5 ms·

Released Rogue Engine 0.2

2 points by BeardScript 6y ago

BeardScript 6y ago
Hello Everyone! Rogue Engine 0.2 is out! Rogue Engine is an HTML5 Game Engine that provides a Unity-like environment to create games and apps that are native to the browser. I've released version 0.2 with some awesome new features including: - LAN player to play the scene you're building on any device in your local network. - Marketplace to sell/buy game assets, re-usable components and plugins. - Theme Editor. I'm executing at a fast pace and I'll be adding a lot more features before 0.3 I run a small community on Discord where I keep people updated and provide assistance: https://discord.gg/PnxAsck https://discord.gg/PnxAsck You can also get in touch with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BeardScript https://twitter.com/BeardScript Cheers!
- brudgers 6y ago
  The landing page covers half my screen with cookie legalese. Why does this page need cookies at all? I don't want to sign a contract just to read some text. We don't have a relationship. Why should I trust you. Yes it's easy to put all that jibberish on the screen. Please don't. It doesn't matter. I can turn on NoScript and bypass it all anyway. It's just wasting my time. And yours. Good luck.
  - vandie 6y ago
    Dude. It's a legal requirement for EU and UK companies. Frankly he's being more responsible than half the stuff that's posted around...
    - brudgers 6y ago
      Collecting cookies is not a legal requirement. Not collecting cookies is the easiest way to comply with the law. And the easiest way to avoid the liability that comes with collecting cookies. It's a time sink that is easier to do than the actual work. PG called it "playing house." http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html
      - vandie 6y ago
        Not having cookies on a product like this is putting it at a competitive disadvantage with other products that do. In an idealistic world, cookies and tracking wouldn't be needed but it's 100x better than all the indie projects that don't have the notice but keep the Google tracking. If your honestly so pressed then use noscript. The rest of us deal with the cookie consent because it's better than the alternative of unchecked tracking.
        brudgers 6y ago
        What is the competitive advantage?
  - BeardScript 6y ago
    Thanks for the feedback brudgers. I guess that's the burden of being the cookie monster. I need your cookies... but first I'll legally ask for them.
    - brudgers 6y ago
      What do you need my cookies for?
      - BeardScript 6y ago
        I'm hungry
        brudgers 6y ago
        That's why I don't trust you. Good relationships are built on trust. "It is legal" is not.
        BeardScript 6y ago
        That's ok mate. No hard feelings, I'm as light hearted as light hearted gets. You can skip my site. Have a good one!
        brudgers 6y ago
        There’s no ill will here. Just an example of their cost in time which could be spent on the product. Assuming the product is not cookies of course. Which I do. Because you are not Google. With the caveat that you don’t provide the same value proposition either.
        BeardScript 6y ago
        I'm sure there's no ill will. But you are quite rude indeed, and so I chose not to explain myself to you and be on my way with light-hearted humour and a smile as it is my way. That said, there's a button to reject the cookies. I won't force them onto you. Have a good day.
- XCSme 6y ago
  Why would I use this instead of Unity, as it can also output HTML5/WebAssembly/WebGL?
  - BeardScript 6y ago
    Hello there! Thanks for stopping by. There's various reasons for that. First and foremost, the Unity export for the web is quite bloated and very limited. You would use this for the same reasons you'd choose three.js or Babylon.js which are meant for the web. This is basically an editor for three.js. It provides a framework which simplifies most of the boilerplate and turns three.js into a Unity-like experience with components, prefabs, marketplace, etc. If you are a web developer, you'd prefer something like this where you can use NPM, Typescript/Javascript and VSCode. If you're a Unity developer wishing to do some WebGL in a web environment most of your skills are easily transferable. If you're a company building 3D apps/games for the web, it's a lot easier to find and train Javascript/Typescript developers than C# Unity3D developers. So basically: Multiplatform, meant for the web, familiar environment for web and unty devs, cost efficient and a decade worth of three.js resources along with a big a vibrant dev community. As a bonus, this is in early development, you can hop on Discord and be a part of the process. I'm always there to assist everyone to the best of my ability. All the best, and I hope to see you around.
    - XCSme 6y ago
      Thanks for the reply! > Unity export for the web is quite bloated and very limited In my experience this is not true at all, as Unity exports in WebAssembly so the final delivery is well under 1MB, which makes it probably smaller than three.js alone. > If you are a web developer, you'd prefer something like this where you can use NPM, Typescript/Javascript and VSCode This makes sense, taping into the JS ecosystem. Doesn't that work in Unity too (using external JS libraries or npm packages), since it supports JS? I am not really familiar with Unity, but when I create games I use Pixi.js and no editor. I tried creating a small game in Unity and I was impressed by the default performance and reduced executable (WASM) size.
      - 6y ago

