lofty perception of the term 'competent', but your opinion is duly noted.

Using dumb-sounding metaphors really doesn't help your case when my idea of "competence" is being willing and able to read and understand very clearly-written explanations in order to accomplish something you've deemed is necessary for continuing to live your own life. That's the extent of what it takes, there is absolutely nothing more to it. I don't understand why some people without the skill or fortitude believe that the ability to quickly and easily toss together a video game is as necessary to their survival as oxygen, but it annoys me terribly. Because I have the ability and drive, they act like it's MY problem. It is not

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

Though, to be fair, I did sort of skim over the part where you mentioned that the scripts for Project Mettrix were included for reference, which seems just as reasonable a place to start as any.

Which is why I don't understand what the issue is

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

If you're genuinely curious as to how people so often skimp out on the finer details of your posts, personally, I'd attribute it to your tendency to structure paragraphs poorly. Just saying!

Your illiteracy and attempts to cover it with sharp jabs like that aren't my problem

[Ritz]

Stealth, on Jan 30 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

I disagree. You quoted only the first sentence in his response and said "NEXT!". You actively fought against accepting what he had to say. Does that not follow the definition of "ignoring" anything?

Oh, we're talking about jman's post now? Because I assumed we were talking about your post. I ignored his initial suggestion, yes, but honestly, I don't even see why his post is even an issue at this point when I've already explained my reasoning behind skipping over it and, indeed, stated my intent multiple times throughout this topic. I'll do it again: I ignored his post because it was completely irrelevant to what I was asking. I make an earnest plea for an outline of exactly what it would take for an unexperienced programmer to get into E02, he jumps in with "Don't even try", and it's of any wonder to you that I wasn't satisfied with his response?

Whether or not you agree with his sentiment doesn't count for squat. Tweaker hasn't piped up about it yet, most likely because you're Stealth, but I get the feeling that deep down, he really wouldn't appreciate this sort of defeatist attitude on this board. I sure didn't!

Stealth, on Jan 30 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

That was not the response I was referring to. Judging by something you later said in this same post, you know that, but you still saw fit to include this statement. I don't see how it's of any relevance when your question has indeed been answered

I'm simply outlining my thought process at the time. As I thought you had claimed that I ignored your response to Rolken, I went back and retraced my steps, and switched gears when I actually did notice that one bit I'd stumbled over that more or less answered my query. In essence, I was trying to be a good sport about my mixup. Sorry if that wasn't relevant or anything.

Stealth, on Jan 30 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

I don't understand why some people without the skill or fortitude believe that the ability to quickly and easily toss together a video game is as necessary to their survival as oxygen, but it annoys me terribly. Because I have the ability and drive, they act like it's MY problem. It is not

You don't understand why one would desire the simplest possible means to create a product? You don't understand why someone would wish to heed their primal ambition to create something without otherwise possessing the skills you deem to be so elementary, or the means to acquire them? You don't understand, or you don't approve? Big difference, there.

wait

Stealth, on Jan 30 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

dumb-sounding

Stealth, on Jan 30 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

Your illiteracy

Drawing the line here. I'm through being civil with this musty cunt. I'm illiterate because I spaced out towards the end of a paragraph because you don't know how to properly structure one so that different subjects don't wind up blending together? And then you have the gall to accuse me of "covering it up with sharp jabs" when what I'd just said was meant to be taken as constructive criticism? You're a real piece of work, Stealth.

Has anyone ever told you about how haughty you are? Selfish and arrogant, to boot? I can understand why not: You're Stealth! The community's first and foremost programming prodigy. Heaven forbid anyone ever displease you- that might mean you'll stop making things for us! God knows that's all you're good for.

So, what the fuck is your deal? I'm not just talking about your performance in this topic, here. You think that having laurels to rest on gives you the right to prance around the board like a condescending prick? You cocktease us with projects that are seldom interesting on anything other than a technical level, but instead of shedding so much as a snippet of insight as to how your things work, you start touting your social Darwinism tripe like your work is a god-given privilege reserved exclusively for fellow Übermensch, and the rest of the community had better just sit and deal with your abuse lest the golden goose stop laying eggs. If this is the sort of attitude I have to put up with, you can keep your work to yourself. You're not worth it, Stealth.

