The_Raven on 10/1/2007 at 16:58
I would second the recomendation for documentation; I've been told constantly not to underestimate it. Another reason for this is that any sizable project runs a high risk of being abandoned halfway through and, if it should happen, it would be nice if any future projects can build off of the previous work without costly reverse engineering.
kodan50 on 10/1/2007 at 18:26
Didn't TSSHP document most of their stuff? How much of that info are you using? Ive been to their forum, last post was like 2 years ago, so i posted there, might as well make use of it.
So,your engine, is it going to be like, theirs, or like, different? Whileyour at it, when you start mapping, let me know. Ive been working on my project a bit here and there when I have time, so I have mapping experience. Maybe we can give it a more 3d-ish feel. We can have the tiles for example be more 3d-ish.
and who is working on the models?!?! :(
Cy-Fox on 16/2/2007 at 22:29
The idea of a System Shock 1 rebuild has some very good merits to it. And SS1 isn't the only early '90s game getting a facelift. Anyone remember the 1993-1995 game "The Journeyman Project?" Vigilante Entertainment with the help of the disbanded Presto Studios employees is coming up with The Journeyman Project: Revisioned. Which is being made in the Source engine.
So I agree with the notion of pushing this on, and I strongly suggest that you do use the Source engine. Windows Vista is going to be SS1 hell unless we get this up. Of course...some of us still have old 486s to play it on. XD. I myself can't do much to help, but in my tech school I do have access to Maya and the GameDev class that messes with it can do some pretty good things.
We also have Claytools.
Hollowtip on 24/2/2007 at 14:22
Sorry that I've neglected the forum a bit (I have been reading new posts to this thread through e-mail though), but I've been very busy. I've started my first job as a professional games programmer (I'm working on Gameboy Advanced games currently) and between that and working on the remake, I haven't had much time for anything else. The SS remake continues, but due to having less spare time, I won't be updating the website for quite some time (probably won't until there is a significant amount of work done on the project).
I'll just respond to a few of the posts since my last vist before disappearing from the forums again:
Quote Posted by Tipunch
Oh and tune down your required specs, don't tell me that you need shaders to draw polygons
The specs aren't that high. You can now get graphics cards that support Shader Model 2 for less than AU$50 (about US$40), and shaders will allow me to add a LOT more detail (such as normal mapping and hardware based animation), plus I'll be able to do more than 8 dynamic lights at a time.
Quote Posted by Firefreak
Ah, I understand - to hava a go at the full cycle of game development; That's what once a commercial game developer suggested me to do first when I was applying for a job at their company years ago.
Creating a game engine is usually not part of a "full cycle of game development". Creating an engine is purely for my own enjoyment and learning. (Although, if its really good, it would be a huge bonus when applying for jobs)
Quote Posted by Firefreak
But you haven't answered why you're not using OpenGL (I hope I don't sound picky here).
2 reasons why:
1. I don't really like OpenGL because it doesn't offer the level of control you can get out of DirectX.
2. I've got about 50 times the experience doing DX stuff then OpenGL
3. It will be easier to migrate to DirectX 10 from DirectX 9.0c than OpenGL, IF I ever decide to (DX9 & OpenGL are about on par, DX10 is approx 8 times faster than DX9 or OpenGL)
4. DirectX is currently the standard for the games industry (Every PC game supports DirectX, only a few support OpenGL) and thus, will interest potential employers more
5. Just having OpenGL will not automatically make it able to run in Linux. I'm not sure exactly what will need to be changed, but currently, I'm going to be using a lot of windows functionality (file access is quicker for one using windows specific code, rather than the c++ standard code), so it will be a rather large change in any case.
Quote Posted by kodan50
Didn't TSSHP document most of their stuff? How much of that info are you using? Ive been to their forum, last post was like 2 years ago, so i posted there, might as well make use of it.
I'm very aware of TSSHP and thier work, and am finding thier documentation a great help (saving me a lot of time). In fact one of the members of the dev team for TSSHP has posted on this thread (at least BryanN claimed he is one of the members). If anyone from TSSHP reads this, thanks and I'll make sure you guys are given a huge mention in credits.
Quote Posted by kodan50
when you start mapping, let me know. Ive been working on my project a bit here and there when I have time, so I have mapping experience.
I'm using the original mapping data at first. I'll make the engine moddable so people can add thier own maps to the game (I'll probably make my own mapping tool, and unlike the original, it will allow for free-form level creation, i.e. you'll be able to place walls/floors/ceilings of any size or shape and in any position)
Quote Posted by Cy-Fox
So I agree with the notion of pushing this on, and I strongly suggest that you do use the Source engine. Windows Vista is going to be SS1 hell unless we get this up. Of course...some of us still have old 486s to play it on.
Using the source engine will defeat the point of creating my own engine. Plus it will be even more difficult to support the original data (I'll have to dynamically create BSP trees), and although the engine looks good, it still isn't that great (for one, BSP is an ancient, archaic method of culling, and pales in comparison to oct-trees and portals, which also allow for better effects without any additional costs). (And I'm one of those lucky guys who still has a working 386, 486 and pentium PCs, all of which can run SS1 without a problem, something to be said for not throwing away old PCs)
Thats about all from me, and I will continue to monitor this thread through e-mail. Hope I've cleared up anything left unanswered. If you have any questions or comments, post them and I'll reply if I've got time, and at the least, I'll read it.
P.S. This is a LONG term project, and may not be ready (beta level) until sometime next year, though I'm aiming for the end of this year.
Firefreak on 24/2/2007 at 18:39
Quote Posted by Hollowtip
(Reasons for DX/Win instead of OpenGL/CrossOS)
Understood, and accepted as your opinion/decision. But as a heretic, I hold two things as opposition: Unreal Tournament (Unreal Engines) and Doom3 engine (actually, any Quake1+ engine from id, but Doom3 is CrossOS).
Please don't see this as an attack - I'm generally mourning why OpenGL/Linux is so ignored by the industry -- Your answer as an insider shows me that it appears to be an endless loop (DX is used because everyone uses it, so it keeps being used because everyone uses it, ...)
Quote Posted by Hollowtip
I'm very aware of TSSHP and thier work, and am finding thier documentation a great help (saving me a lot of time). In fact one of the members of the dev team for TSSHP has posted on this thread (at least BryanN claimed he is one of the members). If anyone from TSSHP reads this, thanks and I'll make sure you guys are given a huge mention in credits.
Ok, here I'm a bit picky (my ego calling :( ) - please re-read the second paragraph of my second post in this thread (and the members listing of the TSSHP group for referral)
But still: thanks for the (future) link :)
Hollowtip on 25/2/2007 at 01:12
Wow, sorry firefreak, i think i completely missed those few words. Didn't mean to offend or insult, I usually read these forums at 2 or 3 am, so some stuff I don't fully process. Anyway, like i said, this is a personal project currently, so I don't really need that much documentation (I leave comments in code so i know what is going on, but thats about it). I might release the code for my remake in the future, but it won't include any of the core engine code as that may move on to future, comercial projects (hence, you won't be able to compile it, or make changes without a huge rewrite).
Hemebond on 26/4/2007 at 08:13
Quote Posted by Firefreak
(actually, any Quake1+ engine from id, but Doom3 is CrossOS).
Actually,
every Id Software engine from Q1+ is cross-platform.
Firefreak on 26/4/2007 at 08:54
Quote Posted by Hemebond
Actually,
every Id Software engine from Q1+ is cross-platform.
Cool - that I didn't know. :cool:
Hemebond on 26/4/2007 at 11:45
Oh, and open source of course (up to Doom 3).