With GLB V11 currently in beta is there any rough estimate on when it will be released?
I remember a while back that Gernot was toying with the idea of charging for an update. Is this still going to happen?. It's fine with me as I don't mind helping with future development providing the money paid has substantial new features attached and not just bug fixes. To see GLB grow I'm happy to give what ever it takes to see it progress forward.
I did ask a while back but it's worth asking again if a major 3D feature is / will be added to GLB. A 3D particle engine? - Currently it's virtually impossible to do a 3D particle engine in GLB as Z order is a nightmare. I managed to fudge a very basic 3D particle engine in my game Galaxix but so many effects were impossible due to the z order issue and manually sorting particles is a huge fps drag.
So Gernot, can we please have a method of creating 3D particle effects in GLB please please please? - I'll happily pay in private a lump sum to get this ability added to GLB.
Gernot can property doing that from scratch, which minimum would take another year or two to been implement. Instead if we can find a good 2d/3d particle system, that have great compatible, then its might been possible to see it in GLBasic 12 or 13.
You would not wont see that in v11, here GUI implementation have the focus currectly as well get html 5 working as main focus.
So such a particle system wont been happens soon, without you find a library that can been added by your self.
Hi equal than Qube I like to apport money for the new Version included this... I think don´t pay from 2 or 3 years ago, it´s very nice but perhaps in sometime will be impossible to maintain GLBasic, and I think not it´s just pay only a one time for a software... Autodesk make pay to his clients every year more than 600€ for put a couple of things (literaly "1" and "2") in 3ds Max...
About the 3D particle System I think a good point, or something like Fake, it´s export from a suite 3D, in example for explosions or something like this... you only need, to "capture" where are the ticks, and then put a plane or boxes in this place... If it´s quick or slow... I don´t know...
An extension to our sound system would also come in handy.
I can also afford some set of donation (small quantity), which I should start doing it probably around the end of year, but plan to do it constantly.
For my two cents, I wouldn't mind paying for an upgrade to 11 either.
In addition to supporting Gernot in general, it would make me feel less guilty about making feature requests. :good:
Quote from: BasicMe on 2012-Sep-30
For my two cents, I wouldn't mind paying for an upgrade to 11 either.
I just got 10.xxx and there's still so much to learn. But if new "users" are "exempted", I'd gladly pay for the upgrade After that too.
Maybe if requests were done on a donation basis, this could help fund most future development. So if you want it - you can help pay for it, and then get a discount on the next release.
My 2.5c
Gernot: take a look here - GM Pricing (http://www.retroremakes.com/remaketalk/index.php?p=/discussion/3344/gamemaker-you039ve-come-a-long-way-maybe#Item_4)
Proper site - http://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/studio
There's a chart here that details what each version offers and price upgrades for missing elements - http://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/studio/free
GLB is obviously waaaaaay too cheap if people find GM at $499 (or $449 on special offer) worth the asking price.
Perhaps it would be worth seeing what they offer that makes that system supposedly worth that much (I know other development suites cost more, but GM hasn't exactly got a great reputation, despite some excellent games.
Quote from: BasicMe on 2012-Sep-30
For my two cents, I wouldn't mind paying for an upgrade to 11 either.
I see no harm, with Gernot adding a PayPal "Donate" button somewhere on the site, for those who may want to use it?
Quote from: Ian Price on 2012-Oct-02
Gernot: take a look here - GM Pricing (http://www.retroremakes.com/remaketalk/index.php?p=/discussion/3344/gamemaker-you039ve-come-a-long-way-maybe#Item_4)
Proper site - http://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/studio
There's a chart here that details what each version offers and price upgrades for missing elements - http://www.yoyogames.com/gamemaker/studio/free
GLB is obviously waaaaaay too cheap if people find GM at $499 (or $449 on special offer) worth the asking price.
Perhaps it would be worth seeing what they offer that makes that system supposedly worth that much (I know other development suites cost more, but GM hasn't exactly got a great reputation, despite some excellent games.