You know what? I had a lot of faith in this project up until tonight, but now that you've made it clear that no concessions whatsoever will be made for those of inferior skill, I really couldn't care less. Why did you even start this project to begin with? Did you honestly intend for anyone to put this shit to work, or are you just trying to show off? Are you at all familiar with your demographic? This is the fucking Sonic community. 98% of all the members of this forum are kids in their teens who spend their time here sitting around, maws gaping in hopes of slurping up whatever fun hacks trickle down the works, sucking the dicks of the few talented hackers in hopes of more content- their off time from this is spent arguing over goats in Nigeria. Hackers are just that, and generally can't be expected to have the skills to put your engine to use. In the end, the only members capable of actually using E02 are either not interested, or working on engines of their own- all of which are bound to be better than this.

Taxman, tank this doucheclown. Retro Sonic or bust.

This post has been edited by Ritz: 31 January 2009 - 01:51 AM

[Stealth]

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Oh, we're talking about jman's post now? Because I assumed we were talking about your post.

Uh, you wanna read that again?

Quote

Otherwise, jman already put it best. I don't know why people just outright ignore the things they don't want to hear despite any truth to the fact

So, you say that you're NOT illiterate?

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

I ignored his post because it was completely irrelevant to what I was asking. I make an earnest plea for an outline of exactly what it would take for an unexperienced programmer to get into E02, he jumps in with "Don't even try", and it's of any wonder to you that I wasn't satisfied with his response?

Of course you're not satisfied, it's not what you want to hear. I hardly see how telling you that getting together with a programmer who can implement your ideas when you want to create a new game but can't figure out how is "completely irrelevant". You're just being dismissive and antagonistic

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Whether or not you agree with his sentiment doesn't count for squat. Tweaker hasn't piped up about it yet, most likely because you're Stealth

Or perhaps, that's why you ARE complaining? I get alot of that, and I'm sick of it

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

but I get the feeling that deep down, he really wouldn't appreciate this sort of defeatist attitude on this board. I sure didn't!

Tweaker was the first one to complain in this thread about the total number of existing engines, and has himself complained about the volume of copycat projects that people toss together when it becomes easy, or people hand things out to them like candy

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

I'm simply outlining my thought process at the time. As I thought you had claimed that I ignored your response to Rolken, I went back and retraced my steps, and switched gears when I actually did notice that one bit I'd stumbled over that more or less answered my query. In essence, I was trying to be a good sport about my mixup. Sorry if that wasn't relevant or anything.

I followed your "thought process", I just didn't appreciate the fact that you were still making false accusations as a lead-in

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Stealth, on Jan 30 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

I don't understand why some people without the skill or fortitude believe that the ability to quickly and easily toss together a video game is as necessary to their survival as oxygen, but it annoys me terribly. Because I have the ability and drive, they act like it's MY problem. It is not

You don't understand why one would desire the simplest possible means to create a product? You don't understand why someone would wish to heed their primal ambition to create something without otherwise possessing the skills you deem to be so elementary, or the means to acquire them? You don't understand, or you don't approve? Big difference, there.

I like how people try and manipulate the things I say into something utterly villainous. It's amusing. Did you completely ignore the "as necessary to their survival as oxygen" part? I'm not exaggerating, here. There are fucking crybabies that think they will just literally DIE if they "aren't allowed" to make a Sonic the Hedgehog video game. Considering the extent to which you're fighting this, I'm inclined to believe that you also fall under that category. Well, it's not the most fucking important thing in the world, especially to someone other than yourself. If you can't do it, then you can't do it. Stop trying to pawn the problem off on ME. I'm SICK of it. It is YOUR fault that it's so important to you, and it is YOUR fault that you don't have the capacity to pull it off. DEAL WITH IT.

