Ogre > Irrlicht

Jookia · Post by **Jookia** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:21 pm

One simple reason:

No dependencies needed to be downloaded. I first tried Ogre a while ago, but it wouldn't compile out of the box. I needed dependencies. That's just not good.

Just my opinion from a newbie's point of view.

Virion · Post by **Virion** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:18 pm

I tried Ogre for a few months and decided to come back. compile ogre stuff is slow, and difficult to program, at least for non-proffesional programmer like me.

i'm more to artist.

Halifax · Post by **Halifax** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:25 pm

Just so you know, your topic title reads, "Ogre greater than Irrlicht". You probably want this: "Ogre < Irrlicht".

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:52 pm

That's right ... you should change the title. I never tried OGRE, but I never really got Crystal Space running, so I was happy when I found Irrlicht. Easy to set up, easy to use ... just what I needed. Happy ever since.

Jookia · Post by **Jookia** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:00 pm

Hah, I didn't see my title problem.

Still, if I leave it people will read it all ready to go "WHAT THE FK IS WRONG WITH YOU"

Mel · Post by **Mel** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:47 pm

In the current development stage of Irrlicht, the title is totally right. Ogre surpasses Irrlicht in many aspects, and has far more "ambitious" capabilities than irrlicht has, in the current state things.

Though, that can be deceiving. Ogre is extremely large, it is too complex to know where you can start making things with it, and even when you start, it gives simply such amount of options that you really don't need that is confusing. Irrlicht on the other hand is straight-forward. Simple, but very, very powerful and flexible.

So, comparing them, it comes that the same things in both engines are far easier to make in Irrlicht than in Ogre, and, under the same circumstances, and environments, Irrlicht's exe's are faster. So the future of Irrlicht, when it was capable of doing the same things as ogre, is really bright, IMO.

Nox · Post by **Nox** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:54 pm

I think there is no better or worse in softwaredevelopement in general. Because a solution can be good for problem x but for problem y its completely silly to use it. There might be solutions out there which are not very helpful for any problem or solutions which are almost everytime the optimum but this does not make the solution good or bad in general, does it?
Just my opinion.

Halifax · Post by **Halifax** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:36 pm

Mel wrote:Though, that can be deceiving. Ogre is extremely large, it is too complex to know where you can start making things with it, and even when you start, it gives simply such amount of options that you really don't need that is confusing. Irrlicht on the other hand is straight-forward. Simple, but very, very powerful and flexible.

So, comparing them, it comes that the same things in both engines are far easier to make in Irrlicht than in Ogre, and, under the same circumstances, and environments, Irrlicht's exe's are faster. So the future of Irrlicht, when it was capable of doing the same things as ogre, is really bright, IMO.

Irrlicht's main selling point is ultimately its undoing. You may think that it's great to get started quick and get easy things done fast, but honestly, Irrlicht utterly "breaks down" when you try to doing anything serious.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, but from an objective point of view, Ogre is leaps and bounds ahead of Irrlicht. (And this is coming from an "Irrlicht fanboy".) Although that may be the case, it doesn't mean that Irrlicht doesn't have its place.

Nadro · Post by **Nadro** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:16 pm

If You are graphic programmer and You like write Your own shaders Irrlicht is better choise, because it's "smaller", but if You don't like graphic programming and You try create beautiful game Ogre is better, because it has got many effects integrated in core. In my opinion Irrlicht is very, very good engine for peoples whos don't like programming fixed pipeline, but like shaders writing, like me

Nox · Post by **Nox** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:14 pm

That is an interesting point. What do you think about the try to strip Irrlicht down to a real core with the ability to load all loaders/savers/materials/renderer/shaders as plugins? This way some little designproblem and workarounds may show up, the engine would be easier to extend (that is atm a hard [coding-in] job) und would combine both simplicity (of Irrlicht) and flexibility (of Ogre). But it is just an idea and i dont know how to implement a pluginsytem under linux/BSD/POSIX/macOS too.

sudi · Post by **sudi** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:05 pm

one major ppoint ogre h it its scenemanager is also done as a plugin. if u want to change irrichts scenemanager u have to recompile the engine. adding new meshformats and scenenodes is easy though

Kojack · Post by **Kojack** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:29 pm

If You are graphic programmer and You like write Your own shaders Irrlicht is better choise, because it's "smaller"

In what way does the size of Irrlicht affect it's suitability to use shaders?
There are many other aspects of an engine that affect shader use, size isn't one of them.

because it has got many effects integrated in core

Apart from shadows, there really aren't any effects integrated into the core of ogre. It uses external shaders. Without those, it's just standard fixed function directx or opengl.
There are other engines that try to sound impressive by supplying various effects (parallax mapping, etc) built in, so they can have a nice feature list on their website, but really any engine with shader support could do the same.

Nadro · Post by **Nadro** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:10 pm

Example PSSM it's integrated with Ogre, this only one example but this list is longer of course. I don't like built-in engine effects and function which aren't useful for me

Of course I will can write it for Ogre too, but when I have choise between LGPL and ZLIB I prefer ZLIB. I needn't mostly Ogre features, so I can use Irrlicht without problem

Virion · Post by **Virion** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:28 pm

IMO the most important thing is still the quality of art contents. I just need simpler coding style and fast compilation. thus i'm here.

Halifax · Post by **Halifax** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 10:55 pm

Example PSSM it's integrated with Ogre, this only one example but this list is longer of course.

No the list really doesn't get longer. At any rate, shadow mapping should be implemented into a graphics engine, so I don't see where the problem is.

I don't like built-in engine effects and function which aren't useful for me

Then don't use them.

but when I have choise between LGPL and ZLIB I prefer ZLIB

Let me just ask you a few simple questions. Are you using Irrlicht as a DLL? And aren't you providing code for enhancements to Irrlicht (DDS, floating point textures, IrrCg)? If so, Irrlicht could be licensed under LGPL and you'd still be abiding by every rule. LGPL isn't a problem unless you're doing console development where static linking is a neccessity.

If you're a graphics (or any programmer for that point), Ogre is clearly the better option. It gives you the strong, full-featured foundation that is necessary for efficient graphics programming and management. Irrlicht doesn't, simple as that.

What you're saying, Nadro, is that you agree Ogre is a better engine, but you like the fact of programming things that aren't there (things that Ogre has). And I can agree with that, it's great not have everytihng implemented so you can fool around a bit.

At any rate, let's not take away credit where credit is due for Ogre.