Hmm. If people find $499 worth the asking price for GM that surprises me. The full Indie version of the Marmalade SDK is that price too but so much more orientated towards professional development.
Quote from: Ian Price on 2012-Oct-02
GLB is obviously waaaaaay too cheap if people find GM at $499 (or $449 on special offer) worth the asking price.
Not everyone can afford to own UR3, I am one of the few that do. Because of the royalty fees, it's not the most used product at the studio, but it has its few releases. Why I mention this, is to portray a standpoint from a different perspective.
I would not think twice about forking out a few thousand for a really really good c++ engine, simply because of its extensibility and speed.
However when it comes GLBasic, I would think 20 times, if I wish to even look at the product, if it were in the $499 bracket.
It is not because of the product itself, but because of the historical "slowness" stigma attached to the Basic language. Now that I - through personal experience - find GLBasic to be superior to many other c++ engines out there, I would easily throw a $200 - $300 that way. Why not $499 ? Well because engines such as Oddity3D, a new upcoming c++ engine has 50 times the power and although dedicated to DX11, it is in the $499 price bracket. It's all a matter of the tool, it's purpose, and ultimately the user.
I would however write an OGL particle system, and "bribe/donate" with $1000 to have it made as a part of the GLB core - simply for my own ego, if no other reason.
It's all a matter of perspective from the user's side.
PS: GM is (IMO) a plastic toy, and not a real engine. Sure it can make games; but so can Flash.
QuoteHowever when it comes GLBasic, I would think 20 times, if I wish to even look at the product, if it were in the $499 bracket.
I wasn't suggesting that Gernot charge $499 for GLB, or even half that, but the package as it stands, in comparison to GM offers much, much more and can compile to more formats.
Gasp, 500$ for a 2d engine that supports some script language?
Only worth if all you wanna do is in the scope of it and nothing more, but I suspect there are better prods even in this line.
Quote from: Ian Price on 2012-Oct-02
I wasn't suggesting that Gernot charge $499 for GLB, or even half that, but the package as it stands, in comparison to GM offers much, much more and can compile to more formats.
Ok. point taken.
As a professional visual simulations developer (for corporate clients), I love game engines, and like a fanatic, I may buy up every engine that I consider worth-while. Some people collect stamps or cars. I collect "worth-while" 2D & 3D engines.
But - And a big But . . .
Game engines are being spewed out these days at a dime a dozen, and the engine makers claiming that the user can make the greatest games ever. It's the engine makers that are laughing to the bank, while the poor suckered losers just throw another useless engine out of the window.
(IMO) Products like GM are really great for the hobbyist, but are very, very, very far from the financial and creative value that they claimed to be.
On the other hand GLBasic is under-advertised and under-valued, I thought I was taking a risk with GLBasic, as I did with DarkBasicPro (IMO archaic junk that's still being sold). But to my surprise, GLBasic turned out to be an acorn. There is a whole tree packed into that little nut, and I can bring over 12 years of java/c++ experience to bear on multiple platforms - All inside the GLB shell. Now thats a powerhouse of a bargain if I've ever seen one. And the more I play with GLB, the more I discover FANTASTIC treasures hidden beneath the surface. - (see all my "thank you" posts").
Quote from: Qube on 2012-Sep-30
So Gernot, can we please have a method of creating 3D particle effects in GLB please please please? - I'll happily pay in private a lump sum to get this ability added to GLB.
How about a bounty? If Gernot is interested in making such an update. Everybody can make a pledge for a 'Particle Effects-Update'. So Gernot can see just how big the interest is and whether it is worth doing it.
Dont forget there is one already!
I'm a total amateur, although I've dabbled with coding for years that is all I'll ever be. I'll never charge for anything, I have made a few programs available for free, but will not get any money back. I couldn't have considered GLB if it was hundreds of dollars. As it is I was happy to buy the full version eventually.