Everything I've ever done, I've started with fewer resources than are EASILY available to EVERYONE today. Yes, I believe that makes me better than you. I'm certainly smarter than you if you can't handle it today. I certainly have more will and dedication than you if you can't do it today.

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Stealth, on Jan 30 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

dumb-sounding

Stealth, on Jan 30 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

Your illiteracy

Drawing the line here. I'm through being civil with this musty cunt. I'm illiterate because I spaced out towards the end of a paragraph because you don't know how to properly structure one so that different subjects don't wind up blending together? And then you have the gall to accuse me of "covering it up with sharp jabs" when what I'd just said was meant to be taken as constructive criticism? You're a real piece of work, Stealth.

So, "Just saying!" isn't you being a smug piece of shit? I stand by what I said at the start of this post, but if by some chance it is untrue, anyone's unwillingness to tough it out through a thoughtful post or response to benefit from a detailed explanation of function, meaning, or situation is not my problem

By the way, "dumb-sounding" is just a matter of fact in terms of the phrase, you've personally accepted the word "dumb" in application to yourself entirely of your own accord. Metaphors like "grain of salt" irritate the hell out of me, and they're so overused that I'm just sick of hearing them. What the hell do the words have to do with the intended meaning, anyway? Fuck.

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Has anyone ever told you about how haughty you are? Selfish and arrogant, to boot? I can understand why not: You're Stealth! The community's first and foremost programming prodigy. God forbid anyone ever displease you- that might mean you'll stop making things for us! God knows that's all you're good for.

That's right, I'm Stealth. I'm obviously smarter than you, and have more talent. I have accomplished more than you. That makes you uncomfortable, doesn't it? It sure seems that way. This is the same problem I have with several other people, who have indeed told me that I am "haughty", "selfish", and "arrogant". Why do they say these things? Because they're so self-involved that they can't look past their own ego to see that I have made many contributions that I never had to in the form of my programs and various helpful posts.

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

So, what the fuck is your deal? I'm not just talking about your performance in this topic, here. You think that having laurels to rest on gives you the right to prance around the board like a condescending prick?

It certainly helps. What's your excuse?

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

You cocktease us with projects that are seldom interesting on anything other than a technical level, but instead of shedding so much as a snippet of insight as to how your things work, you start touting your social Darwinism tripe like your work is a god-given privilege reserved exclusively for fellow Übermensch, and the rest of the community had better just sit and deal with your abuse lest the golden goose stop laying eggs. If this is the sort of attitude I have to put up with, you can keep your work to yourself. You're not worth it, Stealth.

You seem to be one of those people that thinks that just because I have a talent, "I owe you" something. Guess the fuck what - I don't. I've given and given, and the bulk of what I get is complaints that I don't just give some more. I've had people tell me to "pay it forward", which is another completely idiotic phrase, if not also an idiotic ideology. It's at least an impractical one. By what I HAVE provided, I have done nothing but "pay it forward", and what have I really got in return? You have the fucking audacity to call ME "selfish"?!

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

You know what? I had a lot of faith in this project up until tonight, but now that you've made it clear that no concessions whatsoever will be made for those of inferior skill, I really couldn't care less.

Waaa, I lost a "fan". Now what will I ever do?

If you lack the skill to type, or reason logically, that's not my problem. You don't need anything else in order to use E02 effectively, and if that's how bad it is for you, you don't belong in this hobby/profession, whichever way you want to take it.

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Why did you even start this project to begin with? Did you honestly intend for anyone to put this shit to work, or are you just trying to show off?

Use it, show off, allow other people to use it; what does it matter? It makes my job managing Mettrix easier, I started implementing editing/scripting features when poorly-done TGF/MMF ran completely rampant, and overall it looks nice for portfolio. Take your pick, you'll find some way to mangle any of it into something malicious, anyway

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Are you at all familiar with your demographic? This is the fucking Sonic community. 98% of all the members of this forum are kids in their teens who spend their time here either sitting around, maws gaping in hopes of slurping up whatever fun hacks trickle down the works, sucking the dicks of the few talented hackers in hopes of more content- their off time from this is spent arguing over goats in Nigeria. Hackers are just that, and generally can't be expected to have the skills to put your engine to use.