2 points by BeardScript 6y ago

Hello Everyone! Rogue Engine 0.2 is out! Rogue Engine is an HTML5 Game Engine that provides a Unity-like environment to create games and apps that are native to the browser. I've released version 0.2 with some awesome new features including: - LAN player to play the scene you're building on any device in your local network. - Marketplace to sell/buy game assets, re-usable components and plugins. - Theme Editor. I'm executing at a fast pace and I'll be adding a lot more features before 0.3 I run a small community on Discord where I keep people updated and provide assistance: https://discord.gg/PnxAsck https://discord.gg/PnxAsck You can also get in touch with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/BeardScript https://twitter.com/BeardScript Cheers!

brudgers 6y ago
The landing page covers half my screen with cookie legalese. Why does this page need cookies at all? I don't want to sign a contract just to read some text. We don't have a relationship. Why should I trust you. Yes it's easy to put all that jibberish on the screen. Please don't. It doesn't matter. I can turn on NoScript and bypass it all anyway. It's just wasting my time. And yours. Good luck.
- vandie 6y ago
  Dude. It's a legal requirement for EU and UK companies. Frankly he's being more responsible than half the stuff that's posted around...
  - brudgers 6y ago
    Collecting cookies is not a legal requirement. Not collecting cookies is the easiest way to comply with the law. And the easiest way to avoid the liability that comes with collecting cookies. It's a time sink that is easier to do than the actual work. PG called it "playing house." http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html
    - vandie 6y ago
      Not having cookies on a product like this is putting it at a competitive disadvantage with other products that do. In an idealistic world, cookies and tracking wouldn't be needed but it's 100x better than all the indie projects that don't have the notice but keep the Google tracking. If your honestly so pressed then use noscript. The rest of us deal with the cookie consent because it's better than the alternative of unchecked tracking.
      - brudgers 6y ago
        What is the competitive advantage?
- BeardScript 6y ago
  Thanks for the feedback brudgers. I guess that's the burden of being the cookie monster. I need your cookies... but first I'll legally ask for them.
  - brudgers 6y ago
    What do you need my cookies for?
    - BeardScript 6y ago
      I'm hungry
      - brudgers 6y ago
        That's why I don't trust you. Good relationships are built on trust. "It is legal" is not.
        BeardScript 6y ago
        That's ok mate. No hard feelings, I'm as light hearted as light hearted gets. You can skip my site. Have a good one!
        brudgers 6y ago
        There’s no ill will here. Just an example of their cost in time which could be spent on the product. Assuming the product is not cookies of course. Which I do. Because you are not Google. With the caveat that you don’t provide the same value proposition either.
        BeardScript 6y ago
        I'm sure there's no ill will. But you are quite rude indeed, and so I chose not to explain myself to you and be on my way with light-hearted humour and a smile as it is my way. That said, there's a button to reject the cookies. I won't force them onto you. Have a good day.
XCSme 6y ago
Why would I use this instead of Unity, as it can also output HTML5/WebAssembly/WebGL?
- BeardScript 6y ago
  Hello there! Thanks for stopping by. There's various reasons for that. First and foremost, the Unity export for the web is quite bloated and very limited. You would use this for the same reasons you'd choose three.js or Babylon.js which are meant for the web. This is basically an editor for three.js. It provides a framework which simplifies most of the boilerplate and turns three.js into a Unity-like experience with components, prefabs, marketplace, etc. If you are a web developer, you'd prefer something like this where you can use NPM, Typescript/Javascript and VSCode. If you're a Unity developer wishing to do some WebGL in a web environment most of your skills are easily transferable. If you're a company building 3D apps/games for the web, it's a lot easier to find and train Javascript/Typescript developers than C# Unity3D developers. So basically: Multiplatform, meant for the web, familiar environment for web and unty devs, cost efficient and a decade worth of three.js resources along with a big a vibrant dev community. As a bonus, this is in early development, you can hop on Discord and be a part of the process. I'm always there to assist everyone to the best of my ability. All the best, and I hope to see you around.
  - XCSme 6y ago
    Thanks for the reply! > Unity export for the web is quite bloated and very limited In my experience this is not true at all, as Unity exports in WebAssembly so the final delivery is well under 1MB, which makes it probably smaller than three.js alone. > If you are a web developer, you'd prefer something like this where you can use NPM, Typescript/Javascript and VSCode This makes sense, taping into the JS ecosystem. Doesn't that work in Unity too (using external JS libraries or npm packages), since it supports JS? I am not really familiar with Unity, but when I create games I use Pixi.js and no editor. I tried creating a small game in Unity and I was impressed by the default performance and reduced executable (WASM) size.
    - 6y ago