Irrlicht... or Ogre3D?

bitplane · Post by **bitplane** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:18 pm

okay to be slightly more technical, in the way Baldwin-boosted human intelligence adapted to harness the creative process of memetic evolution? Doesn't have the same punch to it!

twilight17 · Post by **twilight17** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:52 pm

hmmm I'm leaning toward using Irrlicht, but I still have a few questions:
1: What input system does Irrlicht use (built-in, Ois or something else.)
2: if the input system is built in, what features does it have (same as Ois?)
3: What physics wrapper is well written and mature?
That's all for now

Thanks

dlangdev · Post by **dlangdev** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:55 pm

i consulted my tribe's grand majestic all-knowing soothsayer, and here's what he said:

"oh, grand majestic all-knowing soothsayer, what can sayeth thou regarding ogre?"

"ogre eateth babies for breakfast!"

oh man, that's a real bummer--bad mojo.

sorry, i can't touch ogre. it's creepy.

twilight17 · Post by **twilight17** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:03 am

uhhhh that was weird lol...

Could you read my questions, please?

thanks

bitplane · Post by **bitplane** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:21 am

twilight17 wrote: 1: What input system does Irrlicht use (built-in, Ois or something else.)

built-in, sent via event structs starting at the OS, see SEvent and IEventReceiver

twilight17 wrote:2: if the input system is built in, what features does it have (same as Ois?)

Pointing device and keyboard, no joystick or other input devices yet. You should probably check out the tutorials, they'll give you a good idea of the layout of the engine and how it's used.

twilight17 wrote:3: What physics wrapper is well written and mature?

There's a few around but I can't say much about their quality or stability, I haven't had the need to use one yet as realism isn't really my thing

twilight17 · Post by **twilight17** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:39 am

thanks for the quick reply

Right now im looking at the 2 links you posted, and looking for a physics wrapper

Edit: also looking at the tutorials

I'm gonna make my decision about which engine to use soon

Saturn · Post by **Saturn** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:46 am

If you need Joystick or something like this, you can still use OIS (or other input libs) together with Irrlicht, the built-in system is not obligatory. But it is good enough for most purposes and easy to use.

Physics wrappers imo are a particular strength of Ogre, as there are wrappers for most major libs (Newton, ODE, Bullet, PhysX) and they have good community support. On the other hand, you might not even needed with Irrlicht, as its built-in collision detection, while basic, is still more than Ogre has built-in and it will get you started. Whether it is worth to use it or a physics lib depends on what you want to do with it.

twilight17 · Post by **twilight17** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:50 am

wow, irrlicht has a lot of features built-in compared to Ogre

and it's probably true that I won't need a physics wrapper

twilight17 · Post by **twilight17** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:06 am

Decision made!

I'll be using Irrlicht! yay

I'm going to use Irrlicht, With Iphysics (for fun), maybe OIS for input (if Irrlicht doesn't have what I need), and irrKlang for sound!

Yay I can't wait to make a pong game! (to start off

)

But, it's always a possibility to move to Ogre after I get familiar with game programming, (not for a while though

)

Oh! and I would like to thank everyone for helping me decide!

MasterGod · Post by **MasterGod** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:47 pm

twilight17 wrote:But, it's always a possibility to move to Ogre after I get familiar with game programming, (not for a while though )

That's what I said when I saw Irrlicht for the first time,

, lets start with that and then move to the "real" thing...

P.S
Never touched any other 3D Engine ever since..

twilight17 · Post by **twilight17** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:08 pm

just want to say thanks everyone, Irrlicht is awesome

(tutorials lol

)

Halifax · Post by **Halifax** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:20 pm

Just curious, because I want some clarification on this. Do you have to include the modified source of a GPL'd program in your application download? Or can I maybe setup an insignificant link on my site that says "Get the modified source here".

hybrid · Post by **hybrid** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:41 pm

You don't have to deliver it within a downloaded package, in that case a visible link on the download page should be enough. However, if you sell your game on CDs it might be necessary to deliver the sources on that CD (or another one in that package), otherwise customers are allowed to order them from you at no cost.
You also just have to publish changes in case those changes are, in any way, distributed to someone else. If you just change some stuff in a tool which you use within your company you don't need to make those changes available to anyone.
However, in case you use GPL, any code that is somehow related to the GPL'ed part has to be published. In case of LGPL and dynamic binding at run-time (dlls) you only have to publish source code for changes you made to the original LGPL code.

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:18 pm

Halifax wrote:Do you have to include the modified source of a GPL'd program in your application download? Or can I maybe setup an insignificant link on my site that says "Get the modified source here".

You can do that. Whether it satisfies the terms of the license is another question. Bear in mind that the FSF's or Alice, Bob or Carol's interpretation of the license may differ from Dave's, and so you should read the terms carefully yourself.

So let's read it together.

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Interestingly, providing a link to the modified source falls between a) and b). The source isn't "accompanying" the distribution, and neither is the offer to provide it. This is an important distinction, because you could make the source unavailable at any time, and without the written offer from b) the recipients of the exe would be S.O.L. That's one of the situations that the GPL was intended to avoid.

I believe that in practice most rights owners would accept that a web link satisfies the spirit of the license. However, it's not sufficient to satisfy the letter of the license, and "most" is not "all", so it would be at your (admittedly low) risk.

What would satisfy the license is a written offer to courier the source on CD / DVD (or HD-DVD / BluRay / ZipDisk / floppy / tape) "at cost", which could arguably run into hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Additionally, you could run the source through a code obfuscator before building the exe, and ship the obfuscated but still "machine readable" and perfectly valid code.

Very few recipients or rights owners would be happy about that, but it would (again, arguably) satisfy the strict letter of the license. Given that the GPL is a unilateral non-negotiable license rather than a contract, I would suggest that most courts would hold that it is the responsibility of the licensor to ensure that it says what it means, and means what it says.

FWIW, I don't touch GPL or LGPL'd source, and one reason is the uncertainty over exactly what satisfies the license and what doesn't.

hybrid · Post by **hybrid** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:41 pm

Code obfuscation is not allowed, read the next paragraph:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.

I doubt that obfuscated code will pass this criterion.