[Announcement] Ogre3D 1.9 released as 'stable'

[TimeFliesLikeABanana]

Hey, I saw earlier in the thread that 64 bit versions were going to be posted soon, but that was a couple of weeks ago. Is anyone able to put them up?

Thanks!

[chaosavy]

Got 1.9, CEGUI 7.9 and PU 1.6 working in my project

thanks - scrawl and Ogre Team.

Had a funny hiccup getting 1.9 to work - unrelated to 1.9 etc - when I first started I used 2008 and XP, and setup environmental variables eg: $(OGRE_HOME) so I did the same in Visual Studio 2012 and Windows 8.1 (that I'm now using) - when I downloaded 1.9 stable I updated the environmental variables to point to the new 1.9 stable directory - but Visual Studio 2012 seemingly doesn't look at the updated variable to for the new location, so I just typed in the full path. It must be somewhere else, but I don't care to look for it at the moment. Now that I'm on stable.. time to get the SDK trays to work


Looking forward to the "crosses fingers" soonish Steam Early Access release and a bit laterish the Ogre 2.0

[hanzhijie]

GOOD！

Recent ready to develop a game I want to be able to give strong support .

[Infernus]

What about VC 2013? It doesn't work for now. I hope it will be uploaded soon, because I have switched from MinGW (which no one cares about ) to visual. I was expecting it to work without any problems. But no! Welcome back to recompiling.... I am fed up with this. It is hard to compete with engines like Unity or UDK when things are like that. It is sad unfortunately

[scrawl]

It is hard to compete with engines like Unity or UDK when things are like that

lol

[Infernus]

You may think it is funny. But there are a lot of things that run out of box. Ogre is not. It is outdated. Sure, you can recompile it on your own, but why? If you can use any other engine? Try to tell me what is an advantage of using ogre compared to using unity or Udk? If even - EVEN it does not run out of box? And as we all know the rest is not better? There is a lot of topics about one vs. another. So if you want to tell me to use unity, what will you tell to other people who will ask this question? What did blender foundation when they realised that blender interface is too hard to learn for newbies? Did they said: try Maya or 3d Max? Or did they tried to to improve all they can? And I think they will. And it is sad if Ogre can not even release any MinGW (which is as free as Ogre is) release. LOL as hard as you can. But it wont help. Goofing is not an answer.

[scrawl]

1. Please watch your tone. This is a free project made by volunteers.
2. It's a free update. How come you are "fed up"? If you don't want it, then dont update.
3. Be thankful Ogre provides builds at all, which is not a given with FOSS libraries.
4. If you can't be bothered to compile something (and also with the general attitude you are showing here), then I'm sorry but yes you may be better of using Unity. If you are serious about using Ogre, you will want to compile it yourself at some point anyway. What if there's a bug you need fixed that hasn't found its way into a new release yet? What if you need a different build configuration? What if there's a critical feature you need to add to Ogre?

The focus of the Ogre team is to improve Ogre, and not to provide 20 different builds for each release for every possible compiler version. And that is good.

It's not our fault that compiling a large project with dependencies is so awful on windows. Try it on linux, you'll have dependencies installed, Ogre downloaded and built in 5-10 minutes.

[spacegaier]

It is outdated.

In what regards do you think Ogre is outdated?

And it is sad if Ogre can not even release any MinGW (which is as free as Ogre is) release.

There are multiple threads here in the forum where we as the team explained why we will not provide MinGW precompiled releases anymore, but we actively take care of its support.

What did blender foundation when they realised that blender interface is too hard to learn for newbies? Did they said: try Maya or 3d Max? Or did they tried to to improve all they can?

It is not like the team is not doing any work! The most critical point for us to tackle is the performance which we are actively taking care of with the redesign for Ogre 2.0. At the same time we are also working on improvements in term of build automation in the background. But until then, the SDKs take some time and compiling Ogre yourself is sufficiently easy for even beginners to be able to handle that in the meantime. But if you feel not up to it (which is sad, because chances are that you could manage) and don't want to give it a try and think Unity is a better fit for you, by all means try your luck.

Try to tell me what is an advantage of using ogre compared to using unity or Udk?

The value and benefit of Ogre compared to those other engines has nothing to do with the SDKs!!! There are enough thread for that topic though in the forums as well, so I won't reproduce that here again. Please use the search function if the differences are not clear to you.

[yellowred]

It's not our fault that compiling a large project with dependencies is so awful on windows.

To turn this into something constructive: I find mercurial to be a pain on windows too. It would be really helpful (and probably quickly done) if a snapshot of 1.9 source was available for download in a zipped format for download. This is something I have indeed come to expect of FOSS. No Offense.

(Bitbucket offers downloading a zipped snapshot of the main branch (i.e. 1.10) but I could not found one for 1.9. Maybe it's just me?)

[scrawl]

Huh? You can download zips for every tag and branch through the webinterface.

[yellowred]

Huh? You can download zips for every tag and branch through the webinterface.

Downloads

There are no files available to download.

EDIT: OK, I'm stupid/blind.

[Kojack]

I was expecting it to work without any problems. But no! Welcome back to recompiling.... I am fed up with this.