If you think I don't know that, you obviously haven't been paying attention. They won't be able to do anything substantial no matter what. I garantee you that if something more "friendly"-looking comes along, they won't bother with that either, and find something else to complain about. It's nothing that hasn't been happening for the past 12 years

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

In the end, the only members capable of actually using E02 are either not interested, or working on engines of their own-

I like how you "know" that for a "fact"

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

all of which are bound to be better than this.

Ouch. I am wounded!

Ritz, on Jan 30 2009, 10:18 PM, said:

Taxman, tank this doucheclown. Retro Sonic or bust.

Rallying cry!

Taxman and I have been friendly since roughly '99, I don't think you're going to be causing me any issues in attempting to set him against me. That was just plain pathetic

[Ritz]

You're completely entitled to keep your work and your knowledge to yourself; I won't contest that. And if everyone here is so perfectly willing to let you trample over them like this, well, you're entitled to that, too.

I could've posted some rebuttals here, but I won't. I'm done with you, Stealth. Have fun stroking your ego, it's charming.

This post has been edited by Ritz: 31 January 2009 - 02:30 AM

[saxman]

The Taxman, on Jan 30 2009, 09:47 PM, said:

The main ones for me are:
-Keeps the engine code nice and trim
-Allows a platform native interface (RSDK works on OSX too), which also includes using stuff like the OS's copy and paste, and also increases familiarity for the user.

Both of those points are excellent. Especially the second point. However, I'd say it the editing tools are easy enough to work with and are packed together with the engine itself, that's a huge plus. That's why I integrated mine, so people could test while editing. I think that's one thing that made ClickTeam's software so easy to use was that everything was accessible from within a single program interface.

[The Taxman]

Stealth, on Jan 31 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

I've been considering the possibility of including a runtime-only version. Any possible non-PC(/Mac, for clarity) ports obviously wouldn't include them. I also prefer creating platform-independent code, myself. A user might initially feel more comfortable seeing textboxes and pushbuttings lying around, but learning to use them so they do exactly what you want is still an issue, which renders them pretty-much pointless in that regard :P

I'll let you in on a widdle secret :P... while the Retro-Sonic engine itself written in C and is completely portable, the RSDK editor is actually made with RealBasic (very similar to VB, only MUCH less shit and can compile for Win/Mac/Linux automatically from the one system). It's quite a handy programming tool for RAD stuff, since the widgets are native for each system, yet require only one set of code. You pay for it in terms of a larger executable size (I guarantee you'd say BLOATED XD) but considering how boring it is to write a nice looking editor, meh. But yeah, that's also a major factor why the editor and engine are separated for me.

saxman, on Jan 31 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

Both of those points are excellent. Especially the second point. However, I'd say it the editing tools are easy enough to work with and are packed together with the engine itself, that's a huge plus. That's why I integrated mine, so people could test while editing. I think that's one thing that made ClickTeam's software so easy to use was that everything was accessible from within a single program interface.

The step through editor was a great way for young kids to start using the Click products IMO. I know it was pretty limiting, but it really helped establish the connection between actions on the screen and computer logic. I know I owe a lot to Klik and Play hah. I remember being really dissapointed there was no scrolling (c'mon, Sonic NEEDS scrolling), but eventually I learned that you could implement it somewhat yourself.

Also for those scratching their heads over the scripts in E02, they look a lot more intimidating than they actually are. All the inbuilt functions and arithmetic (= , + , - , *, / etc) are represented as numbers/opcodes in the script files. There should be list of everything in the documentation. The actual script structure is similar to ASM, with registers and single instructions (no x=1+(2*3) type evaluation). Now it probably is a little cumbersome to look up these numbers everytime, but I'm sure someone could write a simple syntax translator thingo if they were desperate.