I do think GLB fully deserves a greater userbase though, I'm not sure that a price increase is the way to go. Clearly it's nothing to do with me though, I'm just happy that Gernot continues to develop it.
Aside from various forums for devices, I don't know how to increase the userbase - computer magazines dont want to know unfortunately.
For a partixle engine: draw particles on an offscreen and then draw that with x_sprite? (As a quick worksround)
Quote from: Kitty Hello on 2012-Oct-03
For a partixle engine: draw particles on an offscreen and then draw that with x_sprite? (As a quick worksround)
Not a solution I'm afraid. Say you want to do thrusters from a spinning ship or long trails of smoke from a moving object from each of it's sides. You can not do this correctly drawing off screen and then using X_SPRITE.
We definitely do need to be able to draw alpha'd 2D objects in an x,y,z coor system without have z-order issues :'(
Shouldnt one X_SPRITE for each particle do the job? Of cause X_SPRITE is slow, so youre limited in how much particles you can draw, but it should work?
Btw you can replace X_SPRITE with something faster and more powerful (http://www.glbasic.com/forum/index.php?topic=7992.0).
Quote from: kanonet on 2012-Oct-04
Shouldnt one X_SPRITE for each particle do the job? Of cause X_SPRITE is slow, so youre limited in how much particles you can draw, but it should work?
Btw you can replace X_SPRITE with something faster and more powerful (http://www.glbasic.com/forum/index.php?topic=7992.0).
X_SPRITE does not play well with z-ordering and so alpha'd X_SPRITES that are not drawn in perfect z-order have major issues. To see the problem in action have a camera moving in a circle around an object that's displaying 3D particles and you'll see the z-order alpha issues.
I prefer GLBasic to GameMaker Studio. I did a trial of GameMaker Studio to see what all the fuss is about. That said; GLBasic does not warrant the same price as GameMaker Studio for quite a few reasons.
1) Game Maker Studio can be used to make games by people that have ZERO programming knowledge. An artist for example can drag and drop everything for many basic 2d games. So there is a whole class of people that don't know/want to learn any programming that haven't many other options.
2) Game Maker Studio has a TEAM of core developers so they can pump out fixes, new feature support for the targeted platforms etc... much faster. I'm sorry, but that warrants a higher price tag. This also means they have a full customer support team getting paid where we have to figure things out here on the forums.
I know Gernot is very active here on the forums to help people; and we users try to help each other as well, but this is not the same. New releases and new features are slow to come out, bugs are often slow to be fixed in the core. If it is one person and new features, bug releases, customer support is low then your price needs to be low as well. This product is also not well branded. People find Cocos2d (or Cocos2d-x which is cross platform) and is FREE(open source) quicker; it is better branded. For Android AndEngine and libgdx are better known that GLBasic and are both FREE. The Corona engine only supports Android and iOS; it costs a little more than GLBasic, but it is also extremely easy to use and is very well branded. The Corona website is phenomenal http://www.coronalabs.com/ (http://www.coronalabs.com/). They are also way better at marketing; and good marketing warrants higher price tags. I'm sorry; but those are just facts.
I have suggested this before; and I will bring it up again, GLBasic needs to OPEN source. Open source does not mean it needs to be free and Gernot never gets paid. Right now there is a free version of GLBasic so some people aren't paying anyway. What it will do is let those of us using GLBasic to see the code and help contribute to furthering development. The whole project could be made available on Github where we can contribute.
Gernot could use a DUAL license approach. You can customize the license and use something like a MODIFIED GPL + a separate commercial license. Essentially the modified GPL would state something like you can use this free, but any changes you make to the code you are required to commit back to the original author; under this license I hereby disallow charging for your products, etc... etc... Then users can trial; update the code etc... and make updates onto Github and eventually we would have a core team that is helping to improve the project more quickly.
Then a commercial license could be offered like is offered today whereby users are authorized to distribute their apps as payware on any system.