Duke4.net Forums: Eduke32: replacing BUILD with a different engine? - Duke4.net Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

Eduke32: replacing BUILD with a different engine?  "Crazy idea?"

User is offline   Zagro 

#1

How much difficult and useful could be to replace the non-free BUILD engine inside Eduke32 with a different one? There are other interesting free engines, here are just some examples:

Why?
  • use an engine that is actively developed by others so Eduke32 developers can concentrate in other areas;
  • use a 100% free (as in FSF), DFSG compatible engine, hopefully to make Eduke32 more popular in Linux and open source communities (and to have it natively included in Debian/Ubuntu/your distribution);
  • just for fun (or craziness, since it may too difficult to make any sense? :D).

1

User is offline   Micky C 

  • Honored Donor

#2

Yep crazy idea. If you want another engine, go use another engine. If you want to play Duke 3D on another engine then tough, Gearbox or Apogee will probably shut you down.

Even if it were remotely possible/plausible, the eduke developers don't even have the time to properly finish the current features such as netcode or optimising polymer, both of which would be considered relatively high priorities. And people on 3D engines probably wouldn't want anything to do with eduke32.
0

User is offline   Cage 

#3

What's the point? If I'd want to work on Cube 2, or any other engine, I'd just use it.

I've been modding for Duke and Doom for a while - the charm in this whole activity comes from working with those old engines, in my case, I just like the work process (btw. there was a little discussion about working with build/mapster and editors for 3d engines a while ago), how the engine feels and looks, working around limits. etc.

Plus you'd have to convert maps (manually, or on the fly, through the port ), scrap a LOT of hard work that was already put in (For example the whole Polymer which is a scratch coded renderer IIRC), port the whole .CON scripting. Totally not worth it IMO.

Despite all the code and graphic enchancements - it's still Build, and you can feel it. I'm sure that switching the engine might give the "I'm not playing Duke anymore!" feeling.

Definite NO from me.
0

User is offline   Fox 

  • Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!

#4

View PostZagro, on 03 November 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

How much difficult and useful could be to replace the non-free BUILD engine inside Eduke32 with a different one?

I don't think it would make a better game, which is the most important. Besides it would take an impossible amount of effort.

View PostMicky C, on 03 November 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

If you want to play Duke 3D on another engine then tough, Gearbox or Apogee will probably shut you down.

That's not necessarily the case. There is a difference beetween porting the game to a new engine (which supposedly you need permission to) and an engine being capable of running the game.

This post has been edited by Fox: 03 November 2012 - 02:29 AM

0

User is offline   Zagro 

#5

Searching a bit I found that something similar was done with Transfusion (if I understood well) but judging by your replies it may not be practical to do it for Eduke32 (and as you hinted I understand that a different engine will give a different "feeling"). So no hope for a fully free Eduke32, well, unless Ken Silverman relicense it under the GPL :D.
1

User is offline   Gambini 

#6

Everything in your first post is wrong except the downvotes.

This post has been edited by Gambini: 03 November 2012 - 04:33 AM

-2

User is offline   zZaRDoZz 

#7

Wait, what's this?! A thread where a complete no-nothing such as myself can post without too much fear of breaking topical boundaries with my inane cluelessness?!

Yes, yes! YEEEESS!

but first...

Zargo:

Quote

Searching a bit I found that something similar was done with Transfusion.


Transfusion obtained a quit-claim license from Atari to do what they did. You might muddy the legal waters by converting duke forever into duke nukem' 3d but even that would probably get shut down these days.

And now...

*Ehem*
mmmm,
mmee,
mememememeeee!.

While we're suggesting things that go along the lines of making port developers groan;

Why not add a BSP node tree to eduke32? A binary space partition, if it was separate from the regular map geometry and connected by portals, might speed up frame rates considerably in very large areas or situations with complex geometry. Of course there would be a loss of moving sectors and what not, unless a 3d bsp could be used (doubtful). Still, mappers would have some amazing options for map creation at there finger tips.
1

User is offline   Fox 

  • Fraka kaka kaka kaka-kow!

#8

View PostGambini, on 03 November 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Everything in your first post is wrong except the downvotes.

And the newest user of Duke4.net gets a warm welcome once again.

This post has been edited by Fox: 03 November 2012 - 05:33 AM

3

User is offline   Tea Monster 

  • Polymancer

#9

I'm no expert on game engine design, but from what I think I know, stuff with BSPs have to have all their lighting pre-baked. This probably won't work for EDuke as all the sectors and objects are movable/destructable. I think that Plagman hit on the right idea with Polymer, it just needs to be optimised.
0

User is offline   Hank 

#10

View PostZagro, on 03 November 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

How much difficult and useful could be to replace the non-free BUILD engine inside Eduke32 with a different one? There are other interesting free engines, here are just some examples:

Why?
  • use an engine that is actively developed by others so Eduke32 developers can concentrate in other areas;
  • use a 100% free (as in FSF), DFSG compatible engine, hopefully to make Eduke32 more popular in Linux and open source communities (and to have it natively included in Debian/Ubuntu/your distribution);
  • just for fun (or craziness, since it may too difficult to make any sense? :D).


The catch is, people work on EDuke32, because they want to. I use Build/Mapster because I want to. I use EDuke32 is on my Studio and Con editor, because I want to. In fact this very moment I learning Google magic for this community, because I want to.
So if you want to use a different engine, go for it. Best out there is Crytek, at least fee wise. Posted Image

This post has been edited by Hank: 03 November 2012 - 06:09 AM

1

User is offline   Zagro 

#11

View PostGambini, on 03 November 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Everything in your first post is wrong except the downvotes.

Everything... ...wrong...
So it's wrong that BUILD is released under BUILDLIC.TXT?
So it's wrong that ioquake3 got a new advanced renderer?
So it's wrong that...
Just asking here, no need to get offended :D.

Anyway I only talked about the engine, not the game data, so I can't really see any legal problems combining Duke 3D GPL code with a different GPL-compatible engine if you still use it in the same way Eduke32 is used.
0

User is offline   Cage 

#12

Hey, I'm not offended and I hope that my post doesn't give off the offended vibe :D I just think it's a bad idea - as far as the older games go, the old engines are a part of the charm in my opinion and I like how Eduke32 despite the enhancements stays true to Duke. You can always play the 8-bit mode, and even with the HRP it's still build. Change of the engine would also require all the modders and mappers to completely revise their workflow/methods.

You are right that a different engine may open up a lot of new possibilities - but there's no point to replace Eduke32 engine with it. That means a lot of work, new code etc., and the very hard-worked visual enhancements/possibilities made for build would be scrapped. A lot better idea, IMO, would be to start A COMPLETELY NEW port of Duke on a new engine. As far as legal stuff go, if the port would require the original game to run (it would have to read all the data/assets from the GRP) everything should be ok, I think.

This post has been edited by Cage: 03 November 2012 - 06:35 AM

0

#13

View PostGambini, on 03 November 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Everything in your first post is wrong except the downvotes.


You've been very angry lately :D
0

User is offline   Zagro 

#14

OK, sorry if my questions were stupid, just asking because I really like this project and those questions came to my mind, also because I usually prefer to use free (as in FSF) games, while BUILD isn't. That's all.

Now let's go killing some aliens... :D
1

User is offline   TerminX 

  • el fundador

  #15

This thread is not very good.
2

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked


All copyrights and trademarks not owned by Voidpoint, LLC are the sole property of their respective owners. Play Ion Fury! ;) © Voidpoint, LLC

Enter your sign in name and password


Sign in options