Ogre Forums

I'd be completely against it.

Thanks for the clear answer! I think it's better for the community to hear clear answer like that from the team, than to have no answer on that subject.

Concerning FBX, i think it is off-topic. A gsoc project is doable to produce .mesh out of .fbx. I saw some guys even using unity and blender as intermediate tool to export to custom format from fbx. But for the materials i doubt it would be easy to manage.

madmarx wrote:

I'd be completely against it.

Thanks for the clear answer! I think it's better for the community to hear clear answer like that from the team, than to have no answer on that subject.

Well, I guess it's just a personal opinion which doesn't represent to the whole team, although I think (and hope) it's the same too.

As Wolfmanfx has said, to me a rewrite is absolutely unrealistic: in the best of the cases, it would take more than 3-5 years (I'm talking about a full featured engine: animation, compositors, materials/shaders, resource system, scene management, render system, shadow framework, mesh&entity/object system, terrain, and a long etc), and that's simply unaffordable: for ogre itself and for ogre users in particular. (Hell! More than 5 years!... and the worst: I'm sure the best practices now are not going to be the same in 6-10 years, so in another 10 years we're going to be in the same situation)

Appart from being realistic or unrealistic, to me the most important reason for not doing that is simple: the users. What are you going to say to all middle/big projects using Ogre 1.X? Simply to dead? Refactoring some parts between releases like the 2.X plan is completely affordable, great and necessary, but "upgrading" ogre from 1.X to another version written from the scratch with a different API/core features... just NO! (And also, who will care about ogre in 3-5 years if the current branch is not continued?)

Personally, I would have to create an Ogre fork and mantain/update it since switching to a new engine (maybe called ogre, but not ogre at all!) in 3-5 years is absolutely not viable to my project(s). And I'm sure I would not be the only one forced to do this.

So please, before taking any decision, think about the current ogre user base and projects. Do not forget them.

Xavier

TheSHEEEP wrote:Hmm.. would such a thing (pipeline tools) be an interesting GSoC project?

This is OT, but I think we once planned to do so, but GSoC did not allow it (only work on the work core project), but that might have changed or I could be wrong. Back to topic now...

I agree also with those who are against a rewrite. As xavyiy outlined quite nicely, that is just not manageable
(in terms of efforts, time and resources) and also not preferable for the community/user base.

I'd like to see something on the wiki roadmap saying what's started, finished, not yet started if any features are being worked on or added at all. I'm not sure if the team spends most their time fixing bugs but maybe a chart of everything but bug fixes would help. Or a forum dedicated to it if there isn't a private one already. Just something for us public to get an idea of where Ogre is headed. How many team members are there btw?

How many team members are there btw?

Dev team: pjcast, Noman, Praetor, Wolfmanfx, Assaf Raman, CABAListic, masterfalcon, Mattan Furst, spacegaier, TheSHEEEP, Nir Hasson, jbuck

Ah ok. I was wondering, is there any reason why Ogre can't have a donation system for feature changes / additions? Or is that not really the question?

Kojack wrote:

How many team members are there btw?

Dev team: pjcast, Noman, Praetor, Wolfmanfx, Assaf Raman, CABAListic, masterfalcon, Mattan Furst, spacegaier, TheSHEEEP, Nir Hasson, jbuck

Or for future easy reference: http://www.ogre3d.org/about/team

Here is an interesting presentation about cache-misses and their optimization:
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_pr ... CAP_09.pdf

Awesome, if this will be implemented!

Xavyiy wrote:2.0 -> Cache misses, DX11 & OGL4 RS
2.1 -> Scene manager redesign: scene traversal & processing
2.3 -> FF -> "states"
2.4 -> Vertex format enhancements
2.5 - 2.9 -> Fix bugs. Remaining stuff

3.0 -> First stable version of the "new ogre"

No, finish refactoring in 2.0 please The problems and almost the answers already in the slides and this thread, just need to implement.
1.9.0 -> Scene manager redesign: scene traversal & processing
1.9.1 -> FF -> "states"
1.9.2 -> Vertex format enhancements
1.9.3 - 1.9.9 -> Fix bugs. Remaining stuff

drwbns wrote:Ah ok. I was wondering, is there any reason why Ogre can't have a donation system for feature changes / additions? Or is that not really the question?

Yes, I think the problem only in attraction of investments. But dunno if donation system will help, need open investors Maybe something like RunicGames, KingArt, Dead Mage Inc., Deck13, etc. will have an ability to return 10% of their profit back to project. The procent depends on they return it as cash or improving code and of course eagerness, because it is just "can" not "must". There are a lot of open source projects that already have benefited from commerical organizations: Wayland Windowing System, Gallium3D, Qt, JQuery, etc.

The slides are great.. not only for OGRE but it contains some very valuable information.
Thanks!