[Stealth]

The Taxman, on Jan 31 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

I'll let you in on a widdle secret :P... while the Retro-Sonic engine itself written in C and is completely portable, the RSDK editor is actually made with RealBasic (very similar to VB, only MUCH less shit and can compile for Win/Mac/Linux automatically from the one system). It's quite a handy programming tool for RAD stuff, since the widgets are native for each system, yet require only one set of code. You pay for it in terms of a larger executable size (I guarantee you'd say BLOATED XD) but considering how boring it is to write a nice looking editor, meh. But yeah, that's also a major factor why the editor and engine are separated for me.

That all makes sense. I've never actually touched RealBasic before, but I have some VB experience. This is about the only time RAD makes very much sense to me, too. Seems like we have a similar-enough philosophy on concentrating the most on functionality :P

To be honest, I might put more consideration into user interface if I weren't attacked so frequently and viciously over how I've already done it. It isn't like anything I COULD do about it isn't entirely unnecessary. There are much more important things to worry about right now than a frilly interface

The Taxman, on Jan 31 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

The step through editor was a great way for young kids to start using the Click products IMO. I know it was pretty limiting, but it really helped establish the connection between actions on the screen and computer logic. I know I owe a lot to Klik and Play hah. I remember being really dissapointed there was no scrolling (c'mon, Sonic NEEDS scrolling), but eventually I learned that you could implement it somewhat yourself.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I had a similar experience. Some time in 95, I bought this expensive set of books on game programming in C, but I kinda let them rot in a corner for a while because I was afraid of them. Somewhere along 96, one of my old friends decided he wanted to make a Sonic game, bought Klik and Play, and brought in me and two other people. It wasn't until after he had already paid for it that he found out it didn't do scrolling, and it aggravated me enough to pick up the books and do this. At that point, it just became a waste of money, and we never seriously used those things again :P

The Taxman, on Jan 31 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

Also for those scratching their heads over the scripts in E02, they look a lot more intimidating than they actually are. All the inbuilt functions and arithmetic (= , + , - , *, / etc) are represented as numbers/opcodes in the script files. There should be list of everything in the documentation. The actual script structure is similar to ASM, with registers and single instructions (no x=1+(2*3) type evaluation). Now it probably is a little cumbersome to look up these numbers everytime, but I'm sure someone could write a simple syntax translator thingo if they were desperate.

That's true, there's nothing preventing anyone else from creating a language parser or a graphical interface for sprite/object editing, or anything like that. You don't need to get into my code to do that if it's really necessary.

What I do when creating scripts, though, is use text and file searches on the current and other existing scripts. I use a standard set of post-comments on the command IDs that I can find easily, and I generally copy/paste command/parameter sets I've already written from one place to another, and modify them as necessary. It's no real hassle, and when working with similar-yet-different commands (mathematic operators, for example), the IDs are generally in sequential order. Descriptions for each of them are organized into separate text files, but there's also the index list, where they're named pretty sensically and with a fair degree of standardization

[Rolken]

The Taxman, on Jan 30 2009, 09:12 PM, said:

The Retro-Sonic Engine certainly isn't 'stuck in the mud'. It's at a *totally* different stage of development to ProSonic. I mean no disrespect to Saxman, I'm just talking in terms of how far along it is. I guess you could say it is flawed in the fact that it's not publicly released :P But that's just the way it is for the moment. I want to focus on getting the first half of Retro-Sonic XG out this year (ala Sonic 3). At the same time Sonic Nexus is a great test to see how a different team can handle the RSDK. Its helped me to improve the Editor and engine as they give me feedback.

I'm glad to hear that. Those screenshots look awesome. Out of curiosity, do you have any plans for when/how you'll be releasing the SDK?

The Taxman, on Jan 30 2009, 09:12 PM, said:

User friendliness should be about increasing productivity and intuitiveness, not about 'dumbing down' for the lowest common denominator. Even with programs like MMF and Game Maker, someone with more knowledge about game concepts and algorithms is able to wipe the floor against people who just want to Klik and Play, just look at Noitu Love 2 at http://www.konjak.org. It's pure 2D goodness, with fluid movements and awesome Sega Saturn style effects.