Since I currently do the visual studio builds...
1 - I don't have VS2013 (only the preview edition, not the final release)
2 - I'm currently recovering from surgery and really haven't been in a suitable mood to build sdks for compilers that I don't even have. I'm sorry the pain I'm in from sitting at my main pc has inconvenienced you. (The few posts I've made on here recently have been from a tablet from my bed)

Having sdks can make things easier, but Ogre is NOT a runtime game editor. It is a LIBRARY. This means you need to compile at some stage. You can't get away without it (assuming you are using Ogre directly, rather than in an engine like NeoAxis).

Sure, you can recompile it on your own, but why? If you can use any other engine?

Because we can. That's one of the advantages of an open source library.

Unity and UDK don't exactly have MingW or VS2013 support either (unless you pay huge amounts of cash to get a source license).

[Lothar]

What about VC++ 2013?

SDK for VC++ 2012 works very well with VC++ 2013, you just need to replace /boost/ with VC++ 2013 version and change entries in .vcxproj files from "libboost_vc110_" to "libboost_vc120_". After that all samples and projects compile very well. Please keep in mind it's just a fast workaround.
http://imageshack.com/a/img811/7753/eyfx.png

[chaosavy]

*deleted*

[shenjoku]

Are there any plans to do a newer release of 1.9? I've noticed there have been a ton of commits to the 1.9 branch even after the stable release so it seems like there have been a lot of fixes that haven't been formally released. Since I still haven't upgraded to 1.9 yet, but I want to soon, I was wondering if I should just grab it from the head revision of the 1.9 branch instead of getting the stable release.

[c6burns]

Yes grab 1.9 head. The prebuilt SDKs are cool to get people started using Ogre who might be turned off by building the project from source. It's not a small library. But if you can I would advise always to build from source.

[Lothar]

Hi.
I've just compiled Ogre3D V1.9 (cloned from repo about 2 hrs ago) for/with Visual Studio Express 2013. It's 64-bit version, but if anyone need I think I can make and upload 32-bit version too.
I'm not sure, but it looks like Tutorial Framework is somewhat updates, as there is no "Ogre::StringUtil::BLANK" const in OgreString.h. I just changed lines 29 and 30 of BaseApplication.cpp from:

Code: Select all

mResourcesCfg(Ogre::StringUtil::BLANK),
mPluginsCfg(Ogre::StringUtil::BLANK),

to:

Code: Select all

mResourcesCfg(),
mPluginsCfg(),

and it works like a charm (but I'm not sure if this method is any good).
You also needed to include:

Code: Select all

#include <OgreWindowEventUtilities.h>
#include <OgreString.h>
#include <OgreTextureManager.h>
#include <OgreMaterialManager.h>

files in BaseApplication.h to make tutorial framework compile.
Please remember to include all required libraries (OIS, OgreMain, OgreOverlay).
You can download it (OGRE SDK V1.9 VC12 x64) from here: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id= ... sp=sharing

Cheers

[spacegaier]

That is weird: The changes you are describing to do match Ogre 1.9, but Ogre 1.10 (where e.g. "BLANK" was removed from Ogre::StringUtils, but re-added as Ogre::BLANKSTRING).

Are you completely sure that you cloned Ogre 1.9 and are using/linking that version?

[Lothar]

I get it now. I've cloned repo, but forgot to "hg pull && hg update v1-9" (actually I thought "clone" link is different for each branch/tag... I'm new in version control world).

So I have to clone repo, then use hg pull && hg update v1-9 -> hg summary shows something like:

Code: Select all

hg summary
parent: 6349:c30396a795ad 
 [GL] Fix an issue with updating 2d array samplers.
branch: v1-9
commit: (clean)
update: (current)

and build this code, not the "default" one if I want 1.9?

[superpws]

I compiled yesterday with Visual Studio 2013, and yes Ogre::StringUtils::BLANK isn't there in Ogre 1.10 (current default branch). I agree that at sometime you'll have to compile the engine yourself, in my case I did compile without threading support of Boost and I noticed significant improvement in compilation performance. Anyway, feel free to PM me if you want pre-compiled binaries for Visual Studio 2013, but you would need to learn compiling at some time anyway.

[spacegaier]

@Lothar: Correct. The "default" branch is the future Ogre v1.10 and that is also the one that automatically gets copied when making a clone. By running "hg update" you can jump to a different branch as you did now.

[Klaim]

Looks like there is a lot of confusion about the default branch. Maybe having only the released version in it would have been better, but I guess it's too soon to reconsider the branching model again anyway.

[Lothar]

@Klaim actually it's not confusion - I just didn't read carefully and had no idea how to use HG properly.
Ok, so here's Ogre SDK V1.9 (and v1.10) x64 compiled with VS2013 Express if anyone need/want it:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id= ... sp=sharing

[bigjoe5]

Hi Lothar,

Thanks for the 2013 binaries. Any chance of getting them in 32-bit?

Thanks.

[Lothar]

Hi Lothar,

Thanks for the 2013 binaries. Any chance of getting them in 32-bit?

Thanks.

Hi.
I've tried few times but failed. I guess I should be able to compile 32-bit stuff on 64-bit system but not vice-versa? I'll try again (step-by-step, dependency-by-dependency, etc.) when I'll have some more time (too much work right now).

Cheers.