Where Rev could be going...3D?

Viktoras Didziulis viktoras at ekoinf.net
Thu Nov 23 05:22:24 CST 2006


JB, 
 
Well I agree... Still as far as I understand, the iGame3D can be used not
just for games. My personal interest in 3D development of a scientific app
for my phd project, which will need 3D support for terrain and bathymetry
mapping and visualisation. I have less than 3 years to accomplish this thing
and I have chosen Rev Studio for the GUI and some functions, just to avoid
time consuming coding in C/C++ . Well I made my purchase in February this
year, and from advertiser of Arcade engine on the Revolution web site I
understood that 3D support is not a problem. But this was not the whole
truth about 3D in Rev... 
 
For all other aspects of my work Rev suits perfectly. I am glad I found it.
But now as 3D is missing and time is running out, I have to look for
possible alternatives. One solution as I see it would be loading VRML plugin
within browser loaded within altBrowser external. But then communication
between the VRML and transcript is a bit unclear, if possible at all, and
efficiency of this approach is questionable. Now I see iGame3D on the shelf
trying to attract our attention... It is there but we can not take it, so it
is a bit frustrating. 
 
Regarding the tighter integration of externals into the system, as far as I
understand, Runtime Rev. Ltd is planning to do this for altSQL and
altBrowser. This should mean that integration of externals into engine is
somehow possible, but is a sole responsibility of the Ltd. 
 
Best regards! 
Viktoras 
 
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: jbv 
Date: 11/23/06 12:01:44 
To: How to use Revolution 
Subject: Re: Where Rev could be going...3D? 
 
 
Viktoras, 
 
> Hey, hey 
> 
> I provoked the 3D stuff not because to force someone starting developing
Rev 
> 3D module from scratch... 
> The intention was to draw your attention to the fact that OpenGL 3D engine

> for the Revolution ALREADY EXISTS and sits on the shell exposed by iGame3D

> with seemingly no one being interested in the ready-to-use thingy. 
> 
> Any ideas on how can we "take" it? Because if we do not manage to "take"
it 
> somehow now, it will likely be gone in a few months... and then somebody 
> (definitely not me ;-)) will have to code the whole thing from scratch
again 
> 
 
Don't worry, we all do understand your concern. 
 
But at the same time, please allow me to consider the problem from the other

way round : have you ever wondered why some MC / Rev users (like me) have 
been waiting for years for some vector graphics to be available in Rev, or
why 
this 3D API has been sitting on the shelf for so long ? 
 
IMHO this situation is an inheritance from the old HC days when the only way

to add features to the engine was through externals. Which means you have a 
proprietary engine (a bit like a black box), and the possibility to add
limited 
functions to it via the limited externals API. 
But times are changing, and now open source is much more different from what

it could have been in the late 80's. I'm not pleading for complete open-ness
of the 
Rev engine code, but rather for some general framework that would allow
skilled 
coders to jump in and start coding to enhance the engine by adding
primitives to 
the Transcript language itself. Again I'm convinced that some "heavy"
enhancements 
can't be added to Rev in any other way. And since such a framework isn't
available, 
Rev users have to wait and wait for the skilled but more-than-busy Rev crew
to 
achieve and debug any improvement... 
Those coders would first build these new primitives for their own use
(because they 
need it for a specific project - it was my case in 2003 when I needed some
openGL 
interface for a specific client - and most important, it would prevent them
to switch 
to another development tool), but then nothing would hinder them to make the
new 
primitives (or the code itself) available for others, just like in open
source. 
Eventually, others could tweak the code to meet their own needs, and finally
a more 
or less universal and final version could be included in the engine by RR. 
BTW this would re-inforce the deep natural english-like nature of xTalk, by
copying 
natural language in its improvement & evolution process... 
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm convinced that more "universal"
developments 
could be achieved that way. 3D is a good example : I understand that opening
Rev to the 
development of 3D games is a good thing, but why limit the use of 3D to
games ? 
A powerful set of primitives for 3D creation and control would open more
horizons : 
industrial process simulation, education, scientific imagery, etc. 
And who knows what kind of new developments would arise by simple
interaction 
with other existing features (I for one have a few ideas that I don't want
to disclose 
right now, but hope I'll find the time to code in a more or less near
future) ? 
 
---------- 
 
And last but not least, here's another innocent question : please correct me
if I'm wrong, 
but as far as I understand, the improve-rev list is limited to those with an
Enterprise 
licence. How come someone (like me) who has spent thousands of hours since
1987 
coding with the successive versions of HC / SC / OMO / MC / Rev is less
qualified to 
discuss possible Rev improvements than anyone who discovered Rev and xTalk
last 
week, but with enough $$$ to afford an Enterprise licence ? 
 
Cheers, 
JB 
 
_______________________________________________ 
use-revolution mailing list 
use-revolution at lists.runrev.com 
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences: 
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution



More information about the use-livecode mailing list