Well, people with more knowledge and experience will always be able to produce better things. My philosophy on user friendliness was that the program should be able to meet the user at whatever level he's capable of, not reduce itself to base level.

The Taxman, on Jan 31 2009, 04:47 AM, said:

I'll let you in on a widdle secret :P... while the Retro-Sonic engine itself written in C and is completely portable, the RSDK editor is actually made with RealBasic (very similar to VB, only MUCH less shit and can compile for Win/Mac/Linux automatically from the one system).

That's interesting. I was doing initial tool coding in C# as I didn't think anything like that existed to target multiple GUIs.

edit: anyway, with RSDK as far along as it is, I'm leaning towards abandoning this concept. RSDK appears to have its limitations but nobody seems particularly bothered by them or interested in the ideas I presented.

edit2: I suppose the timeframe in which RSDK should be expected is actually my primary remaining consideration, as if it doesn't come out for awhile I'd be more inclined to compete with it. Alternatively, you can release the source and make me very happy...!

This post has been edited by Rolken: 31 January 2009 - 06:51 AM

[The Taxman]

By all means, don't let me (or anyone else) stop you! I can tell you right now that I have no set date for a RSDK release. Don't worry about competing for 'top dog'. The RSDK was really just a by product of developing better tools for myself. Again focus is on Retro-Sonic XG PART 1 since there was no demo last year.

There are limitations to the Retro-Sonic engine as with any engine. For example, I've designed it for Sega Saturn level graphics, with old skool raster effects, mode 7, 32bit style 3D graphics in software etc. It's a stylistic choice really (Retro XD). But I can say that the 2008 Sonic Nexus demo only scratched the surface what can be done.

Care for a little tease?







I like your ideas of having a hardware accelerated 2D graphic engine that's scalable in size. Most people will love this since not everyone wants to just do 320x240 anymore. In fact making the engine modular with plugins would be a great idea too.

[synchronizer]

That is looking really nice. The only thing is that honestly, I liked the sprite from the SAGE 2008 demo better.

This post has been edited by synchronizer: 31 January 2009 - 08:28 AM

[Rolken]

The Taxman, on Jan 31 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

By all means, don't let me (or anyone else) stop you! I can tell you right now that I have no set date for a RSDK release. Don't worry about competing for 'top dog'. The RSDK was really just a by product of developing better tools for myself. Again focus is on Retro-Sonic XG PART 1 since there was no demo last year.

Well, my concern was more along the lines of whether I want to invest the time necessary in providing an alternative to RSDK as opposed to providing an alternative to nothing. :p There's no shortage of projects to pursue.

Would you be open to providing file format examples in the interest of whatever interoperability could be attained?

The Taxman, on Jan 31 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

Care for a little tease?

Heh, that looks excellent.

The Taxman, on Jan 31 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

I like your ideas of having a hardware accelerated 2D graphic engine that's scalable in size. Most people will love this since not everyone wants to just do 320x240 anymore. In fact making the engine modular with plugins would be a great idea too.

Originally I was actually planning on making the engine "2.5D", hence why that demo thing was a 2D plane immersed in 3D, but the lack of standard 3D formats and the expense of the editors involved convinced me to push that to a phase 2 (read: not likely). I'll still probably code it in 3D in the interest of leaving the future open, since I'm told there isn't much of a performance penalty in doing so with modern accelerator design.

edit: I might also be open to helping work on RSDK instead of starting a second project if that would be helpful, depending on what you need done.

This post has been edited by Rolken: 31 January 2009 - 08:42 AM

[The Taxman]

[synchronizer]

Oh I see. His nose blended in the background so I could not see it. Those are pretty good actually. Looking forward to the next demo.

[Dark Sonic]

Overall Retro Sonic XG looks awesome, but I still don't like the sprites.

Will there be any option to use Sonic 2/3 sprites that were originally in Retro Sonic?

Also is that a Sonic 3D Blast (Saturn) esq special stage I see in development there? If so you're my hero.

This post has been edited by Dark Sonic: 31 January 2009 - 09:38 AM